Okay, everyone, welcome to our first meeting of the California Coastal Commission in 2026.
We're very, very happy to be back.
Before we do the roll call, I just want to welcome our two new participants today, who
are alternates for regular members, Commissioner Kalnick and Commissioner Moreno.
Welcome we're very excited to have you.
With that, we will begin with a roll call, please.
All right.
Good morning.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Commissioner Eckerly? Here. Commissioner Escalante? Present. Commissioner Hart?
Present. Commissioner Jackson? Here. Commissioner Kelly? Here. Commissioner
Conkle? Here. Commissioner Lopez? Present. Commissioner Kalmick? Here. Commissioner
not off here commissioner Moreno present Commissioner Williams present
Commissioner Wilson here and chair Harmon here great thank you very much
and now we will move to the virtual meeting procedures good morning this
coastal Commission meeting is occurring both in person and through zoom this
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 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 form may be found on the Commission's webpage.
Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless submittals are available on the Commission's
staff table just outside the meeting room. For those on Zoom we have posted virtual hearing
procedures on the Commission's agenda webpage which is a guide on providing comments via
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. Request to speak during the
general public comment period will not be accepted after 9am 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 are speaking on an agenda item that is not general public comments are typically
allowed two to three minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing
on that particular item.
If you have internet access, please go to the Commission's webpage and click on the
link to fill out the speaker request.
If you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone, please call the Commission's
staff at 562-477-9089.
Again, that number is 562-477-9089.
Staff will provide you with a telephone calling number and instructions for how to participate
and provide testimony by phone.
We will manage speakers coming in and out 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.
Great, thank you very much, Simone.
And now we will go to agenda changes for today, please.
Good morning, Chair Herman and commissioners.
All told, we have 12 changes to today's agenda,
and that includes everything that is on the posted agenda
changes memo on our online hearing agenda,
as well as one addition.
And I'm just gonna walk through it
as same as on our online in order of the agenda,
and I'll alert you to the additional change.
So to get started, first we have item 11A.
This is a Del Norte County LCP amendment
for a single parcel rezone.
This is moved to consent.
Item 11C, this is a time extension
for a city of Fort Bragg LCP amendment
for accessory dwelling units.
This is moved to consent.
Item 11D, the time extension
for a city of Fort Bragg LCP amendment
for tiny home and manufactured home community regulations
is moved to consent.
Item 11 E, the time extension for a City of Fort Bragg LCP Amendment for plan development
permit updates is moved to consent.
Item 11 F, the City of Fort Bragg LCP Amendment for housing updates is moved to consent.
Item 11 G, the time extension for a City of Fort Bragg LCP Amendment for urban lot splits
is moved to consent.
Item 11 H, the time extension for a city of Fort Bragg LCP amendment related to parking
and landscape provisions is moved to consent.
Item 11 I, the city of Fort Bragg LCP amendment for outdoor dining regulations is moved to
consent.
Item 11 J, the time extension for the city of Point Arena's housing update and code reorganization
is moved to consent.
item 15a is postponed this is the city of pacifica's lcp amendment related to short-term
rentals and here's our additional change for today this is item 16a it's postponed this
is the this item includes two related notices of impending development for ecological and
fire resilience work in the coastal santa cruz mountains next we have item 18a this is
the San Luis Obispo County LCP amendment related to mineral resources and we would also like
to move this one to the consent calendar. And finally, I would note that while there
are some enforcement items on today's agenda, there will not be a separate general enforcement
report. And that concludes today's agenda changes.
Great. Thank you very much, Ms. Gray. Okay. Now with that, we will move to general public
comment, please.
Perfect. For members of the public, I will be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers
and invite you to speak. When it's 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 panelists. As we bring you in, your Zoom will
reload. This may take a moment to speed up the 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 will be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room we will call your names 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's your time to speak, we'll invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on the phone by dialing star six.
First up, so we'll start with in person first.
We will have Christine Bowles, the Mayor of Pacifica.
Thank you. Good morning commissioners and staff,
and thank you so much for your service and protecting our coast for all Californians.
I'm here this morning.
Again, my name is Christine Bowles.
I'm the Mayor of Pacifica.
I'm also an architect and really look out for public safety.
I know our short-term rental ordinance has been pulled and I just want to give
a real shout out to Julian Honey who I saw a minute ago. Our application wasn't
finalized until January 8th and he was really trying hard to put this on the
agenda for today but there were a lot of late public comments that he didn't
really have time to process and give you the information and just to show you
you this is from a Planning Commission meeting the number of public comments
that we've also received it's a lot this has been a really important
conversation in our community the impacts have been huge to our
neighborhoods actually protection for people who stay in short-term rentals
building code violations and so forth and we've spent over a year from June of
24 to July of 25,
seven council meeting meetings,
two planning commission meetings,
really hearing from the community,
from operators and from the community and
trying to come up with the best ordinance
we could that balance the needs.
I stay in short-term rentals myself,
I'm not against them. I think they're
an important type of housing.
But again, they're creating
problems in our neighborhoods.
I first got involved actually in 2021,
Before I was on council, a woman contacted me
who was in her 70s who was being evicted.
Her from, this is a four unit building
right on Esplanade Avenue in Pacifica facing the ocean.
Her neighbor had just been evicted
for a short term rental conversion.
They hadn't gotten their permits.
They hadn't gotten building permits.
They were completely redoing the unit
and she feared she was gonna be next
and sure enough that building owner ended up,
That's my is that my time of evicting for low-income tenants
So it's really important work and I just thank you. I hope that this can come on our agenda in April
Thank you. Next we have captain Ryan Aptheus
followed by Eddie Mitchell
followed by Melinda McNaughton
Okay
Okay, so followed by Sebastian Peterson, Cindy Abbott
I'm sorry. I thought you said somebody was before me. It's always waiting for them
So I'm Melinda McNaughton and I live just across the street in El Granada
I've come to talk about two topics real briefly. The first one is the draft protected tree ordinance for San Mateo County
Number one is the concern that some types of trees in the unincorporated area are not requiring tree permits for removal and are also not
required to be replanted when appropriate. Trees being cut during bird nesting, bat maternity
and monarch overwintering seasons are being taken and the risk of threatened animals is
happening and sadly with the decline of bird population all over the world and monarch
population and bat population and we are in the Pacific Flyway Zone so there's a concern
for that. And number three, the tree ordinance should put restrictions on when to cut and
trim trees to protect these animals. And even if there were restrictions, it would be difficult
for people to know about those restrictions if the trees were unpermitted. There's not
going to be a communication gap there, so maybe there's a way to troubleshoot that in
the tree ordinance. All of these concerns are based on the biggest concerns of the loss
of shade cooling and protection of tree canopy in our towns
as the climate heats up and the other second concern is the loss
of our struggling wildlife and decline in the bird, bat
and monarch populations.
The next topic is exciting news that we have just discovered
that for decades apparently we have a verified monarch
over wintering site.
It's verified by the Xerces Society and it's right here
across the street in El Granada but it is designated for development by the
county and it's gonna come up the pike to you. It's a seasonal wetland and for
that reason alone it should be protected. The life in this habitat is incredible.
Okay, thank you for listening. My name is Ed Mitchell. I'm the lead investigator
for Never Again Moss Landing. We support safe energy storage, not unsafe. Last year, we
came to this board and requested that you issue a notice of violation because of findings
by a marine lab doctor who said there was 100% to 1,000% of heavy metals that showed
up right after the fire. That was insufficient for this body and you decided not to take
that action. We're here to ask you to agendaize at the next meeting whether or not you should
issue a notice of verification because on September 26, 2025, scientific reports, peer
report of Dr. Aiello's investigation agreed that he had found that there was 55,000 pounds
of heavy metals that were deposited in an Alcorn Sloop. That needs to be cleaned up
someday by issuing a notice of violation you can have your scientific sub panel go check
into some of these reports and then have all parties that have interest in whether there
was or was not a deposit to talk next month. Now if you don't do that you will fall into
a group of California state agencies that have been missing in action. We issued and
sent to your body our findings in July. No other agency entity has done that in
California. We are a valid good public entity. Thank you again Captain Ryan
Altaus followed by Sebastian Peterson followed by Cindy Abbott and Caitlin
Quinn. Hello my name is Sebastian Peterson I'm resident Moss Beach. I'm
I'm here today to express my opinion
on the parcel of land that was just spoken about
across the street, that the Xerces Society,
which protects and identifies endangered species
has found multiple cases of native and endangered species
living on that property.
The monarch butterflies, which have declined in population
by 95% on the West Coast, spend winter in the eucalyptus
trees, which are a stand-in for the native foliage
we have cleared.
The property is also home to wetlands and seasonal ponds
called Vernal Pools, which the native endangered amphibians
require to raise their young.
I personally have counted over two dozen pools.
It is my opinion, given this information alone,
the property requires protection from development.
I'm in favor of the property becoming preserved
that is publicly accessible.
There are residents locally that already tend to the land
out of their own generosity,
and many use it as like a dog walking place
or to take their children.
So I think it's super important for us to protect it.
And then additionally, these trees that exist on the property, though they may not be native,
a lot of the species require trees to nest or rest in over the winter, as stated before,
bats, birds, butterflies.
There is a prevailing belief that there were no native trees in this part of the coastline.
That has actually been recently debunked due to a study in Santa Cruz Mountains Natural
History Research Association, actually in 2004, so not even recently.
There are several different cycles of warm and cold seasons, and when I say seasons,
I mean over 100,000 years, 90,000 years cold, 10,000 years warm.
We're in the tail end of a warm one, but it is artificially being extended by global warming
and clearing of these trees.
So a lot of these trees like the Monterey Pines would have naturally been in this area
and we should be protecting them.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cindy Abbott followed by Kaitlyn Quinn, Brian Renaro and Lila Renaro.
Good morning Chair Harmon and California Coastal Commissioners.
I'm, oops, thanks.
Okay.
So I'm Cindy Abbott, a Pacifica resident and first I'd like to express my appreciation
For those before us and those here today who have been dedicated to the California coast
for the past 50 years, the Coastal Act remains a strong force in the protection and preservation
of wondrous habitat for us all to enjoy, and I thank you for your service.
I have taken the day off today from volunteering and work with the intention to speak this
afternoon to ask for your support to move forward the City of Pacifica's short-term
rental ordinance that will allow the provisions of the ordinance to be applied in Pacifica's
coastal zone. This important day had come after years of disruption in neighborhoods
throughout Pacifica that's led to hundreds of community members being engaged through
many hours of discussion and compromise. Compromise to find the balance between long-term residential
housing, visitor accommodations, and the desire of some property owners to take part in the
sharing economy and bring in some income by hosting a short-term rental. That item was
15a, has been postponed, and so instead I'm here to ask that that item be re-agendized
as soon as possible. It was June 2022 when a City Council agenda item caught my attention.
Living in the small coastal neighborhood of West Sharp Park, I've been seeing the modest
residential area I've lived in for 25 years change. Houses that were previously full-time
residents were being commoditized and the neighborhood was turning into a quasi-commercial
hotel zone. An entire apartment building and many single apartment units were also
being converted to short-term rentals, removing naturally affordable housing from our limited
stock. Community members were being displaced and neighborly connection was being replaced
by a revolving door of strangers who don't volunteer for our non-profits, go to schools
or support local stores and services on an ongoing basis.
An article in the San Francisco Chronicle this past week
has a headline about short-term rules splitting the community.
It's not done that.
It's actually brought us together
in a beautiful and wonderful way,
trying to preserve all of our neighborhoods,
both for residents and visitors.
We look forward to your support and to having this be
agendized as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Kaitlyn Quinn, Brian Renaro, Lila Renaro.
Good morning, esteemed commissioners and staff.
Nearly four years ago, the CEOs of a vacation rental
corporation purchased the home directly next to mine
and converted it into a full-time, unhosted STR.
The neighborhood's suffering began immediately.
To date, there have been 25 calls made by the neighbors
to the Pacifica police to report noise and other nuisance
activities, and two criminal charges have been opened by the police with one
sent to the DA's office for prosecution. And Pacifica City Management just renewed
this STR's permit as of yesterday. How about that? Please ensure Pacifica's
new STR ordinance is heard at your April meeting and please approve it.
As Commission staff pointed out in their report, Pacifica's new STR ordinance is
eight years in the making and the result of robust public input, there has been nothing rushed about
it. The ordinance is no more restrictive than the one the commission approved for Half Moon Bay
three years ago. Pacifica's ordinance is not setting any precedence here. It's simply catching
us up to what virtually every other city in San Mateo County and along the California coast
already has an effect.
And the lack of a strong ordinance has laid bare our coastal neighborhoods for the pickings
of corporations and out-of-town investors.
Fifty-two percent of the houses on my street are now all unhosted STRs, and the effects
have been devastating for the community and visitors alike.
Pacifica's new ordinance represents a fair and balanced approach to regulating unhosted
STRs while fully supporting the operation of hosted STRs, which are the only form of
STRs that provide affordable visitor accommodations. Consider the fact that the three-bedroom unhosted
STR next to me lists a rental price for 4th of July weekend at over $7600. What family
can afford that? $7600. The arguments made by unhosted STR operators that their businesses
provide low-cost accommodations is farcical. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Brian Renaro followed by Lila Renaro. I just want to let the people know on
Zoom we're gonna be moving you to panelists soon so please accept. Thank
you. Good morning commissioners. Thank you for your involvement and service to
the state. My name is Brian Renaro. I'm a founding member of Pacifica Homes or
Not Hotels, a community organization representing hundreds of Pacifica
residents who have spent more than three years working collaboratively with our
city to update our short-term rental ordinance. Our community was deeply
gratified when the Pacifica City Council unanimously voted to adopt the ordinance.
It's a balanced and carefully considered response to very real harms caused by
the unchecked growth of unhosted short-term rentals. Harms that include the
loss of housing, risks to visitor safety, and the erosion of neighborhood
stability. Pacifica is the last city in San Mateo County without a fully
effective SDR ordinance and the consequences are stark. While the city
reports only permitted SDRs, as of September 2025, there are at least 237
short-term rentals operating in Pacifica. In fact, Pacifica had more SDRs than
Half Moon Bay, Belmont, Atherton, Woodside, Brisbane, Hillsborough, Colma,
Portola Valley combined. Over 90% of these homes are unhosted whole home
rentals. Nearly two-thirds of these listings are two-bedroom homes or larger,
homes well suited for families. These STRs bring commercial activity and
commercial problems into our residential neighborhoods and most are still
concentrated within the coastal zone. For years Pacifica residents have endured
these impacts while working patiently and through proper process to update the ordinance.
And we did so carefully. The ordinance is not extreme or novel. Its corporate visions
are drawn from regulations long in place in other California cities, including coastal
jurisdictions. It closely mirrors Half Moon Bay's ordinance with the primary residence
requirement and 60-day limit on unhosted rentals. And Pacifica welcomes visitors. We need visitors.
visitor accommodations must be safe, lawful, and compatible with a healthy
community. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Lila. Greetings, Chair Harmon and
members of the California Coastal Commission. First of all, thank you for
everything that you do on an ongoing basis to protect our coast. My name is
Lila Renero and I'm a longtime resident of Pedro Point in Pacifica's coastal
zone. I respectfully urge the Commission to certify Pacifica's short-term or
rental ordinance as soon as possible by
rescheduling consideration no later than the April meeting.
My family, along with our friends and neighbors,
has been coping for years with
the disruption caused by living next to unhosted short-term rentals.
We are eager to see peace and stability restored to our community.
Unhosted STRs deplete our housing stock,
reduce the availability of long-term rentals and drive up housing costs,
pricing out both renters and perspective home buyers
who wish to live and work in Pacifica.
This loss of housing directly contributes to a decline in our full-time population,
which in turn affects student enrollment and the funding our local schools rely upon.
As a result of declining enrollment, our school district was forced to consolidate and close a school this year.
A painful loss felt deeply throughout our community.
When homes that should house families are instead converted into unhosted, often corporate-owned party rentals,
It places an added burden on our police department and
nearby residents who are left to deal with the noise,
safety concerns, and unruly guests.
We strongly urge Coastal Commission staff to
stand by their original recommendation
and approve the updated ordinance.
Residents across Pacifica have spent years working with
our city council to thoughtfully craft
a policy that is fair to residents
while encouraging hosted short-term rentals.
We welcome visitors and want to have them have
safe and affordable accommodations.
This has not been a rushed process.
Nearly 100 community members have submitted
thoughtful public comments over
the years in support of this ordinance.
We want to feel safe again in our homes.
We look forward to the return of peace and quiet in
our neighborhoods and to the benefits of
living among full-time neighbors once more.
Thank you for your time and
considering our community's position
on this important issue.
Thank you. Again, we're going to try
Captain Ryan Authouse. Ryan Authouse, right here. Okay, moving forward to Zoom now. We
have about 13 speakers on Zoom. First is Sid Garza-Hilman. Sid, if you can unmute yourself.
Do you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Great. I will assume that my being chosen to go first
because I'm special in some way. Okay, I'm the executive director of Mendo Parks, which is a
non-profit on the Mendocino Coast, a cooperating association with 10 state parks along our coast,
and we work to support programs. I'm here to announce that we are launching an Adopt a Beach
program along the Mendocino Coast. It's a long time coming. It's never happened before, and we're
really excited about it. And we worked with Eben Schwartz of the Coastal Commission, who has been
been an absolute pleasure to work with.
And I want to commend Evan in his communication skills
and responsiveness.
This is a very, very cool thing.
I'm fairly new to the position.
I've been here just under two years.
Came from the wellness arena and now a longtime trail runner.
And so really interested in the work
that I'm doing now to support our coastal state parks.
And obviously the Coastal Commission
is part of that program.
Anyways, and so as part of the 50th anniversary
the Coastal Act. I've now in my position been through two Coastal cleanups. This will be the
third and I'm really looking forward to working with the Coastal Commission and Evan specifically
to promote the Coastal cleanup this year in September, I believe, and to get the word out.
We had a really good showing last year better than the year before and we are assuming and
hoping to have an even better showing this coming year. So I just want to take a few more seconds to
thank the Coastal Commission for the work and Evan and I'm really happy to be part of it and I wish
everybody the best in their continuing work. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next
we're gonna have Eileen Bochen. She originally signed up for Zoom but she is here in person.
Go ahead and come up to the podium please. Push the base. Okay. Eileen Bochen,
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods speaking on my own behalf. For the newer
commissioners, a brief overview of Lake Merced in San Francisco. Lake Merced is under the original
jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. At one time it flowed into the Pacific
Ocean in a stream which is now Slope Boulevard. The original habitants were
the Ohlone followed by the Spanish and the Mexicans and then by the Americans.
Okay in the 1870s the Spring Valley Water Company acquired the lake and
surrounding lands. In 1930 the Spring Valley Water Company sold its at those
assets to the city and county of San Francisco. In 1932 the SF Public
Utilities Commission was formed. The surrounding land remains under the
jurisdiction of the SF Public Utilities Commission with most of the land under
lease to the SF Recreation and Parks Department. The main exception is the SF
PUC, Lake Merced pump station, which sits over the lake. The Lake Merced pump
station moves drinking water from the Harry Tracy purification facility in San Bruno to
some of the city's reservoirs. However, the SFPUC is now proposing to use the Lake Merced
for fighting catastrophic fires using drinking water pipes, even though Lake Merced water
itself is not drinking water quality. Should Lake Merced water enter drinking water pipes,
city's Department of Public Health would need to issue a boil water alert.
After the catastrophic fires had been extinguished it would be it would take
weeks even months to flush out the drinking water pipes. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Penny Alia followed by Jack Edet followed by Adam Leverens.
Penny, if you can unmute yourself via zoom. Yes good morning and thanks for the
PowerPoint. I'm Penny Alia, there will be several of us speaking on this issue today and tomorrow,
thank you for your time. In 1990, the environmental community became concerned about development
threats to beautiful Dana Point headlands. Next slide, please. After fighting the developer and
the city of Dana Point for nearly a decade, we were able to save a small portion of the
headlands and felt confident we would be able to protect and preserve the remaining Esha and the
endangered Pacific pocket mouse under the good stewardship and management of
Center for Natural Lands Management. Next slide please. However, it became apparent
that public access on some of the trails was extremely detrimental to this
endangered species, as you can see in these photos. CNLM has been in constant
legal turmoil with the city for years over the appropriate trail hours for
public access. Commission staff has been a part of all of this turmoil. Next slide.
fast forward to 2025, Coastal Commission forces sent a long awaited letter to the Superior
Court of Orange County, supporting CNLM and stating that they were preparing a formal
action to direct CNLM to submit a plan to implement trail hours consistent with the
LCP to resolve the ongoing impacts to the Pacific pocket mouse.
We are all here this week to urge the Commission to take the necessary action outlined in this
2025 letter. Staff is well aware that there are many reasons to have this issue heard in March
and we have done everything short of begging them to agendize this. They are also aware
the Pacific pocket mouse breeding season is imminent. Now is the time to put an end to the
city's decades of bullying and overreach and stop the trampling of this endangered species and its
foreseeable extirpation. Please, no more delays. The Commission has the tools and
jurisdictional authority to resolve this in March before it's too late. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Jack Eit, followed by Adam Leverance, followed by Marilyn
Garrett. Good morning. Jack Eit, SoCal 350 Climate Action. I'm an urban planner
talking about Dana Point Preserve, managed by, as Penny said, CNLM. Adaptive
management is the goal to protect natural resources and on this case the
endangered Pacific pocket mouse and of course the threatened coastal California
gnat catcher. Protecting the remaining fragmented environmentally sensitive
habitat areas from development and disturbance is obviously paramount and
public human access is one of the primary reasons for being of this
commission of course and I fully support the aims of the Coastal Act but often
the sensitive and endangered wildlife and public visitation conflict. CNLM
actually compiled public visitation since 2011, and as the wandering hiking
boots increased, the Pacific pocket mouse numbers declined. Less mouse babies,
downward spiraling population to possible extinction. When perfumed soil
tramplers shaking the ground and talking loud about weekend parties were reduced,
mouse numbers were bounded. We can manage and balance this threat to the
Pacific pocket mouse above-ground gathering food, sand bath hygiene and
meeting mates, especially during breeding season. This includes primarily low light
times of the day, early morning, cloudy conditions, early evening and night. Look
none of us are happy about the development of the headlands. I used to
hike down to that once deserted wondrous beach and still use that trail today but
must understand that these threats to what is left on the headlines must be properly rethought
in accordance with the local coastal plan and that is further managing visitation numbers
ASAP. I support a March hearing to adopt a CNLM visitation hour plan. Thank you for hearing this
issue. Thank you. Next is Adam Leverance. Good morning. Am I coming in? Yes, we hear you.
Oh great, thank you. I was, okay, a slide that you could call out, appreciate it. Yes, we have it.
I've been reflecting this morning on a half century of the Coastal Act. That's a majority of my life
and I am so incredibly grateful for the time and effort that staff and commissioners and members
of the public put in. I mean without this, I wouldn't be where I am right now and I'm going
back. Well oftentimes you've heard me probably sound like I'm complaining. Today I'm just
reflecting. I've heard a couple of speakers talk about tree issues, and on your December
series of meetings there was a Newport Beach appeal for the tree you see on the slide.
It was a massive tree. There used to be several of these trees, but this was the last one,
and there was an appeal from a group of people that wanted to save the tree. It was a nesting
site for herons had been there for decades. I'd had 20 years of exposure to it and it was awe
inspiring during nesting season and if you're not familiar with great blue herons they range as
adults from a height of three and three quarter feet to four and a half feet so they're taller
than most children and I think children are going to save a lot of the world or I'm hopeful in that
regard and the appeal was denied and I had asked library staff you know do they think the city will
the tree will be cut down the next day after the appeal was denied by coastal. Oh no. And I went
there at 9 the next morning and it was gone. I could not believe how quickly the city got that
thing out of there. And I understand it wasn't an environmentally sensible sensitive habitat
area because it's non-native and it's by itself rather than you know acreage. But still the impacts
I'm at bottom here. Herons that have returned this year and don't have a home are now roosting
on boring balls and it just makes me sad and trees are so very important in so many ways and
even some of the non-native trees. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next is Marilyn.
She's on the phone so we're going to ask her to unmute followed by Gail Eisner followed by
Lydia Ponce. Marilyn Garrett, if you can unmute you, go ahead and speak if you can. Marilyn
Garrett. Marilyn, if you can do star six, that'll unmute you.
Okay, now you can hear me. Yes. As I turned on democracy now this morning, I hear the
The headlines were being forced closer to nuclear war by Trump's threat to bomb Iran.
And of course, that'll be the oceans and everything.
Our coastal oceans are being destroyed by ongoing contamination by chemical and military
corporations.
In 1969 I was part of a nursing mother's lawsuit to ban the forever chemical pesticide, DDT.
All of us were contaminated and still are.
At that time, any bucket full of ocean water would have traces of DDT.
Now there are so many more radiation, chemicals, sonar contaminations killing the life support
system of not only the oceans but the earth.
I think of Ralph Nader's statement that challenge is the structural domination of the corporate
state.
The poisoning, the destruction, and as I listen to the speakers today, we're all up against
this power of the corporate state destroying everything.
I want to recommend a film I just saw, Abby Martin's film called Earth's Greatest Enemy,
the U.S. military and the footage in there of the bombing of oceans and jumping contaminants
and the taking of hundreds of thousands of porpoises and whales, as they call it, whatever
you can do to stop like the Vistra battery contamination.
Thank you, ma'am.
OK, thank you, Ms. Marilyn.
Thank you.
Next is Gail Eisner, followed by Lydia Ponce,
followed by Erin Macias.
Gail, I promoted the panelists.
Go ahead and speak.
Gail, I see you've unmuted yourself.
No, you've muted yourself back.
OK, Gail, we see you unmute.
Okay, we're gonna let you figure that out.
We're gonna move on to Lydia Ponce real quick.
Lydia, if you can unmute yourself.
Good morning, relatives.
Calling from Venice.
Hello?
Yes, we hear you, go ahead.
Calling from Venice, California.
I wanted to give an update.
Sometimes we act like we live on an island in Venice
and I just wanna say Greenland is not for sale.
We need indigenous sovereignty in all four directions.
I believe the victims release all the Epstein files
because monsters are real.
And, you know, our local government municipalities
talk about safety and cleanliness for Venice,
but they don't talk about the human trafficking
and the sex trafficking that's happening.
I shudder to think what's gonna happen
with FIFA and the Olympics.
It's gonna be, there's gonna be a lot of women,
a lot of children disappeared.
Not just because ICE out, no KKK, no Trump, no fascist USA.
We had a president doing bare minimum and he resigned.
And now we're facing, nominating and electing a new president
to lead the way and to represent us
because we had no representation.
We have had a very lackadaisical approach
within our neighborhood council system
to do the will of CD11.
Our oceanfront walk is dead.
There are no musicians, no artisans.
There's nobody out there except for maybe one,
a couple of Sundays ago, there was one artist.
We ask you to sit in and listen to some of our meetings
that should be up on Zoom, presumably March.
And I'm also asking you to help us prevent the drilling
on our shoreline, the platforms being built,
defend and protect the ocean as we did in the past.
We need to come together and stop Pacific floor mining.
And the fact that we're too busy arguing amongst ourselves
in Venice than not paying attention to the bigger picture
and everything else is going along,
that's going on in the world.
And I beg you as relatives to hit us up
to figure out how to do the humanitarian thing
within the environmental policies that y'all wrote in 2019.
And it's great, it's wonderful.
To hear Jack I, shout out to Jack, I love you.
Talk to you all soon, thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks so much.
If I could just interrupt at this time,
We're just going to take a very brief moment to swear in a new commissioner, our state
controller, who will be taking the spot this year, taking over from the lieutenant governor
as they alternate.
And at this time, Deputy Attorney General Patrick Tuck will be swearing in Controller
Cohen.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for this brief pause.
All right.
Ready?
yes for the office of the California Coastal Commissioner for the office of
California Coastal Commissioner I am Leah Cohen do solemnly affirm that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States in the Constitution of
the state of California that I will support defend the Constitution of the
United States that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States in the Constitution of the state of California against all enemies foreign and domestic against all enemies foreign and domestic
That I will bear true faith in allegiance that I will bear true faith in allegiance
the Constitution of the United States in the Constitution of the state of California to the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the state of California
That I will take this obligation freely that I take this obligation freely
Without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and then I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I'm about to
Discharge the duties upon which I'm about to enter. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you
Thank you very much to the members of the public
Thank you very much for being here being so engaged the members that are online
Of the public that are calling in and just doing their due diligence making, California beautiful strong and vibrant for everyone
Thank you. I just want you to know that I come to this commission
With with a little bit of experience. I served eight years on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
I also serve four years on the State Board of Equalization and I'm in my fourth year as the California State Controller
So I've been around okay. Hi, Eileen Boken
I've been around and I've listened to a lot of public comment and it never ceases to amaze me what thoughtful and engaged
Citizens can do and how they can change the world and make and shape policies
So I'm just I'm excited to be able to take the DS with Mike with my colleagues and
Continue to protect California. Thank you
You so much now Commissioner Cohen and she will be joining us and
Just thrilled to have you and we'll reason with public comment and I'm here
I'll be acting chair until our chair returns a few minutes
Perfect. So we'll be going back to the public comments. We're gonna try
Gail Eisner again
Go we're gonna unmute you
Perfect. Okay. So can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. We can thank you. Fantastic
Greetings commissioners. My name is Gail Eisner and I live across the street from the now well-known
Moss landing battery energy for storage facility on January 16th, 2025 a lithium-ion battery thermal runaway chemical fire
Forced a multi-day evacuation in my neighborhood
This was not an isolated event. Earlier overheating incidents in 2021 and 2022
required residents, including my household, to shelter in place due to toxic emissions.
Monterey County approved this facility under a phased, mitigated negative declaration
that did not evaluate cumulative or worst-case fire risks, off-site contamination, or impacts
to our coastal sensitive resources. Since approval, new peer-reviewed scientific studies
have documented the deposition of battery-derived metals and other toxic compounds in Elkhorn
Slough. These findings confirm real-world environmental pathways that were not analyzed
in the original environmental review. This facility is located in a uniquely sensitive
coastal setting adjacent to Elkhorn Slough, two California state beaches, the Monterey
Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and a working fishing harbor.
I am respectfully requesting the Coastal Commission to review the prior MNDs, Mitigating
Negative Decorations, and urge Monterey County to prepare a facility-specific supplemental
Environmental Impact Report under CEQA,
consistent with the Coastal Act.
I have professional experience working with CEQA and NEPA,
and this request is based on new information
and real world impacts that were not available
at the time of approval.
For full timeline scientific citations
and Coastal Act analysis,
I respectfully ask the commission
to refer to my submitted letter.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Thank you, next is Erin Macias, followed by Samuel Casillas,
followed by Mark Macias, and then Casey Olson.
Erin Macias. Good morning.
My name is Erin Macias from Pacifica.
I have no stake in Pacifica's short-term rental ordinance
in the Coastal Zone.
The proposed amendments to our ordinance
are a balanced approach within the Coastal Zone
and less restrictive than other areas.
The renewal and waitlist language allows code enforcement
to work with the operators to come into compliance
or as a natural consequence
to issue a permit to a different operator.
The exclusion of JADUs is a critical amendment
as those units were constructed under law
specifically designed to offer long-term affordable housing
without changing the character of a neighborhood.
The added amendments are necessary to safeguard
coastal environment and visitors we cherish. I have a hard time understanding why the investment
operators who are called Pacifica for Responsible Tourism are demanding more time for public comment
unless perhaps they need time to organize a parade for the Coastal Commission. The argument that these
amendments create barriers to marginalized or lower-income visitors to the coast is absolutely
baseless. If the Coastal Commission needs additional time to study this, I look forward
to the opportunity to provide you with data-driven evidence showing how short-term rentals are
inconsistent with the Adopted Coast Commission policy of equity and environmental protections.
They also create financial barriers to people visit to visitors seeking accommodations. I
appreciate the commission and all of your hard work on this very important issue. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Samuel Casillas, followed by Mark Macias.
Hi commissioners. The postponement of the STR ordinance is this very disappointing. I get that
you all want to do your due diligence, but just recently you actually illegally approved a
commercial space at 1200 Danman Avenue using SB6 conversion that actually has an STR.
Our current city manager has shown no wherewithal at all to enforce any of the laws. You just heard
Caitlin Quinn talk about the fact that she actually had a trespasser going on her property
and they renewed their permit. This is where we are. Let's be clear, these SDRs are driving up
the cost of housing on the coast. Let's also be clear that the vast majority, if not all of these
people of unhosted STRs don't live here and don't do this in their own towns
because they are a pariah and don't care about our city. They only care about
profits while strip mining our community of our own housing.
Your own ED says that housing is badly needed so do the right thing and stop
stealing our housing. Thank you. Next is Mark Macias. Good morning my name is
Mark Macias and I live in Lindemar Pacifica. I'd like to talk about the
resident homeless population that's taking up residency at Lindemar State
Beach. There are numerous motor homes and cars people are living in them and I'd
I'd like the Coastal Commission to take action
and work with the city of Pacifica to allow enforcement
of this nuisance conditions at the beach.
There are people living in their cars,
as I stated in RVs, full-time with fake parking permits
and expired registration tags
that go back as far as 2015.
There's eight or nine of them at least,
and there's a sharp uptick in this problem
in the parking lot.
The problem is generating garbage that is affecting
the health and safety of visitors and wildlife in the area.
there's no parking enforcement and the police say
it's out of their jurisdiction.
The posted parking rules, the state's website say
there is no overnight parking
and visitors must leave by 8 p.m.
Please work with the city to enforce this growing problem
of these people that have taken up residency
living at our beach and impacting the visitors
who want to come and park.
As I said, there's at least eight or nine of them,
unbelievable garbage that's everywhere.
And back to Dan Mann, if you go to the very end of Dan Mann Road, there's another homeless person
living in a trailer, on the cliff, numerous hazardous materials, fuel, paint, oil, numerous
broken down engines that are leaking down the hillside into the ocean. These issues need to
be addressed and everybody keeps pointing fingers. It's not my problem, it's theirs.
so please work with the code enforcement and PD and get these problems resolved. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Bob Hall followed by Casey Olson and that will conclude our public comments.
Right now we don't see Casey Olson. Robert Hall if you can unmute. Perfect and there's a
presentation as well. We have your presentation up. Thank you very much. My name is Bob Hall.
I'm here to ask you to take a hard look at what's happening at San Francisco's Beach, LA artificial
turf fields and to make sure projects like this are never approved again. Water captured from these
artificial turf fields is so polluted it has to be sent to the sewage treatment plant instead of
going directly to the environment. That alone should be a red flag. SFPUC testing of runoff
from found metals like copper, lead, mercury, and zinc at levels that can harm aquatic life under
EPA and California water quality standards. These standards are designed to protect fish
and small aquatic organisms from subtle but serious effects. Things like reduced growth,
poor reproduction, and lower survival rates. That kind of damage ripples through the entire food web
and it's not just metals. The turf itself contains PFAS and is shedding microplastics into both the
air and water. California's Department of Toxic Substance Control has raised concerns about
microplastics because they are persistent, mobile, and small enough to move through ecosystems and
our body. They don't break down in any meaningful timeline. They're now found in oceans, rivers,
soil, food, and the air we breathe, even in human blood, including umbilical cord blood.
Thousands of species have been exposed and some of these exposures are known to be suspected to
be very harmful. Wastewater and stormwater treatment plants are not designed to remove
most microplastics or PFAS. These pollutants pass through systems and end up in the bay or ocean.
The Coastal Commission's job is to protect our coastal waters and marine life. Please do not
approve more projects that replace living landscapes with plastic services
that shed pollution for years. And please do not permit San Francisco
Recreation and Park. Don't allow them to resurface these fields with more plastic.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Casey Olsen, if you can raise your hand. If
you're by phone, do star six please. Nope, we do not see them. That concludes our
public speaking. Okay hopefully Ms. Olsen can come back tomorrow. All right
at this time we'll move to item 6a executive directors report Dr. Hucklebridge.
Yes thank you Vice Chair Hart. Good morning to our commissioners and also to
the members of the public and welcome to the first Commission hearing of 2026.
It's wonderful to see you all. As always my published ED report can be found on
the Commission's website but as usual I'll go through some of the items here
today. So first up, yesterday I had the honor of participating in the first
annual access for all convening at the California Natural Resources Agency. The
theme for the day was building and outdoors for all, charting our progress
and mapping the way forward. I joined Annie Frankel, the Commission's public
education manager and Brandon Quintana of our statewide planning team as well
as a broad network of leaders, groups, and access champions to celebrate progress in
advancing California's outdoors for all initiative, also to spark new ideas and
deepen working relationships and build community in the outdoor access space.
Towards the end of the day long of convening I had the privilege of
providing a trailblazer talk celebrating this 50th anniversary of the
Coastal Act and looking ahead at the next 50 years. It was a fabulous
opportunity to connect with many of our NGO partners and state partners and I
left the meeting feeling energized and inspired about all the work being done
statewide statewide to maximize access for all people to California's public
lands. So a huge thank you to Gloria Sandoval the deputy secretary for access
for organizing the event and I look forward to many more years of these
annual convenings. So next I'm very pleased to inform you that the Office of
administrative law has approved our requested changes to the Commission's regulations, increasing
the time period to vest a permit for a 100% affordable housing project from two years
to five and doubling the timeframe for extensions from one year to two.
This will give affordable housing developers additional certainty when seeking funding
to support these important projects.
This was an important priority for affordable housing developers because of the complex
funding arrangements that are required to get these kinds of projects off the
ground. A two-year CDP just does not provide the kind of runway needed to
secure these complex financial arrangements. I want to thank our
partners in the affordable housing development community, especially
California Housing Partnership, Housing California, and people self-help housing
as well as our staff who work to fast-track this effort. The new regulations
went into effect on Thursday, January 29th. Next, I wanted to let you all know
that the application for the 2025 2026 whale tail competitive grant cycle
closed on December 15th. Thank you to the Ocean Protection Council and
Commissioner Jen Egerle for providing two million in funds for this grant
cycle. We received a record-breaking 437 applications including 53 proposals
through a tribal set aside for projects led by in partnership with and or
directly engaging California Native American tribes and tribal communities.
The request totaled $18.6 million, demonstrating the great need for these funds and the programs
they support.
Staff will be very busy reviewing applications and will present the recommended projects
at the April Commission hearing.
So more on that in the future.
Next I have a few announcements from our environmental justice and tribal coordination program.
I am pleased to announce that Courtney Owen,
who is with us today, you can wave,
has just joined a commission in December
as the commission's first tribal affairs coordinator.
Yay!
In this new role, Courtney will help shape
our tribal consultation program,
supporting district tribal liaisons
and advancing high priority tribal issues,
including offshore wind.
She's based in the San Francisco office
and brings over a decade of experience to her new role.
We are very excited to have you, Courtney,
and look forward to her contributions
to our tribal consultation program.
I'm also proud to share the release
of a new internal report titled Shifting the Current,
Advancing Environmental Justice at the California Coastal
Commission.
It is a retrospective on the ongoing implementation
of the 2019 Environmental Justice Policy
at the commission.
The report explains key actions and outcomes
across permitting, planning, and enforcement.
It highlights efforts for stronger engagement
with historically marginalized communities
and tribal nations and better language access
and public participation in our process.
Additionally, the report outlines reflections
from these last six years,
as well as priorities for 2026 through 2030.
These include expanding engagement,
removing barriers for coastal access,
increasing accountability,
and advancing climate resilience
in ways that amplify the voices
of historically excluded communities.
So you can view the full report to explore key highlights
or explore key highlights at the link on my written report
or on our homepage.
And we will be having a presentation on this
at the conclusion of my report.
Next, on December 19th,
I met with the board of the tribal nonprofit CHI-POMA
to sign the public access management plan
for the Blues Beach property in Northern Mendocino County.
As you may recall, last April,
the commission approved a CDP application by Caltrans to divide three state-owned parcels
for the purpose of transferring 136 acres of coastal land to Kaipoma, a tribally chartered
nonprofit corporation governed by members of three federally recognized California Native
American tribes, the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, the Round Valley Indian tribes,
and the Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians.
This land return was originally authorized by legislation, Senate Bill 231, authored
by Senator Mike McGuire, and signed into law by Governor Newsom in 2021.
The management plan, which our staff and the Kaipoma Board developed collaboratively over
the past four years, sets out a framework that will guide Kaipoma's management of the
transferred property.
The plan describes how Kaipoma will provide public access and protect sensitive natural
cultural resources on the land and lays out a process by which Kaipoma with support from the
commission will craft long-term management strategies for stewarding the property into the
future. Caltrans anticipates finalizing the property transfer in the first half of the year
and we are very grateful to Kaipoma Chair Eddie Knight and the rest of the Kaipoma board for
their partnership in reaching this in reaching this point and we look forward to seeing this
historic land return completed. Now, as you may recall, 2026 marks the 50th
anniversary of the passage of the Coastal Act. So at each meeting
throughout the year, I will reserve the last section of my Executive Director's
report for announcements about any upcoming events or available materials
related to the 50th anniversary. So for today, I would like to draw your
attention to our new webpage celebrating 50 years of the Coastal Act. You can
follow the written link on my report to get to the page or simply go to our
homepage and click the banner at the top to get to the 50th anniversary page. We
will plan to add to this page. It's just the beginnings and when we have more
information and events so please check back frequently. I also want to let
everybody know that we have stickers. I put some at the front desk out there so
So just a really, really just a fun way
to commemorate the 50th anniversary.
So anybody, please feel free to pick stickers up.
And I have one on my laptop.
Pick it up.
Oh, you can see it on the screen.
How funny, yeah.
So next, as part of our celebration
for the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act,
we are hoping that the public will
share some of their personal experiences with the Coast.
And I have a QR code.
I sent it very late to our staff.
So I think what I'll do is I'll bring it up later
once we finish the presentations
so you can see the QR code.
But I'll just talk about it now.
So we're collecting coastal memories
to use on social media on our website
to illustrate the connections that we have to our coast.
They can be brief or more involved with pictures
or even short videos.
It can help paint a more vivid picture.
Memories can be submitted anonymously
or you can keep your name in them, it's your choice.
Please, so I'll show you the QR code later
so you can go to the site,
you can also find it through our website.
So next, as part of our many initiatives
to celebrate the Coastal Act's 50th anniversary,
commission staff will be spotlighting key programs
and achievements at each monthly hearing.
The goal is to educate the public, honor the act's legacy,
and highlight the commission's ongoing work
to protect California's coast.
The initiative is called From Act to Action,
the first 50 years of coastal protection.
This month, we will spotlight one of
our newest programs, the Environmental Justice Program.
Now, I will turn it over to Javier Padilla Reyes,
the Commission's Environmental Justice Manager,
to present this month's spotlight. Javier.
Thank you, Dr. Hellicott Bridge.
If we can have that PowerPoint presentation up, please.
Can we have that presentation? Okay, thanks.
Thank you again and good morning, commissioners.
we're very excited to kick off this initiative by showcasing our agency's environmental justice
work and key accomplishments. Now this presentation offers a high-level look at the policy and the
program and if you'd like more detail check out the full retrospective in this month's ED report.
Next slide please. Before we begin allow me to introduce our unit my name is Javier Padilla and
I'm the environmental justice manager with me today. Here's our environmental justice analyst
It's his first presentation before the commission, and you just heard about a new addition to
our EJ unit, this is Courtney Owen, our Tribal Affairs Coordinator, and lastly, but not least,
our Student Legal Counsel, Jessica Reed.
I'm going to hand it over to Chino so that he can go over the background of the policy.
Next slide, please.
By now, you're probably familiar with the origins of the Coastal Act.
It was mandated by the people for the people to protect coastal access and public access
to the coast while also ensuring those benefits extend to all Californians.
Yet, despite this victory, the vision of access for all people had not yet been fully realized.
Disproportionate environmental burdens were still taking place as a result of discriminatory
land use and systemic inequalities.
Communities experiencing these issues advocated for decades that more needed to be done to
address this.
Next slide, please.
This momentum came to a head in 2009 when the construction of a power plant was proposed
on the coast of Oxnard, California.
Local opponents of the project argued that Oxnard was already facing more pollution than
many areas in the state and this would place a disproportionate burden on their city without
any clear benefits.
Community members, as well as local officials, united in opposition to the project, citing
environmental injustice as a key consideration.
However, the Coastal Act did not allow the Commission to consider environmental justice.
and commissioners realize these limitations and we have a brief video that highlights
the moment Commissioner Burke expresses this regret and makes a commitment to change things.
Next slide and please play the video.
Every time that you say that an issue is not to be used under the Coastal Act, it makes
me cringe, especially an issue like environmental justice.
And I know you're absolutely right.
And I know it's not your fault.
And I know you have to say it because you're
the purveyor of the law.
But I'm staying on the record tonight that tomorrow I
want to use every ounce of influence
I have to make sure that the Coastal Act is amended
to include environmental justice as an issue
to be encountered, because it's just not logical that we're protecting rocks and
not people. Just not logical.
Next slide please.
Seven years later in 2016 the legislature passed AB-2616 with the strong support of
the Coastal Commission, EJ organizations such as Azul, CAUSE, and the City Project, and
other EJ and environmental groups committed to the equitable distribution of coastal benefits
for all people. The bill integrated existing EJ principles and civil rights
law into the Coastal Act and specifically allowed commissioners to
consider environmental justice when acting on permits and appeals. It also
required the governor to appoint an Environmental Justice Commissioner, the
first of which was Commissioner Turnbull Sanders and is now Commissioner Lee.
Next slide please. And there's an animation on this slide, so one more
click please. Thank you. Once this legislation was passed, the agency moved
to develop guidance on how we would implement this new consideration for EJ.
It took staff over two years to draft this guidance, with staff from each district office
participating and extensive outreach to stakeholders across the state being incorporated.
This culminated in the Commission's adoption of the agency's first ever environmental
justice policy in 2019.
The policy also defined EJ, and you can see that definition here, is grounded in the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of circumstance.
As an outgrowth of this policy, the Commission was able to create the EJ unit, which works
to implement these core tenets in our work every day.
Next slide.
We'd now like to highlight the current state of the EJ program.
Last week, we released a report that inventories, key actions, and outcomes achieved over the
past six years as mandated by the EJ policy.
The report is tied to this presentation, as we'll be touching on a few accomplishments
since the inception of the EJ program.
However, this is not an exhaustive review.
If you would like to learn more, we encourage you to take a look at the executive director's
report for the full review that goes in depth on actions and outcomes.
I'll hand things over to Javier to speak on our approach to EJ implementation.
Next slide.
Thank you, Geno.
As you mentioned, when the EJ policy was being drafted, advocates pushed for including 34
implementation actions and a timeline to complete them.
These actions were categorized into the five pieces of the pie that you see here.
briefly dive into these categories and highlight some key actions and outcomes.
Next slide. The first of these approaches focuses on engagement with affected
communities. Next slide. We're only highlighting some examples of our many
engagement efforts. Aside from reaching out directly to impacted communities on
a project-by-project basis, we host quarterly calls with our EJ partners
led by our executive director and the Environmental Justice Unit with over a
dozen environmental justice organizations statewide participating.
We've hosted 11 of these to date, and it is an excellent space to speak directly to
staff and leadership and for us to learn about what's going on in their communities.
We've also created and staffed a Spanish program, and that helps with outreach, meetings, and
our monthly bilingual EJ newsletters, which highlights upcoming projects of environmental
justice interest.
Next up is building staff capacity to understand and apply environmental justice principles.
Next slide. One of our first actions since the adoption of the policy was to fund
three positions, the EJ Analyst, the EJ Manager, and Deputy Director. We then held an in-person
EJ training for all staff in early 2020. We created onboarding training materials and district
refresher trainings. We developed resources on a number of topics to support staff with understanding
and applying the principles of environmental justice into their work, and this has worked.
From rank and file to executive staff, our staff is committed to championing
environmental justice principles into the Commission's work. Next slide.
Next implementation approach focuses on the integration of environmental justice directly
into the coastal development process. Next slide. While speaking, the Environmental Justice Unit
supports agency staff during project review to identify environmental justice populations,
Contact these communities, evaluate their concerns, and create conditions or modifications
that aim to correct the historical burdens that environmental justice communities face
when experiencing the coast.
We support local governments also by making environmental justice a priority for local
coastal program assistance grants.
We've also created some resources to incorporate environmental justice and even publish our
our own mapping tool that helps with the identification
of environmental justice populations and concerns
so everyone can use it.
This is called the Coastal California
Environmental Justice Mapping Tool
and it is available on our website.
Next slide.
The environmental justice policy also calls
for meaningful and diverse participation from the public.
Next slide.
Not too long ago, you had to come in person
to provide public comment.
COVID changed all of that.
But before that ever happened,
the commission provided its first ever remote testimony
to accommodate lower income workers in Marina
who are not able to take the day off to travel
and testify in person about a controversial project
in their town.
The current switch to hybrid meetings for hearings
has helped increase across access for all
who wish to participate
in the commission's decision making process.
And to support access, we've also worked to enhance
the experience of public participation.
We've improved wayfinding signage at meetings,
including the use of graphics and multiple languages.
We've simplified public commentary sign-up
and hosted a well-attended webinar
on public participation with our partners.
Since the establishment
of the Spanish translation program,
we have also seen an uptick in Spanish speakers
that are participating in our hearings,
to the point where we've held multiple hearings
with live interpretation.
Next slide.
And finally, the last piece of the pie
was the integration of environmental justice
into our strategic plans and to incorporate public input
through that process.
Next slide.
To that end, we've integrated environmental justice
into both the previous and the newly adopted strategic plan
with plenty of public participation.
Lastly, we have published yearly year-end reviews
for the environmental justice program since 2019
to increase transparency in our implementation.
Next slide.
As you'll read in our rest perspective,
we've learned a lot since the adoption
of the environmental justice policy.
We've completed and continue to carry out the goals
within the policy and we have found areas
where we can frankly improve.
Our priorities are in alignment with the agency's
recently adopted strategic plan.
So we want to continue to grow our outreach
and bring in more people to the table
and expand language access.
We also want to continue to strengthen equitable access
to prevent and remove barriers
and uplift lower cost access opportunities.
We seek to increase accountability and transparency
through concentrated analysis
of our ongoing implementation.
And we hope to build internal capacity
by fostering an inclusive and diverse workplace.
And lastly, to advance stewardship by working
to address the disproportionate burdens
experienced by environmental justice communities.
And I'd like to take this last second
to thank all of those who have supported this work
and continue to advocate externally
and internally at the Coastal Commission.
Together, we are shifting the currents
towards a safe and equitable coast for all.
Thank you very much.
Thanks, Javier, thanks, Chino.
And then finally, in addition to spotlighting key programs
and achievements at each hearing,
We will also highlight one coastal access project that the Commission has required.
This month's feature focuses on the Ritz Carlton Resort in the city of Half Moon Bay, just
up the street.
And so I'll now turn it over to Linda Lachlan, the Commission's public access manager, to
talk about this particular access way.
Good morning.
Thank you.
So today, as Kate just said, we're beginning the official rollout of the public access
series that puts a spotlight on some of the Commission's many accomplishments to
achieve public access through our permitting program. You remember we
previewed this at the meeting in December meeting in San Diego where we
highlighted the public access amenities provided at Centennial Park in the city
of Coronado which resulted from a coastal development permit by the
Commission in 1981. For the next 11 months I will re-feature one access site
each month along the presentations to the Commission will also be rolling out
additional videos on Instagram throughout the year so keep your eye on
Instagram. Last I want to acknowledge that at the Commission's request last
month that we produce some of these videos in Spanish we want to let you
know that we're working on it. We're not able to do it as of today but we should
be posting a Spanish version online very soon. So now we're turning to Half Moon
specifically as Kate just mentioned the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. It's located just a
few miles south of here where we're having the meeting today. It's located
this Commission approved the 350 room resort hotel in 1992. The hotel sits atop
a tall bluff and commands outstanding views of the Half Moon Bay shoreline.
Significant public access amenities required by the Commission include a
a bluff top trail which is one mile in length and it's a segment of the
California coastal trail, 40 free public parking spaces reserved for public access
visitors, public restrooms, and a beach access stairway. The hotel developer was
required to build and manage all these facilities and today they're well used
by both the general public and the hotel guests. Okay so that's it let's roll the
video and take a look. Next time you're in Hellman Bay, head over to the Ritz Carlton
Resort for public beach access and scenic left-up strokes. From the hotel, you could
also hike resorts for eight miles along the California Coastal Trail, enjoying
sweeping views of this dramatic shoreline. To get to the Ritz Carlton, take Miramonta's
point route off Highway 1, and look for the signs. There are two parking lots with
43 spaces designated for the general public on the hotel property. One is at the bend in the
road before you reach the resort and the other is in the hotel parking structure. Look for a
greeting station where you can pick up a useful map of the area. Once you're ready to explore,
there are many public access opportunities around the resort. You can walk along a mile-long paved
pathway that is part of the coastal trail, enjoy benches, picnic tables, and public restrooms before
taking the stairway down to the Sandy beach. Thanks to the California Coastal
Commission and the Coastal Act for ensuring that all of these public access
ways are free and open every day of the year. Check it out next time you're up
near San Francisco exploring the San Mateo Code. Thanks Linda. So I don't know
if we had a chance to get my PowerPoint up I can show the QR code for the coastal
stories? That's not it. There it is. Okay so here is the QR code. I encourage
everybody to take a look and share a coastal story and again it can be simple,
it can be longer, kind of whatever floats your boat shall we say.
I also want to note all of our social handles and things are at the bottom and
As Linda mentioned, we'll be posting the video you just saw up on Instagram.
So please, you know, follow us on the various social media things.
And we're going to have a great year celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act.
So stay tuned for more in the future.
And that concludes my executive director's report.
Great. Thank you very much, Dr. Hucklebridge.
This was great.
Are there any public comments?
Yes we have five. We'll start with Mitch Silverstein he's attending in person and then we'll follow
up by for Zoom Charles Varney, Thomas Valadez, Armando Sepulveda, and Tiffany Curry. We'll be
moving you guys to panelists so please accept once we move you over. Thank you. All right
good morning commissioners my name is Mitch Silverstein California Policy Senior Coordinator
for Surf Fighter Foundation.
There's a lot to be pretty stoked about in that report.
So thanks, Dr. Hucklebridge.
I want to focus some comments on the Environmental Justice
Report, though.
Surf Fighter applauds the Environmental Justice Unit
for their work over the last five, six years.
And I just want to highlight a very small sampling
of some tangible outcomes that I've
seen from their work over the last couple of years.
One, in a lot of enforcement actions down in San Diego
where I live, at both Camp Land and Paradise Point,
included really strong EJ components, including free camping,
and also educational programs for under-resourced youth
in San Diego.
That was a huge win.
The instructional meeting and video on public participation
at the Coastal Commission has been really well received
by our chapter, or the San Diego chapter volunteers
and also elsewhere.
And then a thing that I really saw firsthand
was that commission staff at EJ unit specifically really stuck
their necks out for San Diego-based surf equity groups
when the city pushed back against AB-39,
which is a law that allows nonprofits and tribes
access to parks and beaches for their programs
without a permit.
Dr. Hucklebridge and Mr. Padilla submitted an eloquent,
but very strongly worded letter
to the San Diego City Council and EJ Unit
and district staff and attended several meetings
with the mayor's staff.
And those efforts really, really helped convince the city
to do a total 180 on their position.
Essentially, the city started working
with outdoor equity groups to help them
rather than push for a continuation
of a highly inequitable permitting system.
Also, I'm noticing a lot of EJ focus
in LCP grant programs, including the San Francisco grant,
which we'll have a hearing later this morning.
And then also really impressed
with a lot of the tribal land-back conditions
in enforcement and CDP decisions,
including the consent enforcement
that you'll hear about later today.
so just keep up the good work.
So if I had to really applaud the EJ unit
and thanks so much for the support.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Charles Varney followed by Tomas Valadez
and Armando Sepulveda.
Charles Varney.
I'm here.
Yes, go ahead and speak.
I'm Charles Varney, Chair of the Sam DeBispo
Surfrider Foundation.
I'm also a 25 year resident of Oceano and served
as a president of the Oceano Community Services District
and the counties at Oceano Advisory Council.
On behalf of Surf Rider Chapter
and thousands of Oceano citizens,
I wanna express deep appreciation of the Coastal Commission
for your efforts to correct the injustices perpetrated
on our community in the past 44 years
when a temporary decision was made
by the Coastal Commission and Supervisors
to make Oceana a sacrifice zone B roadway
to the state vehicle recreational area.
Oceana remains a victim of environmental injustice.
Our economy is repressed.
We have the lowest median income family
and family income in the county.
Tourists, local residents and families avoid our beach.
We've never been able to enjoy the benefit
of the largest recreation and economic asset
and our community, the Dunes.
Tears welled up when I saw the beautiful picture
of our Oceano Dunes
in the advancing environmental justice report.
Tears of hope and appreciation
for what the Coastal Commission is standing for.
Today, National and Local Surf Rider
are launching a campaign
to create a vehicle for each in Oceano by 2030.
We're asking State Parks, the Coastal Commission,
the Board of Supervisors to come together in good faith
to discuss and plan for this transformative change.
Today's celebration of coastal EJ victories are appreciated, and even more brightly shines
the light of continued environmental injustice on Oceano, which, in the words of the first
Coastal Commission EJ director, quote, Oceano is the poster child for environmental justice
on the California coast.
So after more than four decades of unkept promise, we want our time in the sun, on our
beach, and hope for your continued leadership in that regard.
Thank you very much from all of us in Oceania to the Coastal Commission and your commitment
to E.J. in our community.
Great. Thank you. Tomás Valadez followed by Armando Zopovada followed by Tiffany Curry.
Tomás, if you can unmute, perfect.
Yes, thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners, and staff. My name is Tomás
Valadez. I'm the California policy manager at the OCEAN Justice Organization working
with Latino communities to protect our ocean and coast.
I am pleased today to recognize and applaud the California Coastal Commission on the release
of Shifting the Current, Advancing Environmental Justice, a thoughtful and forward-looking
report reflects on years of progress, partnership, and learning and how environmental justice
is integrated in a coastal protection in California.
This report not only honors the history of environmental justice in the Coastal Act,
also charts clear steps forward to ensure the cost is accessible, healthy, and equitably
managed for all Californians.
Central to this progress is Assembly Bill 2616, which is proudly co-sponsored and championed
alongside community partners when it was enacted in 2016.
This bill fundamentally transformed the Coastal Act by giving the Commission explicit authority
to consider environmental justice, including the equitable distribution of environmental
benefits and burdens in coastal development decisions.
The impact of AB-2616 cannot be overstated.
This law expanded the Commission's mandate so that environmental justice communities,
those too often sidelined in coastal planning, are recognized as stakeholders whose voices
and lived experiences matter in shaping policies that affect their neighborhoods, their health,
their access to the coast, and it laid the statutory groundwork for the Commission's
environmental justice policy, and the implementation of actions that are now yielding concrete changes
in the way coastal decisions are made. I want to thank the commissioners and staff for this
thoughtful and action oriented report. It is a testament to what is possible when agencies and
community partners work in true partnership to advance environmental justice for all Californians.
Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. Thomas, excuse me. Next is Armando. Good morning commissioners. My
My name is Ramon de Sepulveda II.
I am the Public Policy Manager for Outdoor Outreach
and a member of the Surf Justice Collective.
I just wanted to thank you all for your work and commitment
in collaborating with community partners
throughout the state.
Special thanks to the Executive Director
and for the environmental justice component
that the commission is prioritizing.
We are also appreciative of your adaptability
and willingness to try new modes of community engagement,
such as the public comment workshop my colleague Tiffany Curry
hosted in collaboration with you all last year.
Again, thank you so much for all the work that you're doing
and we look forward to more positive outcomes
in the near future, thank you.
Thank you, next is Tiffany Curry.
Hi, good morning.
So grateful for the opportunity to give public comment today
in support of the Environmental Justice Unit.
Your work and commitment to collaborating with community partners has been huge.
I specifically want to shout out the quarterly environmental justice calls.
As a part of the surf justice collective, I've seen firsthand the impact that
those calls have had on organizations like outdoor outreach across the
entire state of California.
Um, I forgot to do an intro.
My name is Tiffany.
Uh, I'm with outdoor outreach, San Diego based nonprofit.
I also specifically want to echo what Mitch shared earlier in thanking
the commission and the Environmental Justice Unit for their support on AB 2939 over the summer.
The commission played an instrumental role in preserving equitable access policy here in San Diego.
Then building off of what Armando said,
I just really want to express gratitude for your willingness to try new things.
We don't see that a lot in agencies and it has made an impact.
The public comment workshop that Chino and Javier put together last year was very well received
and has a lasting impact on folks being able to participate more easily in these public comment opportunities.
We're so grateful for your work and we look forward to continuing to see the positive impact that you all have.
Great work. Thank you so much.
Thank you that concludes our speakers. Great, thank you very much. Now I'll
return to the Commission. Commissioner Natto. I just wanted to say how exciting
it is and I really want my sticker so I can get it at the break. And just the
how far the Commission has come. It's really quite wonderful and how you know
There are times when the Coastal Act has really benefited
from amendments to bring it up to date.
I think there's other issues that we, I think,
could use attention, like housing,
and I hope that we can move constructively on that.
I did just want to kind of celebrate.
I don't know if everybody else noticed that the National Peter
Benchley Awards, which is a very prestigious kind of known
as the Ocean Nobel Awards just came out.
And Marcela Gutierrez of Azul won the Action Award,
which I think is reflective of the growing influence
and involvement of communities
that have not always been involved
in coast and ocean issues.
So that's a wonderful, congratulations Marcela,
she's also a Coastal Conservancy Vice Chair.
So I thought I just wanted to highlight that.
We have, there's some other wonderful California recipients
of that award too.
But I do, it's an acknowledgement
of how we're making progress.
We're not there yet,
but thank you so much for all you're doing.
Thank you.
Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you Madam Chair.
I want to thank staff, Javier, Chino,
And of course, all the other staff that have worked behind the scenes to make this happen
for years now.
It's been, I know that it started well before I was, I started on the commission.
So it's, it's, I'm always very proud to be at these points that this milestones of progress
in our environmental justice policy work.
Of course, enormous, great attitude to all the community partners.
Congratulations to Marcela, my good friend and leader of Asui.
Always at the tip of the spear in a lot of the hardest fights, and always honoring the
great memory of the leaders that were so influential on this and have passed City Project is one
those that comes to mind are Garcia. And of course, you know, the leaders on this
dias, past and present, and hopefully future, and in the legislature that have
a spearheaded this and have set up such a remarkable template really to achieve
equitable outcomes in government. And you know, especially in today's climate, I
I think that it's ever more important to have these things on paper, solidified, implemented,
to be shown that it is possible, that it does work, and it's actually imperative and necessary
to have a functional society. So I am super enormously proud of this work, and even though
I actually never been, you know, I've never been the official EJ commissioner or, you know,
sat on that in that position. I've always carried that in my heart because that is who I am. That's
where I come from. And, you know, that is my perspective in life. So I'm always there to
encourage everyone in the fight and thank you enormous gratitude for your courage
to step in and face this which is usually the first thing that goes when it comes to
things get hard so I appreciate you all. Thanks. Thank you very much.
Okay Commissioner Lopez. I'll be brief and want to associate myself with the comments of Commissioner
Escalante and just share that in the times we're living in today I know equity is not a popular
word and yet every time I say the Pledge of Allegiance and focus on those final two words
for all, it really means for all. And I think the work that we're doing here,
especially with the foundation set by Effie as that first EJ commissioner, is really important.
We're standing on solid bedrock and it's how we build from here. So I really want to appreciate
every single member of this particular team for what you've done and what you continue to do,
because as we show community that we see them and hear them and the commitment to make the
Instagram videos in Spanish and communicate directly with people, it matters. So thank you
Thank you for this work and for the continued work because I know again we're standing
on solid ground and look forward to all we're going to continue to build together because
I think everybody up here in their own way sees themselves as part of that EJ commitment
and embodiment here on this particular commission.
So thank you.
Thank you commissioner.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you Madam Chair.
I did want to make a comment but I don't now after Commissioner Lopez he sort of dropped
the mic, but, you know, happy Coastal Commission anniversary, and, you know, this is 50 years
of the Coastal Act. Super exciting. I am beyond stoked to play a small part in this. I'm super
stoked for the new drip that we've gotten from our colleague. You know, and I think
of this all the time in terms of branding and marketing and selling, because, I mean,
It's amazing how 99.9 percent of our residents have no idea why we have these beautiful coastal
views and the access that we have.
So I think it's incumbent upon all of us within our sphere of influence to help spread the
message, spread the gospel, and ensure that everybody who lives in this state, regardless
of whether you're on the coast or not, understands why we have these breathtaking views that
we have and the importance of those folks 50-odd years ago who drove in their VW buses
up and down the coast delivering pamphlets and banded together to force this Proposition
20.
That is one of the best things that has happened to this State.
Thank you all for your involvement.
Here's to another 50 years of access, community voices, and for environmental sustainability.
Thank you.
Thank you very much and I will align myself with the comments of all my colleagues and I think that's a great note
Here's to another 50 years
Without a minister just we take a brief bio break if everyone could be back just a few minutes after 11, please
Sir Drake to you
Thank You chair Harmon good morning commissioners, this is the legislative report for February
The legislature kicked off the 2026 state legislative session on January 5th, and it's been an active first few weeks
New bills for the year are currently being introduced and I'll get into a couple noteworthy bills in just a minute
But before we close the book entirely on the 2025 legislative session staff has prepared its annual new laws memo
Which can be found in the written report
The new laws memo reviews the signed bills from last year's session
session that either amended the Coastal Act or that impact the Commission in some way.
It also summarizes any actions the Commission will take to implement the legislation.
This year's new laws memo covers ten bills, seven of which amended the Coastal Act.
The Commission was briefed on all of these bills during last year's session. So in the interest of time,
I'm going to highlight just a few of them.
The first is AB 130, which was a budget trailer bill related to housing.
This legislation amended the Coastal Act to prohibit local coastal development permits for housing projects of four or more units
from being appealed to the Commission on the basis that the development is located in a sensitive coastal resource area,
or is not the principal permitted use of the project site.
Housing projects near wetlands or near the shoreline remain appealable.
AB 130 also amended the State Permit Streamlining Act to decrease the time in which the Commission must act on CDPs for most housing projects
from 180 days to 90 days after the commission receives a complete application.
The legislation also established that if any permitting agency, including the commission, doesn't act on a permit by the statutory deadline,
the permit is deemed approved automatically.
AB 130 took effect immediately upon being signed by the governor on June 30th,
so since that date the commission has been implementing the new permitting requirements and has
provided an informational memo to local governments regarding the changes to the Coastal Act.
A second piece of chapter legislation from last year is AB 357 by Assemblymember David Alvarez.
This legislation amended Section 30605 of the Coastal Act to direct the Commission to
prioritize active transportation and public transportation facilities on university campuses
over private vehicle parking. It also directs the Commission to defer to universities in setting
parking requirements for housing projects on their campuses.
Additionally, the legislation added a new section to the Coastal Act, 30605.1, which
creates an expedited process for the Commission to quickly approve amendments to a university's
long-range development plan that would have no impact on coastal resources or coastal
access.
The Commission will implement these new policy directives, as well as the expedited process
for approving de minimis LRDP amendments as university projects and plan amendments come
forward.
Another piece of chaptered Coastal Act legislation from last year is SB 484 by Senator Laird,
which the Commission supported.
You might recall that this legislation directs the Commission by July 2027 to identify infill
areas within at least three local jurisdictions that currently don't have a certified local
coastal program, and then in these areas the Commission will pilot making 100% affordable
housing projects categorically excluded from needing to obtain a CDP.
The legislation requires the Commission to consider certain factors and to coordinate
with the Department of Housing and Community Development or HCD in drawing these exclusion
areas.
And then once established, the CAD-Xs will remain in effect for 10 years.
Before they expire, the Commission will submit a report to the legislature identifying the
number of affordable housing projects that were constructed or are currently being constructed
using the exclusions.
Of the 76 local governments in the coastal zone, there are currently 12 cities that don't
have a fully certified LCP.
Over the coming year and a half, the commission will evaluate the coastal zones of these cities
to identify potential infill areas where development of affordable housing wouldn't impact coastal
resources or be vulnerable to sea level rise, consistent with the legislation.
The commission will also draw on the expertise of HCD, local governments, affordable housing
developers, and other stakeholders to gather input on what areas within these uncertified
jurisdictions are well suited for affordable housing.
As an initial step in soliciting this feedback, we're currently creating an interactive map
of the coastal zones of the 12 uncertified cities, which we're aiming to put online for
public viewing in mid-March or so.
We look forward to providing more updates and announcements on the Cat-Ex development
process at future Commission meetings.
One piece of chapter of legislation that didn't amend the Coastal Act but which is still directly
relevant to the Commission is AB 462 by Assemblymember Lowenthal.
This is the legislation that requires the Commission and local governments to approve
or deny CDPs for accessory dwelling units within 60 days of receiving a complete application.
If the Commission doesn't act by this deadline, the CDP is deemed approved automatically.
The legislation also prohibits locally approved CDPs for ADUs from being appealed to the
Commission.
AB 462 took effect immediately upon being signed by the Governor on October 10th, so
since then the Commission has been implementing the expedited permitting requirements for
qualifying ADU projects.
The final piece of legislation we want to touch on this morning is AB 592 by Assembly
member Gabriel. Relevant to the Coastal Act, this legislation allows restaurants
that created expanded outdoor dining areas in their parking lots during the
COVID-19 pandemic to continue operating those outdoor dining areas irrespective
of local parking requirements. So the legislation essentially requires local
governments statewide to grandfather in those COVID era outdoor dining spaces
until the restaurant decides to remove it.
Any local governments and restaurants that want to create new outdoor dining spaces going
forward remain subject to state law requirements, including the Coastal Act and LCPs in the
coastal zone.
For more information, the full new laws memo can be found in staff's written report.
It contains additional detail about these pieces of legislation that I mentioned as
well as several other pieces of chapter legislation from the 2025 session.
Moving ahead into 2026, at the beginning of the legislative report you can find a list
of deadlines for this year's session.
Last Friday was the deadline for each house to pass bills that had been introduced in
that house in 2025.
Any two-year bills that didn't meet that deadline for getting over to the second house are now
dead and staff has removed them from the legislative report.
Finally, as I mentioned at the top, right now we're in the period when new bills are
being introduced for the year. At the moment there are just a couple bills
relevant to the Commission or to the coast and I just want to flag them
quickly. The first is AB 35 by Assemblymember David Alvarez. This is a bill
from last year that originally dealt with hydrogen projects but last month
the author rewrote the bill to instead exempt from the State Administrative
Procedures Act any state programs that will be expending Proposition 4 bond
funds. This proposed exemption is in line with similar APA exemption language
that has been used consistently in prior natural resource bond measures over the
years and staff has no concerns. The bill has an urgency clause. Last week it
passed out of the Senate and is now in the Assembly awaiting referral to
committees. The one new bill in the legislative report this month is AB 1593
by Assemblymember Diane Dixon from Orange County. This bill requires state
agencies that impose any sort of monetary charge, and so that would
include permit fees or administrative penalties, to report the revenue
generated from those charges on the agency website. That bill was just
introduced and referred to the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee
yesterday. The last day for new bills to be introduced is February 20th, and we
expect to see a couple thousand new bills come into print between now and
and then.
Bills must then be in print for 30 days
before they can begin to be heard in policy committees.
Next month's legislative report will contain a full rundown
of the newly introduced bills that are relevant
to the commission or to the coast more broadly.
And with that, Chair Harmon, unless there are any questions,
that concludes the legislative report.
Great, thank you very much, Mr. Drake.
Are there any public comments on the legislative report?
None.
Okay, I'll return to the commission.
Comments, questions?
Okay. Seeing none, thank you very much.
And that brings us to the grant program.
That's right.
Item 60 and we'll ask Sydney Schmitter
is gonna be doing the staff presentation for this item.
Oh, good morning commissioners.
I'm here to present an LCP grant application
from the city and county of San Francisco
for your consideration.
Staff is recommending approval.
Next slide please.
As a reminder, the LCP grant program
supports LCP development or updates
with a special emphasis on addressing impacts
from climate change and sea level rise.
The program has been running for just over 10 years
and has awarded approximately $30 million
to 48 jurisdictions for 99 separate projects.
The Budget Act of 2021 appropriated $31 million
to the Coastal Commission to support this program.
All the grant funds from this appropriation
must be awarded by June of this year
and fully dispersed by early 2028.
If the proposed San Francisco grant is awarded today,
all grant funds will have been awarded.
As I will describe in this presentation,
staff believe this proposal is an appropriate use
of remaining funds.
I would also like to take this opportunity
to remind local governments that OPC's SB1 grant program
has funding available for this type
of sea level rise planning work.
And commission and OPC staff coordinate closely
to support proposals that align
with SB 272 planning requirements.
Next slide, please.
Eligible grantees for the LCP grant program
include local governments responsible for developing
and amending LCPs, and eligible projects
are those that assess, plan for, and adapt to the impacts
of climate change and sea level rise,
and which contain an LCP planning component.
The program prioritizes technical studies and outreach,
environmental justice, adaptation planning
at various scales, and work on LCPs.
Currently, all grant applications can be submitted
and awarded on a rolling basis.
The executive director can approve awards up to $500,000
and grants for more than $500,000
require approval from the commission.
To date, the executive director has approved 20 grants
totaling $6.3 million.
These grants are described in section E of the staff report.
The grant application in front of you today
falls into the latter category of proposals over $500,000
that require commission approval.
Next slide, please.
The city and county of San Francisco is seeking $628,000
to complete the first phase of a planning effort
that will eventually result in a coastal adaptation plan
and related LCP update for the city's outer coast
that fulfills the requirements of SB 272
and will advance coordinated adaptation
across both the Bayside and outer coast.
The first phase, that is the focus of this grant,
includes three primary components.
First, outreach and engagement.
The city will build on prior planning efforts
to develop an outreach plan that is aligned
with commission guidance and conduct broad outreach
as well as targeted engagement
with environmental justice communities
and tribal consultation.
This will include multiple rounds of public engagement,
a project website, and documentation of how public
and tribal input informs each step of the planning effort.
A specific technical advisory committee will also be formed
to guide development of the coastal adaptation plan.
Second, technical analysis.
The city will update its existing
sea level rise vulnerability and consequences assessment
using new elevation data
and the newest best available science
and recommended sea level rise scenarios.
This includes existing conditions updates
and a related vulnerability and consequences assessment.
Focused technical work would also include
an accessibility and visitor analysis
and potential habitat area mapping.
Lastly, this proposed LCP grant project
includes an initial set of LCP amendments.
Findings from the outreach and technical work
will be translated into preliminary LCP updates
addressing environmental justice, habitat,
and baseline sea level rise policies.
The first phase, LCPA, will be locally adopted
and submitted during the project term.
Next slide, please.
San Francisco has also developed a work plan
for a second phase that builds
on the proposed LCP grant-funded project.
This parallel effort would support development
of adaptation strategies, phased pathways, cost estimates,
and implementation planning coordinated
with existing programs and funding strategies.
Together, this work would inform preparation
of the San Francisco Coastal Adaptation Plan,
including interagency and technical advisory committee
review and support translation
of more detailed adaptation planning
into a second phase resilience-focused LCP update
for local approval and commission certification.
This longer-term planning is consistent with
and would fulfill SB 272 requirements,
but it cannot be fully funded under this LCP grant
due to program limits and timing.
San Francisco has applied for OPC funding
for the second phase, though no final decision
on that proposal has been made.
Staff notes that regardless of that outcome,
the proposed first phase, that is the subject
of this commission grant, is an important first step.
Next slide please.
Staff believes that the proposed project
is consistent with the LCP grant program priorities
evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission. San Francisco's LCP was
originally certified in 1986. The most recent amendment certified in 2018 and
supported by a 2014 LCP Local Assistance Grant implemented the Western Shoreline
Area Plan which translated the vision of the 2012 Ocean Beach Master Plan into
LCP level policies, but this was limited in scope and designed as an initial step
towards an eventual more comprehensive update. This project represents the next
step in that progression by updating vulnerability information, incorporating
new science and statewide guidance, developing next phase adaptation
strategies, and expanding adaptation planning to the rest of the outer coast
and along the Bayside shoreline. The project will help align and unify San
Francisco's Bay and outer coast adaptation efforts, including
coordination with a previously awarded Ocean Protection Council grant to
develop the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Plan. The project builds on
substantial prior planning efforts but addresses a clear gap, completing the
next phase of adaptation planning and translating that work into updated LCP
policies that reflect current science, Commission guidance, and SB 272
requirements. This proposed phase approach, beginning with foundational
policies followed by future LCP amendments informed by further planning
efforts like the final Coastal Adaptation Plan, aligns with Coastal
Commission and local government working group recommendations for incremental
LCP updates. By first incorporating foundational sea level rise policies and
then pursuing more comprehensive amendments, the city can make steady
progress and avoid stalled or failed updates. This strategy also reflects
funding realities and timelines associated with the LCP grant program.
Finally, the project addresses environmental justice by analyzing
impacts and adaptation measures for vulnerable communities and engaging
underserved populations as well as conducting tribal consultation consistent
with state and commission guidance. These efforts will inform early
environmental justice focused LCP amendments as part of the grant funded
project. Next slide please. In conclusion the proposed project would lead to the
update of San Francisco's LCP to reflect advanced comprehensive sea level rise
adaptation planning. Commissioned staff recommends awarding an LCP local
assistance grant to the city and county of San Francisco in the amount of $628,000.
The motion and resolution are on page three of the staff report and staff are recommending
a yes vote.
Commission staff and San Francisco staff are available for questions.
Thank you.
Thanks, Sydney.
Before we turn it back over to you, Chair Herman, I just wanted to underscore one point
that Sydney made earlier that if the commission does approve this grant, this will be all
funds that we were given about the 30 million for this LCP grant program will have will be gone.
So we this is incredibly important work that the that the Commission has been working with local
governments on required by 272 and we are grateful that there are additional grants available through
the OPC. That said there is an enormous need for funding to do this work. It's a considerable
amount of work to get all local governments updated to address the
level rise by 2034 and so I anticipate the need for additional assistance for
local governments in the future so I just wanted to point that out it'll be
something that we're working on through all the channels that we can but wanted
to bring that to your attention as well thank you thank you very much are there
any public comments? Yes we have two and well we have total four. Two are
available for questions and two are here. Tinnegan Person, Eileen Bogan, and Nina
Atkin. Eileen Bogan Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods speaking on my
own behalf. Urging the Commission to approve the grant application along with
more robust requirements and conditions above and beyond those stated in the
staff report. Those robust requirements and conditions would include a
semiannual review by the City's Inspector General, semiannual review by
the City's Board of Supervisors, Government Audit and Oversight Committee,
as well as an annual review by the City's Capital Planning Committee. SF
does not have a City Council as indicated in page 8 of this staff report.
On page 11 items five and seven both state and I quote the executive director
or his designee unquote. Our recent book ends for the Oceanside neighborhoods are
the 2010 Ocean Beach master plan which was led by SPUR which is a pro
development think tank and the 2025 mayor's family zoning plan which
proposes to construct 800,000 new housing units over 50 years which would
be heavily concentrated in the Oceanside neighborhoods. There are well-founded
concerns about turning Ocean Beach into Miami Beach. More robust requirements and
concerns could possibly address these concerns, most requirements and
conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Nina Atkin. Good morning commissioners.
My name is Nina Ackind and I'm the Surfighter Foundation San Francisco chapter manager on behalf of our
1100 local chapter members
I'm here to support the staff recommendation to award the city of San Francisco the LCP
Local assistance grant it makes a lot of sense to streamline and update the existing sea level rise
vulnerable vulnerability studies in San Francisco the closure of the Great Highway and
plan seawall at Sloat and the closure of the Great Highway from Lincoln to Sloat and the new two-mile Sunset Dunes Park are dramatic
adaptation actions that certainly affect previous planning
accomplishments. As you all know, Ocean Beach is a highly energetic wave environment, and we've consistently seen erosion
underestimated by agencies in the past. We hope that moving forward the city will can incorporate realistic
swarm surge and erosion estimates into the sea level rise vulnerability assessment.
Surf Rider has been invited on the advisory committee for this grant work and we see this
as an opportunity to support the habitat and public access goals of the plan.
We've been stewarding Ocean Beach for almost 40 years in San Francisco and we are thrilled
to be a leader in the current community powered dune revegetation pilot project.
Over the past few months, with more than 150 volunteers, we transplanted 950 native dune
grasses to stabilize the dunes at Ocean Beach.
We look forward to continuing to lead this work with collaboration of San Francisco Recreation
and Parks Department and the National Park Service.
We appreciate the effort to bring in environmental justice and tribal partners to this work.
There are many groups like Queer Surf and Salted Roots under the Surf Justice Collective
whose voices are critical for equitable, accessible,
and resilient Ocean Beach for generations to come.
Please vote yes to support this grant.
Thank you for your time, and happy 50th anniversary.
Thank you, that concludes our speakers.
Thank you.
Okay, I'll just make a brief comments.
I just want to underscore the comments made
by Director Hucklebridge.
As a representative of local government on this commission,
The funding has been so critical to our ability to move forward with our updates and the need
for additional funding just cannot be understated. So really want to highlight the points that she
made and express my gratitude for how successful this has been. And with that I'll turn it to
Commissioner Wilson. Thanks, I'm happy to make the motion. I move that the commission award LCP
local assistance grant funding of $628,000 to the city and county of San
Francisco and authorize the executive director or their designee to enter into
a grant agreement with the grantee for allocation of these funds and to make
any amendments thereto subject to the requirements and conditions set forth in
the staff recommendation and I recommend the yes vote. Second her designee. Okay
That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner not off. Um, may we have a roll call vote, please?
Okay
Commissioner o'Malley. Yes
O'Malley. Yes, Commissioner s Colonte
Yes, that's Colonte. Yes, Commissioner Hart. Yes, Hart. Yes, Commissioner Jackson. Aye
Jackson yes, Commissioner Kelly. Yes
Kelly. Yes
Commissioner Lopez. Yes
Lopez. Yes, Commissioner Kalmyk. Yes
Kalmick yes, Commissioner Knopf. Aye.
Knopf yes, Commissioner Moreno. Moreno yes.
Moreno yes, Commissioner Wilson. Yes.
Wilson yes, Chair Harmon. Yes.
Yes, the vote is unanimous. Wonderful. Thank you. Congratulations.
Okay, and now that will bring us to the regular consent calendar, please. Ms. Gray.
Item 8 provides for applications to be moved from the regular calendar to consent calendar.
And we have 10 items that we are recommending be moved to consent.
And those are item 11A, the Del Norte County LCP amendment to rezone a single parcel to
adequately recognize wetlands and wetland buffers.
Item 11C, a time extension for the City of Fort Bragg's LCP amendment regarding accessory
dwelling units. Item 11 D a time extension for the City of Fort Bragg
LCP amendment regarding tiny home and manufactured home provisions. Item 11 E
a time extension for the City of Fort Bragg LCP amendment for planned
development permit updates. Item 11 F not a time extension. The City of Fort
Bragg LCP amendment for housing updates. Item 11 G a time extension for a city
city of Fort Bragg LCP amendment for urban lot split.
Item 11H, another time extension for the city of Fort Bragg LCP amendment regarding parking
and landscaping provisions.
Item 11I, the city of Fort Bragg LCP amendment for outdoor dining regulations.
Item 11J, a time extension for the city of Point Arenas housing update and code reorganization.
finally item 18a the San Luis Obispo County LCP amendment related to mineral
resources we are not aware of any opposition opposition to any of these
items the applicants are in agreement with the staff recommendations and staff
is recommending that the commission vote and approve this item great thank you
are there any ex partes on any of these items seeing none any public comment
none okay great thank you then I'll return to the Commission to entertain a
motion I'll move that we approve the consent calendar all second but I also
just want to flag that at least five of these items on consent are to deal with
housing and to commend staff for moving things forward as expeditiously as
possible thank you we have a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by
commissioner not off may we have a roll call vote please commissioner Escalante
yes Escalante yes Commissioner Hart yes Hart yes Commissioner Jackson Jackson
yes Commissioner Kelly yes Kelly yes Commissioner Lopez yes Lopez yes
Commissioner Kalmick yes Kalmick yes Commissioner not off I not half yes
Commissioner Moreno. Moreno, yes. Moreno, yes. Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley, yes. Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon, yes. The vote is
unanimous. Thank you. The consent calendar is approved. Okay, just give our staff a
minute before we move to item 9. Okay, wonderful. Thank you. We're now on item
Item 9, we are going to consider the following agenda items, Wednesday 9A through 9C, which
share a single combined staff report, including proposed consent cease and desist order number
CCC-26-CD-01, consent restoration order CCC-26-RO-01, and consent administrative penalty number
CCC-26-AP3-01. The orders are all proposed to be issued to
Travis Schneider and Stephanie Bodie for violations occurring at 1506 and
1512 Walker Point Road, Bayside, Humboldt County. Would the alleged
violator and or its representatives please identify themselves for the
record? I think they're on zoom? No. No they should be in person.
Bradley Johnson and Travis. Yes, Brad Johnson attorney for the for the
respondents here. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Johnson. And to our staff, can you
please identify what items are part of the record or already part of the record?
Excuse me. Yes, thank you chair. The record consists of the contents of the
staff report and supporting documents, the two addenda, both of which were
posted on our website, which contain public comment letters of support from
From the Bear River Band of the Rauner Raunteria, the Surf Rider Foundation, Penialia and Stenton,
and the Wiyot Tribe of Natural Resources Department and Janet Idness, and staff's brief responses
there too, along with public documents in the violation file and today's hearing itself.
Great.
Thank you, Ms. Hagee.
And how long will you need for your presentation today?
25 minutes, please.
Great.
Thank you.
There shouldn't be any ex parte communications, but do any commissioners have any such ex partes
to report. Okay, seeing none I'm now going to review the rules for this
proceeding. Our staff has asked for up to 25 minutes for its presentation so I'll
give the alleged violator the same amount of time and they may also request
to reserve some of that time for their own rebuttal. After any presentation by
the alleged violator we will allow three minutes for any other party who would
like to speak as an interested member of the public after which I may allow the
alleged violator to use any reserved rebuttal time to respond to comments
from interested persons. Our staff will then typically respond to that testimony
and to any new evidence introduced. Anyone who speaks at this hearing may
propose questions either orally or in writing that they would like commissioners
to ask of any other party, but it is not appropriate to suggest to be asked
questions to yourself. Questioners, questioners, commissioners, excuse me, may
today, but are not required to ask the proposed questions. So with that, we're now going to
begin the public hearing, and I will turn it over to the staff for their presentation.
Ms. Sadie.
Thank you so much, Chair. Good morning, and good morning to you and the members of the
Commission. Well, we're still morning. We'd like to present these orders to you today.
We're pleased to announce that Travis Schneider and Stephanie Bodie, who we will refer today
collectively as respondents have worked with staff to reach an amicable resolution of this
case by entering into the proposed consent cease and desist order, proposed consent restoration
order and consent administrative penalty, which we will refer to today collectively
as the consent agreement. This matter involves the partial construction of a house that was
over twice as large as was permitted, as you will hear. This also involved major vegetation
removal, as well as issues regarding cultural resources, wetlands, and
environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or ASHA, despite specific coastal
development permits designed to protect the habitat and cultural resources
known to be on site. The properties involved have important and natural and
cultural resources for the Wiatt area tribes, including the Wiatt tribe, the
Bear River Band of the Roanoke Vale Rancheria, and the Blue Lake Rancheria. We
We want to specifically thank these tribes for providing our staff with so many comments
and insults, insights, sorry.
They were extremely civil and cooperative.
You'll hear from them later, they're very charming.
As you will hear, staff worked closely and collaboratively with respondents for many
months to find a meaningful resolution to this matter that they could successfully implement.
This has been a long road, but they have been very willingly worked with us from the beginning
of our involvement in the case, and we greatly appreciate the significant steps that they
have taken to come to this proposed resolution. As you will hear, it provides for a creative
and valuable resolution that we could not have achieved absent a settlement here. Specifically,
the proposed agreement will, if approved and implemented, protect the habitat and cultural
resources on these properties in perpetuity through transfer of fee title to one or all
all Wiat Area tribes with protections for the resources on site in addition.
As you know, the situation was complicated but we are pleased that we were able to resolve
the matter amicably and we appreciate their cooperation.
We would also really like to thank Humboldt County Planning Department for their cooperation
and assistance in addressing this matter, and in particular John Ford, the Director
of Planning and Building, and his staff for many long hours, patience and commitment to
resolving this in a protective and professional manner.
This presentation will be given by Shelby Weymont, an attorney in our headquarters enforcement
unit, and enforcement counsel Robin Mayer is also present if you have additional questions.
Next slide please and Shelby take it away.
Good morning chair and members of the commission.
On this slide you can see a map of the region and the general location of these properties
is marked by a yellow star.
This case involves two adjacent properties both owned by respondents.
Both properties are located north of the City of Eureka between the Eureka Arcata Highway
101 corridor and Myrtle Avenue.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows a view of Humboldt Bay, looking across the bay towards the properties.
The properties are inland from Humboldt Bay and also border the Faysloo Wildlife Area,
a 484-acre wildlife area managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which is
a critically important wetland complex and a tidal tributary to Humboldt Bay.
as I'll describe later.
Before getting into the details
to the unprimited development that occurred in this matter,
I first wanna discuss the natural and cultural resources
that are located on and adjacent to the properties.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows the wetland habitat
at the Fay-Slew Wildlife Area,
which is adjacent to the properties.
Wetlands are extremely rare
and are one of the most important ecosystems in California.
Given that California has lost upward of 90%
of its historical wetlands,
The remaining wetlands, including those located on the properties, and adjacent face loo,
have been designated as critical, threatened habitat.
The adjacent face loo wetlands support numerous resident and migrant wildlife species, including
newts, songbirds, egrets, herons, various raptors, barn swallows, and various species
of sparrows, the northern red-legged frog, Pacific chorus frogs, and northwest salamanders.
In addition to supporting a vast community of animals that depend on wetland habitat
to forage, migrate, and breed, wetlands also play a significant role in addressing impacts
related to climate change by providing flood control, sequestering carbon dioxide, and
filtering pollutants. Next slide, please. These properties are also culturally and historically
significant to the Wiyat area tribes. This slide shows a drawing of a pre-contact Wiyat
village in Humboldt Bay. The properties are located on the remnants of a pre-European
contact Weyot village and contain uniquely well preserved cultural resources.
Next slide, please.
The properties and surrounding area are located on a broader pre-colonial Weyot habitat site
significant to the larger Weyot tribal landscape of Ouija or Humboldt Bay.
Humboldt Bay also contains an island called Tulawat which is visible from the properties
and is shown on the slide here which is the sacred center of the Weyot universe and located
near these properties.
Humboldt Bay in general and these specific properties have been culturally and historically
significant to the Wiyot peoples since time immemorial.
Next slide please.
This slide shows an aerial photograph of the parcel where the house was to be constructed
prior to the house construction as marked by the yellow star with a red arrow indicating
where the wetland habitat approximately begins.
As you can see the properties are surrounded and immediately adjacent to the facelew wetlands
to the south and the west.
I'll now briefly review the permit history for the site.
In 1988, there was an LCP amendment
to rezone these properties and the surrounding area
as a rural residential instead of agricultural exclusive.
In September of 2017, the County of Humboldt
issued a CDP for the construction
of an 8,000 square foot residence
with an attached 1,000 square foot cellar,
four garage parking spaces, two driveway parking spaces
approximately 1,500 cubic yards of cotton fill. All of the development was to occur on the main
lot and no development was ever proposed or authorized by the CDP on the adjacent lot.
Where the house was proposed in the county CDP was just outside of the Coastal Commission's
appeal jurisdiction. Next slide please. The CDP contained numerous conditions that were
designed to protect the sensitive wetlands habitat, wetland buffer areas,
Esha and cultural resources on the property given the sensitive nature of these resources.
Condition number two was required to protect the native California blackberry as shown on the
slide and required respondents to retain the native blackberry. Native blackberry provides
cover foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of bird species including jays, sparrows, thrashers,
and tauhys and is culturally significant to the Wiyot area tribes as it was a traditional
food and medicinal plant. Next slide please. Condition number nine also required a 100 foot
wetland setback area as designated by the county's certified LCP. The county's LCP designates the
adjacent face loo wildlife area and associated riparian habitat as environmentally sensitive
habitat area. The county's LCP also requires that the adjacent area to any wetlands be protected by
by a wetland buffer area.
The properties here contain some wetland habitat,
but are largely comprised of 100 foot wide
wetland buffer area to protect the sensitive habitat.
The CDP required that no development could occur
within the wetland buffer areas on the site.
The condition was imposed to protect the sensitive habitat
located on the properties.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows a mural
for the Weyotte Tribes Cultural Center.
In addition, the county CDP contained a provision
requiring respondents to cease all work
in the immediate area and within a 50-foot buffer
if any cultural resources were discovered
until a qualified archeologist
and the appropriate tribal historic preservation officers
could be contacted to evaluate the discovery
and develop a treatment plan.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows the partially constructed house
taken from the nearby road.
Now I'll move into the violation history.
There are four main violations
that occurred at these properties,
including unpermitted grading and placement of gravel
to create an access road within the wetland buffer area,
major vegetation removal within the buffer area
and in Esha, construction of the home
partially within the wetland buffer area,
and at a significantly larger size
than originally permitted,
and undertaking development in known cultural resource areas,
which has the clear potential to disturb these resources.
Next slide, please.
Construction of the house first began
in approximately May of 2018,
but proceeded at a slow pace.
In January of 2022,
commissioned staff received a copy of a letter
from the County of Humboldt to respondents
stating that a stop work order had been posted
on the properties for violations of the County CDP.
The stop work order is shown on the slide here.
Next slide, please.
Further, the letter, an excerpt of which is shown
on the slide stated that after the stop work order
had been posted, construction continued on the properties,
causing additional resource damage.
This letter also indicated that the county was working
with the Wiot area tribes to find a qualified archeologist
to conduct a damage assessment.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows a photograph
of the unprimited access road and house,
which here has sensory grown with invasive vegetation.
After learning of the violation from the county,
commissioned staff began to work with the county
to ensure compliance with the stop work order and the CDP.
There are three primary violations of the county
documented that occurred on both properties,
which I'll explain in more detail.
Next slide, please.
In addition to the violations relating
to the construction of the house,
which I'll discuss later,
unpermitted grading and placement of gravel
was undertaken to create a road,
which is shown by the red arrow,
and it occurred on the adjacent parcel
where no development was ever authorized.
The dash yellow line shows the approximate
dividing property line between the main lot
with the partially constructed house
and the adjacent lot with the unpermitted road.
The unpermitted road also extends onto the main parcel
and was within the protected wetland buffer area
on both parcels.
You can see the wetland habitat on the left
of the photograph.
Next slide, please.
Second, major vegetation removal occurred
within the protected wetland buffer area and in Esha.
Some locations of vegetation removal
are shown by the yellow arrows,
although you can see from this photograph
that there were many locations where vegetation was mowed
and removed.
The vegetation that was removed included the native blackberry and other riparian vegetation
and is part of face slough, which is specifically identified in the Humboldt LCP as a type of
Asha.
After the removal of the native blackberry, invasive Himalayanberry has grown on the site
and is taking over the native blackberry plants.
Next slide, please.
This photograph was taken from the unpermitted road and shows the portion of the house that
was constructed within the wetland buffer area where no development was authorized according
to the CDP conditions. The home, as cited, was now in a location that was within the
Coastal Commission's appeal jurisdiction. Further, the home was dramatically different
in size and scale from the approved project. The CDP authorized an 8,000 square foot residence
with 1,500 cubic yards of cotton fill. Instead, the partially built residence was more than
two and a half times that size, and was approximately 21,000 square feet. In addition, there had
been 15,000 cubic yards of imported fill, ten times that which was authorized. For context,
that amount of fill is approximately 120 dump trucks worth of material that was imported
to the site, or approximately an additional 110 dump trucks worth of material that was
authorized. Next slide, please. This slide shows removed vegetation within the wetland
buffer area. As stated previously, the county CDP required conditions that
prohibited development within the wetland buffer area. The wetland buffer
and associated riparian vegetation provides critical habitat and ecological
functions and helps to capture contaminants and filter stormwater.
Development was specifically prohibited within the wetland buffer area due to
the sensitivity of these resources. However, respondents had constructed a
road and a portion of the house within this area in addition to removing the
sensitive vegetation all in violation of the CDP. Next slide please. This slide
shows the significantly larger house from the second story overlooking the
adjacent facelieu wetlands. Respondents initially attempted to amend the
original county CDP to resolve the violations to include the removal of the
unpermitted access road and the new location of the home as the home had
been built in a different location than originally permitted. This began the start of a time-consuming
and complex procedural history, whereby respondent works worked with Humboldt County to attempt
to resolve the violations, including through the CDP amendment and entering into a compliance
agreement with the county, which we will briefly explain now, but is covered in detail in the
staff report. Next slide, please. This slide shows construction materials on the property
with a portion of the house in the background.
Commission staff reviewed the CDP changes
and sent letters to the county conveying staff concerns
that the restoration plan submitted by respondents
to the county did not fully resolve the violations.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows the unpermitted road
and an excavator on the property,
next to mowed vegetation.
In August of 2022, the County Planning Commission
heard an action to amend the CDP.
And after significant public comment and discussion,
The matter was continued to September of 2022,
and after another hearing, it was postponed again.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows a photograph of the house
taken from within the Wetland Buffer area.
Commissioned staff were informed in June of 2023
that respondents submitted a new CDP modification
to the county requesting to remove unpermitted materials
and restore the properties to their pre-construction grade.
During this time, respondents had also entered
into a compliance agreement.
And while this compliance agreement
would have provided some additional mitigation measures,
the terms of this agreement had not
been incorporated into the amended CDP proposal.
The new CDP modification was approved by the County Planning
Commission and subsequently appealed
by two coastal commissioners in August of 2023.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows a corner of the house
that intrudes into the wetland buffer area.
And you can see the unpermitted road
and removed vegetation in the background.
At the Coastal Commission's March 2024 hearing,
the Commission heard and found
that a substantial issue existed
with respect to the grounds on which the appeal was filed
because the amended CDP
did not provide sufficient mitigation measures
for the archeological, cultural, and tribal resource impacts
and would not be consistent with the LCP.
An excerpt from the Commission's substantial issue finding
is shown on the slide here.
After the Commission's substantial issue finding,
The County requested that the Commission take the lead on addressing the LCP and CDP violations
in order to provide for an efficient, coordinated resolution.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows construction equipment in October of 2022 after the stop work order
was posted next to the partially constructed house.
The Executive Director sent a notice of intent to commence the CSUN desist order, restoration
order and administrative penalty proceedings in July of 2024 as a step towards resolving
the outstanding permit violations, civil liabilities, and LCP and CDP violations.
Throughout this time, Commissioned staff have coordinated closely with respondents, the We
Oughta area tribes, and county staff to develop a resolution that would restore the properties
and address the civil liabilities from the unpermitted development.
Next slide, please.
Now I'll turn to the jurisdictional requirements for the Commission to issue the proposed consent
orders which if approved will restore and protect the sensitive cultural
resources and habitat located at the property. First the consent, cease and
desist order is described more fully at pages 18 through 20 of the staff report
but the jurisdictional elements for the Commission to issue these orders has
been satisfied. The respondents undertook development as defined in the Coastal
Act in violation of the existing CDP on the main lot and with no coastal
development permit on the adjacent lot and so in this case both prongs of
section 30810 were satisfied. Therefore there is a basis to issue a cease and
desist order here to bring respondents into compliance with the Coastal Act.
Next slide please. This slide shows the unpermitted rocked road that is
currently regrowing with invasive vegetation. Now I'll turn to the
requirements for the Commission to issue the proposed restoration order. As
described more fully in the staff report on pages 20 to 25, the elements for the
commission to issue these orders have been satisfied. The unpermitted
development is clearly inconsistent with the conditions of a previously issued
CDP and the Coastal Act including the wetlands and Esha protection policies
and if left unaddressed it will cause continuing resource damage and
therefore there is a basis to issue a restoration order here. Next slide please.
This slide shows machinery located on the property with mowed vegetation next
to the unauthorized road in the background.
Next, I'll address the administrative penalty action.
Section 30821.3 gives the commission the authority
to impose administrative penalties
when someone is in violation of any provision
of the Coastal Act other than public access.
And just a note that Section 30821 of the Coastal Act
addresses administrative penalties
for public access violations.
As described in more detail in the staff report,
the unpermitted development included construction
a house significantly larger than originally permitted, removal of major vegetation including
native California blackberry, and construction of an access road and portions of a house
in the wetland buffer area, which was required to be protected by conditions of the CDP and
where no development could occur. Therefore, the commission may impose administrative
civil penalties for the natural resource violations. Next slide, please.
Section 308-1.3c incorporates the five factors from Section 308-20 as shown on the slide
here, as the basis for determining the amount of civil liability to impose, which we have
covered extensively in the staff report at pages 26-32.
The resources that were harmed by the unpermitted development, including the wetlands habitat,
Esha and cultural resources, are extremely sensitive, and these violations persisted
for an extended period of time, which had a detrimental impact on the wetlands habitat
both of the properties and at face lieu.
However, respondents' cooperation and diligence
in working with commission staff
saved the state time and resources
and avoided the need for lengthy and costly litigation.
Therefore, commission staff concluded
that a moderate penalty is justified here.
Staff recommends that the commission
adopt staff's recommendation
of the imposition of a monetary penalty,
as I will describe in detail in a few slides.
Next slide, please.
Now, the proposed resolution,
which includes three key provisions
that I'll explain in more detail.
First, respondents have agreed to restore
all areas impacted by the unpermitted development.
Next, respondents have agreed to transfer both parcels
in fee with the intent that the parcels
will be transferred to one or all of the Wiyot area tribes
at no cost to the receiving tribe,
in addition to paying $400,000 in administrative penalties.
Next slide, please.
The first component of the consent agreement
is the on-site restoration.
This photograph shows the unpermitted rock road,
which is still there,
but is now regrown with invasive grasses.
Restoration is needed to restore the properties
to their pre-violation state.
Respondents have agreed to submit and implement
a restoration plan to remove all items
of unpermitted development,
including the partially constructed house and road,
conduct remedial grading to return the properties
to their pre-violation condition,
install temporary erosion control measures,
remove non-native invasive plants,
and revegetate all impacted areas with native plants,
including native blackberry.
The properties have regrown with invasive vegetation
due to the impacts from the unprimited development,
and this vegetation will be removed
and replanted with native vegetation.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows a riparian area adjacent to the property,
which contains similar vegetation
to what some areas of the properties
will be revegetated with.
After the restoration work is complete,
properties will be monitored for a minimum of five years to ensure the restoration is successful.
If the restoration is unsuccessful, additional measures will be taken to ensure that the
restoration work is successful and the monitoring period will be extended. Next slide, please.
This slide shows the seals of the Wiot area tribes. Commissioned staff have worked to
understand and address the issues and concerns of the Wiot area tribes to incorporate them in the
proposed settlement and shape the entire consent agreement in a thoughtful way that addresses the
cultural impacts. The consent agreement requires a cultural resources survey and cultural materials
plan which will protect and preserve any cultural materials on the property. Next slide please.
In addition, the proposed consent agreement provides for funding for tribal cultural monitors
during all ground disturbance activities on the property. Next slide please. Next, the proposed
consent agreement requires respondents to transfer both parcels and fee which is a total of 6.1 acres
of land immediately adjacent to the wetlands which will be permanently protected. The property
lines of both parcels are shown on this slide. The intent is that one or all of the Wiyot area
tribes will accept the offer to dedicate returning ancestral land to its rightful stewards.
Next slide please. Finally, in addition to the transfer of the two properties through the
proposed consent agreement, respondents have agreed to resolve their Coastal Act liabilities
by paying a $400,000 in a cash penalty. $300,000 shall be paid to the violation
remediation account and the remaining $100,000 shall be paid directly to the grantee who accepts
the offer to dedicate fee titled to the properties. Next slide please. We are very excited that
respondents have agreed to the resolution of this matter which will not only include full
restoration of this area but also the opportunity to permanently protect these two parcels and the
critical wetlands habitat and cultural resources on these properties. This was a very serious
violation that took many years to resolve, but we believe that the proposed resolution
is one that will address the violation at hand in a thoughtful manner that will provide
significant cultural and habitat benefits. In closing, I want to thank respondents and
their council, Bradley Johnson, for working so cooperatively with us. Finally, I'd like
to thank all of the Weyot area tribes and the County of Humboldt Planning Department
who have been so instrumental in reaching this resolution.
Before concluding staff's presentation,
I'd like to turn it back over to Lisa
for a few remaining comments.
Thank you, Shelby.
As you've heard, this is a serious violation
that impacted wetlands habitat,
Esha, and cultural resources.
It's often hard for us to find resolutions
that not only deter future violations,
but also help compensate for the affected resources
and to the affected parties.
In the midst of a complicated situation,
that we've attempted to do so here.
As I said at the outset, this is a unique situation
in which, due to the value of the habitat
and cultural resources and the cooperation of respondents,
we've been able to craft a really creative
and forward-looking resolution that aims to address
the impacts while giving land back to the Weyotte tribes.
The settlement provides for a creative
and valuable resolution that we could not have required,
absent of settlement.
We're very pleased about the restoration
and permanent habitat protection
that this proposed resolution would provide.
We recommend that the commission approve
the proposed consent cease and desist order,
consent restoration order,
and consent administrative penalties
set forth in the staff report.
There are three motions for this matter
and they can be found on pages 10 through 12
of the staff report.
That concludes our presentation.
We're happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Hagee, thank you, Ms. Weyman.
Okay, now I will turn it over to Mr. Johnson
who may address the commission.
Thank you, sir.
You turn the mic on.
Yeah, good afternoon, Brad Johnson
on behalf of the respondents here.
I'm going to keep my comments very, very brief.
We agree with staff's recommendation in this matter.
We think it's a good resolution, and we ask that the commission
vote to approve the resolution.
And I'm here for any questions.
Thanks.
Wonderful.
Thank you very much, sir.
OK, we'll now take public comment on this issue.
Yes, we have tribal Janet Polk's Eoness
and Adam Cantor and Ted Hernandez.
If they would like to speak, go ahead.
I promoted Janet to panelists.
Go ahead and unmute yourself.
Okay, she declined it.
Adam, I've allowed you to speak,
if you'd like to make a comment.
Adam, you can unmute yourself by using star six.
I see you unmuted.
Good evening. Good morning, Council. Can you hear me, commissioners?
I'm sorry, can we, can you say that again?
All right, good afternoon, commissioners. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you better, yes.
Thank you. Yes, I'm just voicing support for the resolution, the tribal citizens and the community have had to,
and the ecosystem have had to deal with the repercussions of this illegal development for years now.
you know with the dilapidated house just on the you know in the viewshed of much of the
county on a daily basis it's just really disrespectful the amount of hubris that
and destruction that went into this site so i just want to support the resolution so we can
move quick to begin dealing with the restoration that needed now was needed yesterday thank you so
much. Next is Ted Hernandez Wyatt. Hello commissioners, my name is Ted Hernandez,
my family comes from the comes from Tula what and the mouth of the hill river and I'll be
happy that we have tribe and at the tiffle I and some communities come us in strong support
in preserving push cava our village located in the bounties of Mr. Shire's property
the University of California. This property is a strong site for us as we have people. It holds
many traditional knowledge for us in our medicine and ceremonies and we are hoping that we continue
to be able to preserve this sand and the wetlands that it sits on because as we have people, we want
to make sure everything that is prepared has given us is to preserve it and use it for what
he provided for us for it. So as a Tippo and as a WEYOT Travel member and a spiritual person,
I really support this and the staffs work on this and Mr. Steyer's work on this too. We turn this
back to the WEYOT Tribe and so that we can continue the healing of the land and our people and the
people not just WEYOT people but all people that are in Humboldt County. So thank you again for
allow me to speak and you know we just how do you recommend that you guys support this? Thank you.
Thank you Nixus. Janet, Ednes. Hey, unmute. Hello. My name is Janet Polk Eidsness and for more than
40 years I've worked in as an archaeologist in cultural resources management, convergent with
federal and state laws and policies and protections including the coastal act.
I'm very familiar with this place because I was the one that originally recorded the site in
1987 for the subdivision and the site had been mentioned by in 1918 or documented in 1918 by
the ethnographer Llewellyn Loud. First a general recommendation and I know money is hard to come
by, but I really urge the Coastal Commission to consider hiring a person like me, a cultural
resource manager, who is conversing in the laws and is able to bird-dog these plans and
projects and best practices so that such issues are avoided in the first place. And I applaud
you for hiring your now that is serving as a Tribal Outreach
Person Coordinator.
And that's one part of the job that I think I've done
and I have recently retired.
Nevertheless, specific comments for the staff report
is I want to commend Shelby, Raymond, and Melissa Kramer
and Josh Levine for their being available to respond
of questions and concerns throughout this history,
which seems to have spanned my whole career.
But I think it's clear that concise plans to remove
and restore the property to the best possible condition
without causing additional irreparable damage
to the Wiatt Tribal Cultural Resource is critical.
That means you have to have people
that are good at writing these documents,
they understand the terms of art
in cultural resource management and so forth.
So again, a specific process for monitoring
and compliant of cultural resources and compliance
in inadvertent archeological discoveries
and a treatment plan needs to be laid out.
This is called the cultural resources survey
cultural materials plan in the staff report which is not a standard term of art of best
practice language and that's again why I'm urging you to consider hiring someone even as a consultant.
It's arguable whether this tribal cultural resource which is a type of property defined
and a Senate Bill 18 can be restored to its pre-violation condition as directed by the
staff report. Okay. Hi. I have more but that's good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you Janet. Next
is Jennifer Savage followed by Mitch Silverstein and then followed by Penny Aaliyah and Adam
leverage. Good afternoon, Joe Harman, commissioners. Jennifer Savage, California policy associate
director for the Surfrider Foundation. There is an idea prevalent in our modern society
that a person should be able to do anything they want on their own property, and largely
they can. But we remain a society nonetheless, and so we strive to identify if and when a
property owner's actions impact people and wildlife beyond the property's boundaries.
In this particular case, the harm was done to wetland habitat, an ecosystem critical
to the larger world that exists regardless of property lines, and to an area of exceptional
cultural and historical importance to the Wiat people.
Your staff has done an exceptional job of documenting and explaining all of this, and
we strongly support this specific consent action and are appreciative of the resolution
reached.
I also return to the more general idea
that permits exist to protect human rights and health
and the natural world upon which we all depend.
That's why we have coastal development permits.
That's why we have planning commissions.
That's why we have a coastal commission attempting
to ensure protection through permitting
and the inclusion of thoughtful, reasonable conditions.
Why requiring developers to adhere to these permits
is so important and while enforcement is critical.
Otherwise, why bother?
We thank your team for their tireless efforts
on this and all violations,
and we request you support this action today.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mitch Silverstein is not on here, that was accident.
So we removed him off.
So next is Penny Aaliyah, followed by Adam Leverance.
Penny, if you can unmute yourself.
Thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment
on this rather stunning destruction
natural and cultural resources. I have already submitted written comments so I will try to be
brief. First, a huge thank you to staff for their work on this and what appears to be a good
resolution on many levels. It's very evident that a lot of time and effort went into this order and
I thank the respondents for their cooperation. I support this strong work. Staff's first addendum
addresses my written comment concerns about the length of the monitoring period by noting that
if the restoration has not been successful in part or in whole, respondents shall submit a revised
restoration plan. Submitting a restoration plan and completing restoration are two very different
things. My concern after a few decades of working with respondents on restoration, following
destruction from development, and I've never seen anything quite like this, is that the job never
really gets fully accomplished because oversight tends to diminish out of sight, out of mind,
so to speak. This is a very, very large area to restore and will require a lot of oversight.
I'm just looking for assurances that very strict monitoring will in fact occur,
not just another requirement for more words on paper. More words on paper doesn't get it done.
As for the cultural resources, the Bear River Band letter states that the harm is irreversible.
This is a sad and heartbreaking statement, and certainly speaks to the massive damage done in
this area. I'm just now seeing Ms. Ides' comments in Addendum 2. Her thoughtful comments and her
testimony just now provide great insight. I trust staff will continue to work closely with her and
and adopt her most excellent recommendations.
And yes, please hire her.
I'm sure she would be happy,
thrilled to come out of retirement
to shepherd this project.
She is a good person.
And this sounds like her kind of thing.
In closing, I will repeat that when there is this much damage
to environmental and cultural resources,
there cannot be too much monitoring or too much oversight.
And as I stated in my comment letter,
compliance with AB 52 is mandatory.
It is not optional.
Thank you.
And I'm sorry for being emotional,
but this is just rather,
just rather upsetting.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Adam Leverins.
And we also have Michelle Vassal from tribal.
I did it.
Good afternoon.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes, we hear you perfectly.
Thank you.
Adam Leverins.
The wind has really picked up here.
I apologize if there's any feedback from that.
No, we don't hear it, just you.
Great.
Thank you to commission staff, the tribes, again,
the public commenters, and the respondents or violators,
whatever we're calling them.
I appreciate that this sort of a resolution have developed.
And in spite of that level of appreciation,
I imagine I will sound somewhat indignant,
and I apologize for that.
But as I read through these materials,
the number of violations and the extent of violation
just astounded me, and I found myself wondering
how these things could even happen.
And then in the materials,
I read that one of the property owners
as a builder with an engineering background,
and got an alternative owner-builder permit for the project,
which allowed some level of self-monitoring
and self-approval of code inspections.
That is a problem, I think,
if the LCP in a particular area allows such a thing.
And I have seen too many experiences
where individuals or corporations with a lot of money
seem to feel that the rules aren't for them.
And I hope the severity of the penalties here
will be used in promotional materials or case studies.
And some people, even the amounts here
would be insignificant.
And I'm not against wealth and affluence.
I'm against when it leads to a level of entitlement
that you can so severely violate so many things
And I apologize, First Nations issue has been a passion of mine for decades and any way
to create a deterrent in the future to this and these substantial dollar amounts, I still
don't think are enough to do that, but perhaps publicity, getting this out and the continued
monitoring.
I've found that people that feel they can skirt the rules will experience a consequence
and then feel they can skirt the rules again in the not too distant future.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Next is Michelle Visal.
Michelle, have you got a mute?
I did.
Oh, perfect.
Thank you.
Hello.
Greetings, commissioners.
My name is Michelle Vassafel.
I'm the travel administrator for the Weyot tribe.
The Native American Grace Protection Act was put into place to combat the destruction of
culturally and historically significant properties and to consider the consequences that proposed
actions would have on historic properties.
AB 52 was passed to promote the involvement of California Native American tribes in the
decision-making process when it comes to identifying and developing mitigation for impacts to resources
of importance to their culture.
like the one on the agenda today Hachkawah village.
All three local tippos responded to Schneider's permit
application and notified and worked with the County
of Humboldt to notice the presence of the site
and ensure the permit required the development
to remain a distance from the cultural site
and leave the site undisturbed.
The violations included the applicant mowing
over a significant cultural site with a CAT 310 excavator
in violation of the permit.
When the tribe and others alerted the county to the violations, we were met with public displays of racism threats, accusation called buyers, among other offensive language.
The tribes persisted toward the protection of the sites or the site anyway. The Coastal Commission staff worked over the course of many years with the tribe.
We are thankful for the respect, the adherence to the law, and the interest in protecting California's coastal lands, which include tribal cultural sites.
Our only concern regarding the settlement agreement
have been around the compliance with the agreement.
During the violation period, local government,
the Humboldt County Planning and Building Department
issued numerous stop work orders
which were blatantly disregarded
and the illegal work continued.
Coastal Commission staff have assured the tribe
that penalties and monitoring associated with this action
will ensure compliance with the settlement.
For these reasons, the Wiat Tribe respectfully urges
the California Coastal Commission to support the Schneider Settlement Agreement presented
to you by our staff. This agreement will allow the Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria, and Bear
River Band of Bronerville Rancheria to work in partnership to ensure the long-term protection
of Hachkavua, which village this place is a sacred and special place to the Wiyot people.
Shwach. That completes our public comments.
you very much Simone. Okay and now I will return to Mr. Johnson to see if he has
any follow-up comments he would like to make. I think you have about 24
minutes remaining. Yeah I don't intend to use them. You presented, I think you've
heard some comments that I think are misinformed from some of the commenters.
I don't think I need to go into that at this hearing but I do want this
commission to understand that not everything you've heard is is accurate
or true. As it is, as I said before, we do support this resolution and we ask the
commission to vote in favor. Thank you. Thank you sir. And now back to our staff.
Would you like to respond to any issues raised Ms. Hagee? Yes we would, just
briefly. And as to the last response by Bradley Johnson, we didn't base anything
that we did on the local process. We looked at this from a Coastal Act
perspective and took a fresh look at it. So I just want to assure you that we
evaluated it under our authority and didn't take any action based on anything
that happened earlier on. I will just respond quickly to a couple of things
and then I'll see if my colleagues want to further.
Janet Eisner raised a number of issues
and I would just note that we put her full letter
and our full response to it in the record this morning
in the second addendum posted this morning.
We only got her letter late last night
and so we had a little bit of a scramble getting it listed.
But I just wanted to assure her that the orders,
if you read them, they're replete with opportunities
for the tribes to weigh in.
We did that intentionally and it's every single step
from the beginning where the respondent
makes the suggestion for a cultural person
to be their lead on that issue
through to the decision as to whether
or not additional monitoring is needed.
And they require, our orders require
the very first step is the identification of an expert
and that expert is to be approved
by the Coastal Commission staff.
So we're confident that we'll be able to weigh in
and try to find somebody and ensure that somebody
with expertise, as Miss Idness suggested, would be on staff.
And her first comment about hiring additional staff,
we, of course, would love to have additional tribal staff
and enforcement staff.
But we're very gratified that we do have our new tribal liaison.
And she barely got her foot in the door
when we grabbed her and had her advised on this.
And so in addition to getting a lot of input
from the tribes over the last year,
we got specific input from our own new tribal liaison
and we're very pleased that we were able to do that.
Miss Aliyah, moving on, suggested that monitoring conditions
should be strengthened and I just would note that
and we addressed her comments in our first addendum
that was filed yesterday, the order requires monitoring
to be for five years as a requirement if it's successful
And if it's not successful, the monitoring continues until such time as the standard
set forth in the order have been met.
So there's no end date for that.
And we have that as an incentive to have people get everything done within the five years.
We'd strongly prefer to have everything done as quickly as possible.
Let me just see.
There was also comment about the local builder, owner builder exception.
And that is a local rule.
We don't have any control over that.
We understand it from talking to the county
that it was designed to address rural activities
that are far out and difficult for the county to get to,
to oversee.
But having said that, that doesn't exclude anybody
from compliance with the Coastal Act.
And we use the Coastal Act as our standard of review.
And then lastly, Michelle Vessel made the observation
that enforcement and compliance is very important
and we couldn't agree more.
And this agreement has stipulated penalties in it
of $1,000 per day per violation and those escalate.
So we are hopeful that that's an incentive
to require somebody to, to inspire somebody
to comply with their permit.
There's also a provision in there that's really unusual
that says, should he not make any of the payments
or do any of the other things that are required
under the order, it accelerates the payment requirement
to be earlier in time.
So I think that's, those are the only points I had.
Does, Robin, do you have anything you'd want to add?
No.
Okay, great, I think that's it,
but we'd be happy to answer any questions
that commission might have, thank you.
Great, thank you very much.
With that, I'll now close the public hearing
and return to the commission for deliberations.
Questions, comments?
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks.
I have a couple questions and I'll just start with those.
So, first of all, I just want to dig in a little bit.
Was it the expansion onto the additional lot
that resulted in the Coastal Commission getting involved?
That's what I was a little unclear on.
There are several issues.
One, the enforcement provisions of the Coastal Act,
as you probably know, are for the entire coastal zone.
So whether or not we have permit jurisdiction,
we still have enforcement jurisdiction.
So we could take action and have taken action
in many cases where there's local jurisdiction
over the permit.
In this case, there is also the permit issue,
which is that part of the,
part of one parcel,
part of the parcels are in
Coastal Act original juris, or appeals jurisdiction.
And although the CDP issued by the local government
did not have it originally expanding development
into our jurisdiction,
the as-built development did go into our jurisdiction.
Is that the answer?
Yeah. I mean, I just want to say, as I read through this staff report, I was just, as
pretty much everyone has stated, I just became more and more stunned at the violation here
and how long it can, I was concerned that they got as far as they did and did the damage
they caused. The cultural damage is so just incredibly disturbing. The natural resource
damage is incredibly disturbing and I'm I just wish that I know that the county
tried to stop them but it would have been I would have loved it to see this
not go as far as it did with the damage that it did. My second question is so the
land the underlying fee will be transferred to the Wiyot tribes and when
is that gonna happen? Those are my questions. Under the orders the
respondents have 60 days to submit the legal documentation, the offer to
dedicate the land, and once that's done, I think I can't remember the
next deadline after that, but we will quickly transfer it. It's in our interest.
I will say one thing, which there are three Wiat tribes involved here, and
they've been working with us very collaboratively with us and with each
other, and so we're not sure whether or not they just need to form a nonprofit
so that we can transfer it to the non-profit organization.
So that will hopefully be done simultaneously
with the 60 days for the preparation of the legal paperwork.
Okay, through the chair,
I just want to follow up just for a minute.
All right, so we have the penalty amount
which goes to the non-profit, right?
I just want to track this.
Shall we?
There's 400,000 and 300,000 of it is going
to the violation remediation account.
100,000 of it is going to whoever ends up holding
the property, whatever entity.
And that was, but that's in addition to them being paid
for the cultural monitors during the work
and the work being paid for to restore
the cultural and economic and environmental issues
by the respondent.
So the 100,000 was intended as a stewardship.
Sometimes when we give land to people,
they, it's difficult because they need to have
the resources to be able to manage it and to deal with it.
And so we wanted to fund upfront the ability
for the nonprofit and the tribes
to be able to manage the property.
Yeah, I mean, that seems really important,
but I think one thing when I look at,
so the work will start potentially prior to the time
it's transferred to the nonprofit or the tribal group.
and so the monitors will be there once it's transferred.
They will be the owners of the land.
They will be monitoring, but this is going to be their land
that they are caring for.
So as these things come down the house
and all the restoration occurs,
they will be there as the owners, right?
So that's a different level of oversight and is it or not?
Am I, Shelby, looks like you're nodding.
I think we are hopeful that the vast majority of the work will be done before tidal transfers.
We don't want the tribes to have to let Schneider onto the property that they own, and it seems
cleaner to have him do the work while he owns the property and then transfer it.
And it will take some time to get all that effectuated, but we just wanted to have the
first deadline for the transfer to be quick so that we'd be able to tell that it's really
going to happen.
Well, I would be concerned if they're the ones doing the work.
Let's just start with that, given I am concerned about the complete lack of responsiveness to
what the county was trying to do with the stop work orders.
So who will be providing the oversight to make sure that the restoration work, in addition
to the tribal monitors, that the restoration work is going to be proceeding in a way that's
compliant with the Coastal Act?
To the extent we can, we will be doing that.
We have a local enforcement person up there, Josh Levine, who was mentioned in
some of the public comments, he's been very involved in this.
And to the extent we can oversee it, we will do so.
We always have the violators do the rest, the restoration.
We don't have, it's not like Superfund under the federal statute where we can go
in and do it and cost recover.
We don't have any staff to do that, so we, we work with them.
And the, the plans that, if you read the order, it's pretty detailed, and
we've tried to set forth standards so it'll be easier
to monitor compliance with the work.
Yeah, I get that.
At least I was just this idea of the act,
like because he was the owner builder
and now I'm imagining the violator themselves
doing the actual work versus hiring somebody to do it.
Is the plan for the actual owner to do the work?
That's to the representative.
Or would they be hiring a restoration firm to do it?
Or what is the plan?
So there are approved specialists that are going to be involved in the restoration work,
plus the tribal monitors.
The exact ownership at the time, hopefully it'll happen soon and the ownership will have
its own track, so I'm not sure they're going to completely line up.
But the idea is that you restore, you have a full fee transfer, so that the tribes or
the other grantee are the owners mm-hmm hopefully that's clearer I think it is
now I mean it was but I just it's a little I'm just trying to wrap my head
around to make to feel confident about the restoration so that's mr. Johnson
yes okay yeah Brad Johnson on behalf of respondents so dr. Hart I respect your
take on things here, but I think that there are some important facts and
documents in the record that it doesn't seem apparent that you've read or
reviewed regarding... Generally I review pretty much everything. Yeah, did you
read William Rich Associates' archaeology report on the site? I have to admit I did
not. Okay, that's the only that is the only document that was prepared by an
archaeologist that was retained by the tribes through the county. It was paid
for by Mr. Schneider but he did not engage that archaeologist. That
archaeologist was chosen chosen by the tribes and contracted through the county.
William Rich Associates spent three days on site and excavated the area where the
cultural resources were thought to or known to exist. The area that had been
mode and there are report is unequivocal unequivocal that the activity did not
result in the destruction of any cultural resources on the site and did
not result in the destruction of the site's ability to convey cultural
significance this report was finalized in May of 2022 before it was finalized
William Rich Associates had issued a preliminary report for review by the
tribes and by the county. And Janet Idesness who we saw earlier wrote in a
memo responding to this draft report that she agreed with its conclusion that
the activity did not result in a significant impact to the cultural
resources. I also want to clarify some statements regarding the size of the
house. The house itself, the structure is exactly the structure that was approved
and submitted to the county. The footprint, I want to clarify, was 8,000
square feet with the thousand foot seller in a garage, but it's a
multi-story house. So the house was not significantly larger than originally
permitted by the county. That's just false. It's the exact same footprint. Now, the
The issue with the location of the house is that it's approximately 10 feet southward
of where it was originally proposed to be sited.
So the house itself, when we get into the 100 foot setback, has a single corner that's
about a 10 foot corner of one portion of the house that extends into the 100 foot setback.
So I want to make that fact clear.
The road is an issue.
The road does extend, that rock road, the access road, does extend into the hundred
foot setback area.
There's nothing in the record that indicates that the house resulted in the destruction
of any wetlands or Esha.
In fact, the house is constructed on a site as a former quarry that had been excavated
to provide fill material for an auto mall and some other uses in the county
for an airfield in the county. So these are just some exemplars of the types of
facts that have not been I think made sufficiently clear to the Commission and
I raised them only not to distract from our goal here which is to move forward
with this resolution which we do agree is a good resolution but I do hope that
that it tempers some of what I think is some perhaps misconceptions about what
actually happened. And there are some misconceptions about what actually
happened with the stop orders as well that I don't think I need to go into. I
just wanted to help us all understand that this is a hearing focused on a
resolution. It isn't a complete evidentiary hearing and I think that's
important just keep in mind so as far as the work that was done Mr. Schneider
did not do the work did not construct the house and of course he's not he
doesn't run a business that does that work and so folks that are properly
qualified would be hired to do the restoration work thank you sir all right
thank you okay I don't want to belabor this anymore but I will say you're
representing your client admirably.
But really what I want to turn to is just my final remarks,
unless you want to respond to that Lisa,
but before you do because I want to conclude my remarks
is that I just want to thank everyone involved in this.
Every day I'm proud to be a commissioner
on this commission no more than today.
I can't thank you enough.
It's an enormous violation
and to have a land back provision
that you want to talk about environmental justice,
there is no more just result than the one here.
And I just want to express my appreciation
on my behalf for the resolution here and all your work.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Kelly.
I just want to align myself with the comments
of Vice Chair Hart and just mention that I think
One of the things to keep in mind as we move forward,
and I appreciate staff's thorough report here
and will support the motion when made,
I have concerns generally,
not specifically about this project,
but maybe specifically about this project
with respect to the ongoing cost to maintain
and provide the, support the cultural resources,
the environmentally sensitive habitat
and ensure that we are not passing on a burden
to the future holders of this land
that our requirements and regulations will ultimately
make it more challenging to uphold the requirements.
And so I appreciate what was mentioned by staff
in terms of the funds going to support
the ultimate land holders in this
and appreciate the land back provision.
I think it's really remarkable.
But also just wanna be mindful of what the ultimate cost is
to continue to support and maintain
this incredibly important land.
And so just want to be thinking about that
as we move forward that sometimes a gift is not a gift
when you're required to uphold certain requirements.
And so to think about that as we maybe pursue
some of these things down the road, thanks.
Thank you and I was remiss, Miss Hagy,
I'll turn to you, apologies.
And I apologize because this is gonna be
a little more negative than I was hoping we would end,
but I wanna correct the record.
We did read the 2022 report
and I just would wanna note for the record
that that focused on crushing or breaking of objects
and we realized that's in a very important part
of archeological assessments, but it's not the only thing.
And the damage is not limited to just crushing or breaking.
Harm can be from displacement.
They odor screen or rebury objects properly.
Oxidation, exposure to the elements or anything else
that disturbs the items.
So we took into account what we saw as a more global concern
about protection of cultural resources.
And I wanted to clarify that.
And the size of the structure,
as you know from being coastal commissioners,
we look at the size of the structure,
not just the footprint.
And we think that there were issues here
with both the footprint and the size of the structure,
but it was significantly larger, as we said,
than it was permitted.
And lastly, we didn't, we were very careful
in our staff report, in our orders,
to distinguish between wetlands and wetlands buffer.
This is right on the edge of the wetlands,
as you saw from the photos,
and we were concerned about the wetlands buffer,
and we did not allege anything that was not supported
by the geographical locations.
And then lastly, I just wanted to address
Commissioner Kelly's issue about,
that is one reason why we were thinking
it might work better to have the work done
before title transfers.
We really don't want the tribes to get stuck holding the bag.
The idea is that these orders should be implemented first
so that they will get property that is restored
to the best of our ability to do so
after the restoration plan is implemented.
And the only other thing is that these are properties
that are very visible from the main road.
We will know if the restoration work isn't being carried out
because our staff see it on their drive
into work in the Arcata office every day.
Thank you very much.
Well, before I turn to Commissioner Wilson
for his comments and think a motion,
I'm going to take my prerogative to maybe just bring it back
to reflect on what an important moment this is.
And I appreciate the fulsome conversation,
but this is a truly incredible result
out of a very challenging situation.
My gratitude, sincere gratitude to our staff
and to the violator for coming to the table
and getting to this resolution.
The land back provision as my colleagues have stated
in particular, is remarkable.
And it's something to be celebrated today.
I know it's in line with the priorities
from our governor, hugely important.
And this is so serious, but I do feel a sense of,
frankly, joy about the outcome.
So I just wanted to take this opportunity
to remind us all of the incredible work
that has brought us to this moment
And how I sincerely hope this is the beginning
of many such resolutions and the complexity
that underscores this is a testament to our staffs.
Just incredible, incredible work.
So with that said, from my perspective
and great gratitude to all involved
and all that will continue to be involved,
I'll turn it over to Commissioner Wilson.
Thank you, Chair.
A couple of things.
At first, because some things were said that are outside what I was planning to talk about,
I want to just veer into that just for a moment and couch that or basically start with everything
in terms of my decision here today is from the Coastal Act perspective.
There was something that said about the county ordinance I don't want to speak to just for
a second, which was the owner builder ordinance, which is very unique, and I think Humboldt
county might be the only county in the state of California that has this. It was an ordinance
that was, I think, put on the books in 1987. I think I was still a teenager. And it was
to streamline permitting for back-to-the-landers to build homes with local resources in general,
and specifically around trees that they would cut themselves and build for their own homes.
I actually grew up, my childhood, you know, I partially grew up in a house that was the
first permitted structure under this ordinance and it was what people would might call a
cabin today and it was probably 800 square feet or so still exists and still has a wonderful
family living in it today.
But essentially, it was an affordable housing ordinance.
But it has been used in ways that probably was not
in its original intention, for some anyway.
Certainly, I don't think when it was enacted
that there was anyone projected that it
would be used for a permit for 8,000 square feet,
much less 21,000 square feet.
And as we heard today, that permit wasn't necessarily,
the construction wasn't being done necessarily
by the person who got the permit.
In its original intent, it was supposed to be the person
who got the permit was the one driving the nails
and pouring the concrete or doing the stuff.
And so I just say, we've kind of gotten afar from that
and I wanna say that the county planning staff
looking at this and we're trying to reevaluate what was the intent then
and what's kind of happening with it now. So I just want to like put
that out there just so people understand that part of the arc, I guess, of the
story. Also I would want to put out that if anyone's interested in sort of the
arc of this story, which is very interesting, I recommend going to our
local online media service, Lost Coast Outpost, for a series of articles that I
I think, help illuminate sort of where this is gone
and the storyline associated with that.
It's a little less technical
than what we have in our staff report,
but it's interesting nonetheless.
So kind of in my more prepared statements,
I just wanna thank the Coastal Commission staff,
especially our North Coast staff
and especially our enforcement staff,
some of which are one and the same,
but I think they've just done a wonderful job working with,
and again, thanking the Humboldt County Planning Department
and the efforts that they did to,
once the issues were illuminated,
we're able to address this in the best way possible
and work towards that.
I want to thank the Wiyot tribe and the Bear River Band,
of Roanerville Rancheria and the Blue Lake Rancheria
for their efforts and their patience
and their grace in this process.
I think it's in, there are others.
I've known most of the people in this issue or episode,
probably two decades or more,
So both in socially and working on projects and those sorts of things in the past.
So this isn't unfamiliar to me.
The site is in my superficial district.
Drive past it just yesterday, drove past it just yesterday, and people can see it.
So it's part of the Humboldt Bay landscape.
I just want to be thankful for everyone,
including the respondents for working collaboratively
to get to this point.
I think it's, I want to really focus on that.
There is some history and again,
people can talk about that
and I think it's relevant and real,
but I want to focus on the forward motion of this,
which is in a very positive perspective
in that we're coming to a conclusion that I think ever,
you know, that we're, that that is going to get us somewhere
that's just much more,
I keep using this word positive over and over,
but really it's just more constructive
and really getting us where we need to be,
especially with the transfer of property
and those sorts of things.
I'm grateful for the protection
of this culturally significant site
and the sensitive habitats that are in and adjacent to it.
and the return to We Got People
is just an extremely important step forward.
And I look forward here, I'm using forward a lot now,
I look forward to our community moving forward
and getting this and moving into
the more positive part of this storyline.
And with that, I can make the first motion as we do this.
I move that the Commission issue consent cease and desist order number CCC-26-CD-01 to Travis
Schneider and Stephanie Bodie pursuant to the staff recommendation, and I recommend
a yes vote.
I will second.
Thank you.
Who seconded?
Ah, thank you.
That was a motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner O'Malley.
May we have a roll call vote, please?
Yes.
Commissioner Hart?
Yes.
Heart?
Yes.
Commissioner Jackson?
Aye.
Jackson?
Yes.
Commissioner Kelly?
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lopez?
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Kalmick?
Yes.
Kalmick, yes.
Commissioner Nodhoff?
Aye.
Nodhoff, yes.
Commissioner Moreno?
Moreno, yes.
Moreno, yes.
Commissioner Wilson?
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante?
Escalante, yes.
Chair, Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Great.
This is motion 2 of 3.
I move that the commission issue consent restoration order
number CCC-26-RO-01 to Travis Schneider and Stephanie
Bodie pursuant to the staff recommendation.
And I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
Say motion by Commissioner Wilson,
a second by Commissioner O'Malley.
They're asking for a yes vote.
roll call vote please
commissioner jackson
jackson yes commissioner kelly
kelly yes commissioner lopez
lopez yes commissioner calmick
calmick yes commissioner nothoff
nothoff yes commissioner moreno
moreno yes
moreno yes commissioner wilson
wilson yes commissioner o'mally yes
o'mally yes commissioner eskalante
Escalante yes, Commissioner Hart?
Yes.
Hart yes, Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon yes, the vote is unanimous.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
Great, motion number three.
I move that the Commission issue consent administrative
penalty number CCC-26-AP3-01 pursuant to section 30821.3
of the Coastal Act to Travis Schneider and Stephanie
Bodie pursuant to staff recommendations.
I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
Motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner O'Malley.
May we have a roll call vote, please?
Commissioner Kelly?
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lopez?
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Kalmick?
Yes.
Kalmick, yes.
Commissioner Knothoff?
Aye.
Knothoff, yes.
Commissioner Moreno?
Moreno, yes.
Moreno, yes.
Commissioner Wilson?
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes.
O'Malley yes. Commissioner Escalante. Yes. Escalante yes. Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart
yes. Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson yes. Chair Harmon. Yes. Yes the vote is
unanimous. Thank you. Okay with that, that item is finished and we will go to
lunch. If you could all please be back at 2.05 to begin. That would be great. Thank
thank you. Okay. Thank you, everyone. Hope you all had a good lunch. Everybody? Okay.
We are back in session. And we are now at item 10, I believe.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Item 10 is the deputy director's report for the North Coast District,
which includes one amendment for development in Preston City Harbor area. In addition,
I would note that there are two emergency permits reported in the North Coast report.
The first is an emergency permit issued to Caltrans in December.
It authorized additional rock slope protection near the previously approved Westport Slide
Emergency Repair Project at Blues Beach in northern Mendocino County.
Unavoidable impacts associated with the heavy equipment utilized for the Westport repair
had been disturbing adjacent resource areas and that necessitated immediate action to
mitigate the disturbance and minimize damage to sensitive resources in the vibration impact
zone of those activities.
The second emergency permit was authorized in January to allow California Department
of Fish and Wildlife and Del Norte County to mechanically breach the sandbar located
between Lake Earl and Lake Talawoc Lagoon Complex and the Pacific Ocean in Del Norfolk County.
In this case, winter storms had resulted in rising lagoon levels posing a flooding threat
to adjacent infrastructure. Therefore, the sandbar breaching was necessary to minimize
that flood risk. With regard to the one permit amendment being reported to you today, staff is
not aware of any opposition to this item, and we are asking whether three or more commissioners
object and we are available for questions. Thank you very much. Before I
get to questions are there any ex partes? No any public comments? None. Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart has a question Ms. Gray. On the cabin that's being constructed the
ADA cabin? Do you know? Yes. Which is fantastic. Is it two two two of them? It's
two. So do you know what their policy is going to be about making those available
to the non ADA public like is there a time of day because I just would hope
that they would be used all the time. I know that's minor, seems minor but it's
actually kind of a big deal towards the use. The use timing? So there's a certain
time of day normally that park departments say okay if the ADA cabin is
not reserved by 5 p.m. or 4 p.m. or whatever and then it can be released to
the general public just so that it gets maximum use. So I was curious if they if
you know of their policy or if you could ask them that they have so they have a
policy. I do not know the policy but I will I'll dig into it and I will find out.
We'll work with them to get it right. Thanks. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?
Seeing none, do any commissioners object to any of the items in the deputy
director's report. Seeing no objections, the commission can
curse. No, I'm 11 be please.
Item 11 B is an LCP amendment for Humboldt County. Kate
McNamara, a coastal program analyst in our North Coast
District will be giving the presentation.
Thank you, Shannon. I'm gonna wait for the presentation to be
pulled up.
That's not the right presentation. We're looking for
Welcome back. You're welcome.
Good afternoon. Item W11B is an LCP amendment from the county of Humboldt for the introduction of outdoor lighting regulations.
Please note that an addendum was prepared and posted to our website yesterday, which recommends changes to the motion and resolution and which provides suggested modifications and updated findings, which I'll go over in the coming slides.
standards for residential, agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses. The IP
amendment was developed using dark-sky international principles and includes
general requirements that outdoor lighting for all types of uses must be
used only when necessary for active use or safety be confined to the property,
fully shielded, and directed downward and away from neighboring properties, public
rights-of-way, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and the night sky.
Brightness limits are set at 1,100 lumens for residential uses and 3,200 lumens for agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses.
These limits were also derived from Dark Sky International principles and slightly increased based on the local availability of bulbs and fixtures.
The regulations also identify prohibited lighting types, including aerial lasers, search lights, mercury vapor lights, flashing lights, low-pressure sodium fixtures, and eddy lighting that creates distractions to the traveling public.
Lighting listed as exempt from the standards includes temporary holiday decorations, flag
illumination with narrow beam, suncheck to U.S. flag code, string lights under 2700 Kelvin turned
off by 10 p.m., emergency lighting, and motion activated fixtures with five minute time limits
which cannot be triggered from outside of the property boundary. Exempt lighting must not
trespass onto neighboring properties, Esha or the night sky. Finally, the regulations require that
all new or modified projects must submit a lighting plan for conformance review.
Next slide please.
Briefly I'll go over some of the metrics that are used in the regulations to articulate
the ways in which lighting is measured.
Aluminum is a standard unit that measures the amount of visible light emitted by a lighting
source and is often quantified using foot candles as seen in the image on the right.
Correlated color temperature, or CCT, is related to a light's color or warmth and is measured
in Kelvin, with yellowish light being a lower number of Kelvin and blueish light being a
higher number of Kelvin. This is depicted in the middle and left images. The amendment
as submitted requires lower levels of Kelvin specifically for parking lots and string lights.
Next slide, please. Since publication of the staff report, public comments were received
and staff coordinated further with the county to address and respond to comments. A comment
letter from Humboldt Waterkeeper included and posted in the correspondence packet requests
that certain additional standards be applied to better protect coastal resources from nighttime
lighting impacts, primarily related to expanding the CCT limit to all uses and not just parking
lots and string lights. In response to these comments, county staff acknowledged that there
had been an intent and during the local adoption process to apply CCT limits more broadly than
just to parking lots, but that standard was inadvertently omitted. The county provided
suggested modification language to include this standard for agricultural, commercial and
industrial uses and also adds public facility uses. The addendum includes the suggested
modifications that staff is now recommending and also includes updated motions and findings
to support the suggested modifications. Commissioned staff also recommends one
additional suggested modification to apply the 2700 Kelvin limit to residential uses as well.
Next slide please. As mentioned, staff is recommending two suggested modifications
in the addendum. The updated findings in the addendum identify that the modifications are
needed for conformity of the IP standards with Esha protection policies and the county's six
LUPs. While applying a 2700 Kelvin CCT limit to parking lots and string lights is appropriate,
by not extending this color temperature limit to all other areas and uses, it could result in
degradation of Esha and parks and recreation areas, conflicting with the LUP requirements.
Humboldt County's rural setting includes extensive parks, recreation areas, and sensitive habitat
adjacent to residential, commercial, and industrial land throughout all six LUP planning areas.
High-color temperature bulbs, typically more than 3,000 kelvins, produce blue light,
which scatters and creates sky glue, reducing star visibility and disrupting ecological health
and migratory bird navigation of which Humboldt County's coast is within the Pacific Flyway.
The standards included in the regulations to prevent light trespass such as shielding and
directing light downward and away from Esha cannot entirely diffuse light accumulation in
the atmosphere. Therefore, staff believed it is appropriate and required for LEP conformity to
apply these CCT limits as recommended in the addendum. Next slide please. In conclusion,
The proposed amendment with suggested modifications will preserve dark skies,
reduce light pollution and trespass, and protect coastal resources consistent with the county's
six certified land use plans. The two motions necessary to certify this LCP amendment with
suggested modifications are found on pages two and three of the addendum. This concludes staff
presentation and we are available for questions. Thank you. Great, thank you very much. Are there
Are there any ex partes to report on this item?
Okay, seeing none, then I will open the public hearing
and we'll begin with a local government representative.
Okay, so Jennifer Colt.
There should be a Sylvia Van Roan, but we don't see her.
So Jennifer Colt, I've moved you to panelists.
Hi everyone, can you hear me okay?
Yes.
Thank you very much.
Jennifer Colt with Humboldt Waterkeeper.
Sylvia had to head out to another meeting.
So we submitted comments.
I mean, we submitted a speaker card on this item
in opposition to the staff recommendation
before we had a chance to read the addendum.
So we are actually strongly in favor
of the staff recommendations within the addendum.
And we really want to thank the Coney staff
and the Coastal Commission staff
for working to include these color temperature limits
because as Cade said so eloquently just now
and in the staff report,
it doesn't matter how well shielded those lights are.
If the lights are blue or white,
they are causing a glow that impacts people
in the night sky and migrating birds
and really any wildlife on the ground as well
since the light shining down.
So we really appreciate the addition of that,
especially in the industrial and the commercial uses,
because as you know,
there's a proposed offshore wind terminal
that's in the works for our region.
And this would be the biggest industrial development
on Humboldt Bay in 50 years.
So the lighting issues there are top of mind
for a lot of people.
So thank you very much.
And sorry to make you go through the motions
when maybe we didn't need to do this.
Okay, that concludes our public comment.
Okay, thank you, and I'll ask if our staff
would like to make any closing comments.
I just wanted to make one comment,
which is, I think this is a great example
of a successful resolution,
just the way the process always has been.
We had these great comments from the public.
The county immediately, it triggered an immediate response
from the county, just try to work with us
and come up with a language.
And here we are with a successful resolution.
So I just wanted to thank both the public
and the water keeper and the County
for their good input and their participation.
Great, thank you very much.
Okay, with that, I will return to the commission
and we'll begin with Commissioner O'Malley.
Thank you, Chair.
I'll be very brief.
I wanna thank staff for all the work on this
and also for Jen Kalt, who is an old friend of mine.
Thanks for showing up for Humboldt Waterkeeper.
Really, I wanna thank the, again, staff,
but my fellow commissioner and supervisor, Mike Wilson,
who has kind of been instrumental in having this happen.
And I'll just say, you know,
I don't get up there that often to visit,
but I'm looking forward to doing so once it's implemented.
I'm lucky enough to spend a lot of time in Kona, in Hawaii,
and that island is a dark sky community.
Most of the lights are pretty yellow and they're down,
and I'd say you can pretty much stand
right outside of Kailua Town and see the Milky Way
almost every night of the year,
and that is something that's special.
And I hope that if we could make this a statewide thing
or as close to it, I would super welcome that.
But anyway, thanks, and I'll be supporting this.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, so thanks to our staff at the county
for moving this through.
Thanks to the staff at the commission.
I, of course, support this and I support the modifications.
Looking forward to those changes.
I just want to note, you know, dark skies,
night skies is an important component
of our cultural heritage, being from a rural community.
And I think that's very important.
And many rural communities value night skies,
but actually in even more urban places,
it turns out that if you enact these sorts of provisions,
it's actually even better, it's better for humans too.
As it turns out that right now with LEDs,
it's a technology, light pollution is expanding
exponentially at 10% a year currently
because the light that's being produced
from these LED lights is brighter and cheaper to produce.
And so people just assume if you can get more
for less money, you should just have more of it.
I think that's just the human nature of this.
And so we have like bigger and more is better.
But in this case, I think we're finding out
there are actually impacts to that.
There's actually psychological impacts on humans,
both in their, literally their happiness
and in their security and in their sleep.
And so it's important that that's part of that.
But more importantly, in the coastal zone
and referencing back to the Coastal Act specifically,
is, you know, the Pacific Flyway is part of this.
There's just so many species that are in this ribbon of ecology that we call the coast,
which is a very small and special portion of the planet, and it's just we're doing,
I think, we need whatever we can to support those systems, both human and animals and
plants as well.
So I encourage everyone to go to Dark Sky International to look for these standards.
I encourage people to bring these up in their own ordinances, in their own towns, in their
own counties.
And I just think that this particular ordinance really brings balance to the need for safety
in terms of lighting and then the need to get around, but also in the balance of the
environment and the humans that have to move through it.
So how do you make a motion is that where we're going with this?
Awesome.
And to staff, I know there's been an amendment, so do I need to have some amending language
to the motion?
Could you assist me with that?
If you look at the addendum, we did an amended motion, so if you just need to read the motion,
it's from multiple motions that are in the addendum.
There's motion B and A. Okay, got it.
Let's do this.
I'm going to start with A. Last one was 1 and 2, but now we'll do A and B. It's fine.
All right, I move that the commission reject implementation program amendment number LCP-1-HUM-25-0060-1C as submitted by the county of Humboldt.
And I'm recommending yes vote. Thank you. I don't have my glasses.
Second.
Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner Kelly.
Kelly asking for a yes vote may we have a roll call vote please. Yes commissioner comic. I. Come
the key as commissioner not off. I not off yes commissioner Moreno. More no yes. Moreno yes
commissioner Wilson yes Wilson yes commissioner O'Malley yes O'Malley yes commissioner as client. Yes as
Yes Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart. Yes Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson. Yes
Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly. Yes Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon. Yes the vote is
unanimous. Thank you. The motion passes. Commissioner Wilson. All right motion B. I move
that the Commission certify implementation program amendment number
LCP-1-HUM-25-0060-1 for the County of Humboldt, if modified in
accordance with the suggested changes set forth in the staff report I recommend a yes vote.
Second. Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly. They're
asking for a yes vote. May we have a roll call please. Commissioner Nodhoff? Aye. Nodhoff yes
Commissioner Moreno. Moreno yes. Moreno yes Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson yes Commissioner
Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley. Yes. Commissioner Escalante. Yes. Escalante. Yes. Commissioner
Hart. Yes. Hart. Yes. Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson. Yes. Commissioner Kelly. Aye.
Kelly. Yes. Commissioner Kalmyk. Yes. Kalmyk. Yes. Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon. Yes. The vote
is unanimous. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. And I believe that brings us to item
item 12a is a new appeal in minnesota county. theater allen the statewide transportation
program and manager will be giving the presentation.
thank you good afternoon chair harmon and commissioners. item 12a combines two appeals
of a cdp approval by the county of minnesota for the caltrans wallala downtown streetscape
enhancement project. the appeals are filed by the save wallala organization and the bower
limited partnership.
And please also note that we published an addendum
for this item on Monday.
This project is essentially a complete streets project
to bring sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks,
and other improvements to a beautiful coastal town
that currently has no such amenities.
The project was developed by Caltrans in coordination
with the Mendocino County of Governments.
Let me say at the onset that this project
has a very long history, dating back to 2014,
with the county finally approving the project
back in November of 2025, and with Caltrans now finally hoping to start
construction this year. Because of that long history, the record here is a bit
confusing, and it has led, I think, to some misunderstandings about the project.
Let me also say that we greatly appreciate the enthusiasm for this town,
evident in the appeal comments of Save Wallala.
We recognize that landscaping is an important issue here.
But in the end, the town advisory council approved this project as it is before you
today. Little, okay, I thought I was too loud. I'm too quiet.
In the end, the, the town council proved the project as is before you today, and
the county approved the CDP for this project consistent with the LCP.
Staff do not, does not believe this conclusion was in error, and
are recommending you find no substantial issue with this appeal.
Next slide, please. Here you can see the town is in the southern area,
area of Mendocino County, just north of Sea Ranch and the Sonoma County line.
Next slide, please.
As you can see here, Highway 1 bisects the town.
Looking at the interest of the town
from the north and the south is what we can see here.
Alongside the highways are gravel or paved shoulder areas.
There are almost entirely no sidewalks in town
and no crosswalks, absent ones, a fairly faded older one.
And despite being on the Pacific Coast bikeway
in an area popular with cyclists, there are no bike lanes.
The shoulders are often used for informal highway parking.
Next slide, please.
Downtown Wallala is lined with shops, stores, food services,
and other attractions for residents and tourists.
Highway 1 here functions as a sort of main street
for a town shopping district.
As such, it sees and has the potential
to see more significant pedestrian activity.
Currently, pedestrians walk along the shoulder of the highway
or often on the highway itself, whether to move across it
or to move along it, often skirting into the roadway
to move past cars parked in the shoulders.
Next slide, please.
As you can see in this slide,
the project approved by Mendocino County
would install sidewalks throughout the town,
multiple crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands,
ADA and strike infrastructure, bike lanes,
and similar such improvements,
and as we'll get to later, some landscaping.
Next slide.
Here you can see visuals of the proposal
looking at the same northern entrance
to the town you saw a moment ago.
You can see sidewalks, bike lanes, a crosswalk,
a bit of revegetation on the left,
and one of the two areas to be landscaped on the right
as you enter the town.
Next slide, please.
And here's a similar view of the southern entrance to town,
showing many of the same features.
Note the area to be landscaped on the right,
but also the on-landscape meeting in the center.
Please also note the section at the bottom,
which I'll come back to you in a moment.
Next slide, please.
The main contention raised by the save Wallala appeal is that the project does not comply
with the LCP because it does not include landscaping throughout the project, that is throughout
the entire town.
There is a lot of confusion in the record related to this project's long history and
during its CEQA phase Caltrans did advance an alternative that included significantly
more landscaping.
The record also reads like Caltrans dropped this landscaping because of potential maintenance
costs.
Next slide please.
Staff has been working with Caltrans in the county to get as much landscaping included
in this project as we can.
In analyzing this appeal and discussing it with the county and the Caltrans, staff, police,
central issue here is, oops, central, go back one slide I think.
The central issue in this appeal is right away.
Caltrans originally proposed more landscaping because of the anticipated ability to get
an 80 footer right of way through the town.
However, the state's existing right of way is only about 60 feet through town, and adjacent
property owners have not been willing to let the state acquire the additional area needed.
You can see in the top image Caltrans does include landscaping of the two ends of town
where it has a wider right of way, shown here.
We're seeing here the southern end with landscaping on the bottom or on the right as you enter
town, but within the town area it's too narrow.
Further landscaping there would require removal of sidewalks or bike lanes.
On the bottom section you can also see how Caltrans reduced other elements of the project
to fit into this narrower right away. Travel lanes are narrow to 11 feet, bike lanes are
narrow to five and sidewalks to five or six, all typically narrower than typically standards.
At the end, however, at the north and south ends of towns the project would add about
5,000 square foot of landscaping. The county found that with addition of the proposed landscaping
areas and with the limited skates available for landscaping, the project complied with
various LCP policies that relate to landscaping in town. Next slide. Another
significant issue raised here is the medians. As you can see here, the
final project shown on the right does not include landscaping on the medians
as originally considered in the SUCA phase, which is shown on the left. The
county found that the project has proposed satisfied various LCP policies
related to landscaping on highways and in medians. Those are discussed in more
detail in the staff report and we're happy to walk through those later if
if needed. However, staff believes the county made the right determination here.
And let me also note that if you exclude the pedestrian islands in the plans,
which should be rain free for pedestrian use, and one narrow strip,
which is too narrow for planting, we're essentially talking about one median.
That's this one as you enter into town. Next slide, please.
Lastly, the Bauer PO contends that the removal of shoulder parking for
bike lanes through town violates the LCP and coastal access,
Coastal Act Public Access policies.
The county found, however, that adequate parking
exists in town to support the nearby coastal trail access
as well as other coastal recreation.
Staff supports this conclusion and does not
believe the project violates the Coastal Act's Public Access
policies.
Next slide, please.
So in conclusion, overall, staff believes this project
makes important and needed improvements for Wallala
and the county's findings approving this project
were legally and factually sound.
And we don't believe this important project
should be delayed further.
This staff is recommending that the commission determine
that the appeal of conventions do not raise
a substantial issue of LCP conformance.
The motions can be found on page eight of the staff report,
and this concludes our presentation, thank you.
Thank you very much.
So I'll begin by asking for ex partes, Commissioner Kelly.
Thank you, Chair.
I met with Tom Murphy of Save Guadalala last week,
late last week in person and he presented this slide deck summarized in
the handout that we have also it was emailed to I believe most of the
commissioners but it was the comments were specific to the concerns around
landscaping that were just addressed by staff and we may hear in the appeal as
well but specific to the alternative number five that was proposed by
Caltrans and then subsequently not advanced. Thank you. Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much. I received an email that I did forward to executive staff from
Tom Murphy that basically presented the similar argument that that we just heard
from Commissioner Kelly and it attached a rebuttal to the commission report. It
it contained PowerPoint slides and it contained their appeal.
Commissioner Moreno.
I received the same email from Mr. Tom Murphy
as Vice Commissioner Hart mentioned.
Thank you.
Okay.
I received the same email that I'm now just discovering.
Thank you.
received the same email as well and forwarded it on the staff. Perfect. Alright, I
received it as well but I did not open it. Thank you. Okay, with that I will open
the public hearing and turn it over to Chris. I think we'll begin with the
appellant please. Yes, we have Steven Johnson and Tom Murphy, John Bauer and
and Julie Bauer. Those are all the pellets. So Stephen Johnson and Tom Murphy are in person,
I believe, and John and Julie Bauer are on Zoom. Yeah, this is a great picture of what it looks
like. Can we ask how long his time is for? Three minutes. Okay, perfect. Three minutes.
Can you push the button on the base? Thank you. I will try to get it all in in that time very
hard. I think I've got it down. I've had to cut a good deal of information out, and I know
Mr. Allen took a long time. Note to the technical staff I gave you seven or
eight slides this morning I think we're only going to use four or five and we're
going to go to the last few very fast. Okay I'm ready. Can we restart here?
Go ahead and start please. He wants to reset the clock. Thank you. I'm Tom Murphy speaking on behalf of
1748 supporters of Save Willaloe who need your help because Mendocino County
Caltrans have wrongfully stripped LCP required landscaping out of our CQUA
certified streetscape plan. Our rebuttal to the staff report identifies five
substantial issues that warrant your immediate intervention. You also have
over 60 emails the county previously received another 120. This case centers
on the main street of our historic village. Specific native landscaping is
required to protect the character and economic health of Wallala. This case
could also set precedent statewide. Save Valhalla was formed to ensure the
streetscape meets our LCP's requirements. We need your help today to do that. Our
filings show Caltrans and the county is false and misleading information to
justify their action. Unfortunately, commissioned staff has failed to see
through that. Contrary to the staff report, Caltrans proved this project
feasible on a 60-foot right-of-way when seeking community approval. Many errors
are listed in our appeal and our rebuttal, but for now I'll just settle on
2. Our LCP states only exceptions to the requirements can be due to physical
obstacles, but the county claimed fiscal constraints to providing maintenance, and
that is not allowed. The LCP suggests using transit occupancy funds to offset
streetscape costs. The county claims TOT funding was never established, but it
was in just two hours before approving the CDP, county supervisors learned
there's an $805,000 surplus. Well, wireless natural beauty has been
valued from millennia by the Kashiya Pomo, today we are honored to be Wallala's caretakers.
But our struggling retail stores, restaurants and small hotels depend heavily on visitors
who drive up Highway 1 to enjoy that nature. Our LCP requires all developments to quote,
preserve and enhance the rural coastal character of the town of Wallala to better integrate
future development with natural surroundings. It mandates landscaping along sidewalks, islands
and nulls. It says the highway shall be a scenic element of our downtown.
Slide, please.
Our main street started decaying long before the LCP.
We're eager to get the sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes promised,
but we also need landscaping.
Slide 3. Caltrans engineers, landscapers, and managers
designed this concept that fulfills all LCP requirements within the 60 foot right-of-way.
It was cheered by the community, completed in sequence 2023,
and then Caltrans ripped out the landscaping
and planned to fill those areas with concrete.
Slide 4.
If that change is allowed, visitors will see little but a slab of concrete and asphalt
as they enter Wallala.
They will drive right past through our town.
More recently, Caltrans offered to scatter wildflower seeds,
but that falls far short of our landscape requirements and needs.
And it's been a disaster in a Caltrans project near Elk.
This hearing is our last hope.
Please agree with us that there are substantial issues.
And please help us to save Wallala.
Thank you very much.
Steven Johnson?
No, no.
I don't need it.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name's Steven Johnson.
And I represent Bauer Limited Partnership.
Bauer Limited Partnership owns approximately one half
of the parcels that will be impacted by this project,
including the real property that is leased to the surf market.
Sir, excuse me, could you pull the mic up a little bit closer?
Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.
Surf Market is a grocery store that is an essential public service that is vital to the area.
This project will remove all of the public parking spots in the commercial area of Guellala.
The number of lost parking spots is estimated to be approximately 70 to 92 spaces.
I doubt that there is a town in America without public commercial parking.
but this project will create one.
That is, there's no public parking.
The community has been utilizing on-street parking
spaces for cars and trucks of all sizes for generations.
Surf Market and most of the other businesses in Guadalala
depend on tourists visiting the coast
and people who live in the surrounding area.
If tourists and others cannot park, they cannot shop,
and they also cannot enjoy the local trails
and beautiful coast.
The reduction of public parking will negatively
impact access and use of the Guillala Bluff Trail and recreational use of the
coast. This project will prevent people that are towing boats or trailers from
stopping in town because such vehicles require parallel parking or pull-through
parking spaces which will no longer exist in Guillala. After this project,
fire trucks, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, trucks pulling trailers, trucks
pulling boats, and motor homes will effectively have no place to park and
Additionally, I doubt that the Coastal Commission believes that it is reasonable to force Highway
1 to close for emergency calls downtown, as there will be no place to pull off and there
are no side streets for people to use to bypass the streetscape area and such situations.
Because portions of this proposed development are located between the first public road
and the sea, the Coastal Commission must make the specific finding that the proposed development
is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of
the California Coastal Act and the coastal elements of the general plan. The Coastal
Commission's major policy goals are to enhance public access to the coast, to encourage parking
in developed areas, and to avoid negatively impacting the fragile environmental resources
of the coast. The removal of all public parking spaces in Guadalupe jeopardizes the Commission's
goals and policies. Once this project is built, it cannot be reversed. Even though a project
delay is not something Caltrans wishes, revising the town's plan and providing public parking
is the only way to find a winning solution. Guadalupe is the gateway to the north coast
and it needs to invite visitors to enjoy our community. Without sufficient visitor services
and convenient parking, travelers will simply pass through and miss the opportunities to
enjoy the coast.
This plan needs to be fixed and we implore you to help us do that.
The project will deter people from enjoying the North Coast and it will have a lasting
negative impact on the town of Guadalupe for generations.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next we're going to the applicant which is Katie Everett.
Thank you and there was a presentation.
Thank you commissioners. My name is Katie Everett. I am the Caltrans project manager for the wallala downtown streetscape enhancement project. Next slide.
In coordination with Mendocino Council of governments and the community this project seeks to reduce conflicts between modes of travel and improve safety in the wallala area as seen here in the slide.
side, the existing area has no bike lanes and almost no sidewalks. Pedestrians are forced
to weave around parked vehicles creating conflicts. Next slide. Without curb and gutter, access
on and off the highway is uncontrolled creating conflicts, ponding water in the shoulders
during wet weather makes walking and biking more challenging. Next slide. The Mendocino
Council of Governments is the project sponsor providing rip-stip dollars in
2013, 17, 19, 21, and 24. The project is also funded by a competitive active
transportation grant that was received in 22. This project has been in
development for about two decades. Through numerous public meetings the
final project proposes all of these safety improvement features seen here.
Next slide. The limited right-of-way required adjustment of project
components, bike and travel lanes were reduced to 5 and 11 feet. Sidewalks were also reduced
to conform within right away constraints. A two way left turn lane is included in the
most congested area. There is no room for additional features. Next slide. 2700 square
feet of landscaping is proposed at the southern gateway. This features over 200 linear feet.
Next slide. At the northern portion of the project, travel lanes and bike lanes were
similarly reduced to fit within project constraints.
Next slide.
Landscaping at the northern gateway is over 2,400 square
feet and is over 200 linear feet.
Maintenance for both landscaped areas
has been agreed to by the Mendocino County
Board of Supervisors.
Next slide.
There are two medians at the south.
Island number one is about 65 feet long and 4.5 feet wide.
The island two is about 55 feet long and about 10 feet
at its widest.
Next slide.
The five proposed crosswalks will add to pedestrian safety
and improve connectivity and access
to both sides of the highway.
I wanna thank you for your time.
Caltrans supports the commission staff's finding
that the appeals do not raise a substantial issue.
I would also like to thank staff,
all the work that has gone into reviewing
and preparing this item.
I am available for questions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Then we have three more speakers.
This was the public.
We have Michael Villa.
I promoted you to panelists, followed by Dej Vak,
followed by Gillian Levy.
And that'll complete.
Michael Villa, you're going to unmute yourself.
But they should get.
Can you guys hear me?
They get two minutes, sorry.
Two.
Oh, it's your call.
You want three?
We only have three speakers, correct?
Yes.
Go three.
Okay, go ahead, Michael Villa.
Hi, good afternoon, my name is Michael Villa.
I am a regional project coordinator
for the Mendocino Council of Governments.
And I just want to speak in support
of the Wallala Downtown Streetscape Project.
As you guys are sure you're aware,
Wallala is a small unincorporated community
in Mendocino County.
Although it is small, it does serve as a service center
for a larger geographic area
that includes parts of Southern Mendocino County
as well as Northern Sonoma County.
It's a popular destination for visitors,
particularly during the summer
when the downtown area can get very congested.
The Guadalajara downtown street script project
will provide bicycle pedestrian facilities
and safety improvements on state route one,
which as mentioned earlier,
does serve as the main street through the downtown.
I'm able to create additional safe crossings
and correct drainage problems.
There are currently no bike lanes in the project area,
almost no sidewalks and only one crosswalk.
Pedestrians are forced to weave around parked vehicles
resulting in unsafe conditions and conflicts
between different modes of transportation.
Without curb or gutter,
access on and off the highway for vehicles is uncontrollable.
This combined with the visibility issues caused by vehicles
parked along the road created a dangerous condition
for pedestrians, cyclists, and even drivers.
The lack of facilities limits access
to important destinations within the project area,
such as grocery stores, post office community center,
transit, and school bus stops, as well as any local jobs.
The new facilities on State Route One
will intersect with the safe walking and biking networks
on side streets that connect residential neighborhoods.
The project originated through three rounds
of community planning efforts conducted
by Mendocino Council of Governments
and funded through state grants.
These plans, which included extensive public engagement,
identified a strong need for walking and biking infrastructure
to enhance the Guala community along the highway.
Following these planning efforts,
MCOG approved regional improvement program funding
in 2013 for captions to begin environmental work
on the current project.
MCOG again awarded our very limited RIT funding
for subsequent project components in 2017, 2019, 2021,
schedule. In 2021 and 2024.
Existing conditions and the
safety improvements that will
that will probably be provided
by the project resulted in a
successful application to the
highly competitive active
transportation program and
2022. I want to reiterate that
the big wall of town plan,
which has been adopted as part
of the coastal element of the
program, dictate some of the options for project design. Regardless, this project will address
deficiencies and safety concerns currently experienced in the community, closing existing
gaps, provide a connected non-motorized transportation network. It will make traveling downtown
a lot safer for all users and yeah, I guess my time's up.
Thank you. Next is Dash Pack. That'll be our last speaker.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon, commissioners,
executive director, Hucklebridge, and staff.
My name is Dave Schbach.
I serve as secretary to the Wallala Municipal Advisory Council,
known locally as GMAC.
As custodian of the GMAC public record,
I will summarize salient aspects of GMAC consideration
of the coastal development permit
that was approved by Mendocino County
for the State Route 1 Wallala downtown streetscape project.
The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
to establish GMAC to exchange information
between the South Coast community, county supervisors
and staff pertaining to formation, adoption, revision
and implementation of the Mendocino County
local coastal program and Wallala Town Plan component
of the LCP.
The GMAC record of this half mile streetscape project
includes extensive public input and thorough due diligence
by agency staff of Caltrans,
Mendocino Council of Governments,
the Mendocino County Departments of Planning
and Building Services and Transportation,
all the way from visioning and conceptualizing
through environmental and community impact assessment
and all the way through advanced design.
Mendocino County Planning and Building Services Department
referred to Caltrans District 1 CDP application
for the streetscape project to GMAC on April 4th last year.
GMAC conducted a public meeting on May 7th last year
to consider the proposed CDP.
During the meeting, GMAC received detailed presentations
on current project design, existing environmental travel
and community conditions, real world project delivery
and maintenance circumstances.
After receiving public comments of thorough discussion
of LCP and will all attend plan policies requirements
in conformity, all seven seated members of GMAC
voted unanimously to recommend
that the Mendocino County Coastal Permit Administrator
approve the proposed CDP for the project.
At the regular public meeting on September 4 last year,
GMAC discussed the potential for the streetscape project
to include decorative landscaping
at two peripheral locations
within the state highway right-of-way
were safe and practical outside of the proposed paved area
for vehicle and bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.
Council members acknowledged consistent community preference
for decorative landscaping in the project
and recognize the practical constraints
of project safety objectives and scope,
available right of way maintenance responsibility
and funding and LCP conformity.
After discussion and consideration of public input,
GMAC members again voted unanimously
to ask the board of supervisors to work with Caltrans
and execute a perpetual maintenance agreement
for decorative peripheral landscaping
at the two gateway locations you've just seen
within the highway right of way
in time to stay on the current streetscape project
delivery schedule and budget.
I thank you for your consideration
and your service to California.
Thank you, that completes our speakers.
Great, thank you very much.
With that, I will close the public hearing
and return to our staff.
Thanks, can I have the staff presentation back up real quick
and go to the last slide?
Just real quick, first with the parking.
Obviously we care very deeply about parking
and access to the coast,
as you can maybe see in a second here.
there's a lot of parking available in town and including a couple of public
access you know public parking areas next there's an extra slide after that
no one more there we go okay so you know some of the some of the statements went
to public commercial parking which isn't a coastal act concern really but I just
want to show that there is a ton of public commercial parking here and a ton
of parking generally available.
Obviously, some of this serves markets only,
and not the public, but there are a couple
of public parking areas.
And the main recreational form here is a coastal trail
that runs along the bluff.
Other coastal access points are nearby,
but separate, you'd still have to drive them,
and they have separate parking.
The town plan calls for converting some
of this market parking, that there's a lot
of space taken up for it, to designate
that for public parking over time.
and we think that's the way to go rather than not included bike lanes and
sidewalks. And you can take it down now if you want. Just real quick on the
returning to the landscaping issues, there was a comment that the county
found it consistent with the LCP because of physical as in money reasons and that
wasn't a valid objective. The county found it consistent through the LCP for
a lot of different reasons and as I mentioned before, we're happy to walk
a few of those if we want, but it wasn't just that, oh, there's a lack of money.
There was the statement, again, that Caltrans is ripping out landscape and
replacing it with concrete.
Again, the areas that they're putting in are being put in for sidewalk and
bike lanes, not just random concrete.
And nothing is being, no landscaping is being removed from the project.
And finally, I just want to mention, too,
there was, you heard a couple points about the funding, and
I think that's different here.
You usually see bigger projects funded through the shop program that have more
robust funding and can return to CTC for potential funding.
This one, as you may have heard, is sort of a stitch together of various active
transportation grants that are very vulnerable and not a lot of them exist.
And I would love to sit here and tell you that our Complete Streets projects are
robustly funded and, you know, this would be something where, you know,
right away could be acquired through that kind of funding.
But that's not the case with our Complete Streets funding,
which is a situation that's only getting worse.
So that concludes my other comments.
Thank you very much.
Okay, now I'll return to the commission
for comments, questions, a motion.
Mr. Williams, would you like to make a comment?
Put you on the spot there.
Yeah, thank you, chair.
Yeah, just to say a couple of things.
Wanna thank Caltrans and commission staff
for the informative presentations
as well as the appealance for bringing forward their concerns.
You know, this is a really important project
for the community there.
And just to reiterate, too, just kind of a couple of things
that were said.
From a resourcing perspective, what Mr. Allen spoke to,
there is a lot of rebalancing of different resources
right now, just because of all the budgetary constraints.
And so it is real that if there is a delay,
it could expose the project to some risk
and could be delayed for the foreseeable future
and that we don't want that to happen.
There's a lot of good things that are in this project
and there is over 5,000 square feet of landscaping
and as well as the bike lanes and the sidewalk.
So I just wanna reiterate those points, thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, so I support the recommendation by staff to find no substantial issue.
I find the staff report to be accurate.
I drove through Guadalala after our September meeting in Fort Bragg, and
I didn't know this was coming, but I did note that there was a community
desperately in need of infrastructure projects.
I mean, it was just, there were people with mobility issues and
just sort of random folks walking around without crosswalks, and it just, and it
was just kind of, it was all over the place. And it just didn't look right. People were
driving too fast as well, just because it was so wide open. So I know there's
been some issues around what there was in terms of the expectations of the
community around landscaping, those sorts of things, but I will say it is a much
better situation as designed than it is currently by far. And I just invite
people to just walk across the street here across the highway for a minute and
see how bad it can be even just here in in in in this county right here on 101.
So I think the project transforms how we won through Guadalala essentially from
just being a highway with asphalt shoulders is something that has sidewalks and bike lanes
and crosswalks and just what will make it more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists
and the improvements will enhance. It'll make it give it a more of a main street feel to
it. That's the way I see it. And it's an important piece of the Pacific Coast bike route as well.
So I want to, you know, I think that's important. I agree that Caltrans has included some landscaping
but given the right away constraints,
which I think weren't known at the beginning,
I think that's something that needs to be,
that they had to consider.
And I will note that there are 11 foot lanes in this,
and as everyone knows, I prefer the 10 foot lane,
especially when we're in places
where people are walking across the road
and doing, and we're kind of squeezing bikes in
and those sorts of things.
I would recommend just through striping,
instead of having an 11 foot lane,
just have a 10 foot lane with a one foot buffer.
That's all you do with striping.
It'll just make people drive slower,
and it won't change the way things look,
so that'll be helpful.
Looking forward, I would recommend that the committee look at
the potential for an improvement district if they really want to
look at ways they can work together to enhance
the landscaping and actually address trying to acquire the land to do that.
But also through improvement districts,
you can create ways to do shared parking
and those sorts of things so that one business
doesn't have all the parking and it just goes
to one thing that you share those parking areas
and so that people can get out of their cars
and walk from one business to another.
I think there's a lot of potential in Guella.
I love that space, it's really great.
I actually stopped and looked at the art gallery there
and it was a wonderful place.
So I think the county did a good thorough review
and I support the findings
and seize no substantial issue at this time.
I'm happy to make a motion if no one else wants to do it.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yeah, I just, I wanna comment on staff's thorough report
as well as some of the issues presented.
And I just wanna give respect
to our Caltrans representatives here
and understand that if you don't have the right of way
to do the work that's being asked,
it's not your property to do the work
and that you don't have the authority
to move forward in any other way.
I do appreciate the landscaping that is included here
and I understand the concerns of the community
and that they saw renderings that proved infeasible
and those renderings were created by Caltrans
and are beautiful in nature.
And so of course that I think created a false sense of hope
of what was possible, but once looking at the feasibility
of whose land it actually was to do the work on,
This is where we find ourselves and that there is landscaping here at per Commissioner Wilson's point around an Improvement District.
It does seem as though this community, you know, because it's unincorporated, but is very unique in its character and is a kind of regional hub for commerce that straddles two counties.
It's challenging in that there isn't a local municipality
or a local district that can support and maintain
what the community is requesting here.
And so I do think down the road,
looking at an improvement district and having those,
you know, the funds available to do this type of work
and to pursue a sense of shared ownership
of some of this land and having a maintenance fund
would be a beneficial outcome
and would improve the beautification efforts
that align with the local plans
the LCP. So all that to be said I do think that that having these bike lanes
and sidewalks will be a great improvement. I have shopped and walked
this area many times and it is certainly in need of these upgrades and this has
been a you know multi-decade effort to get this this underway and so really
appreciate Caltrans bringing it forward and getting and hopefully moving to the
finish line of actually doing the construction work here. That said I think
I think the 10-foot lane suggestion is a good one.
We have a highway running through a town
and people shopping on both sides of the road here.
So to the extent,
and I think it will actually improve the ability
to have commerce where if you're going into town
to go to one store,
you're passing through to go to one store,
you see another place across the road
and it doesn't feel like you have to risk your life
to go shop there.
You're actually gonna benefit the local economy
to be able to go from place to place
without having to go across a wider road
or cars that are speeding by.
So I think that the removal of the parking
and actually having those sidewalks and bike lanes
is gonna enhance the economic viability of downtown
and this, I call it downtown,
but in this center of commerce
that is this amazing cute village
on the North Central Coast.
And I want to support moving forward
with the recommendation here from staff.
and that said, I think the community certainly has spent
so much time and energy on this project,
getting to this point, and I'm really appreciative
of the efforts that Caltrans has made
in trying to get it to the finish line,
and so hopefully at a future meeting
on the North Central Coast,
we can see the outcome of this work, thanks.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, and I want to thank the public for all their work
pushing on all of these items, as local electeds we go to battle and work with Caltrans often
because those state infrastructures are moving through our communities and this is a very
familiar scene.
Those of us who are in local government, we are there with you.
We understand this and have been there and so I just want to acknowledge that even what
the benefits that are coming from this and what's happening now is through Caltrans working
with the local folks to go as far as they can to make this place safer and better.
And with that I move that the commission determine that appeal number A-1-MEN-25-0050 does not
Present substantial issue with respect to the grounds of which the appeal has been filed under section three zero six
Zero three of the Coastal Act regarding consistency
With the certified local coastal plan and or the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act
I'm asking for a yes vote second. This will be my last motion of the day, so
That motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly they're asking for a yes vote
May we have a roll call, please?
Commissioner Moreno.
Moreno, yes.
Moreno, yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Kalmick.
Yes.
Kal-McKee. Yes. Commissioner Notoff. Aye. Notoff. Yes. Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon yes. The
vote is unanimous. Thank you. No substantial issue has been found. Okay. Now we will move
on to 13A please. Hello again. Item 13A is an application from Caltrans for the repair
and maintenance of the Albion River Bridge. You have the presentation coming up. There
OK, the Albion River Bridge is a very unique older bridge
constructed in 1944.
Because of wartime shortages on concrete and steel,
it was built primarily from pressure-treated timbers
assembled into trusses that support wooden bridge piers.
The Albion River Bridge is now over 80 years old,
and components of the wooden structure are deteriorating.
Next slide, please.
The bridge is located in the town of Albion
on Scenic Highway 1 over the mouth of the Albion River,
approximately 15 miles south of Fort Bragg.
At 960 feet long, the Albion River Bridge
is a very important and critical connection
for the Mendocino Coast.
Next slide, please.
Here we can see closer views of this bridge structure
in the project work area.
The proposed repair and maintenance project
will replace deteriorated timber scabs
throughout these northern timber towers
and inspect and potentially replace various connectors
at the base of these towers under the bridge.
The maintenance project is essential
maintaining the bridge's structural integrity in the near term, preventing further degradation,
and more importantly, ensure the continuing safety of the traveling public. Next slide.
Here you can see a closer view of one of these timber scabs that will be replaced. These timber
scabs are used to join adjacent pieces of timber to increase the strength of the structure and
maintain its structural stability. Next slide please. Staff did receive several comment letters
supporting and opposing the project and we published an addendum yesterday in
response but in particular the Albion Bridge Stewards oppose this project
asserting that the project is not properly before this Commission as a
consolidated CDP and opposing the potential 2020 full bridge closers at
night. The addendum covers these issues but real briefly because the project will
be removing these timbers that you saw it will affect the structural integrity
the bridge and it's simply not safe to drive across the bridge as these timbers are being
removed. So this Caltrans does propose 20 overnight full bridge closures to take place
between October of this year and May of next year. However, the project proposal and special
condition four of our CDP limit the closures to from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. at night, only during
weekdays and they may not occur after May 1st to avoid the summer peak travel times
in high visitor season. There are also various emergency measures in place for emergency
crossings, procedures to notify the community, and messaging signs that will replace at seven
highway junction locations throughout the Mendocino coast of alert travelers. So overall
staff believes this repair and maintenance project is necessary to maintain public access
up and down the coast in the near term and this condition protects coastal resources.
The staff recommends the condition approve CDP application 1-25-0828 and the motion to
of the project is found on page four of the staff report.
This concludes our presentation, thank you.
Great, thank you very much.
Are there any ex parte?
Okay, seeing none, we will open the public hearing
and I'll turn it over to Simone.
We have one speaker, Jim Hyde.
Jim, can we move to panelists,
remote panelists, if you can unmute yourself, please.
Hi there, you should be able to see me.
You should be able to hear me.
We got both.
Lucky you.
Good afternoon, Chamber Commissioners and staff, and thank you.
I am the president of Albion Bridge Stewards, we're an incorporated nonprofit
that advocates for the preservation of the Albion River Bridge, a state and
national historic landmark that spans a state designated wild and scenic river,
which discharges into a bay containing one of northern California's healthiest
kelp forests.
To be very clear, we support repairing and maintaining the Albion River Bridge.
We're glad Caltrans wants to do this.
We want the bridge to be structurally sound.
We want it to be preserved.
But what's being proposed here
isn't good maintenance planning.
For years, as shown in our comment documentation,
inspection reports have pointed to deferred upkeep
and independent experts have said
that this bridge can last decades with proper routine care.
So the solution should be steady proactive maintenance,
not shutting down the only coastal highway at night.
And that is a particularly important issue that we want to address.
It's not reasonable for a rural coastal community.
We do roll up the sidewalks pretty early around here, but we don't roll them up that early.
Those hours are not off hours.
They're when restaurant workers get off shifts.
They're when nurses drive to or from new work.
They're when locals and visitors return from a dinner, a movie, a visit to a loved one
in a hospital.
They're when people might need emergency care.
During fire or medical emergencies,
that bridge is our only up-coast escape route.
Closing it creates real public safety risks.
There's a restaurant, for example,
they submitted a comment just south of the bridge
whose staff and owners live literally
about 200 yards north of the bridge.
They would be looking at a three hour or so,
100 and some mile detour just to get home
at a distance of about a quarter of a mile.
There is also a fundamental process issue,
One of jurisdiction.
Today, we provide an additional public comment,
reply to the staff's addendum.
But I'm sure this isn't on tide lands.
It is not a coastal water projects.
It should follow local review through Minasino County.
Maintain the bridge,
but don't isolate the bridge along the way.
Analyze real alternatives,
ideally keeping one lane open,
but at the very least,
adjusting the full closure window
so that it begins later in the night.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We only have five speakers on Zoom.
They're just available for questions.
Other than that, that's it.
Great.
Thank you very much.
OK.
I will close the public hearing and return to staff.
Mr. Allen.
Don't have much to respond to.
Just real quick, we understand it's
difficult to have a full day enclosure, obviously,
and it affects people.
But we feel that the nine to five
is a pretty good solution here, especially given
the limits of time in the days.
I haven't seen the most recent submittal
that he mentioned just was submitted,
but we did cover the jurisdiction and the addendum,
and we're happy to dig into those questions
if you have them.
And then the only other thing I'll note
is there's a Caltrans project manager
for the project is available on Zoom
to answer more detailed questions you may have.
Okay, great, thank you.
I'll return to the commission.
Comments, questions?
Vice Chair Hart.
I'm gonna talk a little bit about the situation with these,
for example, these restaurant workers, Peter.
So for, you know, generally, the detour seems reasonable,
unless you, you know, live.
If you live in, do you know what I mean?
If you live on one side, is there,
and I'm curious too, for Caltrans,
is there some kind of something that could be done
for that specific problem, for example,
for these restaurant workers, like is there ever anything
that can be done to help them?
Because I'm totally supportive of the,
I mean I will support the project.
I was just curious if there's anything that could be done
for these particular problems.
I haven't heard exactly what, if there's a different time
that might work better for them, but we could look into that
or we could explore, you know, moving the time
that it starts later, but of course that also means
probably that you would, you would go later in the morning,
maybe the Caltrans person can tell us exactly how much time they need to really
make this, but obviously the less time that they have fully closed, the more
time the project might extend overall, and so you could end up extending the
20 days, so there's a balance there. I was saying more about guiding them. Is there
a way to get? And I think the answer is probably no, unfortunately. I mean, I
don't know if you've been to this bridge, I've been to this bridge, it's a really
unique structure and there's just not a lot of leeway and a lot of directions. I
would of course defer to the project manager if they have other ideas, but my
understanding is they're they're trying to minimize the closure. That was always
the goal, minimize the closures to get the work done as quickly as possible. And
so this was sort of where we landed as a good compromise, but it will affect, it
will affect the community while the bridge is closed, but for safety purposes
having the bridge be safe overall is obviously critical. And it is during the
winter months not after May 1st so the summer you know tends to be base busier
and later so well that was my question too is this certainly our experience
down in Big Sur and then just driving up here this morning there's several places
where Caltrans has highway one down to one lane and uses a one stop light one
way traffic and is that not a possibility here I think my understanding
was that part of what they're doing is repairing the base structure of the
bridge and so the concern is that it wouldn't be safe for any vehicles on the
top while they're doing that so it doesn't so in your solution for example
or where they've done that in Big Sur wouldn't be appropriate for the type of
work that they're gonna do but again maybe we could ask the Caltrans project
manager to weigh in on that if there if there's any of the piece of the work
that for example could be done with a one-lane closure or if it is all if a
full closure is really required. We have five members from the Department of
Transportation on Zoom. It's Arlene Frank, Kelly Eldridge, Stan Brandenburg, Jonathan
Jackson, and Rochelle Hadley. Which one of you? I believe it's Kelly Eldridge. I'll just put her in first.
Okay, we're moving Kelly. And real quick, just it is the unique structure of this
old wooden truss bridge. You know, they actually have this wooden timbers and so
when you remove one it affects the structural integrity of the entire
bridge and so it's just not normally a one-lane closure might be appropriate
with a concrete bridge or a steel bridge but here it's the whole structure is so
integrated it becomes more unstable and so having trucks and vehicles passing
over it is more difficult but they might have additional outs or be able to give
us more context on the restaurant workers. Thank you.
Oh, is there a representative from Caltrans?
Yes, we're trying to move them in.
A couple of them just moved in, Stanley Brandenburg
and Jonathan Jackson.
Kelly, you wasn't moving in?
Kelly is moving in now.
Hello.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Yeah, my name is Stan Brandenburg,
and I'm the project manager for this routine maintenance
project.
I'd just like to thank Coastal staff
for all their hard work on this
and you are correcting in your assumptions
and your general summary of the project.
We can't really allow any traffic on this structure
with those bolts removed, they're pin connections
and it will cause the structure to be unstable.
So that's why we have to close the bridge
potentially for 20 days.
I mean, and that, like you said,
they're only going to be, it's going to be in the off season and you know,
later in the evening. So it is our intent to, um,
get in and out of there as fast as we can.
Hopefully the contractor can complete the work, uh, before 20 days, but, um,
that's the general focus of this project.
Thank you commissioner Kalmyk then commissioner, um, Jackson.
So 20 days for a couple hours and we've got people on either side of the bridge.
So I've got kind of two questions.
One is from an emergency standpoint,
someone has a heart attack at bridge closure.
How quickly can the bridge be reopened?
Is the emergency plan contemplate having
medical personnel on both sides of the bridge
while it's closed?
Cause it seems like it's a three hour round trip.
I'll defer to the district through the chair.
There would be some kind of emergency action plan
to address those kinds of issues
and I can let them answer that question.
OK.
Yeah, sure.
This is Stan Brandenburg again.
Yeah, typically the emergency action plan we have in place,
that's going to be we'd have an emergency vehicle on each side
of the structure.
So during the time that the closure is there,
and we could guarantee a person a cross if need be.
And so that would be the method of transport.
OK.
couldn't theory someone walk across the bridge during the closure so those
workers could potentially park on one side and walk across and pick up their
car if that became a thing I don't I'm just curious it would it be on the
pedestrian traffic absolutely absolutely okay all right yeah we can
always ask work somebody across the structure on foot okay that seems like
for 20 days that could potentially work thank you mr. Allen just real quick I
forgot to mention in response that it's also limited to Sunday through Thursday
so those busier restaurant nights Friday and Saturday there will be no closures
and that's in the special conditions. Thank you. Commissioner Jackson. Thank you.
Part of my question was already answered about the emergency piece. We had a
speaker talked about the maintenance, the long-term general maintenance. I live in
a coastal town. We're dealing with a pier right now and we are piece-mealing
that thing when there are some considerable structural challenges that
we're gonna have to you know pay me now or pay me later so is the pay me now
component factored into that and I mean if this say are we looking at all of the
issues associated with this particular structure and thinking about okay are
we just putting a band-aid on this and I'm gonna have to deal with other
substantial issues further down the line are we looking at the a comprehensive
look at the bridge to determine all the issues that need to be addressed and
sort of figuring that out is in a phased approach or similar to what they're
doing the Vincent Thomas bridge down in in my neck of the woods you know trying
to figure out how to skin that cat do we shut it do you shut it down and get it
done quickly or do you piecemeal it and deal with that incremental pain Caltrans
Francis Long had a plan, a project to replace the bridge entirely, and that project's been
in the works for a long time. EIR was completed this summer, or last year, excuse me, to,
that developed a final alternative to replace the bridge. And that project is hoping to
move forward. It is opposed by the Albion Bridge Stewards who oppose replacement of
this older bridge. So that will be something that will be coming to you and I think their
thought was this is sort of an emergency maintenance project to get them through towards that project
and determine if that's moving forward or not and then if not they would probably be
turning back to a deeper maintenance project. Looks like, I'm not sure if somebody from
Caltrans has something to say in that regard, but that, you know, your question is, yeah,
intent is to replace it entirely and not have an ongoing maintenance issue, they
could be forced into that kind of situation if they can't get that project
through, but that'll be coming in the future. No I appreciate that. I know a lot
of smart people are looking at this and this isn't all of a sudden, oh what a
great idea right? We never thought of that right? No, I understand that and
maybe this is one of those where we, you know, they at some point the bridge is
replaced and this is restored as a pedestrian bridge similar to the one we
have at Fort Bragg. So maybe that's the ultimate goal. So you keep the charm and
the character and its pedestrian but you know at the end of the day you know if
we're throwing good money after bad on a structure that isn't intended to withstand
the forces of today then. So anyway I figured you guys were all on top of
things. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional comments, questions,
a motion anyone prepared to make a motion on page 4 of the staff report I
move that the Commission approve coastal development permit application number 1
dash 25 dash 0 828 pursuant to the staff recommendation and recommend a yes vote
thank you that's a motion by Commissioner Kelly a second by vice
chair heart they're asking for a yes vote may we have a roll call please
Commissioner Wilson? Yes. Wilson, yes. Commissioner O'Malley? Yes. O'Malley, yes. Commissioner Escalante? Yes. Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Hart? Yes. Hart, yes. Commissioner Jackson? Aye. Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Kalmyk? Yes. Kalmyk, yes. Commissioner Notoff? Aye. Notoff, yes.
Commissioner Moreno? Moreno yes. Moreno yes. Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon yes. The vote is
unanimous. Thank you. The permit is approved. Okay and now we will move on to
item 14 the deputy directors report for the North Central Coast District please.
Alright thank you. In the North Central Coast District directors report this
month we are reporting one permit waiver and two emergency coastal permits. 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. Any ex partes? Any public
comments? None. Thank you. Do four or more commissioners object to any of the
items in the Deputy Director's report? Seeing no objections, the Commission
concurs. Thank you. Now I believe we're on item 17, the Deputy Director's report
for the Central Coast District.
Yes, thank you Chair Harmon.
And in the Central Coast DDS report this month,
we're reporting two waivers, one CDP amendment, one extension,
four emergency coastal permits, and one LCP certification
review, which is the city of Marina's adoption
of the suggested modifications to its coastal hazards
amendment, the commission approved in November.
We're not aware of any objections or controversy
regarding these matters and so the question is whether three or more
commissioners object to the items in the report and if not then the Commission
will have concurred. Thank You Mr. Khan any ex partes? Any public comments? We
only have one just available for questions which is Natalie Teeter only
you guys are available for questions. Great thank you. Do three or more
commissioners object to any item in the deputy director's report? Seeing no
objections the Commission concurs. Thank you. All right. Final item. Final item that
take us to 19a an appeal in Los Osos in San Luis Obispo County and I'll have
Devin Jackson lead planner on this project give the staff presentation
Devin. All right good afternoon commissioners item 19a is an appeal of a
San Luis Obispo County CDP approval for a new single-family
residence located on a vacant parcel in the unincorporated community of Los Osos
in San Luis Obispo County. Los Osos is a look is located south of the city of
Moro Bay and north of Avila Beach and is a primarily residential community made up of
around 14,000 people. Slide 1 shows Los Osos where it abuts Moro Bay itself with the location
of the project noted toward the bottom right of this image. Next slide please. Slide 2
shows a rendering of the county approved project. The project consists of an approximately 3,500
square foot two story single family residence including an attached garage, driveway, septic
system and associated site improvements, all on a vacant residential lot.
Next slide, please. The appellant contends that the county's CDP approval raises
LCP consistency questions related to the adequacy of water to serve the
development, arguing that there is not sufficient water and thus that the
project should be denied. Staff respectfully disagrees. The Commission
has spent considerable time over the past few years evaluating Los Osos's
water supply issues, including groundwater health and any coastal resource concerns
associated with community withdrawals, and has concluded that the current best available
science demonstrates that the Los Osos Groundwater Basin is not an overdraft, that withdrawals
are not resulting in any significant coastal resource harm, and that there is sufficient
water to serve new water-using development.
Specifically, the Los Osos Basin Management Committee, the entity created to comprehensively
manage and monitor water resources to stop overdraft and seawater intrusion, has shown
that the community is using less water than the basin's calculated sustainable yield,
defined as the amount of water that can be used without advancing any seawater intrusion
in meeting all applicable drinking water standards.
And based on this information, the commission recently approved updates to the LCP, reflecting
that the community's water supply is healthy enough to support a modest amount of new water
using development, like the project in question here, subject to the strict monitoring of
the basin going forward to ensure that the basin remains in a sustainable yield state.
Thus, the commission has determined that there is an adequate and sustainable water supply
for Los Osos to serve new water using development.
And applies that understanding to this case as well.
Next slide please.
Staff therefore recommends that the commission determine
that the appeal contentions do not raise a substantial LCP
conformance issue and that the commission decline
to take jurisdiction over the CDP application for this project.
The motion and resolution
to implement staff's recommendation is found
on page 4 of the staff report.
This concludes staff's presentation.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes?
Okay, seeing none we'll open the public hearing and I will turn it over to Simone.
No public comment.
Oh, wait, yes.
Sorry, I looked at the wrong one.
Sorry, April Fool's.
We have Patrick, McGibney, McGibney, Patrick, if you can go ahead and speak.
And then we also have Blaine Rielly, who's available for questions, just so you know.
Patrick, I've made it to, I see you in panelists.
Let's try it differently.
Okay.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Hello.
Hello, go ahead and speak, thank you.
Okay, thank you, commissioners.
I am Patrick McGivney, the appellant
and the chair of the Los Osos Sustainability Group.
And I'm asking for five minutes to present our appeal.
Okay, please be as brief as possible, sir.
I will, thank you very much.
If you've read all of our correspondence
surrounding this appeal,
you know that the best available science,
the newly developed transient model is saying,
and I quote, the transient model indicates
that pumping at current average rates
would cause sea water to intrude further into the basin
with an indicating that the current average pumping
is not sustainable, end of quote.
The current average pumping or extraction rate
is expected to continue at 1830 acre feet yearly
and the sustainable yield for 2026
has been reduced to 2000 acre feet yearly,
making the basin yield metric 91.
It needs to be at 80% or less for safe growth.
The Los Osos water basin is not currently sustainable.
This appeal should be upheld.
In your approval of the update in 2024 of the LCP,
you based your approval on the best available science
which at the time was the flawed steady state model
indicating the Los Osos water basin
was trending towards sustainability.
The model was soon to be replaced by the transient model
which the County of San Luis Obispo
spent hundreds of thousands of dollars developing.
The results are not what the County wanted nor expected.
The BMC requested zero growth for this year
in spite of what the county's waters are,
Blaine really recommended.
The purveyors are the ones trying to manage our basin,
but the county has land use authority
and is trying to develop our community.
This is not a NIMBY issue, but even water issue.
We have no other water source
and all indications are the basin is in overdraft.
The chloride readings are increasing
and the water level data keeps decreasing.
Your staff who is very knowledgeable and hardworking
on this account has made erroneous findings
and conclusions in their report.
And I've outlined several of these
in correspondences to you.
But for the record, I will again.
Number one, it concludes that the current
best available science demonstrates
that the Los Sosos groundwater basin is not an overdraft.
End of quote.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Patrick.
And that concludes our public speaking.
Okay, great.
Thank you very much.
So I will close the public hearing
return to staff see if they like to make any closing comments yeah so when we
were looking at this problem in LCP it says in the hysteria area plan that we
have to meet the LCP test which is that the amount of extraction for the water
basin is below the sustainable yield and the latest available data that we have
from 2024 shows that the amount that the community use is less than the
sustainable yield for that year so that is the what we use what the county used
in their findings and we supported it in our staff recommendation. Okay thank you
very much. All right I'll return to the Commission for comments questions or a
motion which is on page four. Commissioner O'Malley. Yeah okay I'll make it, I moved the
Commission determine that appeal number a 3 SLO 25052 raise no suspension
substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been
filed under section 306 oh three and I recommend a yes vote. Is there a second?
Second. All right that's a motion by Commissioner O'Malley, a second by
Commissioner Wilson. They're asking for a yes vote. May we have a roll call please?
Commissioner Hart? Yes. Hart, yes. Commissioner Jackson? Aye. Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Kelly, yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Kalmick? Yes. Kalmick, yes. Commissioner Notoff? Aye. Notoff, yes.
Commissioner Moreno? Moreno, yes. Moreno, yes. Commissioner Wilson? Yes.
Wilson yes. Commissioner O'Malley yes. O'Malley yes. Commissioner Escalante yes.
Escalante yes. Chair Harmon yes. Yes the vote is unanimous. Thank you no
substantial issue has been found. Okay we're gonna be doing closed session
tomorrow for the commissioners so that concludes today's hearing and we'll see
you all back here at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Thank you very much.