Okay, ladies and gentlemen, hmm
Good morning. Welcome to this meeting of the California Coastal Commission while we're waiting for our chair to arrive
She's walking in right now
We can start with the preliminaries
She's coming right up. So we will
All right. I will start with the roll call if that's okay. That would be great. Thanks, Chris
Commissioner O'Malley present
O'Malley here Commissioner Eckerly here
Mr. Escalante
mr. Escalante
I'll ask Lante here Commissioner Hart here
Commissioner Jackson here
Commissioner Kelly here
It's Commissioner Conkle online today. I'm not sure yeah, you're consider Conkle
Commissioner Lee here
Commissioner Lopez here
Commissioner Lowenberg
Commissioner not off here
mr. Preciado here commissioner Williams
Commissioner Wilson present
chair Harmon
Here and we have a quorum great. Thank you very much. Um
Can we please have the virtual meeting procedures? Good morning
fiscal commission meeting is occurring both in person and through zoom
This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online at Cal dash band org
If you have internet access and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak on an item,
we recommend use the CalSPAN website.
Those who wish to address the Commission today can do so in person through the Zoom platform or by phone.
The speaker request forms may be found on the Commission's web page.
Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless submittal are available on the Commission staff table just outside the meeting room.
For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the Commission's agenda web page,
which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking during general public comment may be given up
to two minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair. Request to speak
during the general public comment period will not be accepted after 9 a.m. on each
day of the meeting. In order to provide the opportunity for the
broadest range of public participation, you may speak on a specific topic one
time only each month. Those speaking on an agenda item that is not general
public comment are typically allowed two to three minutes to speak at the
discretion of the chair. We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda
item up until the chair opens the hearing on that particular item.
If you have internet access, please go to the Commission's webpage and click on the
link to fill out a speaker request.
If you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone, please call the Commission's
staff at 562-477-9089.
Again, that number is 562-477-9089.
Staff will provide you with a telephone call-in number and instructions for how to participate
and provide testimony by phone.
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting
through a meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address the commission,
the organizer will invite you to turn on your video
and microphone or provide instructions
on how to unmute your phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes virtual hearing procedures.
Great, thank you very much.
All right, can we have the agenda changes please,
Mr. Teufel.
Thank you and good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
We have nine changes to the agenda noted
the agenda changes memo posted to the online agenda as follows. First, item 10a has been moved to
consent for an LCP amendment time extension for Humboldt County. Next, item 10b has also been
moved to consent an LCP amendment for Humboldt County. Next, item 11a has been moved to consent
for a CDP application in the city of Arcata. Next, item 11b has been postponed for a CDP
application in Humboldt County. Next, item 13a has been moved to consent for a San Mateo County
LCP amendment. Next, item 13b has been moved to consent for an LCP amendment time extension
for the city of Pacifica. Next, item 16a has been moved to consent for an LCP amendment time
extension for Santa Cruz County. Next, item 16b has been moved to consent for an LCP amendment
for San Luis Obispo County and finally item 16c has been moved to consent for an LCP amendment
for the city of Santa Cruz. That concludes the changes to today's agenda and that brings us to
item four general public comment. With that I'll turn the mic back over to you Madam Chair.
Great thank you very much and before we move to public comment just for everyone's planning
purposes I want to let you all know that we will be breaking at 11 today to go into closed session
that's our plan so if we could all keep that in mind thank you all right public comment thank
you very much for members of the public i'll be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and
invite you to speak when it is your turn each speaker will be allowed two minutes during general
public comment at the discretion of the chair in order to allow for live video testimony on zoom
we will be bringing you in as panelists as we bring you in your zoom will reload and this may
take a moment to speed up this process we will bring several people in at a time but please
Please remain muted and keep your video off until we ask you to speak.
After your time is up, you will be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room, I will call your names in the order that they
appear in 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 your hand function that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio, you can raise your hand by dialing star 9.
If you are participating by zoom, you should see a button on your zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item and are able to do so, please raise your hand
now on Zoom.
When it is your time to speak, we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star 6.
So for today's general public comments, it looks like we have 32 speakers.
I will start in the room.
Mitch Silverstein, followed by Maggie Hall, Molly Troop, Brady Bradshaw, David Derek.
Mitch?
Good morning Chair Harmon and commissioners, Mitch Silverstein with
Surfighter Foundation. I do have a video. Yes. It's the video that I tried to play
yesterday and it's two minutes and 40 something seconds. I leave it to your
discretion whether to cut it off or not. Thank you. Giving AGP a moment to bring it up.
I mean this was really a disaster zone for so many years with chain link fence
and concrete and asphalt falling onto the beach.
In 1989, the city and the fairgrounds
built a parking lot right on the edge of the beach.
There was a lot of community opposition at the time,
but the project was constructed,
and sure enough, within a couple years,
it was damaged by large waves and beach erosion.
The problem is when we build on the beach,
we interrupt the natural processes,
and the beach has to be able to adapt
to the winter waves and the summer waves,
and the different swells, and the beach is constantly changing.
So being able to get out of the way to move everything back
and allow those processes to happen naturally
is what we call a nature-based solution.
The project that has been implemented out here
was really developed by Surf Rider.
We were able to get over 100 people show up
to a public meeting in order to get this project accepted
and move forward.
Now it still took a really long time to get the funding
and get the final designs and plans
and everything together.
But in 2011, the first phase of the project was constructed.
Now we only had half the money,
so only half the project was built.
So what we're working on today is getting the funding
for the second phase of the project,
which would remove the remainder of the parking lot
and restore the beach down in that section.
Yeah, so this entire parking lot here will be moved back
where the road is today.
So you can imagine this'll all be dunes and cobble,
just like it is up in the first phase of the project.
If you just came out here for the first time,
you would think that this is a natural beach.
We had no idea the amount of work and time and energy
that went into making this project happen.
We were able to organize various work days over the years,
initially to plant and to spread seed out here on the dunes,
but then to come in and maintain these plants
and make sure that the non-native invasive plants
were removed and to create space for those native plants.
Yeah, I think that with any process
that involves so many different agencies,
you always need champions.
We had real champions in pretty much every agency
that was involved and it's that
that makes these projects happen.
It's really gratifying to me to see the success
of this project that we have here,
to see these dunes be so resilient,
see the beach come and go the way that it's supposed to,
and to see people coming out and enjoying it.
Thank you, and this was two years old,
so phase two is currently underway and almost complete.
Thank you for your support.
Thank you, and I hope you didn't have to
stay an extra night just to play that, but.
Next is Maggie Hall, Molly Troop,
Brady Bradshaw, David Derek, Maggie Hall.
Good morning.
And I do believe we have a PowerPoint presentation.
Would this be submitted by Molly True?
By Brady Bradshaw.
Right, Bradshaw.
OK, under the name Bradshaw.
If our team can bring that up.
All right, go ahead.
Great, thank you.
Good morning.
I'm Maggie Hall, Deputy Chief Counsel
at the Environmental Defense Center.
And I'm joined by Molly True at Santa Barbara Channel Keeper
and Brady Bradshaw from the Center for Biological Diversity.
We would like to collectively draw the commission's attention
to a recent proposal by the oil company, DECOR,
to conduct hydraulic fracturing treatments
from Platform Gilda and Federal Waters
off the Ventura coastline.
And we urge the Commission to assert its full authority
over that proposal under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Next slide, please.
The proposal is in the form of an updated development
and production plan that was submitted by DECOR to BOEM
and determined to be complete on February 24th, 2026.
The updated DPP proposes to conduct fracking at 16 wells with up to 38 treatments to occur
over a five-year period.
Specifically, the company would use a combination of hydraulic fracturing and gravel packing
called frack-pack treatments.
The proposal follows years of litigation over the use of these unconventional practices
in this region, which our organization, along with the Coastal Commission, brought against
the federal government.
We originally learned that fracking and acidizing were occurring in Waters Offshore California
only through Freedom of Information Act requests.
Essentially, the federal government had been rubber-stamping fracking permits without conducting
any environmental review or seeking any input from the public or other agencies like the
Coastal Commission.
As relevant here, they entirely failed to adhere to the consistency review process required
by the Coastal Zone Management Act.
These lawsuits resulted in a federal court injunction that is still in place today, first
issued in 2018 and expanded in 2023.
And that injunction prohibits BOEM from approving well stimulation treatments until it completes
the CCMA process, an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental
Policy Act, and consultation under the Endangered Species Act.
May I briefly conclude?
So this is the first time since that injunction went into place that we've seen proposals
for fracking and the courts injunction upholds the Commission's authority to conduct consistency
review and we urge the Commission to fully assert that right here and bring the many
protections of the Coastal Management Program into play.
I'll hand it over to Molly.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Next slide, please.
As a reminder, the Santa Barbara Channel is an internationally recognized, or is internationally
recognized as an incredibly diverse and biologically
sensitive ecosystem due to it being a transition zone
between the cool northern California current
and the warm southern California countercurrent.
The biological productivity that results
supports unparalleled species diversity and density,
including 25 threatened and endangered species
that are present around the platforms, including gilda.
These species include blue fin and humpback whales,
sea otters, sea turtles, and several rare birds.
While all oil and gas drilling is controversial
due to the many inherent risks of the industry
that poses to the environment, human health, and climate,
well stimulation treatments add increased risks and impacts.
Hydraulic fracturing is a well stimulation method
used to increase oil and gas production
from impermeable rock formations.
To do this, large quantities of water, sand, and chemicals
are blasted down a well at extreme high pressures.
And in DECOR's updated DPP, they are proposing a frack packing stimulation method, which
combines hydraulic fracturing and gravel packing, a technique used in formations that produce
loose sand that needs to be prevented from flowing into the wellbore.
One significant aspect of the increased risk is due to the use of highly toxic chemicals
that are used to create the fracturing fluid.
Chemicals used in this process are not often disclosed due to being labeled as confidential
business information.
However, the chemicals used in fracking that have been identified are acutely toxic to
marine mammals and species.
In one study of the fracking events between 2011 and 2013, 10 of the fracking chemicals
routinely used during these events were found to be able to kill and harm a broad variety
of marine species, including sea otters, fish, and benthic invertebrates.
Additionally, the chemicals used post-threat sea environment at every stage of production
from transportation to the platforms at high pressures and disposal.
Chemicals used in fracking can enter the water several ways through leaks and spills, platforms
and pipelines, and through discharges.
Thank you.
Hello.
Next slide, please.
So most of California's offshore oil and gas infrastructure was built in the 1960s and has
been sitting in the ocean for over 50 years, while its intended lifespan was only 20 to
The original DPP for platform Gilda indicated a 30-year lifespan for a 1980s platform.
And so after 20 years of use, the annual probability of an offshore oil pipeline failure steadily increases from 10 to 100%.
We've seen terrible disasters already as a result of corrosion.
Fracking would only extend the life of these platforms that should be decommissioned.
Both, you know, fracking both extends the life and increases the risks associated in
this way.
And so, you know, we just have to be aware that proposals like this sometimes exist just
to keep the infrastructure up and running.
Extending the life of these platforms leads to more climate and health impacts generally,
but more specifically methane extraction and combustion, which is climate super pollutant
80 times more powerful than CO2 over a 20-year period.
Next slide, please.
The fracking process also produces large quantities
of produced wastewater or flowback, which
has been made toxic by fracking and either
needs to be disposed of or stored in underwater wastewater
injection wells.
The Center produced a report in 2014 called On Shaky Ground
that reviews a large body of documented evidence
these wells can produce large earthquakes including damaging earthquakes of magnitudes 4 to 5.
Many of the wells onshore and offshore California are near pre-existing faults and alarmingly this
seismic activity may in turn increase the likelihood of damaging the oil and gas wells
nearby potentially resulting in future oil spills and methane leaks. So just to reiterate we hope
hope that the commission will use its full authority under the Coastal Zone
Management Act on this issue. Thank you. Thank you. David, Derek. Okay next we'll
continue with Brad Lyons, Addison Olsen, Mike Moss, shy Daniels. We on here? All
right. Hi, hi again. Good morning commissioners. My name is Brad Lyons. I'm
the head coach of the Ventura College women's beach volleyball team behind me.
I am speaking today because our issue is not currently on the agenda but
respectfully asked that the Commission consider reviewing it at a future
meeting. At the Commission hearing in Half Moon Bay last May, this Commission
asked the Ventura Harbor District and the Coastal staff to work together to
find a compromise that could protect coastal resources while preserving this
long-standing community recreation program, the Beach Volleyball Courts in
in Ventura Harbor.
I served on the committee that followed that request.
We spent months evaluating potential relocation sites,
not only within the harbor but throughout the county,
volunteering many hours to find a reasonable solution
for Ventura College and the community.
Our committee ultimately concluded
that the current location remained the only suitable site.
However, when those findings were brought forward,
the Harbor District was left with essentially one option,
move a small number of courts in order to secure
a sand management permit that is critical
for maintaining safe harbor and beach conditions.
While our committee worked diligently
to follow the commission's request
for a collaborative compromise,
the outcome we were ultimately presented with
does not appear to reflect the balanced solution
this commission envisioned.
The solution is particularly difficult
because the Harbor District has stated
that before the courts were installed,
they consulted the Coastal Commission staff
and were told that a permit was not required.
Acting in good faith, they proceeded based on that guidance.
Now more than a decade later,
those courts are being treated as unpermitted development.
Regardless of how records were kept at the time,
the Harbor relied on regulatory guidance
and built a public facility
that has served thousands of residents.
It is also important to remember
that the dunes in the area were originally constructed
by the Port District and the Army Corps of Engineers
in the 80s as infrastructure
to prevent blowing sand from spinnaker.
I respectfully ask that the commission
to consider placing this issue on a future agenda.
So a balanced discussion can take place
that considers both coastal protection
and long-standing community recreation.
So thank you.
Thank you, next Addison Olson, Mike Maas, Shai Daniels.
Good morning.
My name is Addison Olson.
I have had the pleasure this year to be a captain
of my beach volleyball team at Ventura College.
I'm here today to explain to each of you
why the beach volleyball courts at Ventura Harbor
are necessary for women's improvement
in the game of beach volleyball.
I had the privilege of playing D1 volleyball
indoor at CSUB my freshman year,
then realized that I had no opportunity to grow.
That's when I made the decision to come to Ventura.
I have loved moving by the beach,
playing beach volleyball with my teammates
who have become my close friends and some of my roommates.
I know that each of you have had moments in your life
where your college friends and teammates and roommates
are now your lifelong friends.
I hope that whenever I'm older,
I can still come back to the Harbor Courts
and play beach volleyball with my teammates.
I'm also here to say that this is not a choice between protecting the coast and protecting our community
We all believe that they both can be considered and brought to a same conclusion. I
Sorry, I
Believe that environmental protection is critical, but so is human development and opportunity the courts have supported
education for under
for underserved youth, as well as youth athletics,
healthy outdoor activity for older generations,
and community connection.
Decisions about coastal management should weigh
with both the environmental and community outcomes.
I really hope that you will consider our request
to be put on a further agenda at a later time.
Thank you guys so much and I hope you have a great day.
Thank you, Mike Moss, Shai Daniels, Dana Barrios,
Viola Barrios.
OK, I have nothing written down, but I represent
these wonderful girls.
I also am very old.
I'm also representing the over 50,000 athletes
I have personally coached over the years,
including Olympians, multiple indoor Olympians,
and all these girls, the opportunity
you're thinking about taking away from them
really closes the doors to so many,
so many opportunities to grow.
And also throughout the years I've been doing this,
which is 55, I have had very few girls
that has ever gotten in trouble with drugs.
They have almost, every one of them,
have gone on to college.
They have become teachers, doctors, lawyers,
and they're still friends of mine.
And I keep track of them.
And all we're asking for is a little opportunity
for girls like them and the ones that are following.
Okay, thank you for your consideration.
Thank you Shai Daniels Dana Barrios viola barrios Madison Murrow
Shai Daniels
First off I want to say thank you for pronouncing my name right a lot of the times people say shay
Good morning. My name is shy Daniels and I'm here with the women's speech volleyball program in terror college
I live my life as devout follower of Jesus Christ and my life teaches me that my role on this earth is to be a peacemaker
Someone who seeks reconciliation avoid stirring up unnecessary conflict and most importantly moves in love in
The Bible Romans chapter 12 verse 18 says if it is possible as far as it depends on you live at peace with everyone
So today is not about who is right and who is wrong. I believe that through compromise conversation and collaboration
We can protect our
coastline while also supporting our community
I highly respect the work that the California Coastal Commission is striving to do, protecting
coastal habitats is a real and important responsibility that we all share as a community.
At the same time, it's important to note that the California Coastal Act is not just
an environmental protection law.
It also calls for maximizing public access and recreational opportunities.
These courts are more than sand, nets, and wooden posts.
They are places where people gather to compete, grow, build community.
For many of us athletes, they represent opportunity, education and personal development.
Having nine courts in one location allows for the space to host tournaments, fundraisers
and collegiate matches that meet NCAA and 3C2A standards for youth players, families
and community members of all ages.
Collegiate competition requires at least five properly configured permanent courts.
The proposed location will reduce the number and change the layout so it would no longer
support collegiate athlete matches.
When we reduce courts, we reduce opportunity for student athletes for community recreation
and for the next generation of women in sports.
At the end of the day, we all want the same thing, a healthy coastline, and a thriving
community.
As someone guided by my faith, I also believe we are called to be good stewards of the world
we have been given, which includes caring for our coastline and the communities who
depend on it.
My hope is that this meeting is not the final chapter of this conversation, and I hope that
that there can be ongoing dialogue
between the commissioners, environmental planners,
and those of us in truly,
in volleyball community to explore solutions
that truly serve both goals.
I have a little bit more, please let me keep going.
Protecting our coastline is,
protecting our coastline
while preserving meaningful recreational access
is a complex issue
and it deserves thoughtful and patient collaboration
because protecting our coastline
and supporting our community are not opposing goals.
They are responsibilities that we share
and they should never come at the cost of one another.
Thank you for your time and God bless.
Thank you.
Dana Barrios, Viola Barrios, Madison Moreau, Trevor Julian.
Ah, haku, hello.
My name is Dana Barrios and I'm the former chairwoman
and current member of the Barbrenio-Venturaniel
Band of Mission Indians and the sister of Viola Barrios,
who's a volleyball player at Ventura College.
Ventura is our traditional homeland.
Our ancestors came from Lemus, Santa Cruz Island
when the mission systems arrived and displaced our people.
Since that time, our community has worked
to reclaim our culture and our responsibility
as stewards of these lands and waters.
Because of that history, I'm very familiar
with the work of the California Coastal Commission.
And I appreciate the role the commission plays
in caring for California's coast.
In my professional life, I work with the state of California
on statewide mental health initiatives
where I help ensure youth and family voices
are included in statewide policy decisions.
One message we hear again and again from young people
is the importance of safe and accessible outdoor spaces.
Youth consistently connect recreation,
nature and community spaces
with their mental health and wellbeing.
For Native youth, this issue is especially urgent.
Native youth had the highest suicide rates
of any racial or ethnic group in the United States.
Opportunities that foster belonging,
mentorship and community can make a real difference.
Athletics are one of the most powerful ways
to create those opportunities.
For many young people, sports are not just recreation.
They are connection, discipline
and a pathway to higher education.
This is why I'm asking you to reconsider your stance
on the volleyball courts of Ventura Harbor
at a future meeting.
Maintaining nine courts matters.
It allows more youth to participate,
keeps Ventura competitive with other coastal communities
that host tournaments,
and brings visitors who support our local economy.
Most importantly, these courts create a space and place
where young people can gather, grow,
and imagine their futures together.
I hope you will support keeping the nine courts.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Viola Barrios, Madison Moreau,
Trevor Julian, Monet Ramassar.
Good morning, my name is Viola Barrios,
and I'm here in hopes that you may put us
on your agenda in the future.
When I, I play beach volleyball at Ventura College.
When I first started at Ventura College,
my mental health was not great and I was unmotivated.
But soon enough, I found my love for education,
going to class and learning.
My love for education grew from there,
building a community within Ventura College
by working in the Tutoring Center as a chemistry tutor
and having the opportunity to help other students.
I had a purpose, I had something to wake up for.
Ventura College Beach Volleyball has helped me to find something that I look forward to
studying for the rest of my life.
It helped my mental health to drastically improve.
Our coaches have helped us to understand that the qualities that we possess as college athletes
transfer into our adult lives.
Leadership development, mental toughness, time management, problem solving, reliability
and communication.
I want future generations of women to have the opportunities that I have had by shrinking
the volleyball courts from 9 courts to 3 or 4 courts is a big injustice for those future
female athletes. We need at least 6 permanent courts in order to stay competitive and to
have a true beach volleyball program. I am Chumash and my ancestors are from Santa Cruz
Island. We are the first people of Ventura, so I deeply understand the importance of preserving
our coast. I also know that we must invest in the future. Restoring our coast and investing
and Ventura's youth are not competing values, they can both be true.
This commission has the opportunity to shape generations to come, but that requires investing
in youth.
There is no reason we cannot protect the coast while also maintaining full volleyball courts.
Reducing the courts reduces opportunities for female athletes and limits their chances
to earn scholarships and pursue a higher education.
So now you have a choice, and I hope you choose to pave the way for future doctors, nurses,
engineers, physicists, educators, and so many more.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Madison Miro, Trevor Julian Mone Ramassar, Sadie Lishman.
Hello, my name is Madison Miro
and I play women's beach volleyball at Ventura College.
The reason I'm here today is to explain to each of you
how important the beach volleyball courts
located in Ventura's Harbor Cove Beach area are
and how they should not be removed
or relocated from their current area
in which they are already placed.
When it comes to the longstanding public use
of these courts, it is now part of the Coastal Act policy.
For over a decade, these courts have been important,
an important part of our coastline and our community.
Families, students, athletes, and visitors
gather here every day to enjoy the beach
in a way that is active, healthy,
and accessible to everyone.
The California Coastal Act doesn't only protect
environment, it also protects public access and recreational opportunities
along our coast. These courts represent exactly that, a long-standing, well
established recreational use that allows people to connect with the shoreline.
Removing them would not improve access to the coast, it would take away a unique
opportunity, a unique community space that has served the public for many
years. These courts are part of Ventura's identity and part of how people
experience our beaches. I personally have not only witnessed our beach volleyball
program use these courts, but there are a group of women that use them a couple
mornings out of the week before we start practice. There has been high school
students as well as students from other colleges also using our courts. I have
been on weekends and all the courts have been filled with families, friends,
sharing memories on these courts. So I respectfully ask the Commission to
recognize the long history of public recreation and preserve the courts of
future generations, can continue to enjoy the court in the same way we do today.
Thank you. Thank you. Trevor Julian, Monet Ramassar, Sadie Lishman, Jocelyn Alpher.
I'm not seeing Trevor Julian, Monet Ramassar. Hi, my name is Monet Ramassar. I play
beach volleyball at BC and our hope is you guys consider our requests for being
put on the agenda at a later time. I am from Westlake and I have been coming to
Harbor Court since I was 14 years old to play beach volleyball. Being on these courts surrounded
by powerful, smart, and hard-working women, I've learned so much that I will take with me throughout
my entire life and I wish for future generations of young girls to get to experience that. I played
four years of beach volleyball at Westlake High School and all of our tournaments were held at
the Harbor Courts along with playing for Lava Beach. Hundreds of girls depend on these courts to give
them opportunities to prepare for the next steps not only in their sport but also in our lives.
Taking away these courts is not as simple as replacing them it is taking away opportunity
and resources for women. As one of the fastest growing collegiate sports in the country
many girls from our community who have reached the division one level played at our very own
Ventura Harbor Beach courts that set a path to a better life. I want to play at the next level
and VC is preparing me for that. The beach courts are preparing me for that. And taking away this
resource is devastating for me and hundreds of girls who dream of playing beach volleyball in
college. Please hear us when we say the courts must remain where they are as they are. It is
important to us and it is important for the community. Thank you for listening and for your time.
Thank you. Sadie Lishman, Jocelyn Alfarr, Chelsea Torres, Kelly Kale.
Good morning, my name is Sadie Lischman and I play women's beach volleyball at Ventura College.
I'm here to explain to each of you why the volleyball courts here in Ventura,
Harbor Cove Beach cannot be removed or relocated. I want to speak briefly about what these beach
volleyball courts mean to our community. For many people here, these courts are more than just a
place to play. They're one of the few free public spaces where people of all ages can come together,
stay active, and build community.
Every day, you see students, families, and local athletes
using them.
They're also incredibly important for women's sports.
Women's speech volleyball is one of the fastest-growing sports
in California.
But opportunities for girls and young women to train and compete
are still limited.
Courts like these ones at the Harbor Cove
provide a rare and valuable place for female athletes
to practice, develop their skills,
and pursue college opportunities.
If the number of the courts is reduced,
It directly limits access.
Fewer courts means fewer teams can practice,
fewer community members can play,
and fewer opportunities for women in our area.
These courts help support healthy lifestyles,
equal opportunity, and we hope that you will consider
putting us on your agenda.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jocelyn Alfar, Chelsea Torres, Kelly Cale, Bayra Boyso.
Hello, my name is Jocelyn Alfar,
and I am here today with my beach volleyball team
Ventura College. As we all continue speaking, our goal is for you to please
consider putting us on your agenda. The courts at the Harbor Cove Beach are
incredibly special to us as you can probably tell. So many people across
Ventura County use them and really they are not just volleyball courts. They're a
place where athletes are able to train, build lifelong friendships, and really bring the entire
community together. I recently transferred here from Florida and I've never experienced having
such a nice facility even in Florida. Nothing compares to the nine courts that we have.
overlooking the harbor with the space that we need. It's just so beautiful and it's hard to
recreate that and yeah it's a very unique and special place. Every single day we train here
and it truly has become our home. It's definitely become my home personally. We work hard to
improve not just as athletes but as students and people. I understand that there needs to be a
balance between protecting our coast and serving the community, but these courts do serve the
community in the most meaningful way. They provide opportunities for young athletes, especially women,
to compete, grow, and pursue their education. They also provide the general public with a free,
clean, accessible place to exercise and connect with those around them. Removing or reducing
these courts would take away opportunities from current and future students who rely on this
space. For our team and for the Ventura community, keeping these nine courts where they are is
incredibly important. I respectfully ask the commission to please consider preserving the
harbor courts as they are today. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Chelsea Torres,
Kelly Cale, Bayra Boiso, Valerie Abara. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Chelsea Torres
and I play beach volleyball at Ventura College. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our
community today. I'm here to speak about something that to many people is more than just courts,
but to hundreds of athletes, families, and young girls across Ventura County,
those courts represent something much bigger. They represent opportunity. For more than a decade,
the beach volleyball courts at Ventura Harbor have been a place where young athletes have learned
discipline, teamwork, and resilience. They are where friendships were built, where confidence grew,
and where countless hours of hard work were poured into chasing goals that once felt impossible.
Every grand grain of salt of sand on those courts holds memories. Early morning practices before
school, teammates lifting each other up after tough losses, and the joy of hard earned victories,
these courts have helped shape the lives of so many young women in our community.
For many athletes, this is where their journey began.
Some of them have gone on to play in college, earn scholarships, and pursue higher education
because of the opportunities they discovered here.
But what matters just as much are the girls who haven't stepped onto these courts yet.
Right now somewhere in Ventura County there are girls who are hoping maybe one day they
can have the same opportunity we did.
These courts are where they might find confidence, strength, and a path they never imagined.
If we reduce these courts or remove them entirely, we are not just removing sand and nets, we
are reducing opportunities.
Fewer courts mean fewer practices, fewer teams, fewer tournaments, and fewer young women who
get the chance to participate.
Less space means less opportunity, and in a time when women's sports are finally growing
and gaining the recognition they deserve, we should be expanding those opportunities,
not shrinking them.
These courts are a symbol of what happens when a community invests in its young people.
They are a place where athletes grow into leaders, students grow into scholars, and
girls grow into confident, powerful women who will shape the future of our community.
We are not asking for something new, we are simply asking to protect something that has
already been proven its value for more than 10 years.
Please consider the hundreds of athletes who have trained there the families who support
them and the many future players who are still waiting for their chance. Thank you.
Thank you. Callie Cahill, Bair Boiso, Valeria Ibarra, Alayna Henchen.
Good morning commissioners. My name is Callie Cahill. I play women's beach volleyball at
Ventura College. I'm here today to explain why the beach volleyball courts at Harbor Cove Beach
in Ventura cannot be removed or significantly reduced. I grew up in Bakersfield and the courts
we had there were not a safe place to play. Because of that, I never had the opportunity
to go somewhere to be outside and play the sport I love with my friends. When I came
to Ventura College, these courts became that place for me. They're not just courts, they're
a safe space, a community, and an opportunity. I get to spend every morning playing the sport
I love with my best friends. I recently committed to play at the University of Redlands and
that truly could not have been possible without these courts. These courts provide all these
opportunities for free. So many young athletes miss out on club sports due to
their financial situations. These courts provide them with the chance to grow as
an athlete and as a person without putting financial stress on them or
their parents. Taking the courts away or shrinking them to three to four courts
would be detrimental to young athletes and for future generations who deserve
the same chance to play, grow, and belong. This is not a choice between protecting
the coast and supporting the community. We believe both can be achieved here. Our
Our hope is that you will listen to our plea
and put us on the agenda.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Beira Boiso, Valeria Ibarra, Aliana Hanjin.
Hello, good morning.
My name is Beira Boiso, and I play at Ventura College.
I am here today to share why the beach volleyball courts should
not be removed or relocated.
To some people, these courts might have no value
or importance to them.
But to us, they mean a lot.
They are where we train every day and grow as a team.
I personally did not grow up playing on these courts,
but a lot of my teammates have been playing here
since they were little
and they hold a lot of memories to them.
They've also helped them become the athletes they are today.
For all of us, the courts are a place
where we push ourselves, support each other,
and grow not only as athletes, but as people.
The Coastal Act mentioned protecting the environment,
it also talks about supporting public access and recreation. These courts do that and they
allow students, young athletes, and the community to use the beach in a healthy and positive way.
These courts support education, youth, athletics, outdoor activity, and community connection.
Many school teams and local groups use them. They give young athletes a place to practice, improve,
and think about their future. Environmental protection is very important but it does not
have to come at the cost of losing something that helps so many people. Protecting the
coasts and supporting the community can both coexist here like it has been. These courts may not mean
much to everyone again but to us they represent opportunity, growth, and the future of many young
athletes and even after we transfer or move on these courts will continue helping the next
generation of players grow as athletes and individuals. I'm hoping you guys will consider
adding the issue to the agenda and thank you for your time. Thank you. Valeria Ibarra,
Aliana Hanjin, and then we'll move to our Zoom participants, starting with Camila Rang,
Terry Saucier, Dio Cracchi. Good morning honorable chair and members of the board. My name is Valeria
and I play Women's Beach Volleyball at Ventura College.
I am here to explain to each of you
why the Beach Volleyball courts here in Ventura Harbor Cove
Beach cannot be removed or relocated.
I want to speak briefly about what these courts mean
for women's sports and the opportunity
they give our community.
Women's Beach Volleyball is one of the fastest growing
collegiate sports in the country.
These courts are not just athletic facilities,
but for most young girls like myself.
they're a place where we build confidence,
pursue education, and develop leadership.
They're enjoyed beyond just collegiate athletes,
but women of all ages.
As we have practiced every day on these courts,
I've had the opportunity to see young women,
young girls, learning the game of volleyball,
the game of volleyball.
Women of all ages become regularly to stay active,
socialize and enjoy our beautiful coastline.
It's rare to find recreational spaces
that naturally bring everyone together.
Removing these courts would mean losing a space
that has quickly become meaningful
to many members of our community for the last 12 years.
I respectfully ask the board
to consider their removal and relocation
to explore ways to keep these courts available
so that all people of ages can continue to enjoy them.
I know that for Ventura College,
My fellow teammates and I, the Ventura Harbor Cove Beach
Volleyball Courts are invaluable.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Alliana Hanschen.
Good morning, honorable chair and members of the board.
My name is Alliana Hanschen, and I play women's beach
volleyball at Ventura College.
I'm here to speak about why removing the Harbor Cove Beach
Volleyball Courts would be harmful to women's sports
in our community.
Women's Beach Volleyball is one of the fastest growing
collegiate sports in the country,
with participation increasing by 194% over the last decade.
And that growth is happening right here in Ventura.
These courts are where local athletes train, compete,
and work toward opportunities to play at the next level.
But these courts are more than just a place to practice.
They're where girls first learn the sport,
where confidence grows, and where women in our community
come together to stay active and support one another.
The decision you make about these courts
will shape whether future girls in Ventura
have the same opportunities that we have today.
If these courts are removed, we aren't simply losing nets.
We're losing a space that inspires the next generation
of female athletes.
This is not a choice between protecting the coast
and supporting the community.
We believe both can be achieved here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And thank you to all our in-person speakers.
We are now moving to our Zoom speakers,
starting with Camila Rang, Terry Saucier,
Theo Crackey, Susan Kirk.
Camila Rang, go ahead.
Good morning, commissioners.
I'm Camila Rang from Del Mar.
In June of 2022, Sandeig and the Coastal Commission
made a deal.
Sandeig wanted a phase five permit
to further arm of the bluff with massive sea walls.
The Coastal Commission found that that project
was not to comply with the Coastal Act.
Nevertheless, the Coastal Commission granted the permit
on the express condition
that Sandeig would construct eight mitigation measures,
one of them more important than any other
for the California public, safe beach access
across or under the rails on the bluff.
Delmar residents and all of San Diego Council
and we would have access to the beach on our bluff.
However, we were just told by the director that he is planning to work with you, commissioners,
along the bluff to convince you to back off on enforcing this beach access deal.
Mario also claims that a beach access will cost him $80 million.
That is simply not true.
$80 million is a completely inflated number made up only to try to convince you to let
them off the hook on this public right of reach access that they committed to.
Next slide, please. All we are asking is a minimal type access. Next slide, please. Thank
you. Now that Sandeig will increase train traffic from 40 trains per day to over 100,
the safest will be to construct in underpass. We are not asking for any type of fantasy
underpass. We just want to safely get to the other side of the rails. There are hundreds
of examples of simplistic pedestrian tunnels. We also believe that the access down the bluff
will get exempt from ADA access since Del Mar lifeguard station further north provides
flat access and handicap parking. The steps down the bluff from the end of the pass also
needs to be accessed from the top where many people walk the dogs from the San Diego side
to take the dogs to the beach since dogs are not allowed on the San Diego own beach. We,
Del Mar, love our dogs and want to provide all dogs with a happy day on the beach. Please
These hold sand to the side of the deal.
They took 50,000 square feet of beach from us and the public.
So please do not let them off the hook on the most important mitigation promise.
Save beach access across the rails on the bluff.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Terry Sossier, Theo Crackey, Susan Kirk, Spryne Sweeney.
Terry Sossier.
Good morning commissioners.
Last month, I came before you to raise the alarm about artificial tour projects being
proposed inside and directly adjacent to the Coastal Commission Zone by Santa Monica Malibu
Unified School District and at the L.A. Reckon Park's Palisades Park. I'm here today to reiterate
that urgency. As you know, artificial terms of fossil fuel-based petrochemical plastic contains
multiple chemicals of concern. There's also a significant source of plastic pollution in our
watersheds and oceans. We very much appreciate your work to keep our oceans and marine life safe,
including your landmark 2023 decision to deny UC Santa Barbara a permit to put in a plastic field
in the California Coastal Commission. The field at Palisades Park is similar in that it's directly
adjacent to the ocean, and stormwater runoff will flow into a
Potrero Canyon in the ocean. The prose field calls for 140,000
square feet of impermeable plastic. Between November and today alone, that
would have produced over 1 million gallons of toxic runoff.
As recently as 2023, there was a landslide in Potrero Canyon that had to
be filled. A regulation field, a typical one,
generates 2,000 to 3,000 pounds of plastic grass
per year, and 12 to 15 percent of our microplastics in our oceans are from
artificial turf. The product being proposed has 16 times the plastic blades, therefore 16 times the
microplastic blades that could be lost. If the commission does not act now, school districts
and rec and parks will see it as a permission to run those full steam ahead and it will be difficult
to reverse. Please notify Santa Monica Malibu USD and Ellie Rec and Parks that artificial turf is
not permitting the coastal commission zone and why, nor directly adjacent is going to affect the
Coastal Commission and develop a strong artificial turf policy and enforcement program.
Our communities, children, and future generations are counting on you to protect the coast
and our oceans. Thank you very much. Thank you. Theo Crackey, Susan Kirk's
Brian Sweeney, Devon Porter. Theo Crackey. Good morning. My name is Theo Crackey. I'm a
Santa Barbara resident. I want this commission to be aware, to be aware of what's happening
at our local level before our proposed Santa Barbara City short-term rental ordinance reaches
you for review. Last week the Santa Barbara Planning Commissioners publicly reviewed a draft
of this ordinance which effectively eliminates un-hosted vacation rentals in the coastal zone.
Short-term rentals represent roughly 67 percent of overnight visitor capacity in Santa Barbara's
coastal zone. If this ordinance passes as it's currently written, displaced visitors won't find
alternatives. They simply won't come. That outcome is directly contrary to the
Coastal Act's mandate to protect and encourage lower-cost visitor
accommodations at the coast. What I want you to know is that each one of the
Santa Barbara Planning Commissioners had serious reservations about this draft
ordinance. They were all in agreement to not forward it before those
reservations could be addressed. However, at this point in the meeting, the city
attorneys stepped in and warned that doing so would drastically push back the deadline.
However, there is no real deadline for getting this ordinance passed.
The reason for this deadline is that the coastal zone portion of this ordinance requires approval
by this commission. Megan Harmon, a Santa Barbara City Council member, currently chairs this
commission. Harmon believes that long-term housing stock will increase when short-term
rentals are eliminated. But she nor the Santa Barbara Planning Commission have provided any
evidence that that's what will happen. Although not a planning victory, there is a political
victory for Harmon in getting this flawed ordinance approved by the California Coastal
Commission before her term ends. And that is the reason for this artificial deadline.
I'm raising this now so that when this deficient ordinance comes before you,
You have the context for the process that produced it and that you vigorously review the
this ordinance and demand evidence proving that it will not drastically reduce affordable
lodging at the coast before you approve it. Thank you. Thank you. Susan Kirks, Brian Sweeney,
Devon Porter, Diane Wolkie. Susan Kirks. Oh, it looks like Susan Kirks didn't move over. You're
are moving over now if you accept it. There we go. All right so when you're able to please go ahead.
Thank you sorry I somehow I dropped off of Zoom and had to come back in. Good morning commissioners
Chair Harmon, Dr. Hucklebridge and staff. My name is Susan Kirks. I'd like to briefly speak about
something that occurred yesterday in general public comment and lend my support for some of
of the commissioner comments related to that item.
The La Jolla Beach sea lion issue is so deeply heartbreaking
to hear about month after month after month.
And I would like to ask you to please agendize this
for your April meeting so that we who are conservationists,
members of the public, the Seal Society Sierra Club,
The group that has been so dedicated to try to bring a resolution to this issue and to
prevent further deaths, abuse and harassment of the sea lions can be assuredly addressed.
Please use your authority to close the staircase that has repeatedly been described to you
as sea lions hauling out to rest and people going down the staircase and harassing the
sea lions.
That is something that could have been done long ago.
I appreciate that there has been some progress made, as described yesterday, by Dr. Hucklebridge.
But I do believe, as was mentioned, with 51 days until the next puffing season, this is
now an urgent situation.
been an urgent situation for a very long time and the such suggestion to close the beach
during pumping season to public access is reasonable and necessary. And I definitely
appreciate the commissioner comments yesterday to close this beach in that regard. And I really love
the idea of the platform the viewing platform that could easily be installed with stationary
viewing scopes and binoculars so that the public could be able to view
this miraculous situation. Thank you. Thank you, Brian Sweeney. It looks like
Devin Porter dropped out of the meeting so we'll call him at the end. So Brian
Sweeney, Diane Wokey, Adam Leverns. Brian Sweeney, go ahead. Good morning
commissioners. My name is Brian Sweeney and I'm here to speak on synthetic turf
installations at the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District that appeared to have happened
inside the coastal zone without coastal development permits. Earlier this year, the district installs
a synthetic turf field at Ocean Park School, which used to be known as SMASH, in Santa Monica
in the coastal zone. While the work was underway in January, I documented the installation and
provided photographs and information to enforcement staff at the commission, showing the plastic base
and the turf being installed. Over the following weeks, staff asked me to provide additional
information several times and each time I did so, writing photos, dates, etc., about the installation
that was occurring. But despite that ongoing communication, the installation continued and
was completed. To my knowledge, the district was never even contacted by the commission and no
attempt was made to stop the work while it was happening, not even a phone call. Unfortunately,
the lesson the district learned from this, which I think everyone would, is that if you don't put
put plans into public and you just go ahead with it,
the Coastal Commission isn't gonna do much to stop you.
So of course, what did the district do?
Ended up installing synthetic turf again in the coastal zone
in Malibu at Webster Elementary.
So right now this incentive structure is backwards.
If a project gets publicly proposed,
the Coastal Act applies,
but if it's not publicly proposed, it doesn't.
At Smash, this problem at that ocean park site
is still fixable, students aren't there
and won't be there until August.
So the Coastal Commission could come down and say,
hey, school district, you shouldn't have installed this
and the district would remove it.
District could do similar thing at Webster Elementary.
I would ask that you have enforcement staff report back
on what actions, if any, they have taken regarding this,
as well as come up with a clear bright line policy
that builds on the October guidance,
making it clear to entities like the school district
that these types of installations won't apply.
so that little kids aren't tracking plastic into the ocean.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Diane Wolkie, Adam Leverance and Anne Stenton.
Those are the last three that we're able to find.
Diane Wolkie.
Diane, you're in as a panelist.
You should be able to unmute.
There you go.
Good morning, Chair Hardin, commissioners.
Diane Wolkie, board member with Safe Healthy Playing Fields.
I strongly urge you to form a formal policy
on petrochemical synthetic turf.
We understand that you have decreased resources,
but I can assure you that they're greater
than those of all of the advocates throughout the state,
and we're not going away.
Failure to have a strong policy and take action
only emboldens the plastic turf industry,
which is already stepping up its efforts
over the current 1,100 acres of plastic,
the equivalent of 870 football fields
it is installing annually in California.
As stated by Terry Saussier,
each of these fields sheds two to 3,000 pounds
of just the plastic blades alone,
apart from the backing and the underlayment pad.
And newer versions of these fields
have 16 times more blades.
Currently in San Diego Unified School Districts,
there are 54 new fields planned.
Eight projects with 10 fields planned in the coastal zone.
Two of these fields are under the coastal permit zone
while the rest are in the local permit zone.
Carl Spad's Poinsettia Beach rolled out more plastic
within the past two weeks,
and it appears that they've expanded the footprint
and removed additional trees.
A small portion of that area
is in the joint jurisdiction area.
However, that may now even be a larger area,
given the, it looks like they have more plastic there.
Approved last night is nearly 110,000 square feet of plastic
for Carlsbad High School,
which again appears to fall in the joint jurisdiction area.
Knowing that we have, what we have learned,
working with advocates in Santa Monica and the Palisades
In conjunction with the commission,
we urge you to exercise your authority.
All of these fields drain to the ocean,
and it is paramount to stop flushing toxic chemicals
and microplastics down the drain.
Please, please, form a formal policy
and please communicate with your local permit people.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our last two speakers, Adam Leverans and Anstead.
Adam Leverans.
Good morning.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes, we can hear you fine.
Awesome, thanks.
I just wanted to express gratitude
for the consensus yesterday
on the nature-based adaption strategies
for protecting the coast from sea level rise and whatnot.
And also appreciation to Mr. Silverstein and Surf Rider
for the second effort at getting that video
that didn't play yesterday played today.
Second issue, the legislation which would allow cities
designate themselves as urban multi-modal communities if they have high-quality
transit corridors, plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and specific bicycle facilities.
Self-certification, from my experience, would create all kinds of issues. In Newport Beach,
I see frequent efforts at trying to circumvent higher-level review, avoid higher-level review,
or manipulate higher level review. And a harbor commissioner who was appointed last year on his
application proclaimed that he believes the city owns and operates the most beautiful harbor on
the west coast. It's a constant struggle here to convince the city that they are merely trustees
of public property owned by the state and for everybody. And I heard a lot of concern from
commissioners and staff yesterday about this potential legislation and I hope you really keep
an eye on it and that legislators are receptive to recognizing that this is going to lead to more
local influence and control over statewide access to public spaces and thank you all so much again.
Thank you and now Ann Stenton who I believe is logged in as Newport Moring Association.
Good morning, I have a slide please. Yes, give us a moment to bring it up. Okay.
Good morning Chair Harmon, commissioners and staff. Thank you for your patience and hearing
from members of the public and for making meaningful efforts to include our perspectives
in your decision making. I know it's time consuming and difficult, but it's much appreciated.
Month after month, more holders have come before you and I want to assure you it's not because we
enjoy taking your time. Many of us find public speaking incredibly stressful, myself included.
We do it because the last bastion of truly affordable recreational boating access in
Southern California is under threat and we really need your help. The Coastal Act is clear that
lower cost recreational facilities should be protected and moorings in their current
configuration do just that despite some creative arguments to the contrary. Compared with renting
commercial or private docks self-maintained moorings remain one of the few entry points
for everyday people to participate in coastal recreation. The Coastal Act as you've heard today
already also and as you know also calls for maximum public access for all people. In Newport
Harbor moorings serve a very socio-economically diverse group of boaters right now. But the
troubling part is that although moorings provide lower cost access overall, mooring holders are
already paying more per square foot than virtually all other self-maintained thailand
users in the harbor including residential peer holders and most for-profit commercial
permit tees. In October of 2024 the executive officer of the state lands commission described
the situation as an appalling rate discrepancy. Yet now we're being told that mooring rates could
increase by 300 to 500 percent while many other harbor users remain pretty much insulated from
similar adjustments. We're not asking for special treatment. We are willing to continue to pay our
fair share. The financials pretty much indicate we already do and then some. What we cannot accept
is a city plan where the most modest and difficult boating access in the harbor continues to be
burdened by the highest fees and is exposed to the largest increases in restrictions. Without this
commission of intervention the current inequities are about to grow even larger. Please we ask for a
coastal development permit for any proposed changes to the mooring system and again thank you so much.
Thank you no more speakers madam chair. Thank you very much and thank you so much to the public for
your testimony. Before I return to my colleagues I want to just ask us to please be as succinct as
possible because we are on a time crunch. With that I'm going to begin and first just express
gratitude to the volleyball team that is here from Ventura College. Your testimony was very moving
and I really appreciate your time and this is an issue that has incredible regional interest.
I'm from Santa Barbara, we talked about it a lot in Santa Barbara and it's very important
to me personally, so I appreciate you being here.
So I'd like to ask our director of Hucklebridge if she could please give us some insight into
what's happening.
Sure I'm happy to thanks chair and I too want to thank the Ventura College Volleyball Club
for coming. I am, you know, it's so important to have people come to share their experiences
with us directly. It matters. And it helps us, you know, we can't be in all places at
all times and we to get that to get your perspective. So and I and I have to just come in. So many
of the young people we saw who had such a great grasp, I think of the charge we have
under the Coastal Act of balancing multiple and sometimes competing coastal uses and resources,
and then, you know, public access, recreation, habitat protection, resilience, all of these
things and I thought it was pretty awesome that, you know, what a great grasp of what
our charge is here.
So I'll turn it over in just a second to Steve Hudson to give a little bit of an update as
to our discussions with the Harbor District and where that is, status update a little bit.
But I did want to make sure to let the folks in the volleyball community understand, like,
we hear you.
We hear you.
And we will be going back and making sure that we're having direct connections and direct
conversations with the volleyball clubs and everybody who uses these courts so that we
understand the full picture instead of just talking with Harbor District and, you know,
which I think is maybe a little bit of what's been going on so far.
So with that, I'll turn it over to Steve Hudson
for a little bit more of a substantive update.
All right, thank you, Kate.
And I'd like to first start off also to thank the players
for coming to speak today and for their interest in this.
And I'd like to address their concerns
as there appears to be quite a bit of misinformation
out there in the sphere,
primarily that either the Port District
or that our staff are requiring the number of volleyball
courts to be substantially reduced or eliminated,
which is just not true.
Our staff is working very closely with the Port District
staff to maintain the volleyball courts
in a nearby location,
just a few hundred feet from the current site,
but outside the existing dune habitat.
And by way of background,
just like to note that the commission approved
a coastal permit for the Port District sand management plan
some months ago.
During the processing that application,
our staff discovered the Port District
had removed sensitive dune habitat
and installed four volleyball courts.
And that was about 10 years ago.
Over time, the number of courts continued to increase
up to six, and then most recently up to nine courts.
In the commission's action to approve
the sand management plan, the plan was approved,
which was necessary to allow the port
to carry out critical sand management activities
to keep that sand from piling up over their walls
and onto their roadways.
But it also required a revised plan
to eliminate any sand management activities
in the area where the unpermitted removal of the dunes
occurred in the void wall courts had been installed.
And there was one assertion by one of the college staff
that seemed to indicate that commission staff
had somehow approved or been in communication
with the port district to allow removal of that
over 10 years ago, that habitat.
And that's simply not the case.
It is a significant violation that involved removal
of important and critical and rare dune habitat.
Now, since the commission meeting,
our staff has been meeting regularly and frequently
with Port District staff,
and the goal has been not to remove those courts
or reduce them.
There's been no direction by our staff
to reduce the courts in any manner,
but we have work to find a balanced compromise
to maintain those courts.
And the Port District, who we thank for working with us,
is now proposing to maintain eight volleyball courts,
which they believe is the number that they're trying
to fit these courts between a number of competing needs,
including their, not only the dune habitat maintenance,
but also their port dredging activities.
And that location that these courts would be relocated to
would be essentially the same.
It's a few hundred feet from the current location
on the same beach, but outside of the disturbed dune area.
Our staff is simply waiting for the port
to submit their revised plan.
The process for this is through the port's
condition compliance with their approved CDP.
So there is not a matter that could be
agendized before the commission.
But I do want to assure the commission
and all the players who spoke today
that our staff's intent is to maintain
those volleyball courts, which we consider
be an important public access and recreational amenity while also finding a balanced approach
to maintain as much of those dunes and that dune habitat is feasible. And we hope to be
able to accomplish that very soon.
And I would just add one more comment to Steve's is that it appears in discussing a little
with the with the coach there have has been some miscommunication and misunderstanding
about what's being proposed and how many courts and all this. And so I've committed to connecting
us directly with the players and their team so we can have a direct conversation and make
sure we're all on the same page and have the same understanding.
Because as you heard, our expectation is that the courts are there and that's what we've
been trying to achieve.
And so if that's not occurred, we need to understand a little bit more.
So we'll be communicating with them directly.
I really appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Hudson, Dr. Hucklebridge, and I'll close by saying this is personally important
to me and I really appreciate that continued focus on it to the extent that we can stay
updated on how this is evolving. I would really appreciate it and I hear that there's no obvious
way to engendize this issue but if it comes to that at some point I would certainly be
supportive of having an opportunity for the commission to weigh in. So thank you very
much. Okay. Now I will go to Commissioner Notoff and Commissioner Jackson.
I just wanted to thank the public for coming in and talking about offshore fracking.
That's a very concerning issue and wanted to reassure folks, the staff wanted to reassure
folks that we're on the case.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you.
I just wanted to thank the Ventura College team for being here today to share their concerns
and highlight the importance of their beach volleyball courts as a representative of Hermosa
beach that is the cradle of beach volleyball I understand how deeply woven
volleyball is to any community so I support and understand how important is
to protect where the next generation of athletes can recreate train and to
compete and like Monet who testified I too moved here from Florida and it
concur there simply is no comparison so thank you for being here today to share
your passion and love for a sport that means so much to your community. Thank you, Madam
Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. Seeing no other comments, I appreciate that. We'll
move to item five, consent calendar. Mr. Toifel. Thank you. We have no items on the
agenda's consent calendar. So that brings us to item six, items move from the regular
to the consent calendar for all districts on the agenda today. As mentioned during the
agenda changes earlier this morning, there are eight items that staff recommends be moved
to the consent calendar and those are item 10a an lcp amendment time extension for humble
county item 10b an lcp amendment for humble county item 11a a cdp application for the
city of arcada item 13a a samatayo county lcp amendment item 13b an lcp amendment time
extension for the city of pacifica item 16a an lcp amendment time extension for santa
Cruz County, item 16B, an LCPM amendment for San Luis Obispo County, and finally
item 16C, an LCPM amendment for excuse me the city of Santa Cruz. With regard to
item 11A, the city of Arcata Marsh culvert repair, we received one comment
letter primarily raising concerns that the proposed single culvert repair is
functionally related to a larger levee and wastewater redevelopment project. In
In this case, the city is proposing to replace a damaged 15-foot long section of a culvert
that is necessary for proper title exchange with Arcata Bay.
Staff considered this issue during review of the application and determined that the
targeted repair of this section of culvert will not have a direct effect or influence
on current and future planning for the broader area.
Staff posted an addendum to the online agenda that more fully responds to the issues raised
and we continue to recommend
that this item be moved to consent.
Staff is not aware of any opposition
to the remaining items moved to the consent calendar
and the applicants are in agreement
with the staff recommendations.
Following public comment on this item,
we're therefore recommending that the commission vote
and approve this item.
Great, thank you very much.
All right, I'll ask my fellow commissioners,
any ex partes to report?
Seeing none.
Public comment, please, Chris.
Yes, we have a few speakers for item 13B.
We'll start with Caitlin Quinn followed by.
And before we begin with those commenters,
I'd like to just remind everyone who's speaking on this item
that their comments really must be confined
to the time extension only and really should not
reach the underlying merits or concepts.
It's just about the time extension.
Thank you.
Yes.
Looks like we aren't seeing Caitlin Quinn.
OK.
So no, as far as sex will be first.
All righty.
Hello.
Um, taking, uh, taking the comment about the Germanness, uh, I am, can
you all hear me or we good?
Yes, we can hear you.
Yes.
All right.
Well, uh, good morning commissioners.
My name is Noah's or a sex and I'm the lead organizer at better
neighbors, LA, a coalition of hosts, tenants, housing activists, and
community members working to regulate short-term rentals to preserve
long-term housing.
I'm here to comment on the time extension for Pacifica's LCPA. While BNLA doesn't necessarily
oppose a time extension to wind up the remaining loose ends in the investigation of this issue,
we urge the Commission to hear this item as soon as possible because Pacifica cannot afford to wait
a full year for the resolution of this issue. The City of Pacifica has engaged in an eight-year-long
process of community engagement and consultation which has resulted in a thoughtful and impressive
piece of coastal structure mental regulation. The regulation adequately balances the necessity of
visitor access to the coast while also reflecting the needs of Pacifica residents. It's the product
of extensive analysis, commentary, and debate, and while the rationale for the Commission
extending time on consideration is reasonable, and we understand that there is a procedural measure
here, Pacifica needs this legislation imminently. The issue of the proliferation of short-term
rentals has not abated, and working families continue to face the threat of displacement
and housing price increases due to the effect of unhosted STRs. Two years ago, the Coastal
Commission asked the city of Pacifica to come back with a stronger STR ordinance. They have not done
so. As the staff report noted, the prevalence of STRs in the Pacifica market, if unchecked,
could displace the very workers who provide the visitor serving accommodations the Commission is
required to provide. This is not to mention the significant impact on the character of the city,
impacting visitor numbers. While today's time extension seems to be necessary,
B&LA would like to advocate that the Commission hear this issue as soon as possible, preferably
in April because Pacifica's residents cannot wait any longer. Thank you so much.
Thank you and our other speakers Caitlin Quinn, Cindy Abbott, Brian Raynaro, Lila Raynaro they
were all here earlier but I am seeing none of them now so it looks like they all left the meeting.
I'm seeing no other speakers. Great. For item 16 CA on the consent calendar we have Clara Stanger
who is available for questions.
We have no other speakers.
Okay, wonderful.
I'll return to Mr. Toyful to see if he has any comments.
You're good?
Okay, thank you.
To the commission.
Comments, a motion?
I'm happy to move the consent calendar.
Thanks.
Second.
It's a motion by Commissioner Wilson,
a second by Vice Chair Hart.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Okay, the consent calendar is adopted.
Item seven, please.
Thank you, Chair.
That brings us to item seven,
the Deputy Director Report for the Energy, Ocean Resources and Federal Consistency Division.
We have two negative determinations to report and two immaterial amendments for your consideration.
The first is a short-term extension to the permit term for an oyster aquaculture operation
in Humboldt Bay for which we are aware of no opposition. The second immaterial amendment is
one I also reported last month and I'd like to invite our senior environmental scientist
Deanna Christenson to briefly provide some background on its inclusion again today.
Good morning. As reported last month, CalAM has requested a permit amendment to allow an
existing test slant well to remain in place for an additional year. Because we received additional
objection to the cemetery amendment following last month's hearing prior to the close of the
10 working day objection period, we're reporting it and bringing it to you for your consideration
once again this month. The objection was submitted by the Marina Coast water district and it has been
provided along with a detailed staff response in this month's deputy director's report available
through our online agenda. And the commission staff are not recommending any modifications to
the proposed immaterial amendment and continue to recommend its approval. To summarize the objection
the Marina Coast water district contends that the one-year extension is not eligible for an
and material amendment because the wells presence is resulting in impacts that the Commission
has not evaluated.
The district argues that because the limited duration of the two-year groundwater pumping
program for the test well that was initially authorized, the Commission must conduct additional
environmental review of impacts from its ongoing presence of the test well.
However, as part of the test well permit action in 2014, the Commission evaluated effects
to sensitive habitat, public access and other coastal resources and required mitigation
for adverse impacts, including for long-term effects to sensitive habitat. Therefore, the
proposed extension of the permit term for one year does not present any new impacts
that the Commission did not already evaluate and mitigate as part of the test well permit
review. Moreover, Calamir remains subject to the conditions of the test well permit,
the requirements for monitoring for any Escher public access impacts. Other than extending the
term of the test well permit by one year, the proposed amendment involves no new development
and presents no additional effects on coastal resources or public access that would require
a regular permit amendment or further environmental review. Therefore staff believe that the proposed
extension meets the requirements of a new material amendment. We are thus asking whether three or more
commissioners object to any of the items on the deputy director's report and this
concludes our comments great thank you very much any expertise any public
comments no speakers we just have DJ more on zoom available for questions okay
thank you I'll return to the Commission do three more commissioners object to
any item in the deputy director's report seeing no objections the Commission
concurs. Thank you. So we are going to skip ahead to item 11, trail the
other. We're gonna yeah because of our need to break at 11 we've I thought it
made sense to yeah trail item 8, the enforcement item until after lunch and
and so we'll start now move by moving on to item 9 and then we'll get as far as
we can on the agenda until we break for lunch at 11 and closed session. Sorry
Item 9. Good morning Chair Harmon and commissioners. Item 9 is the Deputy
Director's report for the North Coast District which includes one waiver for
public access enhancements on the Samoa Peninsula in Humboldt County. 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. Any ex partes? Any public speakers? I know just one available for questions.
Great do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors report
Seeing no sub such objections the Commission concurs. Thank you
10c, please. All right item 10c is an LCP amendment for the city of Eureka and
Amber Levitt a supervisor in our North Coast District will be giving the presentation
Good morning chair harmony commissioners. Sorry, I couldn't find the unmute button
Thanks for bringing my slides up. Item 10c is an application by the City of Eureka to amend their LCP as a result of the Electoral Initiative action passed by city voters on November 2, 2010, known as Measure N.
The proposed LCP changes would allow for the potential future development of the Marina Center mixed use development project on the effective site, or a similar large scale mixed use development project.
As a result of the affirmative vote on Measure N, changes to the city's LCP have been locally adopted to re-designate and re-zone the 43-acre area known as the Balloon Track, located east of Commercial Street between Waterfront Drive and 2nd Street and along Broadway, which is Highway 101 in Eureka.
site leaves. The Bloontrack property historically was used as a railroad switching maintenance and
freight yard from the late 1880s until the closure of the Union Pacific Rail Lines in the mid-1980s.
The site has been vacant since the late 1980s and is a brownfield with residual contamination from
past industrial uses. Clark Slough, a remnant tidal slough hydrologically connected to Humboldt Bay
via a tie gate bisects the lower southwest corner of the property and around nine acres of scattered
wetlands have been delineated on the site. As mentioned, the purpose of the proposed LCP
amendment is to facilitate the development of the marina center project or similar large-scale mixed
use project, which as evaluated under the final EIR adopted for the project in 2009, would consist
of a mix of commercial, professional office, multi-family residential, light industrial,
restaurant and museum uses, as well as off-street parking, including a four-level parking structure
and extensions of second and fourth streets and new signalized intersections. The project-driven
LCP amendment would change the public quasi-public and light industrial land use and zoning designations
of the site to a combination of designations that would support commercial, office and residential
and open space uses. Further, a qualified or queue combining zoning designation would be
applied to the site indicating that future approved development may not exceed the environmental
impacts identified in the final in the adopted final EIR for the Marina Center project.
That discount superstores would be banned and that 10 years after the effective date of the ordinance
the city council may repeal the Q combining district without further vote of the people.
Next slide please. The LCP amendment application was originally submitted to the commission in
March of 2011, but the application file has remained incomplete and enacted for nearly
13 years after commission staff requested certain information necessary for a thorough
and complete review of the proposed LCP changes, but the requested information was not fully
provided.
A primary issue with the proposed LCP amendment overall is the lack of clarity around the
effect of all of the language a measure in, including but not limited to language regarding
the queue combining zone overlay and relatedly the lack of adequate information to evaluate
all of the effects for consistency with the standards of review. According to application
information, the site may only have a limited and dispersed amount of developable land due
to the location and configuration of wetlands, wetland buffer areas, and other constraints
across the site. Delinated wetlands total about 8.7 acres scattered throughout different
areas of the property, and the proposed land use and zoning designation boundaries do not
correspond to identified wetland boundaries. Thus, areas planned to potentially be developed
with retail stores, residences, and visitor serving developments such as hotels include
areas with mapped wetlands and their corresponding buffer areas. It is unclear with the information
available, how the uses that would be allowed in these areas could feasibly be developed
consistent with the Coastal Act's allowable use limitations for development in wetlands in Esha.
Recently, in November of 2025, with the support of the owner of the subject property,
the City Council adopted a resolution directing city staff to withdraw the LCPA application
from further consideration by the Commission. A primary reason for the City desiring to withdraw
the application cited in the City's resolution is ongoing progress made by the City over the
past five years to adopt a comprehensive LCP update consistent with updated community priorities
reflected in the city's 2040 general plan. However, state election law requires that a vote to repeal
or amend an ordinance adopted by the voters must come from the voters unless provisions in the
city's adopted ordinance allow for it to be repealed through other means and in this case the ordinance
does not. Next slide please. Since the City Council directed city staff to withdraw the LCP amendment
application from further consideration. City staff stated that they would not be able to provide
any additional information needed to respond to the Commission staff's earlier information requests.
Therefore, Commission staff recommend that the Commission deny the LUP amendment because it does
not meet the requirements of and is not in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of
the Coastal Act and the IP amendment is not in conformity with or adequate to carry out
policies of the certified LUP. Essentially, the LCP amendment, as submitted, lacks the clarity
and certainty needed to meet the requirements of and be in conformity with the standards of review.
The Commission's denial of this LCP amendment without suggested modifications would mean no
further action is required by either the Commission or City Council and the LCP amendment would not be
effective. The City could come forward with a different proposal for the site in the future.
The motions to accomplish staff's recommendation are found on page 5 of the staff report and
were available for any questions. I believe the city has a representative also online and
available for questions. Thank you. Great, thank you very much, Ms. Levitt. Are there any ex partes?
Okay, seeing none, we'll open the public hearing and go to... yes, Simone. No public speakers,
it's only available for Zoom, Kristen Kenyon.
Great, okay, thank you very much.
Well then, I guess we will return to the commission.
Comments, questions, a motion?
Seems pretty straightforward.
I'm happy to make the series of motions.
Please.
Please go, by all means and.
Unless you'd like to.
No, no, but I'll be supporting that 100%
and I just wanna say this has a long story to it.
I'm glad we don't have to re-adjudicate
the the politics of this and the time that we had and and hopefully we can
move forward in Eureka in a much more positive way. Makes sense. Alright motion
I'll start with the first motion. Move this Commission's certified land use
plan amendment number URMAJ 1 11 as submitted by the City of Eureka and I'm
asking for a no vote. Second. It's a motion by Vice Chair Hart, a second by
Commissioner Wilson they're asking for a no vote any objections to unanimous no
no objections okay the motion carries I move that the Commission reject
implementation plan amendment you are MHA 1 1 1 as submitted by the city of
Eureka and I'm requesting a yes vote okay motion by a vice chair heart second
thank you Commissioner Wilson they're asking for a yes vote any objection to
unanimous consent.
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Thank you.
That's it, thank you very much.
Moving forward, that brings us to item 12, please.
Okay, item 12 is the North Central Coast
District Director Report,
and I believe Dan Carl is online.
Yes, sorry, I have muted myself.
Apologies.
That does bring us to item 12,
which is the North Central Coast District Director's Report,
and this month we're reporting two waivers.
one coastal permit extension, one emergency permit.
Before asking for concurrence,
I did wanna highlight one of the waivers,
specifically the waiver to allow
for public access improvements
at San Gregorio Ranch in San Vito County,
which is located immediately adjacent
to State Parks San Gregorio State Beach Unit.
This ranch is currently used mostly for cattle grazing,
but is also operated at times
as a for-profit beach access way
where users are charged a fee to park
and then to access the beach.
There have also been a series of development proposals
over the years at the ranch
that have raised some coastal resource concerns.
So I'm happy to report that the Peninsula Open Space Trust
is in the process of acquiring the property
and shortly thereafter proposes transferring operation
and eventually ownership of it to state parks
or another public agency.
And the work covered under the waiver
allows for access road, parking and restroom improvements.
And then after that's all done,
posts would open the site to public access.
So the project's a real exciting opportunity
to add an important natural resource
and public beach access area to the Adjacent State Park.
We'll provide a safe public beach access site
with some informal parking restrooms
and a picnic and overlook area
that will help to enhance the visitor experience.
So overall the project will greatly improve public access
to this section of the coast.
And our gratitude goes out to post obviously
for the acquisition and the improvements.
And I'd also shout out the commission's transportation team
who've actively worked with POST to get us to this point,
including through the waiver
to facilitate the work that I described.
So this is really a pretty momentous occurrence,
it doesn't happen very often.
So I just wanted to highlight that for the commission
so it didn't get lost in the DD's report.
So past that, we're not aware of any objections
or controversy on the items in the DD's report.
And so the question is whether three
or more commissioners object.
And if not, then the commission will concur.
Thank you very much, Mr. Carl, any ex partes?
Any public comments?
Okay, we'll return to the commission.
Do three or more commissioners object to any items
in the deputy director's report?
No, but as a teenager, San Gregorio was my beach,
so I'm very excited to hear about this progress.
Great, okay, seeing no objections,
the commission concurs, thank you, Mr. Carl.
Dr. Huckleberry, are we gonna continue on?
I would recommend we continue with item 14A.
We may not get all the way through it
before we need to break, but we can get a substantial chunk in.
Perfect.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Good morning, commissioners.
So we're going to move on to item 14A.
Claire Villegas in the Commissioned Statewide Planning
Unit and Dr. Rachel Pausch in the Ecology Unit
will be giving the staff presentation from Zoom.
We do have a PowerPoint for this.
And while that gets pulled up, I will quickly
note that today is Ms. Villegas' first staff presentation.
So Claire, go ahead.
Thanks, Erin.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Item 14A is a combined hearing
for two notices of impending development
prepared by the San Mateo County
Resource Conservation District
and the Resource Conservation District
of Santa Cruz County,
in collaboration with California State Parks
for forest health and wildfire resilience
vegetation treatments.
This project was agendized for February,
but was continued at the request of the RCDs
to allow time for additional outreach
landowners in the project vicinity. There's an addendum for this item that responds to
several letters submitted in response to the staff report. Next slide please.
Before I describe this project, I want to share a little background on public works plans or PWPs
for our newer commissioners and the public. Coastal Act section 30605 offers PWPs as an
alternative to project-by-project review. PWPs are available to certain public agencies for
Commission review of large or phased public works projects that typically would require multiple
CDPs. Over the last several years, the Commission has certified five PWPs related to forest health
and fire resilience. This is consistent with statewide goals to streamline wildfire resilience
projects and the governor's initiative to cut the green tape. These PWPs facilitate approval
of wildfire resilience projects across nearly one third of the state's coastal zone. Next slide,
please. For context, in December 2019, the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection certified the
California Vegetation Treatment Program, EIR, or CalVTP, which analyzes the potential environmental
effects of certain vegetation management activities statewide. The CALVTP is intended to increase
the pace and scale of vegetation treatment activities statewide and reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire across the state. Public agencies can use the CALVTP for CEQA compliance
by designing projects consistent with an extensive list of standard project requirements and
mitigation measures. Commission certified forest health and fire resilience PWPs are designed to
complement the CalVTP to provide efficient programmatic streamlining of both CEQA compliance
and Coastal Act authorization for these projects in the coastal zone. To address the public access
and resource protection provisions of the Coastal Act and local coastal programs we have developed
coastal vegetation treatment standards with our public agency partners in each PWP. Next slide
please. Once the PWP is certified by the commission applicants submit notices of impending
development or NOIDs for commission review of individual projects. NOIDs must be found to be
consistent with the certified PWP. The commission is required to act within 30 working days of a
complete submittal and can condition the project to bring it into conformance with the PWP.
Each RCD submitted the NOID package to us on December 18th, 2025 and waived the 30-day
requirement. Next slide please. This project is located partially within the boundaries of the
San Mateo County RCD Forest Health and Fire Resilience PWP area shown on the left and
partially within the Santa Cruz County RCD Forest Health and Fire Resilience PWP area shown on the
right. Both PWPs were certified by the Commission on July 8th, 2021 and both expire on July 7th,
2031. Because the project crosses PWP boundaries, there are two separate NOID numbers for the two
RCD submittals. At this point, the Commission has already certified the PWPs, and in doing so,
found that the proposal to improve forest health, restore ecosystems, and increase wildfire
resilience through vegetation management treatments was consistent with the San Mateo and Santa Cruz
County LCPs. The issue before the Commission today is whether the project described in the
noise is consistent with the certified PWP's. Commission action is thus limited to imposing
conditions to bring the project into conformity with the PWP standards. Next slide please.
The project proposes vegetation management treatments across nearly 12,000 acres of land
in the coastal zone. The project area is shown in red on the map and spans Big Basin Redwood State
Park, Butenow State Park, Anja Nueva State Park, and properties owned by Save the Redwoods
League and Semper Violence Fund, who have also been working with state parks and RCDs on this
project. The 2020 CZU Lightning Complex fires burned in this area, leaving behind significant
amounts of unconsumed fuel and compromised vegetation that prevent natural recovery
processes and leave the area vulnerable to future wildfire risk. State Parks is proposing treatments
to restore ecosystem processes, native stand conditions and ecosystem resilience. They plan
to achieve this through the removal of dead, dying, diseased and overstopped trees and dense
understory fuels and removing invasive species. Next slide please. The project involves ecological
restoration treatments only, meaning no fuel breaks and no defensible space work are included.
Ecological restoration treatments could be implemented through a combination of manual,
mechanical prescribed fire, and limited herbicide application. The map on the slide shows the
distribution of treatment activities across the project area in the coastal zone. Manual treatment
could be implemented across the project area while mechanical treatment could only occur
across a maximum of about 2,000 acres. Herbicide application would be targeted and would only occur
on a maximum of 11 acres or approximately 0.1 percent of the project area. Prescribed broadcast
burning may be implemented on up to 3,350 acres and pile burning may be implemented across the
project area as a means of biomass disposal. I will now turn it over to the Commission's staff
ecologist, Dr. Rachel Pausch, to provide additional context on the ecological conditions of the project
area. Rachel, I just pause. We're having trouble with your audio. Maybe you might want to lose
the headset is there another way it's something is is being scrambled okay
that's much better thank you it sounded a little cartoonish to be honest you can
go ahead and proceed Rachel whenever you're ready no you're not ready can you
hear us Rachel what we have yeah why don't we go ahead Aaron here has your
script Rachel as you try to figure this out we'll get started with it and then
Then please feel free to break in whenever you connect.
All right.
Next slide, please.
The project area contains Rachel, are you back?
Okay.
Sorry.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, we can.
Yes, we can.
I can't hear you all.
Claire, you might carry on.
Yeah.
We'll carry on.
Go ahead.
The project area contains a variety of ecosystems, vegetation communities, and wildlife species
shown in the Vegetation Alliance map on the left.
The forested areas consist predominantly of coniferous forests dominated by coastal redwood
and Douglas fir with components of several hardwood species.
There are mixed Chaparral stands throughout the project area, but they do not all meet
the definition of sensitive or rare communities.
As Claire mentioned, the 2020 CZU fire burned in the project area, including nearly 90,000
acres throughout Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties.
The fire burned through nearly the entirety of Big Basin Redwood State Park, portions
of Oña Nuevo and Butano State Parks, and much of the surrounding landscape.
The photos on the right show post-fire conditions.
Areas that burned at higher intensities contain high densities of dead trees and resprouting
vegetation.
State parks and the RCDs thus seek to reduce future wildfire severity by reducing fuel
loads and reintroducing ecologically appropriate disturbances to ultimately create a more diverse
and resilient ecosystem. Next slide, please. Prior to the CZU fire, vegetation within much
of the project area was too dense for land managers to safely implement prescribed fire
and achieve target fire behavior. However, the CZU fire has temporarily reduced understory fuel
loads throughout portions of the region. Manual and mechanical treatments would help further
reduce fuel loads in areas where high levels of standing vegetation remain. With reduced
fuel density, state parks will be able to more safely conduct prescribed fire operations
to encourage sustained forest health. All prescribed fire planning will first consider
if the treatment is appropriate for the specific habitat following the CZU fire in 2020. Prescribed
fire treatments for this project include broadcast burning and pile burning, and an example of
of pile burning treatment conducted by state parks
as shown in the images on the right.
All prescribed firework will be carried out
by state park staff under required Cal Fire burn permits,
will comply with the requirements to develop detailed
burn plans and smoke management plans,
and will occur under the supervision
of a California state park certified burn boss or equivalent.
Exhibit five provides further details
on prescribed burn protocols.
Next slide please.
can I jump in? Yes, please. Great, thanks for your patience everyone. Okay, as Claire
also described earlier, the CalVTP includes an extensive list of standard
project requirements or SPRs and mitigation measures. The project has been
designed to protect coastal resources through the implementation of 71 SPRs
and 17 mitigation measures. These include a suite of best
management practices to protect biological resources including protocol surveys for special
status wildlife and plants prior to implementing proposed treatments, biological monitoring during
all treatment activities and buffers from identified resource areas such as water courses
and special status plants and wildlife. Staff is recommending a special condition regarding the
preparation and use of accelerants to further protect water quality. Impacts of soil health
will be minimized by retaining vegetation cover, limiting heavy equipment use, and keeping root
systems intact to protect soil structure. As a staff ecologist covering this area,
I have reviewed the proposed noids and agreed that, as conditioned, the project is consistent
with the biological protection requirements of the certified PWPs. Next slide please.
While this project is designed to meet the protective requirements of the CalVTP,
A recent court of appeal decision found that the CalVTP PEIR did not adequately analyze
fire risk impacts from removing chaperal and coastal sage scrub. As a result, a trial court
writ ordered that projects treating these vegetation types cannot rely on the CalVTP PEIR
unless they fall into limited categories such as the removal of flammable non-native vegetation
or the treatment of non-sensitive communities that have appeared following a recent wildfire.
Under this project, sensitive chaparral communities will be left to re-establish
naturally post-CZU fire. Using the most recent vegetation mapping available, less than 6% of
the project area is considered chaparral or coastal sage scrub. Outside of these areas,
the Ritz treatment prohibition does not apply. However, if areas are identified in the field as
chaparral or coastal sage scrub, they will be avoided or treated only under the limited
exceptions allowed by the RIT. This aligns with staffs recommended special condition 4 that limits
the treatment of chaparral or coastal sage scrub through this NOID authorization to proceed only
if it complies with the current trial court RIT. I'll hand it back over to Claire. Thanks Rachel
next slide please. Regarding project implementation, State Parks is the project lead and implementing
entity. The RCDs maintain responsibility for monitoring and oversight of project work within
their respective PWP areas. Treatment can occur any time of the year, dependent on funding as well
as seasonal and timing restrictions. State Parks anticipate starting work under these
noise on a property owned by Save the Redwoods League and on portions of Anya Nuevo and Big
Base and State Park in 2027. Specific treatments and locations will be scheduled annually over the
next five years when and where funding, equipment, and contractors can be secured. State Parks
proposes to update a public website annually to describe treatments completed over the prior year
and provide information about anticipated treatments for the coming year.
Because these NOIDs allow flexibility in prioritizing treatment areas from year to year,
staff recommends special condition 3, requiring state parks to submit a summary of proposed
treatment types and activities with rare plant surveys and landowner agreements prior to
implementation of work on any individual property for the review and approval of the executive
Director. Where prescribed fires proposed final burn plans must also be submitted.
One commenter requested Special Condition 3 be revised to have the Commission itself conduct
this review after public hearing, as opposed to the Executive Director, due to the large
scale of this project. However, staff believes that the PWP and CalVTP standards provide enough
specific protections and standards that the Commission can find out that the entire project
will be in conformity with the PWP, even though we don't know the exact timing, location,
and combination of treatment activities that will be implemented within the overall project boundaries.
Acknowledging that case-specific issues may arise in any individual treatment activity context,
Executive Director Review offers oversight and an opportunity to check that treatment
activities fall within what's expected and meet key standards. While we acknowledge that this does
not involve a public hearing, the RCD state parks and commission staff welcome input on individual
activities as they are reviewed and state parks will have a website to inform the public of
future treatments as mentioned earlier. Also as described earlier, the fundamental goal of the
PWPs and NOIDs is to streamline approval of appropriate projects like the current project
that is an 100% forest health project. As such, staff does not believe that requiring another
hearing is the appropriate way to gather input on future NOID covered activities, but is committed
to working with the Sierra Club and others as the individual activities roll out. Next slide, please.
In addition to the coastal resource protection measures Rachel described earlier, the CalVTP
SPRs and PWPs include notification procedures for specific vegetation treatment activities,
such as prescribed burning, which state parks has proposed to implement.
In response to concerns from nearby landowners regarding notification for prescribed burns,
State Parks has also committed to direct communication with landowners prior to,
during, and after completion of prescribed burn operations. Landowners that opt in for updates
will also be directly notified in the event of an escaped prescribed fire. State Parks outline these
commitments and additional communication procedures for prescribed burn operations
in Exhibit 6 as summarized on the slide. Next slide please. Before I close, I want to thank
the RCDs and state parks for their partnership to improve wildfire resilience in this region.
Staff believes that this project has been well-designed to meet the requirements of both PWPs
and that the outcome should be both increased forest health and fire resiliency within the
coastal zone of San Mateo County and northern Santa Cruz County. Staff recommends that the
The commission approved both noise as conditioned.
The motions can be found on page six of the staff report.
This concludes the staff presentation
and we are available for questions.
Okay, wonderful.
Thank you so much.
Well, I think with that, we will pause this item
and go into closed session.
Remind my colleagues not to speak about this item
because it is still ongoing and we'll pick it back up
when we return from closed session and lunch at 1230.
1215 perfect. Thanks everyone
Okay, thank you everyone. I hope you had a nice lunch break. I'm gonna start by turning to our chief counsel miss Warren
You need to report out. Thank you chair
Herman at lunch the Commission met in closed session and it received litigation information and advice and took action on space
Exploration Technologies Corporation versus California Coastal Commission and that concludes my report
Okay, wonderful. Thank you. So I believe we left off we had just finished the staff report for
Item, can you remind me of the item number?
White a 14 a 14 a great. So, um, I will reopen
We never closed. I'll continue that item. Um, are there any ex partes to report?
Okay, seeing no ex partes. We will open the public hearing Chris. I'll turn it to you to begin
All right. We have a total of 12 speakers
to sign up to speak for this item,
thank you for waiting through lunch for that.
First will be Kelix Nelson,
who was actually my former boss
when I was a wee intern at the San Mateo RCD.
So, Kelix Nelson, I know,
she was one of the applicants on this, sorry, yes.
Hi Peter, yes, I'm here.
Hi Kelix, we can hear you, please go ahead.
Before I do, I see it's set at two minutes.
Is that accurate?
Yes ma'am, that's correct.
Oh, my comments were going to be about three minutes. We had divided up those presenters.
Is that still possible? Through the chair, this is the applicant's presentation.
Yes. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you so much. Yes, good afternoon and thank
you for having us today. I'm delighted to be here for this agenda item. In October 2020,
Governor Newsom signed an executive order establishing 30 by 30, an ambitious landmark
goal to conserve 30% of California's lands and waters by 2030, a mere four years from now.
It included a call to find efficiencies in permitting habitat restoration. To accomplish
that goal, the Natural Resources Agency established the Cutting Green Tape Initiative
to advance environmental projects. The Department of Fish and Wildlife and State Water Resources
Control Board established new expedited permitting tools. You, the Coastal Commission, set a priority
in your strategic plan to develop new approaches to expedite review of these projects and partnered
with us to develop new public works plans for programmatic permitting.
These plans leverage California's investment in a statewide CEQA document while ensuring
fidelity to the special protections of the California Coastal Act.
So we're all rowing together here to ensure high priority, high quality environmental
protection and efficient use of public funds to result in more work on the ground.
Another outcome of these public works plans is that they catalyze partnerships like you see here,
bringing together the resources of five conservation organizations,
state parks, two resource conservation districts, Semper Virens Fund and Save the Redwoods League
with tremendous professional expertise in science-informed boots on the ground natural
resource management. Then last week Secretary Crowfoot of the Natural Resources Agency and Secretary
Garcia of California's Environmental Protection Agency sent a memo to all staff boards and
commissions of California to think big and be bold to address climate and biodiversity crises.
They ask us to lean into processes that expedite this essential work and they ask us to reconsider
risk. Recognize the risk of hesitating, the risk of doing smaller piecemeal projects and the risk
of moving slower. As Secretary Crowfoot often says, winning slowly on climate change is losing.
This project demonstrates that we can move forward with collaborative landscape scale stewardship of
our natural resources across public and private lands to accomplish California's climate and
and biodiversity goals at the scale and pace
that are absolutely necessary.
I'm so excited about this project
and immensely grateful to the tireless work
of commission staff who've done the heavy lifting
to bring this decision before you today.
And I'd like to invite my colleague
to provide additional comments.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
And also on Zoom we have Matt Abernathy,
Anthony Castaños and Hudson Northrop in this group.
So great, thank you.
Yes, thanks for taking the time
and thank you Kellex for providing that outline.
I wanted to build off of the coastal staff report
from this morning and really emphasize
that this project is unique
as it crosses both Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties.
Because of this geography and the ownership mosaic,
we needed to collaborate and have representation
from both RCDs as well as all of the partnering landowners
throughout this process to ensure that this PSA
reflected the full landscape
as well as achieving regulatory requirements.
And importantly, rather than piecemealing this
into separate plans, we intentionally chose
to work together to create one cohesive
cross boundary planning effort.
This approach allowed for consistent planning
and treatment design,
and it will allow for a coordinated implementation,
monitoring and environmental compliance
across this entire project area.
And with the two resource conservation districts
holding two separate public work plans,
the RCD's role in this partnership
has included oversight and technical assistance
to ensure that this partnership and this project
was designed from the beginning to be fully consistent
with each county's PWP and be compliant
with both sets of coastal vegetation treatment standards.
Because the project area spans two counties,
this PSA has to function as a single technical document
capable of supporting these two independent Coastal Act
pathways while keeping the project
cohesive across jurisdictions.
And throughout the process, we work very closely
with the Coastal Commission staff
to ensure that we were efficiently and consistently
adhering to both PWP processes.
I would like to summarize that the Coastal Santa Cruz
Mountains PSA is a model of how two counties, multiple land
owners, two RCDs, and the Coastal Commission staff
can collaborate from the outset to deliver
a unified landscape scale forest health project.
I'll now hand it over to my colleague, Anthony,
at Save the Redwoods League.
Thank you, Matt.
My name is Anthony Castanos.
I'm the senior land stewardship manager
with Save the Redwoods League.
Save the Redwoods is a major proponent of this work.
We've been implementing these types
of forest restoration treatments
across the Redwood range for decades,
both in our own held lands and in partnership
with state parks and other public agencies.
Our most notable project is known as Redwoods Rising,
where we've been working with Redwood National
and state parks to restore thousands of acres
of Redwood forest and humble Del Norte counties.
These type of treatments have shown very positive impacts
towards the fire resiliency of forest.
We've seen wildfires burning at high intensity
coming from neighboring lands
and then dropping dramatically intensity
once they reach the forest stands that were treated
on our lands in years prior.
In those same wildfires, the neighboring areas
that were untreated and left to nature
burned at very high intensity,
and many of the redwoods were killed
and rare habitat was lost.
In order to accomplish the scale of restoration work needed
and address the increasing risk of wildfire,
it's critical to work with our neighbors,
cross boundary lines,
and conduct the restoration work at a landscape scale.
So with that, I'll hand it off to our partner
in state parks for their portion.
Thank you.
Thank you, and Hudson Northrop?
Yeah, hi, everyone.
So I'm Hudson Northrop, I'm speaking here
on behalf of California State Parks.
As you all consider this project,
I just wanted to reiterate
the State Parks mission statement,
which is to provide for the health, inspiration
and education of the people of California
by helping to preserve the state's
extraordinary biological diversity
and to protect its most valued natural
cultural resources. I bring that up just to remind everyone that ultimately all the actions that we
propose to implement as part of this project are all done with the intent of preserving biodiversity
and protecting those natural resources as stated in the mission statement. Specifically, in the
context of this project that looks at protecting the old growth redwoods throughout the park,
restoring of the wildlife habitat, maintaining the wildlife habitat, and working to protect and
restore all of the rare and sensitive species found throughout this park. I believe our mission
statement aligns strongly with the intent of the PWPs in the mission of the Coastal Commission.
I believe at this time our group wants to reserve some time to speak at the end for rebuttal,
so I'll cut myself off there. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Timothy Federal, Lisa Lurie,
Portia Halbert, and then we'll move on to the general members of the public. So Timothy Federal.
Thanks, I believe actually we were hoping to speak in the rebuttal.
Okay, sounds good. They're rating members of the applicant pool.
Lisa Lurie. That's the same. I think the remainder of the applicants are just available
to answer questions during the rebuttal period. Okay. All right, moving on to our general speakers
then. Mike Guth, Susan Kirks, Nancy Okada and Jerry Bush. Mike Guth, you're moving in as a
panelist. You should be able to unmute soon when you're able to please unmute and begin.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners. Mike Guth speaking for the Sierra Club and I do
hope you can hear me. Is that true? Yes, we can hear you. Very good. So thank you. Next slide,
please. The Sierra Club does not find the subject notices of impending development as submitted
consistent with the goals of the Santa Cruz and San Mateo Public Works plans. Our letter discussing
this is at page 41 of your correspondence file. Protecting communities and promoting long-term
forest health may require very different strategies. We just saw the addendum this
morning that says we should, these are all forest health projects, but that's clearly
contradicted by all the applicant statements about fire management. Next slide please.
Your commission approved the Santa Cruz PWP in 2021. Projects are intended to enhance habitat
values. Next slide please. So here's what we're concerned about, that this plan could lead to
very dramatic thinning. These are images from the project as submitted and what they're going for
is what's on the right. Dramatic thinning over an unspecified very large area. Next slide please.
Forest health indicators are listed here. Lichens and fungi. Ferns and mosses. Birds and wildlife.
These forest health indicators tend to plummet after heavy thinning. Soil health is the key
to forest health. And dead trees and understory rebuild the soil. Next slide please.
Your commission is approved under the Santa Cruz PWP, a Skylark Ranch project.
40 acres with treatment areas clearly marked. Next slide please. And Last Chance Road. Your
your commission approved public hearing 33 acres treatment areas clearly marked
stay art areas clearly marked next slide please and here's where we get into the
difficulty this is 12,000 areas outlined in red with the entire area marked for
treatment including portions of it with bulldozers like this next slide please
we believe treatment projects need individual review we support Coastal
Commission staff special condition 3 with substantial conformance review of
proposed treatments, but as opposed to being done by the ED, we prefer that it
came up to the Commission to allow for public review and transparency. We thank
you for your attention. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, Susan Kirk's. Thank
you, Susan Kirk's. I support the presentation by Mike Guth of the Sierra
Club, support 100% everything that was just stated. This is a huge area
with such a blanket type of proposed approval that brings many issues of concern up,
including, I hope you had a chance to review the San Mateo County Bird Alliance correspondence also,
requesting project-level reviews, public input, and approval.
approval. Without question, these types of projects should have public input. With all
due respect to the Executive Director, that is insufficient for review by these groups
who are collaborating and with all due respect to them to ask you to approve this enormous
type of plan and the species that are involved, the birds, the small creatures, the insects,
the actual biodiversity and ecosystem that comprise a huge part of the forest and the
quote, forest health, end quote, must be considered, must be studied, must be
considered with all regulatory laws upheld and this
requires public input. I absolutely oppose the proposal that this large
scale plan would come back with reviews and approval by the executive
director. That is wrong and that is not consistent with the work of your
condition. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Nancy Okada. Nancy I see you're on a
phone. You should be able to unmute now. You can hear me now? Yes we can hear you.
Okay.
I think I'm going to have to Hey, just a minute. Let me get out of here.
Okay. I'm going to do that. All right. Okay.
You can hear me now.
All right.
And I'd like to just point out, first of all, it was interesting that Rachel was channeling
the mouth when she spoke earlier, because those little mice are part of the creatures
in the forest as a tribute to forest health.
And in fact, in these noise, you cover, they're supposed to only cover forest health, but
your staff document focused only on fire prevention.
So we really are very, very concerned about the forest health that needs to be preserved
and is preserved if this kind of blatant activity of masticating and burning the forest is done
in small portions that come back to the commission for review each and every one.
I'd like to point out with the process of this is that our Sierra Club letter was not
posted initially.
We had to make sure it was posted, it was posted on Monday or Tuesday.
And then this morning the addendum was posted.
And you know the commissioners don't have a chance to see these documents.
And this is very important because they need to be able to fully understand exactly what
is going on in terms of the agencies that go in and have carte blanche to do anything
they want.
In fact, you give them this kind of approval.
year ago there's only asking that you with special condition three that in fact it comes back to the
commission each and every item comes back to the commission for your review commissioners because
you are the responsible body and you are one of the few agencies that actually listens to the
public and actually responds to the public and answers the public's calls so many agencies you
can't even find anybody to talk to. You're routed around a mass of electronic craziness
and you commissioners are one of the few agencies that works. Now I want to thank you for being one
that works. Thank you. Thank you. Jerry Bush. Good morning Chair and commissioners. I am
Jerry Bush. Today I'm speaking as a private resident but I support the Sierra Club's position.
and the RCD plan raises serious concerns
beyond any permit conditions regarding
post-fire succession, the competitive dynamics
between Cianothus and conifer regeneration,
the role of snags in soil ecology,
type conversion to grassland,
and fundamental questions
about large-scale landscape conversion.
The Court of Appeal, today I'm gonna focus
on scrub chaperel and standing trees.
The Court of Appeal found that the Board of Forestry
abused its discretion by certifying an EAR that failed to analyze how vegetation treatment
of Chaparral and Coastal Scrub increases landscape flammability through type conversion.
So, even adjacent to Chaparral standards, this is an issue, and I would ask you to condition
approval on 100 meter to 100 meter no mechanical treatment buffer to to
historic stands of coastal scrub and chaparral. Regarding snags and carbon the
plan authorizes the removal of large trees at a default 16 inch DBH
threshold but creates an exception for trees of any size. I asked the
Commission to require a 24 inch DBH floor for live tree retention and a 20
inch DBH minimum for snag retention and a baseline carbon accounting condition.
Thank you. Thank you, we had one other speaker signed up, Karen Maki. We're not
able to find you in the zoom list. If you are there, please raise your hand.
Okay, I see the hand raised San Mateo County Dems. You should be able to
Unmute now.
Okay, my name is Karen Mackey.
I'm chair of the Sierra Club State Forest Committee.
And the California has two types of fires,
fires in wild areas and fires in developed areas.
Unfortunately, the California government allocates 95%
of its funding to address fires in wild areas.
We must focus our time and money,
more of it on making homes themselves
community safer but because an ember can fly two or three miles in a strong
wind. So far since 2019 the state is allocated, they've rebuilt 119 homes
and that's all they've done for houses. So since I'm asking that that you put
more attention to retaining large trees, whether they're living or dead,
they rebuild the soil. And also I'm asking that fire management activities must increase
stored carbon. That must be a goal. Storing carbon, removing it from the atmosphere,
addresses climate change, and it also increases the amount of carbon stored on our public lands.
Forest management activities must also seek to rebuild the soil. That means less use of
of accountable equipment that can disrupt mycorrhizal fungi networks and destroy seed
banks and dry out the soil. Dead vegetation is nature's fertilizer. Dead plants and animals
decay and restore soil nutrients. The removal of vegetative material and polishes the soil
is far better to let trees decay in place and to molt smaller vegetation. I would like to also see
actual monitoring and accounting for carbon that's removed during the project.
Thank you. There are no other speakers, Madam Chair.
Great. Thank you very much. Well, with that, I think we'll return to the applicant
and they've asked for five minutes for rebuttal. Thank you. Please go ahead.
All of them are on.
We're hoping for David Kalman to join. Is he on? He's having difficulty speaking.
we're moving him in right now. Sorry about that. David is now in, so you should be able to unmute.
Yes, can everyone hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, perfect. Good afternoon, Chair Harmon,
commissioners, and staff. Thank you for having us. My name is David Cowman, and I'm the Director of
Stewardship for Semper Virens Fund. And I'm also a California registered professional forester.
In addition to my professional work in the Santa Cruz Mountains, which has spanned over a decade,
and my organization's 126 years of experience protecting and conserving coast redwoods in the
Santa Cruz Mountains. I also have published research specifically looking at fire ecology
in Big Bay and Redwood State Park. I don't think it's an effective use of my time to address all
of the concerns raised today because they are thoroughly considered in the several hundred page
CEQA document and notice of impending development and baked into the standard project requirements
that we must follow as part of this process. However, first and foremost, fire management
and disturbance ecology is forest health. The health of our forests is critically dependent
on their relationship to fire and fire surrogates. It's been demonstrated time and time again that
prescribed fire and fuel reduction efforts have real tangible benefits both to re-establish
ecologically appropriate disturbance processes, reduce the impacts of high-intensity wildfire,
and in many cases stimulate growth of native understory species. Our forests in the Santa Cruz
Mountains are not untouched by human hands. They were stewarded for millennia by Indigenous people,
then clear-cut logged, and even now are impacted by a changing climate, suppression of low and
and moderate intensity fire, nitrogen deposition from vehicles, and human usage. As long as the
Santa Cruz Mountains have been characterized by the plant communities that we see today,
they have been stewarded by people. We can't decide whether or not humans will impact the region,
they already have and they already are, but we can have a hand in helping to prepare the
mountains to better handle those impacts and recover. The means and methods proposed in this
project follow conservation and restoration best management practices and have a demonstrated
history of success in this region. The force proposed for this project is near and due to
my heart personally, my organization's heart, and we wholeheartedly believe that this project
is an effective approach to ensuring that these forests have a fighting chance in the face of a
changing climate. I will now pass it back to my colleagues. I think I'll go next. Please go
ahead. Go ahead, Portia Halbert. Thank you. My name is Portia Halbert. I am the Natural Resources
Program Manager here at California State Parks, and I would echo what David has talked about in
in terms of many of the comments were really directly addressed in our project documents
in terms of our requirements for implementing the different work products.
Now, in terms of the size of the area, I think there was mention towards 12,000 acres.
And that does sound like a large area to cover.
The different projects that we will implement as part of this project will be much smaller than that.
They will not be us moving from one end of the forest to the other, treating the entire swath as we go.
There will be smaller projects as funding is available, and each of those projects will be submitted with notification to the ED.
The public does have the opportunity to comment directly to us at state parks.
I pride our outreach efforts in terms of making sure people
have the opportunity to come and see our projects.
I invite any of the commenters to reach out,
and we will take you to the different places
we have worked and the places we will
plan to work to invite that discussion in the field.
Much of the work that we are doing
is directly related to different studies and science
based on this work showing the improvements that are seen
in the forest after the work is completed.
Now, David mentioned fire management
is forest health management.
We know from the CZU fire that the areas
that burned a decade earlier and burned again
in the CZU fire had a thicket of Cenothus regrowth.
They created conditions where the forest burned white hot
and vastly changed it.
It's no longer the same forest it once was.
our work will help protect the forest itself
as it is post fire and to protect areas
that have still some good remaining old growth habitat
that is a high priority for us.
And with that, I'll turn it over to my colleagues
for further comments.
Thanks, Porta.
I think I'll just jump in real quick.
Hudson North up here again with State Parks.
I just want to reiterate,
I hear all the concerns about protecting the wildlife
and all the species.
I'll re-emphasize what David mentioned
that many of those concerns are already addressed
as required by the PWP and in our document.
This project was also reviewed
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
We proposed them all of our protection measures.
They had the opportunity to comment
and approved our proposed project as designed.
I also wanna hit back on, I believe it was Jerry's point
that brought up the court decision about the Cal VTP
and clarify that this project is specifically designed
to comply with the outcome of that court decision.
I believe there's a special condition your staff added
to the approval of the NOID that directs us
to comply with that.
And lastly, I just want to emphasize
that we've done extensive work monitoring
throughout the park and we are well aware there are hundreds and hundreds of dead trees
per acre throughout the project area. We have every intention to remain standing dead trees
that are relevant habitat to wildlife. We don't even really have the capacity to remove
all those trees, but we have every intention to retain habitat, retain standing dead trees,
allow those to cycle. We specifically want to protect the remaining live old growth trees,
to do treatments around this.
I think I'll step back and let the rest of our team jump in,
but thank you all.
Okay, thank you very much.
With that, we'll close the public hearing
and return to our staff.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
So as you heard from our staff ecologists,
Dr. Rachel Pausch, as well as from the applicant team,
this project will result in an improvement
to the health and resilience of these ecosystems.
You also heard from state park staff describing their commitment to public engagement and
working with interested parties to understand how this project will be implemented.
Commissioned staff also encourage public engagement.
However, the Sierra Club's request to modify special condition three is not appropriate.
Executive director review of these treatment activities as they are further developed is
the appropriate level of review. We have enough information in the project to
determine that this project is consistent with the standards of the PWP.
The ED is simply going to confirm that as treatment activities are
identified each coming year that those have been developed in order to meet
those standards. In addition, you heard some requests from speakers to impose
additional conditions. I want to remind the Commission that our standard of
review here is the standards of the PWP, so we can't impose additional
requirements beyond those standards. And we heard some comments regarding carbon
SPR GHG dash one requires that project proponents provide data regarding carbon if their project is subject to a B 1504.
But we don't believe that that applies here.
I'd like to add just a couple of a little kind of higher overarching comments I mean I think this commission is well aware and some of you have been personally impacted by fires and wildfires in our state, it's been
effort at state government to try to figure out
how we can protect our forests and our communities,
given climate change and anticipated increasing fire risk
all up and down the state.
So we have been part of that conversation
and we have worked really hard as an agency
to find a way to expedite these types of reviews
for fire resilience projects,
but in a way that's protective of resources
and that it considers the Coastal Act.
And so we have developed this process to the PWP
and then the Noids that come after
in an effort to be responsive to that.
And I just, I wanna make that really clear.
It's been a statewide effort.
And I really want to appreciate our partners at parks,
at the RCDs, at the various organizations
that you heard today, because it has been a group effort.
We all have the same goals.
We want this to be healthy forest.
We want to avoid these huge, very high burning fires that can just devastate, just, you know,
we've all seen it.
I don't think I need to go into the horror of the impacts associated with those fires.
And we want to avoid that and we want to make sure that our habitats are healthy and that
our communities are protected.
So I want to thank our staff.
have been working overtime to fit to find a way to review these projects in a
way that is sound under the Coastal Act and do it at lightning speed and I'm
proud of the work we're doing and just want to give you that overall context
before we get into any of the details of this project so with that I'll turn it
back to you chair thank you very much much appreciate it okay so with that I
I will return to the Commission.
Comments, questions?
We'll begin with Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
I just also want to share my appreciation
for all of the partners for the state
and all of the state agencies for Semper Virens,
Save the Redwoods League.
Within the thanks of the state agencies, of course,
State Parks.
For all of us that love this part of the state,
this has just been a horrible, horrible hit.
I mean, so many of us that have camped at Big Basin,
I was actually on the State Park Commission
when we did the general plan for Big Basin,
and Big Basin, you know, is one of the first state parks,
not sort of generally acknowledged to be the first.
So it's a big deal, and it's a big deal to people.
It's not just some anonymous area.
And I feel that, you know, I feel what the Sierra Club,
John Muir Project, et cetera are saying.
And because of that, you know, I've gone back and forth
on the need for this to return to the commission
as the Sierra Club is requesting.
And I think that my concern about that is that
I think it's beyond what we need to do.
However, what I would like to see, Dr. Hucklebridge,
is for you to return at such time
that these review requests come forward
and to include an update on the specifics of them
in your director's report.
And then if we find at that time that there are things that we're concerned about, to
have an opportunity to open public comment, because I think that's really what the Sierra
Club is getting to here.
They want an opportunity to know what's going on and be able to comment, and it's really
hard to find a public forum to do that.
So that's kind of where I am on it.
I'd really like updates as this moves forward.
Through the Chair, I think that's a great solution.
I think we can, as reviews come in, if I have, if I am reviewing and approving a plan as
an example, we can include that as an element just like we do emergency permits, for example,
in my executive director report.
Great.
Thank you.
Commissioner Eckerly.
Thank you, Chair.
I want to appreciate Vice Chair's recommendation, elegant solution to kind of create visibility
while continuing to allow these projects to move forward quickly.
I want to emphasize Secretary Crowfoot's focus and priority on accelerating these types
of projects, projects that build critical wildfire resilience that protect private property
and public safety, reducing the risk of extreme wildfires, and really improving forest and
ecosystem health.
So I have, as I think everybody on this commission, full trust in the judgment and discretion
of our executive director, and I look forward to getting a readout on how these are, are
moving forward.
Thank you, Commissioner not off.
Yeah, I think this makes a lot of sense.
I just want to point out that it's the sheer scale of this, I think is as we scale these
up, you know, we really want to, we don't want to give blanket approvals, we want to
look at the site specific needs.
So I think this is a good way to approach that as a person who lives in a Woowee community,
I am very acutely aware of the need to move deliberately forward on making our communities
more resilient and protected.
So I think this makes good sense and I want to make sure that, you know, everyone has
a chance to comment in a timely manner.
Thank you.
I concur with the comments of all of my colleagues and I appreciate in particular the proposal
presented by Vice Chair Hart.
I think there's agreement that that seems like a really excellent path forward.
So I'm excited about that and happy to support.
So I'll entertain Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, coming in from the VIP, just want to say I align myself with the comments as well.
I think it's important that we move and create fire protection in a time when we can in ways
that have really been thought through and approached with a lot of care.
And while we know we'll never get to perfection, I like the way that Vice Chair Hart has tried
to thread the needle with this proposal and we'll be happy to support it today.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Vice Chair Hart, are you prepared to make the motion?
I guess so.
All right.
I move the commission to determine that the development described in notice of impending
Development, SMC NOID 000725 as
condition pursuant to the staff
recommendation as well as our my
comments that have been generally
there's consensus among the
commission is consistent with the
San Mateo County Forced Health and
Fire Resilience Public Works Plan and I
recommend a yes vote. Second. A motion by
Vice Chair Hart, a second by Commissioner
Kelly. They're asking for a yes vote. Any
objections to unanimous consent? Seeing
no objections the motion passes. I move that the Commission determine that the
development described in the notice of impending development VTP NO ID 00825
as condition pursuant to staff recommendation as well as the comments
that were that the Commission shared in that I made earlier are consistent with
the certified Santa Cruz County Forest Health and Fire Resilience Public Works
Plan and I recommend a yes vote. I'll second. So motion by Vice-Chair Hart a
A second by me.
We're asking for a yes vote.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Thank you very much.
This is important work.
Okay, and with apologies to the folks here
for the enforcement item,
we're gonna quickly get through item 15.
It'll take just a minute.
If we could move to the Deputy Director's Report
for the Central Coast District.
Come on up.
Yes, item 15.
Is the Central Coast, Deputy Director's Report,
This meant that we're recording one waiver,
that's for improvements that could work
for a rock and moral bay.
Not aware of any controversy regarding questions
whether or more commissioners object.
We do not have a commission.
Thank you, Mr. Carl.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
No speakers.
Great.
Do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no such objections, the commission concurs.
Okay, now as we let our staff change over,
we are going to be moving to what I believe is item eight.
Thank you very much.
And I'll just go ahead and get started.
We will now consider agenda items number 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3,
which share a single combined staff report,
including the consent cease and desist order
number CCC-26-CD-02, 8.2, the consent administrative penalty number CCC-26-AP-01, and 8.3, consent
administrative penalty number CCC-26-AP-3-02.
The consent order and consent administrative penalties are all proposed to be issued to
the Center for Natural Lands Management, Dana Point, Orange County.
the alleged violator and or its representatives please identify
themselves for the record. Yes please come forward. You could just come to the
mic and introduce yourself please ma'am. Good afternoon Chair Harmon and
commissioners my name is Deborah Rogers and I'm the Executive Director for the
Center for Natural Lands Management. Should I introduce the others with me
today? That's great for now thank you very much. Thank you. To our staff can you
please identify what items are already part of the record.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
The record consists of the contents of the staff report
and supporting documents and the addendum
along with the public documents in the violation file
and today's hearing itself.
Thank you, Ms. Hagee, and how long will you
and your staff need for the presentation?
30 minutes.
Thank you.
There shouldn't have been any ex parte communications,
but I'll ask, do any commissioners
have any ex partes to report?
Okay, seeing none, I'm now going to review the rules
for this proceeding. Our staff is asked for up to 30 minutes for its
presentation, so I'll give the alleged violator the same amount of time. 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'd like to speak as an interested member of the public, after
which I may allow the alleged violator to use any of their reserved rebuttal
time to respond to comments from interested persons. Our staff will then
typically respond to the 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's not
appropriate to suggest questions to be asked to yourself. Commissioners may but
are not required to ask those proposed questions. Okay so now we are going to
begin the public hearing with the staff presentation and I will turn it over to
to you, Miss Hagee. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chair. This matter involves the attempt to
harmonize protections for two very important resources under the Coastal Act, public access
to the coast and endangered species, in this case a very imperiled species, the Pacific pocket mouse.
You can see in this photo how tiny the pocket mouse is. It would weigh about the same as a
nickel or two pennies in your hand. The pocket mouse is one of the most endangered animals in
the United States. Prior to the discovery of the populations at Dana Point Preserve in 1994,
it was believed to have gone extinct completely. It is still known to occur in just two places
worldwide, the Preserve, which is the area at the heart of this matter, and on Camp Pendleton.
The Preserve is also the location of a popular bluff top trail that winds through the habitat
for the pocket mouse population, as is well supported by the agencies uniquely tasked with
protecting the pocket mouse, including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Unfortunately, human disturbance from pedestrian activity
is one of the primary threats to the pocket mouse's survival
at the preserve and thus globally.
Because of the significance of the preserve
for the survival of the pocket mouse
and the potential for disturbance from use of the trail,
the commission certified the specific plan
that covers the preserve on the basis
that it included protections for the pocket mouse.
Specifically, the LCP for this area requires the owner
the preserve, the center of natural land management, to set trail hours that are
consistent with the recommendations of the wildlife agencies, to protect habitat
and sensitive species such as the pocket mouse. CNLM is a non-profit
form for the protection and management of natural resources at various
properties throughout the state. To this point, CLNM has not obtained
authorization for trail hours per the recommendations of the wildlife agencies,
which we'll talk about in more detail in a minute. For their part, CLNM has
submitted a CDP application to the city which has a commission certified LCP for this area
to authorize trail hours that are intended to meet the recommendations of the wildlife agencies
and agencies have supported CLNM's proposed hours and correspondence. However, the city's CDP process
has not concluded despite CLNM having submitted an application in 2024 in part due to the city's
requirement for an additional CEQA document.
Generating that documentation and thus the permit process is expected to take many months
to conclude.
In the meantime, the trail hours that are in effect without any of the required authorization
under the LCP or Coastal Act, which are 7 a.m. to sunset 7 days a week, are not consistent
with the recommendations of the wildlife agencies as they are not protective of the pocket mouse.
In addition, the beginning of pocket mouse breeding season, which is generally considered
to start in March is upon us, and when avoidance of disruption of the pocket mouse behavior
is especially critical for the health of the population of the preserves, and therefore
begs for immediate action to set trail hours that are protective of the mouse.
Establishing trail hours requires authorization since it is a change of access.
With the city CDP process not currently an option for expeditious institution of protective
trail hours, this consent agreement presents a mechanism for the Commission to direct and
and authorize CNLM to implement interim trail hours consistent with the recommendations
of the wildlife agencies and the substantive requirements of the LCP while preserving significant
opportunities for public access at the site.
The proposed consent agreement also requires CNLM to obtain a CDP for the long-term authorization
of trail hours and addresses their monetary liability for the matters at issue by requiring
them to fund, design, and implement a program for free public tours at the preserves including
for the general public and for students from underserved communities.
As you will hear, staff worked closely and collaboratively with CL and IM, and greatly
appreciates their cooperation and participation in crafting this resolution, which is designed
to provide legal authorization for the hours pending the completion of the CDP process.
We look forward to working with both CNLM and the City of Dana Point, who we also look
forward to working with to protect both the mouse and public access.
We're pleased to detail a proposed agreement
for your consideration.
Today's presentation will be given by Andrew Willis,
who's in enforcement staff council for Southern California,
who is the lead on this case.
Commission ecologist, Dr. Corey Clatterbrook,
who prepared a staff ecology memo for this item
which is posted on our website is joining us by Zoom.
And to my right is Deputy Chief Counsel,
Alex Halpern, who's also available today.
Andrew.
Thank you, Lisa.
Good afternoon Chair and members of the commission.
Next slide please.
The Dana Point Preserve is located on a seaside promontory
in Dana Point.
Next slide please.
This slide shows some of the key features of the preserve
and the surrounding area.
The preserve makes up most of the promontory
or headlands on this slide.
The trail at issue winds along the edge of the bluff.
You can just make it out on this slide.
The preserve is a component of the headlands
residential, commercial and parks project.
And there's a lot of history to the Headlands,
which was a massive project approved by the city
after the commission certified the Headlands specific plan.
The preserve was one of the only remaining open space areas
after build out.
From this perspective,
you can see areas of the Headlands residential areas,
as well as a beach access trail on the left side,
snaking down the bluff and the sandy beach at Strands Beach,
both of which were required to be made public
by the Headlands Plan.
Also as a requirement of the Headlands Plan,
CNLM obtained the preserve in 2005
and has managed it for the conservation
of natural resources since then.
Next slide, please.
On the preserve, there are a number
of protected plant species, plant communities,
wildlife species, and habitats for wildlife species.
But today we're going to focus on one species, the federally endangered Pacific pocket mouse
and its habitat because of the unique intersection between its survival and pedestrian traffic
on the trail at the preserve.
This is coastal stage scrub at the Headlands, which was designated as environmentally sensitive
habitat in the Headlands plan because of the rarity of this type of coastal stage scrub
and the ecosystem functions it performs, including as habitat for the federally threatened coastal
the California Knack Catcher, the federally endangered pocket mouse, and up to 13 special
status species.
The pocket mouse inhabits sandy soils within the coastal sage scrub where it forages for
seeds mostly at night, storing seeds in its pocket cheeks and depositing seed balls throughout
the habitat where they can help propagate new plant growth.
You can just make out some of those sandy soils in the spaces between the plants here.
Next slide, please.
Here is the pocket mouse, a tiny creature as Lisa illustrated, it is just about 5 inches
from nose to the tip of its tail.
The pocket mouse is characterized as a narrow endemic because it has evolved to find a very
limited range of habitat to be suitable, that is the sandy soils along the Southern California
coast.
It needs sandy soils in order to be able to tunnel and burrow throughout its habitat and
sand bathe as well, but this habitat requirement significantly reduced its distribution.
Slide six please. To illustrate that limited distribution, here are all of the known
locations of the pocket mouse. Formerly the pocket mouse was found in suitable habitats from
El Segundo up in LA County down to the Mexican border. The Lhasa coastal sage grub and other
sandy soil habitats to development, as well as human disturbance and invasion of non-native plants
decimated the pocket mouse population. The Dana Point Preserve is at the northern most dot
on this slide. Sadly, one of these four populations was lost since this exhibit
in the pocket mouse recovery plan was prepared in 1998. That location was the population most
subject to human disturbance from recreational activity according to the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service. Thus, recreational activity was potentially a significant factor in the pocket
mouse's extirpation at that location. And thus, recreational activity at the preserve is also a
critical consideration. Next slide, please. That brings us to the Nature Trail on the
preserve, which is located in documented pocket mouse habitat. As you can guess from the coastal
views that the trail provides as well as how quickly it can immerse people in wilderness
in the middle of urban Orange County.
This trail is very popular with the public.
That popularity introduces a potential conflict between trail usage and the pocket mouse population
which is so susceptible to disturbance from trail use.
Next slide please.
The preserve is effectively a pocket-mouse island bordered by the coast and urban development.
While this undeveloped block of coastal sage grub allowed the pocket-mouse to survive here,
the island nature of the preserve also prevents the pocket-mouse population from expanding
or moving in order to avoid human disturbance.
Next slide, please.
Because of the fairly unique situation of a coastal trail through habitat for a severely
imperiled species that is sensitive to disturbance from trail use.
The LCP for the preserve and the headlands area, the Headlands Development Conservation
Plan, was certified with specific provisions designed to manage trail use for the protection
of the pocket mouse.
In essence, the Headlands Plan requires CNLM as the entity that received the property during
the development process to manage the site, including access to the site with the protection
of sensitive species, in particular the pocket mouse, as a standard for management.
Specifically, CNLM must set trail hours that are consistent with the wildlife agency's
determinations to protect on-site resources.
Next slide, please.
CNLM has obtained input from the wildlife agencies regarding hours.
Wildlife agency staff have significant knowledge of and experience with the site, having previously
designated much of the preserve
as a temporary Pacific pocket mouse preserve.
That protection as a preserve was carried over
and implemented by the Headlands Plan.
In their joint May 2023 letter to CNLM,
the wildlife agencies stressed the vulnerability
of the pocket mouse population at the Headlands,
at the preserve specifically.
Next slide, please.
And they supported management of trail use at the preserve.
Excuse me.
Next slide.
and confirmed that CNLM had revised the proposed habitat plan for the preserve to specify that trail hours will be four days per week with seasonal hours.
These hours constitute the interim hours that this consent agreement will direct CNLM to implement.
Commissioned Ecology staff have assessed interim trail hours and as outlined in Dr. Clatterbuck's memo, which is attached to the staff report as Exhibit 5,
The proposed consent agreement hours are more conducive to the continued recovery of the pocket mouse than the existing hours
while still providing valuable access to the coast.
Next slide, please.
It's a good place to go over the history and status of the hours.
When the preserve initially opened to the public in December 2009, the hours were 7 a.m.
to sunset seven days a week, although it is unclear how these hours were arrived at,
But it is clear they were not authorized by the Headlands LCP or CDP.
Prior to opening the trail to the public,
CNLM had counted 82 pocket mice on the preserve in May 2009.
125,000 people visited the trail in 2011.
That number rose to
260,000 by 2017.
In 2019, CNLM counted two mice at the site,
suggesting a negative reaction
to the stream of visitors to the preserve.
In March, 2020, CNLM closed the trail
to comply with the COVID-19 precautions.
Shortly after the closure,
CNLM documented 77 mice at the preserve,
which provides further support for limiting hours.
Thus, in the interest of protecting the Pacem house,
when stay-at-home orders were lifted in June, 2021,
and CNLM accordingly modified the hours,
it reopened the trail with more limited hours than previously,
Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The reasoning for eliminating the hours
and providing rest days for the pocket mouse,
as supported by the wildlife agencies and our ecology staff,
is that doing so generally reduces human presence
and thus disturbance at the preserve,
and reduces human presence during low light hours
when pocket mice have been found to be active.
Being tiny in a potential prey item
that spends much of its life underground.
The pocket mouse is highly tuned to predator detection
and thus is likely sensitive to noise, vibration,
and scent from human use of the trail.
The pocket mouse must make decisions
about whether it is safe to leave its burrow to forge
and engage in life activities.
Human presence will affect those decisions,
restricting both the area and time available
to the pocket mouse to carry out its essential functions.
In addition, sounds and vibration from trail use
may disturb the pocket mice in their burrows
while they're resting during the day
in order to conserve energy for nighttime foraging
and other activities.
The limited hours instituted by CNLM
were intended to expand the area, the preserve,
and time available to the pocket mouse
without human disturbance.
On rest days, the preserve is entirely open
to the pocket mouse.
The city challenged the limited hours in court
as unpermitted and lacking the CDP,
And at its request in November 2022,
obtain a preliminary court order
to return the hours to 7 a.m. to sunset seven days a week.
In its action, the court did not make any substantive
findings about the appropriate hours
and merely undid the unpermitted hours.
The consent agreement is consistent
with the preliminary court order
to undo the previous unpermitted hours instituted by CNLM.
To that end, the consent agreement addresses
lack of permitted hours by requiring long term authorization of trail hours through
the CDP process and authorizing interim hours.
Next slide please.
As noted per the court order, the trail hours are currently 7 a.m. to sunset.
Data collected with those hours in place shows the negative effect on the pocket mouse of
those trail hours.
Although live trapping has not occurred since 2020, track tubes, and this is a track tube
on the slide, which essentially record the footprints of mice, so that pocket mice were
using the largest proportion of the preserve in 2021, when the limited hours were in place.
The area of use has decreased to low points in 2024 and 2025, which shows the pocket mouse is
now using the smaller area of the preserve, and that's presumably there are fewer mice
than when the hours were previously more limited. This is so even though seeing along
vegetation management activities for the pocket mouse have ramped up or at least continued during
that same period, showing how determinative hours are to the pocket mouse presence.
Next slide, please. The Commission staff became aware of the disagreement over the hours between
the city and CNLM, as well as the lack of authorized trail hours in 2021. It began to
extensively correspond with the city, CNLM, and wildlife agencies as detailed on this slide
in order to try to ensure the hours that are consistent with the LCP are authorized.
Next slide, please. Pursuant to staff's direction, CNLM prepared both a habitat plan
with hours in 2023, and that's a mechanism under the Headland CDP to authorize trail hours
and a CDP application for trail hours in 2024. City staff declined to approve the habitat plan,
saying quote if CNLM proposed an update to the HMMP that restricted public access to fewer days
and hours and is currently permitted city staff would not recommend that it be approved for a
variety of reasons. The CDP application is held up while CNLM addresses the C code documentation
that they that the city has requested. Preparing that documentation is expected to take many months
to complete. Despite its efforts CNLM has not obtained authorization for trail hours as required
by the LCP. That's point number one here. There is a basis to issue the cease and desist order.
The cease and desist order is directed to CLM since it is as a recipient of the ownership of
the preserve during the Headlands Development Process, the entity solely with the management
authority and responsibility to set trail hours, although the hours need a CDP. And point two,
the Commission can issue this consent agreement to address this matter because
Although staff requested that the city address the LCP noncompliance, the city's actions to date
have not done so. The present litigation is limited to addressing the trail hours that
CNLM had instituted after COVID. The CDP will not bind CNLM to a resolution of the enforcement
matter and will not be completed in a timely manner. On the other hand, this consent agreement
creates an enforceable obligation that CNLM obtain authorization for trail hours and that
takes immediate action to protect the pocket mouse, which is not a part of any of the city's actions.
Point three, the commission may attach terms and conditions to the order to ensure the pocket
mouse is protected pursuant to the Coal Select. The Coal Select expressly allows the commission
to authorize development through a cease and desist order to do so. Thus, authorizing interim
trail hours is consistent with the Coal Select. And point four, issuance and implementation of
of the cease-and-desist order to compel CNLM to institute hours that are protective of the
pocket mouse is categorically exempt from its CEQA, generally because the order is designed to
protect and enhance the environment. Slide 17. Next slide. The consent agreement will require
CNLM to obtain long-term authorization for hours, whether through its current CDP application,
now pending before the city or a habitat plan under the existing headland CDP.
These processes will be appropriate to determine measures for long-term monitoring of the pocket
mouse population and adaptive management, such as modifications of hours based upon
mouse counts.
The consent agreement also sets interim trail hours as supported by the wildlife agencies.
That's four days a week, eight to six in the summer, and eight to four in the winter.
The consent agreement will also authorize and require CNLM to continue to manage vegetation
at the site for sensitive habitat, in particular the pocket mouse, by reducing coverage by
non-native plants and overgrowth.
As a quick overview of the access options in the area, here is a slide showing the Headlands
Trail network.
The trail through the preserve, shown in the blue line on the lower left, will be open
pursuant to the hours on the previous slide.
When the preserve trail is closed, there will be other trails and parks open in the
Headlands network.
The Harbor Point Conservation Park, the yellow line in the lower right, and the Hilltop Conservation
Park in the green line in the upper right will be open at sunset, open to sunset.
On the other side of the preserve, the Swissback Trail, the red squiggly line down to the beach
as well as the beach itself, are open 24 hours a day.
Those hours are requirements of our previous Commission enforcement action to address public
access violations at the Headlands residential area.
Next slide.
And here are views from Harbor Point and Hilltop Conservation Parks that will remain open at
sunset.
Next slide.
On the next few slides, I'll quickly go over the basis for assessing administrative penalties.
Since CNLM has not obtained authorization for trail hours that are protective of the
is out of compliance with the LCP provisions,
which are intended to protect sensitive resources.
Therefore, the commission can impose
a administrative penalty under 308 21.3.
Next slide.
And CLM's institution of trail hours subsequent to COVID
was a change of access to water
and a change of intensity of use of recreational land
that required authorization.
However, CLM did not obtain authorization
for those changes and then changes were in violation
of the coleslaw and the LCP permitting requirements.
Thus, the commission may impose administrative penalty
under 3821.
Assessing the administrative penalties described here
ensures that the commission has comprehensively
addressed the matter at hand,
perpetuating its practice of reaching a full resolution
of the violations that addresses through formal action.
Next slide.
The factors for calculating administrative penalties
are listed in section 3820 of the coleslaw.
There's a much more detailed discussion
of these calculations start on page 30 of the SAF report.
Some of the more salient points to consider
are that CNLM acted both to immediately set trail hours
and that are protective of the pocket mouse
and to obtain authorization for trail hours under the LCP,
which it continues to do so
and which this consent agreement requires it to do.
Thus the gravity, nature and circumstance
of the violation is not characterized by disregard
for the colesel act, but rather an underlying intent
to comply and protect the pocket mouse.
CNLAM has worked cooperatively and extensively with the staff to reach the agreement to resolve
this matter consensually, thus both significantly reducing the cost to the state, bringing this
action and demonstrating its willingness to resolve this matter voluntarily.
Finally, CNLAM is also a non-profit forum for the conservation of natural resources.
It does not profit from violating LCP requirements that are in place to protect the pocket mouse.
Indeed, by the nature of its mission, it is motivated to comply with these requirements.
In aggregation of all of these factors and others discussed in the staff report prescribes
assessment of a low administrative penalty.
Next slide.
In lieu of paying a monetary penalty, CNLM has agreed through this consent agreement
to design, fund, and implement a program for weekly free tours to the preserve for members
of the public, students from Title I schools and underserved communities.
This program will provide significant value by enhancing the public's appreciation of
natural resources at the preserve, thus informing their visits to an extent that's not available
now.
Moreover, the program will hopefully create new stewards for the pocket mouse and spread
awareness of its plight in ways people can protect the mouse during their visit and beyond.
Next slide.
That mostly concludes SAS presentation.
We're available for any questions, motions for the item start on page 10.
There are three motions.
I'll say though if it hasn't been evident throughout that the pocket mouse is in serious
trouble and faces threats to its existence on multiple fronts, this consent agreement
will not save the pocket mouse on its own.
Much more work has needed to be done and is being done by many different entities and
we are thankful for that.
This consent agreement does hand more time back to the pocket mouse to thrive at the
preserve a day or two here or there wouldn't seem like where the mouse is
free from disturbance wouldn't seem to move the dial much but as is evident
from the statements of our ecology staff staff of the wildlife agencies and
cnn's on-site expert staff changes to the trail hours affected by this
consent agreement are of critical survival for the pocket mouse at the
preserve and therefore globally and we asked you to issue this consent
agreement to direct C&LM to take this vital immediate step to protect the
pocket mouse. That's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Before we move on may I ask
you Mr. Willis to go back to the slide with the hours and just reread that to
us one more time. I think we moved through quickly. It is slide. The proposed hours? Yes the
proposed hours thank you see what slide that is oh thank you this one the
proposed Oh proposed that would be or you could just say them if you know the
proposed hours off the top slide 17 I think yes 17 so it's Tuesday Thursday
Saturday these are the interim proposed interim hours Tuesday Thursday Saturday
and Sunday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. in the summer 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. in the winter okay
Thank you very much. Okay now the alleged violator or its representatives
may address the Commission. Thank you ma'am please come forward.
Commissioners as I previously introduced myself I'd just like to acknowledge now
the people who are here with me and they include Sarah Mueller our general counsel
Corey Merrill who's our regional preserve manager for what we call our
South Coast region and Russell Morse who's an attorney with the law firm
Myers-Nave. The Center for Natural Lands Management, the respondent of this
consent order, strongly supports staff's recommendations that the Commission
approve the consent agreement between the Coastal Commission and CNLM. As you
know, we have been working closely with Commission staff on implementation of
trail hours that comply with the LCP, and we believe this consent agreement is a necessary
step in that process.
Implementation of this consent agreement will contribute towards protection of the extremely
sensitive species at the Dana Point Preserve.
Next slide.
Oh, didn't see any slides yet, I should have mentioned we have a presentation.
presentation. They can bring it up. They're working on it. There we go. Thank
you, and you can move to the next slide please. As has been previously mentioned,
CNLM is a nonprofit organization. We've been working in California for 36 years
to serve our mission, which is to manage and protect sensitive and endangered
species in their natural habitats. We have approximately 100 preserves in
in California and at most of them,
we own the property or hold a conservation easement
and we manage and protect the property in perpetuity.
CNLM specializes in preserving land
with endangered and threatened species
and for that reason, we were asked to acquire
and manage the property that's known now
as the Dana Point Preserve.
Next slide please.
And here you see an aerial view of the headlands
as it was in 2005 before development began.
CNLM has owned the Dana Point Preserve since 2005
and it served as part of the mitigation
for the Headlands development.
At the time of our acquisition,
an endowment was provided to us through the generosity
of the Harry and Grace Steel Foundation
to protect the preserve and its resources in perpetuity.
We use that endowment to manage the preserve
for the protection of the endangered Pacific pocket mouse
and the threatened coastal California nacarcher,
as well as a number of other special status species.
We do this work in consultation with the US Fish
and Wildlife Service and the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife, and we also work closely
with pocket mouse experts from the US Geological Survey
and the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance.
Just to clarify some apparent misconceptions
among some of the public, we want to say this.
First, CNLM is not a government agency.
We are a nonprofit organization.
We do not receive tax dollars from the city of Dana Point,
and our staff are employees of CNLM, paid by CNLM.
And we do not have a management contract with the city.
CNLM is a private landowner with property located
within the city of Dana Point.
Our funding for management of the preserve
comes from our endowment.
That money cannot be spent at CNLM's other properties
or for other purposes than managing the preserve.
Next slide, please.
And here you see an aerial photo of the headlands
shortly after development began.
And onto the next slide.
And here's another aerial photo of the headlands
taken more recently from 2025.
And as you can see, the preserve right on the headlands
is one of the few remaining undeveloped areas here.
And the habitat it provides for sensitive species
is not linked to any other habitat.
The species there have no other place to go.
Next slide, please.
For those of you who have not visited the preserve, here's a photo of the trail and
some of the habitat there.
Next slide, please.
And for those of you who've never seen a Pacific pocket moose in the wild, which is quite understandable
because it's endangered and cryptic, there are a few photos in addition to those that
staff presented about which we're talking today.
The population of the Pacific pocket moose at the Dana Point Preserve is one of only
three remaining populations in the wild,
and the other two are Camp Pendleton.
So this is an extremely rare species
that was once more widely distributed
in coastal areas of California.
At the Dana Point Reserve,
we are required to practice adaptive management,
meaning that we take our management experience
and any new information or management tools,
And we use them to adapt our management practices
to be more effective.
Next slide, please.
More cute mice.
The proposals that we have made in the past
to modify trail hours are based on adaptive management.
CNLM has been monitoring the Pacific pocketmost population,
as well as other wildlife and rare plants on the preserve,
since 2005.
we have been monitoring public visitation levels since 2011.
So we have data on public visitation
and the Pacific pocket mouse population
going back many years.
As we obtain new and more information about the impacts
of so-called passive recreation on wildlife in general,
and on Pacific pocket mouse on the preserve in particular,
it became apparent that a more balanced management
of public access, in particular,
the number and timing of visitors was needed
to provide adequate protection for Pacific pocket moats.
Next slide, please.
Some of the data that we collect includes information
from live trapping mice.
Live trapping provides an estimate of the mice
on the preserve at one point in time,
But it's not an actual count of the number of mice.
That is, it's not a census.
Here we can see that in 2009, before the trail
opened to public access, live trapping
resulted in 82 Pacific pocket mice
being trapped on the preserve.
The trail opened to public access in December 2009.
Then the numbers of Pacific pocket mice
captured during subsequent live trapping sessions
declined through 2019.
The average entering that same period from 2011 to 2019,
the average number of daily visitors doubled.
As we know, CNLM closed the trail in March of 2020
with the COVID pandemic.
Live trapping several months later in June
indicated a market increase
in the number of Pacific pocket mice
captured at the preserve.
Next slide, please.
As staff has mentioned, CNLM also conducts another type of monitoring, Pacific pocket
mice, called tractive monitoring.
This method does not involve live trapping or does it indicate how many Pacific pocket
mice are there, but it provides information about where on the preserve are the Pacific
pocket mice.
In year over year, it provides information on how robust is the population, that is,
it shows trends in Pacific pocket mice presence.
The data presented here show the proportion of area occupied, or PIO, of Pacific pocket
mice.
A larger PIO indicates a more robust population, and a lower PIO indicates a less robust population.
As you can see, the PIO was fairly low through 2019, but in 2020, when the trail was closed,
the PIO was higher, and in 2021, when the trail was open for modified hours, generally
three days a week, the PIO increased to 95%, which you can see is the peak during the time
period shown here.
In 2022, the trail hours returned to 7 a.m. to sunset 7 days a week.
And as you can see, the proportion area occupied by PPM has decreased by approximately 40%
since 2021.
And that indicates the decline in the Pacific pocket most population.
Of course, public access is not the only influence on Pacific pocket mice.
We know there are other influences and our management activities focus on addressing
the threats that can be managed in coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service and CDFW.
But despite increased efforts with vegetation management that began around 2020, we have
seen the PAO decline dramatically and that coincides with the return to public access
from 7am to sunset 7 days a week. Next slide, please. It's been commented that the trail
just occupies a very small proportion of the preserve. So what's the problem? What happens
on the trail affects more than the surface and subsurface real estate. This figure shows
the location of the trail in red,
and depicts what we called areas of influence
that radiate out from the trail,
measured at 13 meters and 50 meters and 100 meters.
And this is a useful way to depict the way
that the trail users can impact Pacific pocket mice
throughout the entire preserve.
People using the trail impact PPM and other species there
through sight, sound, smell, and vibration.
These impacts can shorten or discourage
essential activities of the Pacific pocket mice,
including feeding and food collection,
selecting mates and mating, territory exploration
and expansion, and necessary hygiene, including sand baths.
Many of these activities are conducted above ground.
typically at night or during low light times of day.
But sounds and vibrations can also affect PPM
while they are below ground.
And that can interrupt their energy saving state
and deplete their energy reserves
as well as affecting the female's reproductive cycle.
All of these disruptions impact health, longevity
and the likelihood of successful reproduction.
and cumulate over the entire population,
a decline in survivorship and lower number of offspring
can cause a downward spiral for the population
that could result in local extirpation,
bringing this already endangered species
closer to the brink of extinction.
The available data indicate that when the trail is open,
seven a.m. to sunset, every day,
the PPM population declines.
And when the trail is closed or open with a reduced schedule,
the population appears to rebound.
And relevant information from the scientific literature
based on many other species suggests similar trends.
Adaptive management requires us to use this information
and make adjustments in management at the preserve,
including management of trail hours.
Despite what you may have heard, CNLM is not interested in prohibiting public access.
But since we have information indicating that the current levels of public access, again
7 a.m. to sunset every day of the year, are negatively impacting this extremely rare and
sensitive species, we need to take action to adjust the levels of public access.
Next and last slide, please.
Apparently these are frequent trail goers that keep popping up.
The action by the Commission today would implement modified hours until the city's CDP process
is complete.
These hours would be for four days per week, including weekends, and would exclude the
low light times of day, and that's when the PPM are more likely to be active above ground.
We do recognize that sunset is a popular time for people to visit the preserve, but there
are numerous other nearby locations with wonderful sunset views, but the Pacific pocket mice
that are required to be protected there don't have those options.
This consent agreement is an important step in the necessary adaptive management of the
trail hours at the preserve.
As the staff report noted, CNLM has already prepared and submitted a habitat management
plan and a CDP to implement protective hours, and we continue to pursue those processes
with the City and other agencies.
And we are committed to seeing those processes through.
This proposed consent agreement is consistent with those processes and in fact requires
CNLM to follow them.
The interim trail hours required by the consent agreement are just that, interim.
They are not replacing any other process and will only stay in place until the HMMP or
the CDP process is completed.
We look forward to the eventual approval of a plan that provides for the long-term protection
of the natural resources at the preserve, while also protecting public access, and that
takes into account the need for adaptive management in protecting sensitive species.
We greatly appreciate the work that Commissioned staff have done on these issues, as well as
continued engagement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and CDFW and numerous other
organizations that care strongly about the protection of California's wildlife and coastal
resources. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Commission and are available
to answer any questions you have and I would just like to reserve the rest of our time. Thank you.
Thank you Chris can you um let me know or how much time is remaining just for my records
okay reserve 14 minutes and 40 seconds great thank you very much okay now we're going to
move to public comment on this issue um in general it's a standard three minute comment period but I
think we'll begin with the city of Dana Point um and we have arranged for a 20 minute period
For them and their representatives. Thank you. Yes, John Gabbard Stephen Kuffman and Jamie
Federica
Federico
Good afternoon chair and commissioners. My name is John Gabbard and I serve as the mayor of Dana Point
The headlands nature trail is an important part of the California coastal trail
One of the few bluff tops along the Orange County coast where the public can experience the shoreline
At the same time the headlands is known for its home of the Pacific pocket mouse
for more than 30 years, a species we are committed to protecting.
These are both worthy responsibilities, maintaining meaningful public access, and safeguarding
sensitive habitat.
After a site-specific study that we requested over a year ago, they both deserve careful
and balanced consideration.
The Coastal Act established a partnership between this commission and the local government.
As Dana Point's local coastal program is certified, the city has the responsibility
to review the coastal development permit.
Without these constant delays that we have occurred, the current CDP review and the required
CEQA documents would allow us to review the science, the public access needs, and the
habitat protections to fully examine the headlands so that a balanced outcome can be reached.
So we're respectfully asked that the commission to continue this action to allow the city
to review the proceeds and not preempt it through enforcement action at this time.
Let the process work as it was intended so the science may be fully heard so the public
access may be carefully considered and so both our coast and the life it sustains may
endure for generations to come.
I thank you for your service and to the people of California with that I yield my time to
Mr. Mr. I'm sorry Mr. Kaufman and then councilmember Federico it take like five minutes.
Thank you.
Good afternoon Madam Chair Commissioner Steve Kaufman and I have a PowerPoint and if we
go to the second slide please commissioners we have the same goal protection of public
access and habitat and compliance by CNLM with the CDP requirement and the
Coastal Act and the LCP for setting the nature trails hours. City prides itself
on the nature trail. It's also very proud to be the home of the Pacific pocket
mounts and be assured the city is dedicated to its survival. This is not
just trail versus PPM and the city believes, go to the second slide please,
the city believes the two can successfully coexist and when all the
evidence is considered not just that selectively presented or prematurely
assumed in the staff report that they are in fact doing so. And our position
today is no different than what you'd expect to hear from any coastal city or
county enforcing its LCP. CNLM has a CDP application ongoing before the city and
under the Coastal Act in LCP it must not only start but complete the local CDP
review process and of course your staff agrees. And under the Act you have
jurisdiction to hear any appeal. Under the Act, the Commission isn't given any
statutory jurisdiction to intervene in that process with an enforcement
proceeding. To dictate a result that would preempt the very ongoing City
City review process that we both agree have to be followed and completed or to
assume the powers the legislature delegated to the city in the first
instance in the Coastal Act. And as a result, any action you take today would,
as a matter of law be void. And so we respectfully ask that you not adopt the
staff recommendation. We do disagree, if you go to the next slide, we disagree
with the staff report in addendum. It leaves out key provisions in the HDCP,
HMMP, and conservation easement, and makes premature assumptions regarding
trail hours. But the city is not inflexible and neither should you be. The
The ongoing CDP review process before the City will flesh out all the evidence and for
all interested parties the opportunity to fully address hours mitigation for the PPM
and appropriate balancing and CNLM like any applicant has to complete not continue to
delay the CDP process.
Next slide.
This shows the half mile trail and its five overlooks and context on the Dana Point Promontory.
On the left, the trail is a critical link in the integrated trail system you created
in certifying the HDCP portion of the LCP.
It's next to parking for your approval and open from 7 a.m. to sunset.
It's connected to two other trails on either side of those white arrows and it's a key
segment of the California Coastal Trail.
If days and hours are eliminated then you cut the heart out of this integrated trail
system.
Next slide.
The Nature Trail and one of the five overlooks during the day.
Next slide.
The Nature Trail at approximately 5.45 p.m., I used the setting of the sun as my clock
to make sure I exited before the gates automatically locked, would not be permitted by the staff
recommendation today.
Next slide.
The view up coast and a couple people timely leaving the trail.
Next slide.
This is the only publicly accessible trail along the headlands of bluffs and cliffs that
occupies about 1% of the preserve.
It does provide spectacular ocean, beach, and coastline views in a uniquely nature setting.
It's designed to border the preserve and avoid the areas where the pocket mouse is known
to inhabit.
Commission approved parking at the Nature Interpretive Center like the trail is open from 7 a.m.
to sunset.
Public access is strictly limited to daylight hours.
The trail head gates automatically lock at sunset, I was aware of that, foreclosing trail
activity at night that might disturb the PPM, which is nocturnal.
Access is fully controlled, the trail is well defined and controlled with post and cable
fencing and adjacent mature native vegetation to prevent off-trail access.
Signs and interpretive panels say what's allowed and prohibited and it's controlled by CNLM staff
who coordinate with Cal Fish and Wildlife and the OC Sheriff.
Next slide.
A little spin on the history.
It's different.
This trail opened in 2009 until COVID,
the hours were from 7 a.m. to sunset.
In 2020, with COVID, CLM initially closed the trail
and then limited trail access hours.
In 2021 and 22, enforcement staff advised CLM by letter
that a CDP is required to set hours,
And by email, noted the commission previously approved the parking near the down coast trailhead from 7 a.m. to sunset.
But CNLM failed to apply for a CDP.
In 2022, the city filed its Coastal Act enforcement action to force compliance with the CDP requirement.
Court issued an injunction and ruled that CNLM violated the act and ordered reinstatement of the long standing trail hours, 7 a.m. to sunset.
And that case comes to a head in a couple of weeks.
In 2024, CNLM finally applied to the city for a CDP to reduce
trail hours, and in 2025, the city determined to subsequent
EIRs required to provide additional needed information on
access and habitat, and CNLM sued to challenge that
determination stalling the city, the city's ongoing CDP review
process.
Next slide, please.
Before 2020, the estimated PPM numbers were exceedingly low,
you saw that from Ms. Rogers. There is however no documented causal link between the hours of
controlled trail access and conserving the PPM population. But there is some documented evidence
and since 2020 and through 2025 there has been a significant resurgence in the PPM population and
that's during the current controlled trail hours, 7 a.m. to sunset. In July 2025 the Fish and Wildlife
Service and its five-year review of the PPM and that's the first document and
your addendum explained the best chance for the subspecies survival lies in
effective management of the habitat and genetic health of each population and
Councilman Federico will address the importance of creating genetic diversity
here which is absent and I'll address habitat management. Prior to 2020, C&LM
did not conduct regular robust vegetation management. In 2020, the USGS
issued a report explaining this led to reduced habitat suitability for PPM on Dana Point.
Next slide. In 2020, instead of C-N-L-M pinning one to two acres in the preserve,
the Fish and Wildlife Service stepped in and obtained funding for more robust vegetation
pinning on 4.3 acres to open canopy and increase bare ground cover preferred by the PPM.
And in his 2020 report, the USGS again explained that in 2020 that vegetation management was more
than in any single year at Dana Point and produced high levels of PPM reproduction, 77 PPMs. And that
habitat modeling showed that habitat management was the top predictor of PPM occupancy through
the preserve. This is the first time the purposeful active management has been statistically
associated with PPM occupancy. Next slide. In 2020, CNLM did a good job, prepared a report
on his 2025 PPM monitoring, and this shows now the vegetation management areas by year,
especially from 2020 through 2025. Next slide. This shows the results of the 2025 TrackTube
PPM monitoring in two sessions. As I mentioned, in 2020, after serious vegetation management,
which everyone touts to successful 77 PPMs were found.
In 2025, 91 PPMs were detected
in a first monitoring session, that's the orange.
And 63 PPMs were detected in a second session,
that's the blue.
And again, that's with controlled trail access
from 7 a.m. to sunset.
And it demonstrates a continued resurgence
in the PPM population.
Next slide.
Now, the facts so far as I see it.
In Staff's Exhibit 22, and today, CNLM says 82 mice were detected in 2009 before the trail
opened.
In 2020, with robust vegetation management, 77 PPMs were detected.
Success!
And in 2025, 91 PPMs detected in the first session, and 63 in the second session.
The population is presently pretty stable, but that needs to be fleshed out more, and
That's the purpose of the CDP review process and CEQA.
You don't have all the evidence for environmental analysis and frankly there is no evidence
at all supporting the specific cuts in days and hours in your staff recommendation.
It's completely arbitrary.
Now that 2025 Fish and Wildlife Five Year Report recommended collaboration between the
city and CLM to study and effectively regulate the impact of public access on the PPM.
We agree and the supplemental EIR will help provide that information along with other
information to facilitate the collaboration and inform the CDP process at the city required
by the Coastal Act and CEQA and not in an enforcement proceeding, which unfortunately
is beyond your statutory jurisdiction.
So let's talk about that.
Commission is a creature of statute, the Coastal Act, and as the courts have explained, absent
delegated authority by the legislature and the act, the commission literally has no power
to act. If you take an action beyond your statutory jurisdiction, the action is void.
That's the security national guarantee versus Coastal Commission case. Next slide.
First, the staff report relies on Coastal Act Section 30810 as authority to initiate
this proceeding, but none of the circumstances stated in that section authorize an enforcement
proceeding here. This proceeding is directed to CLLM as the party and violator. The city's
not a party to the violation. The city is the only entity to proactively cite CLM for
the violation and file a Coastal Act enforcement action, obtaining an injunction actively litigating
the case and the court will finally rule within a couple of weeks. Your staff hasn't requested
city action. The city obviously hasn't declined to act or timely act and the record demonstrates
its steadfast insistence that CLM comply with the act and the CDP requirement to address
the hours, issues, and appropriate mitigation, and it's in the middle of an ongoing CDP review
process to enforce a certified LCP, which the Coastal Act mandates.
So the commission has no jurisdiction to initiate an enforcement proceeding.
Next slide.
Still further, you know that in every appeal where the commission finds substantial issue
the commission has determined it may not agree with the local action or process, but the
never seeks as here to intercede an ongoing local CDP process or to preempt that process
and dictate no less the result nullifying a pending local government CDP review process
and rendering it essentially a rubber stamp and a process that would be a useless act.
No, as with any proposed project, once the local CDP process is exhausted, any agreed
person or two commissioners can then appeal the decision to the commission
and then only then the commission can properly exercise its discretion and
jurisdiction under the Coastal Act and CEQA. Otherwise by circumventing that
process this proceeding would bypass and undermine the review process the local
governments bargain for under the Coastal Act and it would violate CEQA.
So my last slide. This enforcement proceeding is just not the answer. What's
What's needed is a simple, straightforward, strongly worded instruction from you or your
executive director to CNLM, you're all here, to complete the city's CDP review process
like any other violator applicant.
The process will flesh out all relevant evidence, hours, special mitigation measures to ensure
protection of the Pacific pocket mouse and enable all parties to meaningfully participate
in that process the Coastal Act requires.
We really haven't had that here.
And the commission retains appeal jurisdiction because that's the Coastal Act and it's also
the quickest route to a resolution.
Thank you.
Now Dana Point Councilman Jamie Federico will close.
Good afternoon Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Thank you for the time to speak.
I want to lead by saying the City of Dana Point supports conservation of the Pacific
pocket mouse.
We also own land on that promontory.
We clear the vegetation.
We have biologists on staff and we have Pacific pocket mouse mice that live on our land.
don't don't take the misconception that this is the city of Dana Point that
does not appreciate respect or care about conservation of the mouse. Mr.
Coppin talked a lot about whether this is an action that even can be taken but
if it can I believe it's still a mistake in its proposed form. There is no science,
no science that shows that the proposed closure of the trail will have any
meaningful impact on the pocket mouse population. Your own staff used words
like likely and may and Miss Rogers you'd use the word indicate. There is
coincidence but coincidence is not causation. I understand why the
conservation community supports this request. They can and should
advocate for every single possible thing that may support an endangered species.
I appreciate that but our responsibility is to balance those desires with public
access. In this case, restricting public access should be a last resort. And the reality is here,
this does not maximize public access while protesting coastal resources because there are
alternatives. Some of them were mentioned and one was not, but there are two universally accepted
actions that can be taken for the pocket mouse of prosper. The first is vegetation management,
the clearing of shrubs so that their food sources can grow.
CNLM has had such a woeful record with that that, coincidentally, or not coincidentally, in 2020,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service brokered a deal between Camp Pendleton and CNLM, called the
Enhanced Management Program, whereby Camp Pendleton was allowed to destroy a pocket
mouse habitat in exchange for a payment to CNLM so that CNLM would start vegetation management.
They started that in earnest in 2020 and not surprisingly the pocket mouse population rebounded.
They will attribute it to trail closures conveniently but even they must know scientifically
it's attributable to vegetation management. Not mentioned today but also universally accepted
is that the pocket mouse population on the headlands is woefully inbred. They will not survive
long-term without genetic rescue. The area is too small, the population has gotten too small,
in fact they have an extra chromosome now. CNLM refuses to undertake genetic rescue,
the release of captive bred genetically diverse mice so that they can make the gene pool healthy
up there again. For some reason, they refuse. They will say more studies need to be done.
If this was such an emergency, this would happen a lot faster. The last study that needed to be
done, the study on whether or not outbreeding would negatively impact the population on
A&M Point was conducted and published last August, last August. Nothing has happened
since then. They are now asking the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance to conduct a pilot program.
Delay, delay, delay. You'll see the same thing with our CDP process. Delay, delay, delay.
This is not the emergency that everyone says it must be. Not enough to close and restrict
public access to a trail the proposed action nor is temporary it doesn't have
an end date it has winter and summer hours that I guess contemplate
perpetual placement and it's arbitrary Monday Wednesday and Friday closures
this is an nocturnal animal we understand and listen if someone if
there's a mechanism by which we could limit the daylight the mornings the
opening and the evening closing for a short period of time, like the peak reading season,
which is March through June, with a condition that CNLM undertakes genetic rescue, in order
to buy time for that to happen, I'd be all for it.
I don't know that that mechanism exists, but this proposed action also puts no other conditions
on CNLM.
This is a blank check to close trail hours and restrict access.
The delays in the CDP process are CNLMs.
The City of Dana Point supports seasonal and special circumstance closures outlined in
the HDCP.
I've already talked about what one of those might look like.
The proposed action, however, isn't that.
It's not about the pocket mouse at its core.
The proposed action is about CNLM's convenience.
They have called compliance with the Coastal Act annoying.
They don't want to send wardens out there every day of the week.
It'd be much nicer to not have to send them on Monday, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
The staff report is compelling.
pictures are compelling. I appreciate staff trying to move this forward. Mr. Willis's work is difficult
and we appreciate it very much. But until and unless they are doing everything else on the
preserve, please don't allow them to use the trail as their scapegoat. All we ask, it's not fun to
not take it and support a staff's recommended action. All we ask is that you continue this item,
maybe continue it until genetic rescue is taken. Or if nothing else, continue it until the CDP
process works itself out. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next will be Aaron Wilson-Olgin.
Aaron, sign up to be in person. I don't think they're here. Mitch Silverstein.
Afternoon commissioners. I'm actually going to be reading on behalf of Ron Vanderhoff,
Plant Science Chair of the California Native Plant Society Orange County,
who could not uh who had a conflict this afternoon. The Orange County chapter of the California
Native Plant Society has long had an interest in the Dana Point Headlands and its natural resources.
We are dedicated to the conservation of this rare and remarkable place as well as the public's
enjoyment and access to the land. OCCNPS supports the recent enforcement action of the California
Coastal Commission and believes it's essential for the conservation and recovery of the native
plant vegetation at the Headlands. This includes a continuation of the current reduced hours of
of operation at the Dana Point Preserve.
The Dana Point Preserve is home
to several sensitive plant species
with the California rare plant rank.
Of these species, biologists have documented lower numbers
in 2017 and 2023 than when surveyed in 2008
before the trail was open.
These plants and others are particularly sensitive
to foot traffic, not only from direct trampling,
but from poaching, invasive plant intrusion,
and loss of habitat due to erosion along the bluffs.
The Coastal Commission, the California Department
Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have each commented on the negative
impacts to these natural resources and protective species from extended hours of operation.
OCC NPS at Orange County California Native Plant Society urges the Coastal Commission
to uphold their enforcement action to the landowner and land manager, the Center for
Natural Lands Management, for reduced operating hours.
This will ensure the CNLM can effectively manage the Dana Point Preserve in a manner
that will protect its rare native plant species, as well as the other endangered and sensitive
species.
Ron Vanderhof.
And then I'll just mention as well that there were several other members of the environmental
community representing a wide range of different organizations that wanted to speak, but were
not able to speak because of the trailing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And we were able to find Aaron Wilson-Olgin at the search to zoom.
they are on Zoom right now. Erin Wilson. Thank you Chair Harmon and
commissioners. Erin Wilson, I'm the regional manager for California
Department of Fish and Wildlife for the South Coast region. I wanted to highlight
why these protective actions for the Pacific pocket mouse are necessary and
grounded in the best available science. Agencies are not asked to provide
absolute proof of causation before taking action to protect species. Instead
we rely on the best available scientific information even when
uncertainties exist. I want to thank CNAlone for their thorough outline of the history of the
species and correcting the scientific misconceptions for the record because that clarity is essential.
This species has one of the most limited distributions of any mammal in California.
The data point population is essential to the species long-term survival. With numbers this
small, even modest disturbances can have enormous consequences and a precautionary approach is
required. Some have suggested that habitat management alone is sufficient. While vegetation
management is unquestionably beneficial and must continue, it does not eliminate impacts
of recreational disturbance. Our October 25th letter makes this point directly. It recommends
both continued habitat management and reduction in public access. These are not mutually exclusive
strategies. They are complementary and both are necessary. The best available science
also clarifies that pacific pocket mice are not active solely at night. They are
corpuscular active during dawn and dusk overlapping with current public access
hours. Even when they are underground they remain vulnerable. Their bros are
extremely shallow and recreational use can disturb or collapse these
structures through soil compaction vibration and trampling even when the
animals aren't visible. The issue is is not one of balancing equal resource uses
it's about preventing further decline of one of the last remaining populations of
of the species already pushed to the brink.
CDFW has determined that current trail access hours
are not supporting recovery
and that reduced hours will meaningfully reduce disturbance
during sensitive life history stages.
For species with such limited distribution
and so few surviving individuals,
the margin of error is extremely small.
Taking a precautionary scientific-based approach,
one that includes both habitat restoration
and reduced disturbance, is the only responsible path forward.
Thank you for your time and your commitment
to this species conservation.
Thank you.
We have nine other speakers sign up to speak
that we're able to find.
We have Jennifer Savage, Dan Silver,
and Scott Thomas next.
Jennifer Savage.
Hi, good afternoon, Chair Harmon,
commissioners, Jennifer Savage on behalf
of the Surf Rider Foundation
and the California Coastal Protection Network.
Speaking in strong support
of the consent enforcement actions before you today
concerning the Dana Point Preserve.
Surf Rider is dedicated to protecting
and expanding coastal access.
But we also recognize an equally important principle.
When coastal use threatens
sensitive coastal ecological resource,
access may be managed or restricted as necessary
to protect those resources.
Sensitive habitats sometimes require reasonable buffers
and limits to prevent irreversible harm.
That is exactly the situation here.
Oh, I had a slide, but it's okay.
But if you find it, you could pop it up.
As you've heard, the Pacific pocket mouse
is one of the rarest mammals in the United States
and it exists in only three population clusters
in the world.
The Dana Point Preserve population
is uniquely irreplaceable.
And the Pacific pocket mouse
is a remarkable little animal.
It's so little, but it plays a big,
even outsized ecological role
by collecting native plant seeds
throughout the coastal sage scrub habitat.
And many of these saved seeds go uneaten
they germinate, which makes the pocket mouse a really important and often overlooked gardener
of Southern California's coastal ecosystem. The monitoring data provides clear evidence
that reducing disturbance helps the species survive and recover. The enforcement item is
a consent agreement between the Commission and the Dana Point Preserves Land Managers.
It reflects a carefully negotiated compromise that protects this critically endangered species
while still maintaining public access. It's deeply unfortunate that the City of Dana-Point
continues to undermine this agreement and to delay the protections that experts from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife have said are
necessary. We respectfully urge the Commission to approve the consent enforcement actions as
recommended by staff. Thank you. Thank you. Dan Silver, Scott Thomas, and Jack Eit. Dan Silver.
there you go good afternoon chair members of the commission i'm dan silver endangered habitats
league 25 conservation groups signed a letter in support of the enforcement actions and a few
speakers could not stay into the afternoon using proper methodology the fact is that the the mouse
population has suffered a major decline since the covet area closure this is in spite of increased
management, so we must urgently take all steps available to give the animal a chance of survival.
You have heard the opinion of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Given that this agency had
previously recommended complete closure during the breeding season, the proposed compromise
for reduced hours definitely balances coastal act purposes during the interim. As you've heard,
there are other locations to view the sunset over the coast and no one is being deprived.
If the city truly desires resolution through a CDP, these enforcement actions accelerate that.
If the city wants vegetation management, these actions accomplish that. If the city wants to
preserve the court order, this does so. The PPM is tiny and fragile. Its numbers are tenuous.
What is not acceptable is further obstruction and delay by the city. This is urgent as the
breeding season is upon us. Please use the best science and the precautionary principle
to save a unique coastal species from extinction. Thank you.
Thank you. Scott Thomas, Jack Eit, Debra Shire. Scott Thomas?
Good afternoon commissioners. Thank you very much. I'm sorry my video's off. I'm going to turn that on.
I'm going to leave it off to speak. My name is Scott Thomas. I'm the Vice President of Sea and
Stage Audubon Society. We're a local chapter in Orange County of the California Audubon and
the National Audubon Society with about 7,000 members and supporters locally. We've been working
with and working on protection of Dana Point Headlands, the Pacific pocket mouse, the California
nutcatcher since the late 1990s. And we're involved with the negotiations when after the approval for
development was reached about the reserve, which originally was, there were hopes that it would
not have any public access, but of course that doesn't work under the Coastal Act. But I do
remember, not specific times and people, but conversations with the city with wildlife agencies
about the risk of opening the property to the public and how small it was and how sensitive
the pacific pocket mouse was. And we were assured, everybody was assured, that a plan would be
developed that would protect both the mouse and the public and that if there were adaptations that
that had to be made or changes that had to be made because particularly if wildlife agencies
deemed that the public access was maybe too much or causing problems and that it would be an easy
process that the city and landowners and CLM would listen to the recommendations of the wildlife
agencies and where we've ended up here now is not what we thought in 2009. We were surprised
ourselves in 2009 that the hours were so long and so complete but again we were assured that
These could be adapted if they were a problem.
We're in a situation now where the city's taking
an extraordinary step of requiring
an environmental impact report to make those changes.
They can do that, but it's not necessary.
And it's put the entire process
into a big quagmire of red tape.
CNCS very much appreciates the staff's work.
It's been a mountain of work to get to this point.
this should be an easy decision.
We hope that you'll support the staff recommendations.
There are interim steps
and can lead to better management from the mouse.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next, Jack Eit, Debra Shire and Susan Kirk's.
Jack Eit.
Hello.
Hello, my name's Jack Eit.
I'm with SoCal 350 Climate Action.
I'm an urban planner with Wild Heritage Planners.
And I've worked for a long time on compromises between people and wild things, and we can coexist, but, you know, and, and, and there's a question of science here.
Who, who, who knows the science. I'm surprised by the attitude of Dana point towards a good faith adaptive management put forth in the Coastal Commission staff report.
which is based on the work of the land manager
who are scientists who understand this stuff.
So to come in and say, no, there's some other science.
We need to do a bunch of other studies.
We need to do an environmental impact report
is kind of reaching here.
And this is breeding season right now, March.
We heard the city say that, they know it is.
So we need to act now, not at some potential time
we're gonna miss an entire year of breeding here.
The Pacific pocket mouse in the endangered coastal California gnat catcher make this parcel
extremely important. The only reason that anything was preserved was because of these
both these species, not because people who just bought homes there wanted a nice stroll through
the woods. Now I totally support the Coastal Act and the public access thing, but the part of the
Coastal Act, is to blend public human access with the needs of sensitive, maligned wildlife.
And we're talking environmentally sensitive habitat area, which is supposed to be protected
part of the Coastal Act.
And this sensitivity means that these species don't like humans.
They don't want us walking around.
And they can't live their lives with us, you know, pounding over their heads all the time.
All it takes is management of the visitation hours.
I really love the idea that there would be tours there
because people, local people,
my whole family lives in this area.
And I was part of speaking out through this land,
but not enough people even know
about the Pacific pocket mouse.
So having tours led by CNLM is an important thing.
Getting people on board,
because people want to participate.
They don't wanna just have their little place
to watch the sunset.
There are many, many, many places to watch the sunset.
This is not a connected heart of anything.
It's connected to a parking lot.
So let's just call it what it is.
It is an environmentally sensitive habitat area
and it needs an adaptive management
that the land managers have suggested
and the Coastal Commission staff has agreed
and we need to follow that.
Thank you for listening in my testimony.
Thank you. Next to Deborah Shire, Susan Kirks, and Terry Walsh. Deborah Shire.
Hi, I have a couple of slides as well. Yes, give us a moment to bring them up.
Thank you. All right. The Dana Point population of Pacific pocket mouse is one of the most vulnerable populations of an endangered species in California and its recovery will require every conservation tool available to us.
My name is Dr. Deborah Shire and I am the Brown and Dowd Associate Director of Recovery Ecology at
the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance. I've been involved in research and recovery efforts for
the Pacific pocket mouse for more than 20 years working with scientists, land owners, and agency
partners including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Historically, the species occurred in coastal sage herb habitat and coastal dune habitats
from LAX down to the border and you've heard that only three populations remain,
including the small and isolated population at the Dana Point Adlands. The Dana Point population
is therefore a critical component of the species recovery and losing it would represent a
significant setback for long-term conservation of the mouse. As you've heard, this population
is extremely small, isolated, and has very little remaining genetic diversity, making it particularly
vulnerable to extinction. scientific research has identified several
vulnerabilities for this species. It's like death by a thousand cuts, right? USGS
has shown that habitat management is essential. We've done research showing
artificial night lighting significantly reduces foraging activity, which can
affect survival and reproduction. If you flip the slide, I will show you that our
Our research has also shown that the Pacific Pocket Mouse has burrows that can be extremely
shallow.
Sometimes, sections of their burrows can be only an inch under the surface.
So, because of this, burrows could easily be crushed by foot traffic if people leave
the designated trail.
Even when visitors remain on the trail, Pacific Pocket Mice may still detect disturbance.
Like many desert rodents, they have enlarged middle ears called auditory bolae, which makes
them highly sensitive to low-frequency ground vibrations, such as footfalls.
Because these mice are nocturnal and resting in burrows during the day, repeated disturbance
has the potential to disrupt, rest, and affect their energetic balance.
When populations are this small and vulnerable, waiting for definitive evidence of harm before
taking protective action can allow impacts to occur that are difficult to reverse.
While we have not directly studied the effects of daytime trail use on the Pacific pocket mouse,
ecological research shows human disturbance can influence wildlife behavior and habitat use.
When populations are this small and vulnerable, managers sometimes cannot wait for definitive
scientific evidence so we we support we support the staff recommendation being a positive step
and timings of the essence. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Susan Kirks, Terry Walsh and Ann Stenton.
Terry Walsh it looks like you want to speak because your hand is up you need to accept
being moved to panelists if you want to speak. Susan Kirks. Thank you. Susan Kirks I'm speaking
as a naturalist with 25 years of field study and observation experience of a special status
California mammal much larger than the Pacific pocket mouse, but with my experience can definitely
attest to the negative impacts that humans can cause unintentionally to a species that
can be easily displaced within denial by certain governments or agencies that this has occurred.
And I have witnessed this and experienced it, advocated about it many, many times.
So I'm very pleased to speak on this topic today, appreciate all the public speakers,
support the enforcement action and would like to note that the regional manager of Department
of Fish and Wildlife's comment should be taken very seriously if the Department of Fish and
Wildlife has recommended that a trail access be completely closed.
That means this is extremely serious.
Very rarely have I known the Department of Fish and Wildlife to make recommendations
similar to that, and sometimes the Department has difficulty enforcing regulations that
exist to protect special status species.
I appreciate the staff report.
The staff person was very comprehensive,
and I think it was a very good report.
I do question the recommendation for having tours
to this property, and would ask that any tour,
such as that, be accompanied by educating visitors
to be very quiet, to walk very softly
in wherever they go on this property.
And honestly, I think the four days
favors people over the species.
I would suggest three days of public access.
And someone from the conservation group
should be on site at all times to manage this access.
And I appreciate very much your considering this today,
coastal commissioners.
This is a very important issue.
And thank you to all of the speakers
who are informed, educated, and trying to help
this endangered species survive.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Terry Walsh, Ann Stenton, and Penny Alejo.
Terry Walsh.
Could you say that again?
My name is Terry Walsh, and I'm president of the Coastal
Corridor Alliance, formerly known as the Vandy Ranch
Conservancy.
And we're an Orange County-based nonprofit environmental group
that's focused on Randall Preserve, formerly known
is banning ranch and the Coastal Corridor Alliance
has a profound admiration for the Coastal Commission
and we have a deep appreciation and respect for your staff
and we're strongly supportive of efforts
to protect the Pacific pocket mouse at Dana Point.
And we urge you yes vote on items 8-1, 8-2 and 8-3.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next, Anne Stenton, Penny Alea, Anne Stenton.
Hello, good afternoon commissioners.
My name is Anne Stenton.
I'm a lifelong resident of Orange County,
a former field naturalist in the upper and Newport back Bay.
And I've spent considerable time with my family
in Dana Point and at Strands Beach.
I want to thank staff for their hard work on agenda items,
8.1 to 8.3 and their commitment
to protecting the Pacific pocket mouse.
There really doesn't seem to be any other option
to protect the species and to protect,
potentially prevent extinction and to move forward
with the recommendations to modify hours,
which really seems like a small change in the hours
minimize the potential human impact. As noted in the addendum, it would be most
imprudent to wait for the full collapse of the pocket mouse population to justify its protection.
I commend the Commission's thoughtful approach to balancing both public access and protection of
this critical species. The staff report doesn't suggest that the public can't access the trails
on the bluff, it simply calls for some safeguards. As noted by staff biologist Dr. Corey Clatterbuck,
the proposed agreement hours are more conducive to the continued recovery of the Pacific pocket
This is especially crucial now during the breeding season.
Thank you for taking action on the situation today and upholding the Coastal Act's mission
to protect both our coastal resources and the public's access to our coast.
Thank you.
Penny Alia.
Hi, Penny.
You're muted.
Forgive me, thank you so much.
Good afternoon, Penny Alia.
Thank you for your time today and a huge thank you to staff for working so hard to agenidize
this in March.
I strongly support staff's recommendation and see no other way forward on this issue
given the confounding history of the city's truculent behavior.
It is relevant to note the city's prior actions and the behavioral pattern that they continue
to follow.
Next slide, please.
For over six years, the City of Dana Point fought to keep public access closed at Strand
Beach.
Yes, closed.
This is the beach just north of the trailhead area.
Next slide.
The Coastal Commission finally prevailed
in gaining the previously agreed upon access
that was conditioned through the CDP process
for the development of the headlands.
The Superior Court judge ruled
that blocking this public access
was an illegitimate exercise of authority
by the City Council and was pretext
for avoiding the requirements of the Coastal Act.
Next slide.
This court action occurred in 2015,
but not long after that we started noting impacts
to the Pacific pocket mouse.
You saw this last month.
While the city insisted on absolutely no public access
at the site of the Headland mansions,
they simultaneously insisted on increased public access
at the trail.
Why?
Next slide.
The next unfriendly act of the city came in October of 2020
when the city evicted CNLM from their offices
at the headlands.
Led by the city manager, city staff cleared CNLM's office
of everything they own on a day the office was closed
and CNLM staff was not there.
To date, CNLM does not have the benefit
of any office space on the land they own and manage.
The day of the eviction was also the day the city
took it upon themselves to chain and padlock the gates
open on the trail.
Next slide.
This brings us to today.
CNN Lim's latest submittal clearly
shows how mouse area of occupancy and numbers
have declined by 40% since trails were reopened,
even in association with increased management activity.
This directly contradicts the city's faults
per trail of the situation.
But there are so many more questions associated with this ongoing
bullying behavior of the city.
Why is the city insistent on these additional trail hours that
continue to decrease the population?
I attended almost every hearing over the last two plus decades
associated with the approval of this mega mansion development on the headlands.
Everything that we are asking the commission to protect today was
discussed at length during those hearings.
Why does the city insist on fighting with everyone?
Next slide.
Support your staff's recommendations that uphold the Coastal Mac.
Protect and preserve our final natural resources
and provide for public access. And yes, I am very disturbed by this. Thank you.
Thank you. We only had one other speaker that wasn't accounted for,
Victor Leipzig. Victor, if you're in the meeting.
Okay, I see the hand raised sea and sage conservation.
you should be able to unmute now good afternoon chair and commissioners my name is Vic Leipzig
I'm a resident of Orange County and I'm here to speak on behalf of the staff's recommendation
in protection of the Pacific pocket mouse and the other wildlife at the headlands or the data
point preserve I'm not a lawyer I'm not going to talk about the various legal issues I'm not even
a scientist going to argue in favor of a specific proposal for the protection of the pocket mouse
I'm a community college instructor of natural history and ecology at Saddleback College,
a local community college just a few miles away. And I lead field trips to the preserve, the
headlands, for my students with the goal of understanding the wildlife at that location and
supporting its protection. We would be dismayed beyond belief to believe that our field trips,
our access to the site was actually having a negative impact on the animals that we are there
to be supportive. So I am here in effect to plead with the most restrictive possible restrictions
on time and place for public access to the site so that those of us who do love this location can
come there with confidence that we are not having a negative impact. Please support your staff for
recommendation on item 8. Thank you. No more speakers. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Okay, now we will return to Ms. Rogers. Is that correct? Okay, thank you. You have 14 minutes
and 40 seconds remaining for a rebuttal if you wish to use it. And I won't need all that time.
I'll try to keep this brief and in part that's because the city's comments largely reflected
what was in their letter and we responded in our own letter so commissioners can read more
about it in the letters but I do feel compelled to make three points on three topics. First of all
the trends in Pacific pocket mouse. The city's council stated that there was actually a resurgence
of Pacific pocket mouse between 2020 and 2025 and I believe there was a number of 91 mice up there.
Those data don't exist.
We don't know where they come from.
We didn't do live trapping to show that number.
I believe, if I'm remembering correctly,
some of the earlier numbers that were shown in that trend
came from our live trapping data.
But that larger number doesn't exist.
It's possible that they were completing live trapping
with the track tube numbers.
You can't do that.
Track tube numbers don't show individual pacific pocket mice.
The same little mouse could be running around
from one tract to a number.
So if you got indication of 91 areas where there are mice,
that doesn't mean there are 91 mice,
but I don't understand it, but it's not data that exist.
A second, and I just want to reiterate that our data
that are based on consistent methods do show a decline.
Second point, vegetation management.
Staff, CNLM and the city have all talked
about vegetation management.
There's always been vegetation management
and monitoring on the preserve.
It didn't just begin in 2019 or 2020.
Vegetation, as I'm sure all of you understand, is dynamic.
It's a natural set of species
and they respond to temperature, they respond to moisture.
So there's variation from year to year
in the type and the amount of vegetation.
So that means we vary our response from time to time.
There was a period where there was a higher
than average precipitation that led to more vegetation
on the preserve, quickly followed by drought,
which meant that some of the vegetation died.
So there was a buildup of vegetation
and then dead vegetation.
And so we increased our vegetation management
in removing some of that excess dead vegetation.
And we did get some additional resources to do that,
but it wasn't the beginning of our vegetation management.
More importantly, what the data show
is that even though our vegetation trimming
as a reflection of information
coming from US Fish and Wildlife Service
and the US Geological Survey,
even though our vegetation management has increased
over the past few years,
based on data using consistent agency approved methodologies,
PPM is decreasing.
So there is that opposite correlation there.
And third, genetics.
I am not a Pacific pocket most geneticist
and to no more, you should talk more with Dr. Deborah Shire.
But I am a geneticist and I feel compelled
to just say something to provide some more information
about the city's comments about genetics.
First of all, some context.
Small populations of wildlife
typically have small levels of genetic diversity.
That's not unusual.
All three populations of Pacific pocket mouse
have probably less than desirable genetic diversity.
And the San Diego Zoo has been working on that for years.
We have contributed mice from the data point population
for their captive breeding program to serve two purposes.
First of all, so they can multiply mice
and help introduce them to new locations
so that there's more populations of Pacific pocket mose.
Some of those founder mice came from Dana Point.
We've been very cooperative.
A second reason for their work at the zoo
is to find a way to provide some mice back,
not just at Dana Point,
but probably the other preserves too,
in a way that could enhance the genetic diversity.
But you can't just throw mice out there.
And as City staff mentioned, there are differences between the populations genetically.
And if you just threw mice out there from one of the other two populations, there could
be bad consequences because they differ genetically.
And that's even called, it's got a name to it.
It's called outbreeding depression.
So the zoo has been responsibly and reasonably working on a breeding program where they can
cross mice in such a way that eventually they could have mice, and I think they're getting
close to put back out at Dana Point that wouldn't cause that bad effect but would reasonably
and responsibly increase genetic diversity.
And we've been very supportive and collaborative in that.
That concludes my remarks.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
And now I will turn to our staff and ask if they would like to respond to any issues raised.
Ms. Hagee.
Yes.
Thank you, Chair.
First of all, I just would respond quickly to the city suggested that we quote unquote
continue this matter several times. I note that unlike permit matters, there's
no right of postponement and even if there were right of postponement for
enforcement matters, they're not a party to it. And so, but more significantly,
we're heading into the most delicate time for the mouse. The whole reason we
rushed and tried to get it on this month is because we're in the middle of their
breeding season and we want to get the protection in place as quickly as
possible. And everyone keeps saying that delay is, has been, people are pointing
fingers at each other about what what the cause of the delay is we don't want
to be a part of that cause of the delay we want to get this going as quickly as
possible and we want to get the expeditious consideration of the CDP to
set the formal hours and that goes to the city and we want to get this before
the city as quickly as possible. In response to Mr. Kauffman's presentation
he raised a number of issues which of most of which were addressed either in
the staff report or the addendum prepared over the weekend and posted on
our website on Tuesday. We would note that the whole matter boils down to some
fairly small and simple issues.
The city confirms their support
for the protectant of the pocket mouse,
which we're thrilled about,
and urges that this issue should be addressed in a CDP.
Not only do we agree with these two fundamental issues,
the record reflects years of staff research
into these issues and staff efforts to find a resolution
to do just those two things.
Moreover, the proposed orders before you today
would not only support, but compel those two outcomes.
We were a little mystified by some of the issues raised,
but we're confident that what we're proposing today
in this settlement addresses both of these issues
in a way that the city and others
should all hopefully strongly support.
We recognize the important role of the city under their LCP
and look forward to working with them
through the CDP process.
While we realize Mr. Kaufman has raised a number
of collateral issues and we've responded to them
and will further in a moment,
the big picture is simply that.
We are seeking a way to avoid extinction
of endangered species, protect public access,
and work with all parties to comply
with the LCP and the Coastal Act.
Having said that, I'll turn it over quickly
to Deputy Chief Counsel, Alex Halperin,
who's going to address some of the legal issues.
Alex?
Thanks, yeah, I'd like to address three legal issues
raised by the city, and then of course,
happy to answer questions about them
after we finish our response.
The first is the Commission's jurisdiction
under the present circumstances.
The second is, once I've established
that you have jurisdiction to issue a cease and desist order,
I want to address the Commission's ability
required development as part of that cease and desist order and the
consequent relationship between the CDP process that's underway at the city and
this process and then third I want to address the relationship between today's
action and the ongoing judicial process. So first in terms of jurisdiction the
city argues that the Commission lacks jurisdiction because this is an LCP
certified area and the city is already taking action. To understand this issue
you have to bear in mind that the Commission has several enforcement tools
at its disposal, the cease and desist orders, the penalties, recording notices of violation
against properties and more, and also that there are two different violations at issue
in this case. The city's arguments consistently conflate those two separate violations. Commission
staff is suggesting that the Commission use different tools to respond to each of the
different violations at issue here. The first set of violations involves CNLM's changes
to the operating hours for the trail in 2020 and 2021. With respect to those violations,
We're only recommending that the Commission invoke its penalty authority.
The city refers to jurisdictional limitations in LCP certified areas that require some coordination
with the local government, but those limitations are in the sections authorizing cease and
desist orders, not penalties.
Since we're only recommending that the Commission issue a CDO related to those, since we aren't
recommending that the Commission issue a CDO related to these violations, those jurisdictional
limitations are irrelevant to this first set of violations.
The other type of violation at issue involves CNN limbs failure to satisfy the affirmative
obligation that complete the review process to formally establish operating hours for
the trail.
In response to that violation, we are recommending the commission issue a cease and desist order
but for that violation the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied.
The commission staff asked the city to take enforcement action with respect to that particular
violation and the city failed to do so.
Yes, the city initiated litigation but that was for the other violation.
The city has made clear in its pleadings and its letters that its litigation is not designed
to address CNLM's failure to complete the permitting process.
The complaint is about the restriction on the hours and the city sought and obtained
an injunction re-expanding those hours, but it made no attempt to compel CNLM to go through
the permit process as part of that litigation.
And as we noted in the addendum, the city attorney has expressly stated that their litigation
is only about reverting the hours and penalizing CNLM for its past actions, not about compelling
future compliance with permitting. Finally, although the City notes that
CNLM has now taken steps to obtain a CDP and thus satisfy the mandate in the LCP,
the City's processing of that application is a reactive process mandated
by law in response to the submittal of the application. It's not an enforcement
process. Moreover, that permitting process doesn't compel anything. An
applicant can always withdraw an application or obtain a permit but not
exercise it. Thus, the City isn't taking any enforcement action with respect to
the central violation that is at issue in the proposed cease and desist order
despite Commission staff's explicit request that it do so in our February
23rd letter and that leaves the Commission free to do so. Turning to the
second issue, authorizing development in a cease and desist order, Mr. Coffman
argued that the proposed orders would improperly operate like CDPs by
authorizing development, thereby supplanting the permitting process. In
fact there's nothing improper or unusual about a coastal act cease and desist order
or authorizing development.
The Coastal Act provision that empowers this commission
to issue CDOs, Public Resources Code section 30810,
says that these orders can require,
says that these orders can be subject to terms requiring,
quote, immediate removal of any development or material.
And section 30106 defines development
to include removing any materials.
So it's simple logic,
removing materials counts as development,
CDOs can require the removal of materials,
therefore CDOs can necessarily require development.
Removal is just an example listed in Section 30810B.
More generally, that section allows season assist orders
to be, quote, subject to terms, such terms and conditions
as the Commission may determine are necessary
to ensure compliance with this subdivision.
That broad authorization is designed to allow the Commission
to include whatever requirements you reasonably
deem to be necessary.
In addition, the basic authorization for this order,
Section 30810A authorizes the Commission to issue orders to enforce any requirements
of a certified LCP, excuse me, and setting operating hours for the trail
to protect the pocket mouse is a requirement of the LCP.
Thanks. The order we're proposing would authorize the minimum amount of development necessary
to ensure compliance with the act as implemented through the LCP.
It would only authorize a modest reduction in operating hours
and only until the CDP process is completed.
nor is taking enforcement action in conflict with the local CDP review process and any associated CEQA process.
The two paths aren't mutually exclusive, or even in tension.
The main requirement of the proposed orders, as others have noted, is to prompt a CDP process and to ensure that it continues to move along,
as it has been pending for well over a year now and seems to be at a stalemate.
But until it does, having some set of operating hours is necessary,
We're merely proposing to make the hours that make the most sense, given the information
currently available, consistent with the language of the LCP, the easement, and the Coastal
Act policies protecting coastal resources, including things like endangered species residing
in the coastal zone, rather than just relying on whatever hours happened to have been chosen
in 2009.
Finally, I want to address the court order.
The city argues that the proposed orders would interfere with the ongoing judicial process
and that it's inconsistent with the court's order.
neither is true.
First, the orders before you today
would not be inconsistent with the court's order.
The court found that CNLM, quote,
changed the hours of the preserve, unquote, in June of 2021,
and that constituted development
that required coastal act authorization.
We agree.
But the court didn't set new hours of 7 a.m. to sunset
as a substantive decision
about how to address the resource impacts.
In fact, doing so would have been a direct conflict
with the court's finding that setting hours is development,
So it requires a Coastal Act administrative process
to review the evidence, apply the resource protection
policies, and then set appropriate hours.
Instead, the court just reverted to the operating hours
to the status quo that it was told
that existed prior to the COVID-19 disruption.
The problem with that is that those hours
have been set without any Coastal Act authorization
as well.
So while the court reverted to the only prior set
of operating hours that were documented,
those hours suffer from the same limitation.
And the point of this order is to provide
the sort of coastal act administrative process
that the court was demanding.
The orders do that in two ways.
First, they spur the permitting process,
and second, they impose interim hours
through the enforcement process,
consistent with the language that I mentioned
at the beginning in 30810B.
The orders also require the parties
to go back through the judicial process
to harmonize the court order with these orders.
That's in section 4.4 of the proposed orders.
So for that reason as well,
The orders also wouldn't interfere with the judicial process.
The city only points out that the penalty provisions
in the Coastal Act prevent, sorry,
the city also points out that the penalty provisions
in the Coastal Act prevent CNLM from being subject
to both judicial and administrative penalties.
But that prohibition can be effectuated just as easily
by ceasing the judicial penalty process
as by ceasing today's process.
And it should make no difference to the city
which process proceeds as the penalty money goes
to the VRA in either case.
So the choice has no impact on the city.
In some the prohibition against dual penalties does not prevent this action.
And we've designed the orders to be consistent with the court's approach,
including by requiring the parties go back through the court to make that clear.
And that concludes my comment. Yeah.
Through the chair. One more comment here from us.
The city says a strongly worded letter to C&LM to complete the process of the
TDP is what's required if this consent agreement is that strongly awarded letter and more
the the you have the the order appendix a
Staff report section two point one that is the requirement for C&L M to attain authorization for for trail hours
This is a provision of the consent agreement with deadlines and actually stipulated penalties to ensure compliance
What's different from what the what's different from what the city is requesting and the consent agreement is that consent agreement also requires
Intermowers while the CDP process is being sorted out and thus provides some protection for the pocket mouse in the meantime
That is a very critical difference from the perspective of the survival of the pocket mouse
That's thank you
Thank you very much. Thank you
Okay with that I'm going to close the public hearing and I'll bring it back to the Commission for our deliberation
We would like to, okay.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Thank you, Chair.
First, I wanna thank the staff,
unfortunate staff for all the work on this.
I think I'm gonna be supportive and I appreciate it.
Also the folks who showed up today to speak in favor.
The one question I had is, you know,
going back and look at the previous closures,
whether it's two or three days,
and I know we landed at four,
how did we get to four instead of maybe three,
which we actually had some evidence of in the past.
So I'm just kind of,
was that just part of the negotiation
Where did we get to the four days?
Right the
the really the the data supports and the C FW has asked for a
total closure during the breeding season
What the LCP policies and vision is a more balanced approach. So what we're
Recommending here is to is to provide that valuable public access but still
Give the pocket mice some rest days where they can recover. Those are essential according to ecology staff and
scientific community as well as pull back some of those hours at the twilight hours where to
Yeah, reduce disturbance during low light hours, which are which when the pocket mouse is known to be active. Thank you
Commissioner not off
Thank you, and I appreciate a full airing of the issues here
I want to just reflect a sense of urgency because breeding season is upon us and I appreciate
that the parties have worked together to come to something that we could get going now while
still allowing the coastal development permit process to work out.
As I listen to the testimony from the city, I was scratched my head, it's kind of like,
What part of yes, don't you understand?
This is allowing the coastal development permit process
to go forward.
There's no preemption.
The coastal development permit process
can look at genetic rescue.
It can look at vegetation management.
It can look at the hours.
These are interim hours.
So there is a legitimate coastal development permit
process that has the normal back and forth
between the applicant and the local jurisdiction,
those issues can be resolved.
And that's what you're hearing in a very well-thought-out,
legally-based process from the Coastal Commission.
So I appreciate that there's more
to be done to figure out what is the best way to protect
these species going forward and to allow
reasonable recreational use. It's a beautiful area. My husband grew up in the area. My kids
visited their grandparents very often in this area when they were growing up,
and I appreciate the value there. I would hope that the City would take this action
in the spirit that it's intended, which is to let's get to resolution here. Let's use the
coastal act processes that we have that are in place to get to a longer term management plan.
But in the meantime, at least for the next few months, while breeding season is upon us,
we'll have a little bit of breathing room. I mean, these are issues that we are dealing with,
whether it's sea lions in La Jolla Cove or other species along the California coast.
you know there are certain times of the year that species are more sensitive and I think this is
seems like a reasonable compromise that we hope that the city would take it in the spirit that
it's intended to respect your jurisdictional authority while working with the state laws
that we're responsible for ensuring get implemented. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks mr. Willis did you just say that CDFW was recommending a total closure during at least during breeding season CDFW has
recommended as a as the most protective measure closure during the the breeding season they're
supportive of this action in order to put the
Put the interim hours in place again. Those are interim hours
to put a
Yeah, a measure of protection in place right away as the the
Long-term authorization is determined through the CDP process and that will determine what what the the final hours will be I
Mean I have to say I'm not comfortable with the extent of the opening
I find CDFW to be pretty I
mean
You know, they don't just
recommend things or suggest things out of the blue. They do it based on an extreme amount
of expertise. If their feeling is that closure during the breeding season is what's required
to permit recovery of this species or at least survival of the species, I have concerns
about the extent of the opening hours. And I don't know how my colleagues feel about
that, but I'm concerned about it. I'll just say. I don't know if you have a response to
that but we're concerned as well I think the way we're approaching this is we
want to get the the interim hours in place again these these are temporary
hours get him in place as soon as possible for the the breeding season
what the what the final resolution will be whether it's closer during the
breeding breeding season I think that you know we can flush it out during the
CDP process so that that's how we've set this up. We think that provides some some safeguards
What's the monitoring going to be during this interim period?
the the monitoring
Will be pursuant to the there's an interim plan trail trail plan
so for for trail access and vegetation management the
That that plan will be submitted by by C&LM for for staff to review
We can we can address what the appropriate monitoring is through review and approval of the of the plan in that process
Okay
Well, I mean in my mind one of the goals seems to be for people to get out there at sunset
So we're completely restricting that so that doesn't happen at all. I mean in my mind and I will just
Put this out to my colleagues. It would make sense to have it open for two days
But allow it to remain open until sunset
I don't know how disturbing that would be to the pocket mouse
but will reduce the during the week access completely and then on the weekend it would
allow the two days that people could stay to sunset because I just think that's where
the pressure point is as this is a sunset viewing area so by completely cutting that
off I'm concerned we're going to get a lot of public backlash so you know I that's kind
of where I am right now for what it's what it's worth I don't know if CDFW do you have
anybody from CDFW that can participate here or or is it we can see if Aaron
Wilson still available also that could just be my perspective and maybe it's
not shared by my colleagues we have Aaron on zoom I mean okay so maybe they
could respond to that I'm just waiting for them and if you can unmute yourself
There you go.
Yep.
Here.
So I didn't hear the, I'm sorry.
Did you hear the question?
Sure.
My question is, I'm concerned that the pressure point
here at this location is the sunset.
And that by having it open till 4 p.m. on the four days,
it's just gonna create a lot of pressure
from the public and use.
So, and I'm also concerned about having it open at all,
but given what staff is recommending
and trying to find some kind of a compromise,
in my mind it would be,
I'm curious from a fish and wildlife perspective how damaging would it be to have less days
but have it open through sunset?
Is that sunset period so critical to the survival of the species you really need to have it
close during that period?
So we do think that time around dawn and dusk is really critical.
They do have, they do, they are active at that time.
you think it would be better to have the four days but limit it to 4 p.m. 8 to 4
p.m. versus two days where people could be out there for the sunset? I think the
limited hours is more important. Okay so then I'll support the staff
recommendation. Thank you. Commissioner Lopez. Thank you and I think there's a
thousand ways to solve this issue and we can all iterate but the fact is I
I personally don't believe this plan is going to work and I'll share why.
The impact is still going to be there.
When we saw the map that was put up by the folks who were caretaking the property now,
we saw how impactful human activity was through the entire region around the U, that shape.
I'm worried that the impact of those footsteps, given the larger inner ear, everything we
heard is going to continue to happen regardless of what your attempts may be
to mitigate and to go to the other extreme to a full closure. I feel like
that would be even worse because you're not going to stop a public who wants to
be on this property from accessing it. I live in a place like that. There's a lot
of places people said oh no one should be there let's just fence it off. They
get more used with less oversight because community climbs gates cuts
holes and fences. They find a way in if they want to be there. You have to manage it.
I'm okay supporting this today if we put an agreement that it come back in two years with
additional monitoring data because I personally don't think we're going to see the trend that we
want to see. If I got to be king for a day sitting up here, what I would do is cut that trail in half.
not make it a U from the parking lot all the way down to the edge so daily so folks can go down
enjoy the sunset from a viewing area one way in one way out not a U and if you look at that same
map that was put up with that sort of heat map signature of what foot traffic does that whole
upper half of the property then would see no impact and be better habitat that's my personal
opinion sitting here today. And that's a better balance in my opinion. So again, looking at this,
I don't think this is the right solution. Am I willing to let it go for today to say give it a
shot but I want to see it back with data because I don't want to say hey this solved it let's move on.
Maybe. But big picture is do I think it's going to work just being blunt sitting up here as the
gentleman who commented I'm not a scientist, I'm not a pocket mouse expert, I'm not a pocket mouse
breeder out of geneticists I'm just somebody looking at a problem that I've
I'm familiar with and think there's a better way forward today but if this is
where we want to go I'm okay with it for now to Commissioner Lopez's point we we
think we have that requirement in place maybe doesn't look exactly the same but
we have the requirement that CNLM obtain the coastal development permit with one
within one year of issuance of the consent agreement and that we see in
that close development permit there'll be those monitoring requirements and
then adaptive management pursuant to those to the monitoring so we think we
have that covered and so we wanted to point out that there is the requirement
to get the CDP within a year and we can work on the adaptive management through
that process. Just a related question. Just through the CDP process the alignment of the trail could
also be part of the discussion in the CDP process. Okay well I'll make my comments. I think what I'm
hearing from my colleagues is support for going forward with the proposal today and I am in
agreement with that. I think you know it's almost like the theme of this hearing this week has been
balance and and I think that's what we have tried to strike here understanding
the critical critical importance of finding some sort of protection for this
absolutely amazing little mouse that is so desperately endangered while also
understanding our responsibilities around access and I think that we have
have found our staff has worked so hard to find the right balance and the way to get
us to the CDP process which is where we really need to go. So I appreciate that that was
drawn out in this conversation, that one year requirement. That is where so much of the
work that we're talking about is really going to happen. And to have the interim protections
that we do have is critical. And I think the right balance was struck. But I am very hopeful
to see what will come before us or to watch the hearing that comes before us a
year from now. Because just what a beautiful little mouse who really
does need us. So I will look to my colleagues for the motions. If anyone's
prepared to make that. I move that the Commission issue, I move that the
Commission issue consent cease-and-desist order number CCC dash 26
dash CD dash 02 to CN LM pursuant to the staff recommendation and request a yes
vote second that's a motion by Commissioner not off a second by me
we're asking for a yes vote any objections to unanimous consent seeing
none motion carries. Okay I move that the Commission find that CNLM's institution
of unpermitted trail hours described in the associated findings is in violation
of the public access provisions of the Coastal Act and that the commission
impose an administrative civil penalty pursuant to the staff recommendation.
Request a yes vote. Second. Motion by Commissioner Nodoff. I seconded. We're
asking for a yes vote any objections to unanimous consent seeing none the motion
carries motion 3 please I move that the Commission find that CNLM's non
compliance with obligations of the LCP described in the associated findings is
in violation of various provisions of the Coastal Act including but not
necessarily limited to provisions protecting environmentally sensitive
Habitat areas and that the Commission impose an administrative civil penalty
Pursuant to the staff recommendation requesting a yes vote. I'll second motion by Commissioner not off
I seconded we're asking for a yes vote any objections to unanimous consent
The motion carries. Okay. Thank you to everyone. This was a really important conversation and appreciate all the work that went into it
Okay, so that brings us to the edge the end of our agenda for today
I want to thank our team at AGP. You guys are awesome. Thank you to our amazing staff as always
This was a great month and really looking forward to seeing everyone next month in Gonzales. Thank you meeting adjourned