Okay, good morning everyone
Welcome to the Thursday session of our Coastal Commission meeting still very excited to be here in Gonzalez
With that we'll call the meeting to order and start with a roll call, please
Commissioner O'Malley
present O'Malley
Here Commissioner Eckerly here
Commissioner Hart present
Commissioner Jackson present
Commissioner Rodoni present
Commissioner Kunkel, Commissioner Lee, here. Commissioner Lopez, present. Commissioner
Lowenberg, here. Commissioner Notoff, here. Commissioner Moreno on her way.
Commissioner Williams, good morning. Commissioner Wilson, I think also on his
way. Chair Harmon, here. We have a quorum. Great, thank you very much. Okay, can we go
go to the virtual meeting procedures, please, Chris.
Good morning.
This Coastal Commission meeting is occurring both in person
and through Zoom.
This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed
online at cal-span.org.
If you have internet access and which
to watch or listen to the meeting only
and not speak on an item, we recommend
you use the CalSPAN website.
Those who wish to address the commission today
can do so in person through Zoom platform or by phone.
The speaker request forms may be found on the commission's web page.
Paper forms and scannable QR codes 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
Requests to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted after 9 a.m
On each day of the meeting in order to provide the opportunity for the broadcast
Pardon me 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 a 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 web page and click on the link to fill out a speaker request
If you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone
Please call the Commission staff at five six two four seven seven nine zero eight nine again
That number is five six two four seven seven nine zero eight nine
Staff will provide you with a telephone call in number and instructions for how to participate and provide testimony by phone
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting through a meeting organizer
When it is your time to address the Commission the organizer will invite you to turn on your video and microphone
Or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone
Madam chair that concludes the virtual hearing procedures. Thank you so much
Okay, agenda changes, please
Good morning chair Harmon and commissioners. We only have three agenda changes
For the agenda today all of which are noted on the agenda changes memo posted to the online agenda
First item 12b has been postponed for a Santa Cruz County LCP amendment
next item 13 a has been moved to consent for a map adoption for the city of Morro Bay and
Finally item 15a has been moved to consent for a drainage and stabilization project in Santa Cruz County
That includes the changes to today's agenda and that brings us to item for general public comment and with that
I'll turn the mic back to you. Thank you. Okay. Thanks very much. Let's begin
All right, 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 remain muted and keep your video off
until we ask you to speak.
After your time is up,
you'll be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room,
I'll call your names in the order
that they appear in our signup list.
When you hear your name, please line up behind the podium
and introduce yourself to speak,
or introduce yourself when you approach to speak.
There's a raise your hand function
that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio,
you can raise your hand by dialing star nine.
If you are participating by Zoom,
you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item
and are able to do so, please raise your hand now.
When it is your time to speak,
we'll invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six.
So today we have 30 people signed up to speak.
We'll start in the room.
We have our new alternate commissioner, Ian Oglesby.
And then following that will be Bonita Ernst
and Gary Rujoroni.
I will say my name is Ian Oglesby, the mayor of the beautiful city of seaside. I am Chris Lopez is alternate. I want to thank him for that. But the main my main goal today is just to say hello to everyone and show you my face and induce myself and to say I appreciate all the work that you guys do.
I look forward to working with you in the future and serving with you. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mayor. And I think Commissioner Lopez wanted to make just a brief comment.
comment. I just want to welcome you Mayor and thank you for being willing to serve
and step up in this capacity. I've had the honor of serving with Mayor
Oglesby on LAFCO here in Monterey County as well as Tamsee and so it's
exciting to know that I've got great backup and excited that you're here
today in Gonzales with us to get your first taste of one of these meetings in
person but thank you for all of your service to our community for being
willing for being willing to serve in this capacity. Thank you Mayor. Thank you
so much. We said we're gonna give you a flat tire, Chris, to let the mayor get a
a shot at the seat. Just kidding. Thank you man. Chris. Thank you. Bonita Ernst, Gary
Ruggieroni, Scott Buckles. Let's see. Bonnie Ernst, Gary Ruggieroni, Scott Buckles. Okay.
Go ahead. Turn the mic on. How about that? Okay. My name is Gary Ruggieroni and I spoke
with you back in December about the Patreocoast Trail and I wanted to come
back and give you an update on what's happened with regards to that.
Patreocoast Trail is not just a regular hiking trail like you'd see anywhere it
was specifically developed to address and provide access to a destination the
the Point St. Louis Lighthouse, which is on the National Register of Historic Places.
So it's a different kind of trail.
It's a destination trail.
So one of the things that we brought up when we spoke to the Coastal Commission back in
December was some compliance issues we've had.
I've been a docent on the trail for 14 years.
I'm also a volunteer and on the Board of Directors for the Point St. Louis Lighthouse.
So I've helped with creating this very close coordination between the Patro Coast Trail
and the lighthouse and getting those two groups to work together.
A couple of the things that have come up as far as compliance with the original operational
Um, permit for the Petra Coast Trail, um, dealt with reservations.
The original operation permit said that, um, the reservations, because PG&E needed reservations
for the trail, those need to be open until the day of the trail.
Um, about five years ago, PG&E changed that, you know, laterally, and closed the reservations
off two days before the trail, um, before the actual hike.
created some problems in that many people are out of the area they want to
hike on the trail and they show up PG also said we couldn't allow any walk-ons
that also created additional problems we have many people trying to get on the
trail they couldn't get on it we have an issue with having to have a certain
number of docents to lead the hike thank you please finish your thought okay
All right
So there's a ratio for the number of docents for the number of hikers as long as we have the right number of dolphins
We felt like we should be able to allow people back on the trail. We made some improvements with that
PG&E has allowed us to allow walk-ons now, but we still have the two days ahead of time
We'd still like to have that compliance issue. Thank you. Thank you Scott buckles Ron Stefani and then Sean Burns
Hi there, it's wonderful to see you guys, it's been since December my daughter loved coming here. She wanted to be here today
She's in school. So sorry
She wanted to have me bring up the Patriot Coast Trail remains apparently the world's most dangerous trail children are still not allowed
But we had really great progress. We want to let you know that back in December
We actually had Tom Jones from PG&E and Chris Vardis come out on the trail. We hosted them
It was awesome, and we took a lot of notes. It's been very productive
I think things are really moving in the right direction, and then we had
Senator Larritt's staff Kara Woodruff came out
Just the next week and so we hosted them and took him around and saw all the issues
Everybody got to see those things firsthand, and it turns out that yeah, it's not so dangerous
We probably shouldn't have a modified page so chose trail. We should probably keep that road
But the thing we want to talk about was public access. That's unmanaged and unrestricted
Versus managed we're of the opinion that we want more access for the public
But if it's unmanaged the little section that goes to the lighthouse and back we're worried that sense of coastal resource will disappear
That's kind of our concern and we have ideas to address that on an operation side
We look forward to working with your staff on that and I just point out that this was the brainchild of Peter Douglas
This was his idea and the staff at that time
In fact one of the slides that we were gonna show you which did not work out today was this amazing
Dedication for Patsy Stowe Stebbins, which is on the trail under the Oaks
But we're really glad that you guys did what you did on December for all of Diablo and Wild Cherry Canyon
There are some really great developments happening with Wild Cherry Canyon, which is shocking.
So things are moving in the right direction.
We just want to make sure we have a seat at the table and that the operations can move
forward.
The lighthouse stands ready to do this.
We have a much better digital reservation system that doesn't cut people off.
And if you guys have any questions or there's anything you want to know, Gary, I, and others,
we're here for you.
But thank you for what you did in December.
We really appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ron Stefani and then Sean Burns, Bella Bonner, Trent Hodges,
and Mitch Silverstein.
Ron Stefani.
OK, good.
Hi, good morning.
My name is Ron Stefani.
I'm a resident of Castroville, and I'm
the current chairman of the Castroville Community Services
District Board of Directors.
I'm also a director on the Salinas Valley Basin Ground
Water Sustainability Agency.
I'm speaking on behalf of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
project and the project will supply Castroville with the drinking water it
desperately needs. Castroville has lost a well to saltwater intrusion. The Calum
diesel project will provide Castroville with clean drinking water. We all
deserve that. The community is being affected by saltwater, seawater
intrusion and also lowering groundwater levels. The only way to solve that
That problem is to produce new water.
The 180-400 sub-basin, which is under Castroville, and the Monterey sub-basin, which is under
Marina, have the same undesirable results that the Department of Water Resources is
monitoring and wants a change and a plan to come up with sustainability of that groundwater.
The only way to get those lowering groundwater levels up is to produce new water.
We don't want to ruin the economy in Monterey County, so we have to have, these are huge
projects that we have to have in Monterey County, the Cal MDSAL project will provide
some of that new water and relieve some of those costs.
And I thank you for being here in Gonzales.
Thanks very much.
Thank you.
Shawn Burns, Bella Bonner, Trent Hodges, and Mitch Silverstein, and these four are sharing a presentation.
Hello. Good morning. Thanks for having us. I have a one-minute video that I'd like to show to start off our presentation on our project on the climate vulnerability of California's natural surfing capital.
Thank you. We're bringing it up.
Save the Waves and our local partners just launched a first-of-its-kind study
supported by the Ocean Protection Council to paint a really detailed
picture of the surf economy in Santa Cruz. Save the Waves and our local
partners just launched a first-of-its-kind study supported by the
Ocean Protection Council to paint a really detailed picture of the surf
economy in Santa Cruz. We have a much better understanding now of the economics
of surfing in Santa Cruz, but more importantly we have a blueprint for how
to bring the statewide. Surf ecosystems need to be embedded in the policy
process and if they don't have status, if they're not recognized, we are losing out
on the natural capital that we have. Thank you and thank you to the AV team
for presenting the video and now we have a presentation along with our partners to
follow and thank you Board of Commissioners and it's nice to be here
in Gonzales as we're all connected in California to the ocean and if you guys
could pull up the presentation we have that'd be great and go to the next slide
so yeah climate vulnerability of California's natural surfing capital
here to say some policy solutions we are here presented to the Coastal Commission
last April when the project had just about been wrapped up and now we're here
represent the numbers and findings from that. As you can see from the video, some great findings
and great numbers in there. Thank you to our partners, Integral, Black Surf, Santa Cruz,
City of Santa Cruz, and the Ocean Protection Council. Next slide please. Surfing at scale,
a little bit about why this project was so important. Estimated 35 million surfers worldwide.
It's the fastest growing water sport in the United States. Its annual international surf
Surf tourism expenditure from a study pre-COVID is around $65 billion.
There's a lot of value in surfing.
Surfing is California's state sport.
Over 300 named surf spots in California with 800 miles of coastline, so we sit in a very
unique opportunity for surfing in California.
Fun fact, that Santa Cruz was the first ever documented surf session in North America,
so that's why this project was so important to do in Santa Cruz.
Next slide, please.
day's surfability, a little bit about this project, what really ground it. My
favorite aspect of it was that we worked with local surf condition experts, people
who have been on the ground surfing in Santa Cruz their whole life and so they
are able to give us the ideal surf window, ideal tide for that each of the
31 surf spots. And we're able to overlay that with future sea level rise
predictions and really get a crucial element of the surfability going into
the future. And next I'd like to pass it on to our partner from Black Surf Santa
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
If you have any questions,
please feel free to ask.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Members.
Isabella Bonner.
Who will be online.
Hi all.
It's great to join you virtually.
I am here to talk about some of the, sorry, I can hear.
Yes, we can.
Sorry.
Yeah.
I'm here to talk about some of the, our,
our role with partnering in this project.
So when I first heard about this project was saved the waves.
missing from some of the that data who isn't included. And so Black Surf Santa Cruz partnered
to really help execute some focus groups to ensure that some of those missing voices were
included in this project. And this was really important to me just because I grew up less
than five miles from the beach in Santa Cruz, not knowing how to surf yet had all of the
traditional access that people would say,
I lived close, I had a vehicle, I knew how to swim
but still never felt that surfing was for me.
And so we designed these focus groups
to really make sure that we were including
and encompassing just some of the reasons
why folks don't feel safe in the ocean
or don't feel like they belong in some of these spaces.
So really some of the key themes
that came out of those focus groups
were conversations around cultural and psychological barriers, economic and infrastructure, so
some of those high costs associated with gear, with surf lessons, swim lessons, really the
baseline gaps that are keeping our Black and BIPOC communities from accessing the sport
consistently as our white counterparts, and as well as lack of transportation, so lack of access to
transit solutions that bring people closer to the beach, bus routes that like can be
type dependent and just really increasing some of that access. And can you go to the next slide?
So yeah again one of the biggest themes that we saw come out of these focus groups is that
some of the surf breaks that have quote the most equitable access in terms of parking,
That way, staircases, we see the most aggressive acts
of local hostility, and so social exclusion
being a huge barrier as well.
Yeah, and I will go ahead.
You can go to the next slide, and I will pass it to Trent.
Well, thanks, Bella, and good morning, commissioners.
My name is Trent Hodges, and I will
detail some of the findings of the vulnerability analysis
and the impact of sea level rise on waves
and some of the economic consequences
of losing surf breaks.
Our analysis with integral consulting found that with this study one foot of sea level
rise only seven surf breaks will become surfable with no adaptation.
With five feet of sea level rise essentially all are lost.
On the bright side our analysis shows that adaptation measures can lessen this impact
with managed retreat and sand management strategies providing the greatest benefit over the long
term.
As Bella was alluding to vulnerable and beginner and marginalized communities may also lose
access first as certain surf breaks disappear or become overwhelmed in
limited hours of access. Manager Treat also demonstrates the greatest overall
benefit in maintaining surfability across the 31 surf breaks that we
assessed. Next slide please. This study also demonstrates that surfing is an
economic engine for California's coastal economy. However, our analysis and our
survey work shows that this is also not guaranteed in the future without
careful adaptation and management. In fact, our study from Santa Cruz shows
that the economy stands to lose tens of million dollars a year in surfing
recreational value due to the impacts of sea level rise and climate change. However,
this study shows that nature-based solutions and good management of the
coastline that buffers the impacts of climate change can help alleviate some
of these losses, though it is inevitable that some surf breaks will change in the
future. Next slide please. As California faces climate impacts, sea level rise and
increasing coastal development and repairs, surf ecosystems must be included
in adaptation and resilience planning and mitigation.
Beyond the Coastal Act, California needs additional tools to safeguard these important resources
to maintain access and respond to sea level rise and climate change.
AB1938, legislation that was introduced by Assemblymember Jackie Irwin, what established
California State Surfing Reserves, a program based on successful models of surf resource
management and coastal conservation in other regions including Australia, Portugal and
Latin America and my colleague Mitch will talk more about this but this
provides a framework for management that's based on surfing resources. Thank
you very much. Morning commissioners. Mitch Silverstein with Surf Rider
Foundation. So yeah wow so clearly our surf spots are extremely valuable to
California culturally, economically and dare I say spiritually and yet they face
these escalating threats that require more tools to protect them. It's crazy
but currently our world-class surf spots like those in Santa Cruz detailed in
this report, oh yeah next slide please, in like lower trestles in Orange County
where the Olympics are going to be held for surfing, they don't enjoy any special
consideration in coastal decision-making. So wouldn't it be great if we had a way
to protect our surfing ecosystems? And Trent queued it up already, I want to
tell you more about that state bill that'll do just that. It's AB 1938
introduced by Assemblymember Irwin and and basically we need these additional
tools beyond the Coastal Act to safeguard these resources for future generations, maintain
equitable access, and more effectively respond to sea-level rise and climate threats.
So the bill would establish a California State Surfing Reserves program.
It's based on successful models of surf resource management and coastal conservation in other
regions including Australia, Portugal, and Latin America.
So we're not just making it up out of nowhere.
And here's how it work.
A local government, a state park, or a surf-focused nonprofit, like Save the Waves or Black Surf
Santa Cruz or maybe even Surf Rider, would apply to the Ocean Protection Council, shout
out Jen Eckerly, to have a surf break designated as a state surfing reserve.
To qualify, the spot would need to demonstrate exceptional wave quality, environmental value,
surf history and culture, and also strong community support.
So it's not just any wave.
would also need to submit a stewardship plan, a real commitment to maintaining what makes
that wave special, the break special over time. And once designated, a reserve would
get special recognition, public signage, and a lasting framework for protecting the conditions
that make it worth surfing in the first place. The waves, the sea floor, the coastline, and
the community that's gathered there for decades. A personal observation is, it's funny, it's
surf rider, it's so hard to actually protect a wave. We're always protecting everything
around it, the access, making sure people can get there, making sure the beach is
healthy, that seawalls aren't ruining it, so this is a real bit step forward for
us and we hope you support this bill and just thanks so much for Save the Waves
and BlackStirp Santa Cruz for helping with that report. Thank you. Thank you.
Next will be James Durbin followed by James Eric Tynan and then Walt Dufflock.
James Durbin. Good morning commissioners James Durbin. I'm the general manager of
Castroville Community Services District and I'm here to speak to you about water
supply. I don't want to repeat what Ron Stefani already said. I have been
working in this business for over 30 years in water and wastewater resources.
I even study the water supply issues in the Monterey Peninsula in college. They're
still not resolved. So I just wanted to speak up for our beautiful community of
Castroville. We are a disadvantaged community. We have lost portions of our
water supply to sea water intrusion. We are at the mouth of the Salinas Valley,
and we are the first to be hit by this in terms of water supply. So I just want
to remind you that Monterey Peninsula is in dire need of a desal project. I also
speak to you as a Monterey resident. I have friends that own restaurants that
can't even add 20 seats to the restaurant. So drought is a
certainty in California, as you all know. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of
When it will return we just finished the month of March with the hottest recorded records for a march in the United States
So I'm just here to remind you that it's a critical issue for our community and for the town of Castorville
Thank you very much for your service and protecting the precious coastal resources of California. Thank you
Thank you James Eric Tynan Walt duff lock and then Rachel Wilson and Steve Ray
James Eric Tynan
Okay, I heard that they're not in here a walta flock. Please go ahead
Okay, good morning. Good to see everyone in Monterey County. Good to see Christopher Lopez. Good. It's supervisor
Lopez getting a home game
So I'm waltu flock a partner at San Bernardo Rancho a fifth generation farming operation in the south portion of supervisor Lopez's district in
Sanardo and the founder of sage and advocacy nonprofit focused on Monterey County's rural economy
My comments today on behalf of sage members and Monterey County farmers
My recommendation is that the Coastal Commission strongly considering all of the above strategy around water supply
The ag industry would strive such a huge part of the Monterey economy
As well as towns and cities and local residents as we've already heard all need multiple water supply options as the Sigma rollout continues
Estimates are the groundwater restrictions will follow half a million to a million acres of ag ground
That ag ground produces 60 billion dollars over 60 in ag GDP statewide and over 4 billion in Monterey County alone
It's a huge impact
Many of the acres that will be fallowed you drove past on your way to this meeting right there in this valley
They're across the state. They're the irrigated acres that make this work
Groundwater challenges and uncertainties we've already heard today will be with us for a long time
Locally and statewide the best solution is to create additional water sources where we can
For surface water dam maintenance and new reservoirs are needed.
Water treatment plants can help reuse a lot of water for additional use.
D-SAL can provide an ongoing source of water supply. The key is to look at all four sources as a comprehensive portfolio.
I think they all need to be considered. We would encourage you to try and use all of them.
When we lack water we create negative effects like not being able to build housing as well.
So there's a downstream no pun intended impact on housing from water.
So we need water in farm. We need water and housing to support the agriculture GDP the employees the farm workers that do all the
Work and without water a lot of it's gonna stop. So we recommend on all the above approach. Thanks for listening
Thank you. Next Walt tuff lock
Rachel Wilson Steve free. Oh, that was what the fuck Rachel Wilson Steve ray Kuevula
Good morning. My name is Rachel Wilson. Good morning commissioners and staff
I first came to a California Coastal Commission meeting almost three years ago
When Vistra proposed to build a battery energy storage system on the old power plant site in Morro Bay
Right next to our estuary thanks to the great analysis by your team Vistra withdrew their application from the CEC
But now the County of San Luis Obispo is looking for places to build a desalination plant
plant. And I am not against desalination plants but I think they need to be properly located.
I am attending a meeting on Monday to find out more about it, but literature on the proposed
project shows that two out of the five preferred sites are some of the most popular visitor
serving sites along the Central Coast. One is at the outfall next to our iconic Moro
rock, we're surfing championships, and this weekend a kite festival will be held.
This outfall is also near our otter nursery.
Since the power plant that created this outfall closed, our otter population has increased
from less than 10 to more than 50.
Our bay is the perfect sanctuary for moms and pups.
The other proposed site is near our popular dog beach, which is always busy with surfers
and people with dogs. The new coastal trail from Cayucas to Morro Bay will go right through
Dog Beach. I don't think any either of these sites are good locations for a D-cell plant.
I need to learn more about D-cell plants, but I ask that you please keep an eye on these
proposals since your expertise is invaluable. I imagine that many of the problems that we
we had with the best would be the same at this location.
But Steve Ray, who has dealt with desal issues
for over a quarter of a century, will speak next
with more information.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Steve Ray, Kuevilla, and then Ron Cheshire.
Steve Ray.
Wow.
Rachel, thank you for making me feel old.
Morning, Madam Chair, commissioners, staff,
the other staff, and members of the public.
I'm Steve Wray.
I've been working on desal for a while.
I'm not opposed to desal like Rachel,
but it must be done responsibly and in an environmentally
friendly manner, and that's what I work toward.
That property in Morro Bay that we're talking about,
the old power plant there that is set empty for a long time,
something has to happen on it very soon,
or the power company has to pay the city some money
to start cleaning the property up.
So they're looking for things to do.
T-SAL is one of the items that they're looking to do there.
There are other possibilities though.
They were proposing, as you may remember,
to build a battery storage system there, plant,
and that kind of got shelved, but it's not totally shelved.
It could come back and may very well come back.
that is still under consideration.
There's also a possibility of turning it into
one of those big data centers,
those energy sucking facilities
that take so much power and everything
and require so much water to operate on.
It's amazing how every idea they're coming up with
just doesn't fit the property, doesn't fit the city,
and is really bad for the environment.
I keep wondering when somebody's gonna come up
with a good idea.
We have groups of people in Morro Bay
that have some good ideas.
We're trying to get those floating,
but it takes a while to kind of persuade some people.
So a short update on what's going on in Morro Bay.
And Rachel Wilson is known locally there as Miss Morro Bay.
And thanks to your estimable vice chair,
I'm also known now as Moro Rey there.
So thank you, Commissioner Hart, for that.
But thank you for listening.
Thank you.
Kueh Vila, Ron Cheshire, and then Mark Kelly.
Good morning.
I wanted to talk about access to the ocean.
I was reading about Imperial Beach
and how there are millions of gallons of raw sewage
and toxic chemicals flowing from the Tijuana River
into the Pacific Ocean.
And it's affecting the southern part of San Diego,
but especially Imperial Beach.
And I'm hoping the Coastal Commission
will work with government leaders and other stakeholders,
especially the people, the leaders of Imperial Beach
and the public there, to really, truly address
this terrible crisis.
And obviously a polluted ocean filled with sewage and chemicals
is not accessible.
And I personally would like to go visit there.
My husband is from Ensenada.
And I feel like this is a barrier to access.
And not only that, it's a health crisis.
It's a humanitarian health crisis.
I only have two minutes, so I can't address everything,
but I'm going to go over a few other things.
One is batteries, the electric vehicle batteries.
I heard they weigh tons in lost landing.
There was a terrible fire.
There are serious health consequences there.
And I used to work in that area.
And I feel like it's not safe to be near a place like that.
And so I'm also asking the Coastal Commission
to consider not approving battery storage facilities
near the ocean.
And another issue that's very important is disabled access.
My husband uses a wheelchair, and it's very difficult for him
to access most beaches.
So I would like to ask the Coast of Commission
to really work on that.
And also housing.
It should be organized and planned
so that there is access that it won't be overbuilt
and people will have access.
And thank you for your consideration.
Thank you.
Ron Cheshire, Mark Kelly, and then we'll
move to our Zoom participants.
Good morning, commissioners.
Ron Cheshire, Monterey, California.
Welcome to what's supposed to be our little slice of heaven.
Many years ago, a little bear was
found running around downtown Carmel.
The police were called.
State Parks was called.
State Parks brought out an animal control officer,
and in order to protect the public, the bear was darted.
Unfortunately, the bear was 70-foot up one of the pine
trees in downtown Carmel, and the consequences
weren't too good.
It just goes to show that public entities and agencies
try and protect one thing, but it
has possibly unintended consequences on another.
Mr. Stefani said he's worried about wrecking
the economy of Monterey County.
I'm worried about what's already been wrecked
on the Monterey Peninsula for almost 50 years
where I've lived for 70.
Things aren't too good.
And this D-cell project is very, very important.
And there's already word coming down
from a strapped Salinas Valley with conditions they have
and their sustainable groundwater people
that maybe the recycle project, the expansion,
may be in jeopardy for source water.
Dreams have been broken for years.
I'm not going to sit up here and cry to you,
but I guarantee you, numerous opportunities were lost to me
because of what's taken place.
And I've had to watch good people like Mayor Oglesby
struggle to try and govern a city
which basically has to answer to an agency
for water for economic development
and providing opportunities for his people.
Let's move forward with that D-cell project.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mark Kelly.
And then our first three Zoom speakers
are going to be Bonnie Ernst, who we now find on Zoom,
Rochelle Todie, and then Peggy Lee Kennedy.
Mark Kelly.
Good morning, Chair and Commission members.
As noted, I am Mark Kelly and a resident of Monterey.
I would like to thank you for approving
the California American Desolization application
with conditions almost three and a half years ago.
Since that time, the pressure on the Salinas Valley
through sigma to curb seawater intrusion
has grown exponentially.
The valley is frequently referred to
as a salad bowl of the world
and is one of only five Mediterranean climates in the world.
Agriculture's continued capacity
to be a major partner with valley cities
and high quality produce to the world
is certainly the priority.
In order to accomplish these goals,
the city of Salinas and the ag community
are carefully examining a partnership
that will keep all domestic wastewater, ag processing
wastewater, and runoff from irrigation in the valley.
It will be treated and used for irrigation
to significantly reduce groundwater pumping
and dramatically assist in stopping seawater intrusion.
This is not an effort to make the relationship
with the peninsula awkward.
It is simply the reality that Sigma has strict time frames,
and the solution offered may be the quickest and most cost
effective way of ensuring the continued vitality of thousands of acres in the
valley. At the same time, the desalinization plant gives the peninsula
a drought proof water supply. Thank you for being on Azales. And please have a
positive day. Thank you. Thank you. Now moving on to our zoom speakers, Bonnie
Ernst. Good morning, commissioners and staff and people who've been zollis. The
Maria Ertz speaking as a member of the Oceano Beach Community Association.
First, I want to thank you for your continued dedication to protecting our coast.
Your work is more vital now than ever before and we really appreciate your efforts.
Due to the recent injunction, I will be addressing concerns about our beach in Oceano today.
And while we are thrilled and encouraged that the Center for Biological Diversity recently
security court injunction prohibiting vehicle activity south of Arroyo Grande Creek, a major
gap remains and the driving is still permitted on Oceano Beach. We have three specific requests today.
Number one is LCP consistency. The courts have now ruled that OHD use violates both the Coastal
Act and the Endangered Species Act. We should urge the commission to direct the Slow County
Board of Supervisors to update the local coastal plan to reflect current legal realities. Number
two, a formal review. Again, we request the Commission to hold a comprehensive long overdue
review of this coastal park CDP, and maybe most importantly, an entrance management
should be included in the review. If riding and camping are prohibited in the dunes
or the creek is closed, the access points should also be closed for those uses.
There's simply no reason to maintain a gateway for activities that are no longer permitted.
We are really excited to have this window of opportunity. We know it may not last long
for nature to flourish and for all people to experience this amazing coastline.
So if you ever get a chance to come and now's the time and we sincerely appreciate your attention
to environmental justice and your concern for the community of Oceano. And I thank you very
much for your time and your leadership. Thank you. Next is Rachelle Todi followed by Peggy Lee Kennedy
and then Lucia Cassie Noel. Rachelle Todi. Good morning. I hope, can you hear me? Yes, we can
Good morning. I'm Rachelle Todi, San Luis Obispo County resident and Napomo Mesa resident.
I'm following up with what Bonnie said. The court has ordered prohibition of all vehicles
except for state parks and authorized law enforcement south of the Arroyo Grande Creek.
The closure of the SVRA will continue until an incidental take permit is approved by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife. I sent Dan Karl news reports of this so he could forward them to
you if you wish to read them. This is an obvious park management failure to comply with the
Endangered Species Act. The Habitat Conservation Plan has dragged on for 20 years or more.
The Coastal Commission has the responsibility to review management of the park and I requested
this last year and I do so again. I think it's important that the park management comply with
all applicable laws including the Coastal Act. Additionally, I hope you'll consider vehicle
free days each month so the public and Oceania residents can enjoy the beach without having to
Dodge vehicles. Thank you for your time and your support of the protection of
natural resources. Thank you. Thank you. Just a reminder for a few of our
speakers that are signed up on Zoom and in the room if your comments are related
to offshore wind that is going to be heard during item 8a. This is general
public comments, items that are not on the regular agenda. We have four more
speakers on Zoom. Peggy Lee Kennedy, Lucia Casa-Linoovo,
Kimberly Burr, Aline Vila. Peggy Lee Kennedy, go ahead. Hi, thank you for calling on me.
Peggy Lee Kennedy, I'm calling you from the Venice Coastal Zone and specifically
I want to talk about the Baywatch CDP that was approved in February.
They started working prior to that approval, and evidently they didn't know the rules
or they couldn't follow the rules or they didn't intend to follow the rules of the,
you know, the permit and the addendums that were approved in February.
And so people got upset when maybe they were asked to.
And so now they're back, not following rules with a pending supposed, I haven't seen it,
amendment to the CDP so that they have more parking and whatever, so they could do whatever
they want.
And I'm not opposed to those workers getting jobs, I'm in favor of it.
What I'm opposed to is how the city thinks that they can just remove all this parking
in the coastal zone and you know and you do nothing about it two years ago we
came to you with a mapping that we did on all volunteer effort showing you how
the city has removed all this parking access so that people have to pay for
parking or take a bus so you know the inner city people can't park for free
and walk to the beach because it's two-hour parking.
People with oversized vehicles cannot come into the lots
because they've restricted all the lots.
And, you know, that's beyond the,
al fresco and all,
there's no mitigation to any of this
and nothing is being done about it.
And I'd really like to see something done
because, you know, we have a situation here
of extreme gentrification.
Extreme and parking to access that is part of it. Thank you
Thank you. Our next three speakers Lucia Casalee Nuevo, Kimberly Burr and Aline Vila
I seem to be having trouble promoting all of you as panelists
You're gonna be allowed to speak as an attendee, but you won't be able to turn your camera on
Lucia Casalee Nuevo, please unmute. Yes, I'm here. Hi
Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you
Hi, good morning. So I start good morning
This is Lucia Casalinoava, Oceano Beach Community Association.
Commissioners, please listen carefully.
We respectfully request that you immediately
schedule a review of the Oceano Dunes and Beach off-roading
area, the ODSVRA.
The last one was in 2021, when you unanimously
ruled to bend driving from Oceano Beach and Dunes.
Unfortunately, the courts concluded
that you did not have the authority to do it.
However, you can still review and amend the CDP
and recommend the changes to mitigate the ODSVRA's
negative impacts on our communities and the environment.
Furthermore, you should know
that there are more than one way to skin a cat.
Since you have concluded that our local coastal plan
violates the Coastal Act,
you should send a recommendation
to the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors
to change its coastal plan in accordance
with your resolution and the coastal act.
This is the course that both the superior
and appeal courts indicated.
Here is a quote from Judge Coyote's ruling,
the commission is finding that the certified LCP
by permitting the OHV riding
in certain designated areas of Asia
is not being carried out in conformity
with the policies of the Coastal Act.
Now listen, in this situation, the Commission's remedy
is to submit recommendations of corrective actions
that should be taken to the local government
and thereafter if necessary to the legislature.
So please, we request that you schedule a review
of the ODSV arrays and recommend to the supervisors
of San Rios Obispo that they change the LCP.
Thank you for listening.
Goodbye.
Thank you.
Kimberly Burr.
You should be able to unmute now.
Kimberly Burr.
I'm not seeing any movement.
We'll try Aline Villa.
You should be able to unmute now.
Aline Villa, I see you're unmuted.
Go ahead.
Good morning commissioners.
My name is Aline Villa and I'm a lifelong resident
of my beautiful Beach channel of Oceano,
proud member of the Oceano Beach Community Association.
I'm here today speaking out for my community.
As you know, the SVRA at Oceano Beach and Dunes
is closed to traffic south of the Aurora Grand Creek.
The closure comes after the federal judge decision
that found off-roading in this area violated
the Endangered Species Act
due to the killing of the snowy plover
from off-roading activities.
It will reopen again when a new habitat conservation plan
and incidental take permit are approved.
The fact is that off-roading and marine life
simply are not compatible.
Marine life does not understand
about borders and limitations.
Only humans understand.
Unfortunately, some don't care
when it comes to their interests.
I'm respectfully requesting
that you take this opportunity
to review the coastal development permit for this area.
There has not been a major CDP review since March 2021
and one is simply overdue.
I'm certain that just like the judge,
you will find violations and needed improvement.
Once completed, I would appreciate if you send it,
send these recommendations to the slow board of supervisors
along with a statement declaring
that they have the authority to amend the LCP.
To comply with the Coastal Act,
Endangered Species Act and end this destructive activity at Oceano Beach and Dunes. Please also
include that the activities not only harm marine life and destroy our dunes but also deprive the
community of Oceano of environmental justice. We are deprived of a safe beach and an area to recreate
and also the economic benefits of a traditional beach community. Thank you very much for your
dedication and service. Thank you. One more try for Kimberly Burr. You should be able to unmute now.
Kimberly Burr. And then I will also note we just had one speaker that we weren't able to find,
Jane Raldon. If you are on Zoom please raise your hand. And then our three speakers that we had
signed up for general public comment that are indicated that they are speaking on offshore wind
are Mo McEwen, Carol Swain, and Jerry Bernhardt. We moved you to item 8a to be able to speak there.
All right, I'm seeing no hands raised and I see Kimberly Burr is still muted. Madam chair. That concludes public comment
Thank you very much, I appreciate it and thank you so much to the public for participating
All right, I will return to the Commission for questions comments
Vice-chair Hart
Thanks. Okay. I have three questions
So I'll just lay them all out and then staff if you could respond to them first question I have is
If you could just give us a brief update on Diablo, but I'm specifically in the wild cherry Canyon
I'd like to know where things stand on that because I know that wild lands
Was discussing taking it in and I'm not sure what happened
But let me get ask all my questions if you want or Cassie. Do you want to respond to that and then I'll yeah
Thank you vice chair. I don't have an update for you on that. I know that discussions are still ongoing
But I don't think any final decisions have been made so it's still working through the process
Okay, great. It would be great to have an update on that at some point, just because
it was sort of up in the air at the time of the hearing concluded. Second, with regard
to the Save the Waves group, I was just curious, just because of my discussion regarding the
reserve there and the desire of the UC reserve folks to work with us and the local community,
I was just curious if the SURF group has reached out to those folks at the UC reserve and
provided them data or is there any kind of relationship there if through the
chair's response okay thank you for the question with with the UC reserve which
reserve are you referring to that UC Santa Cruz reserve you know they have
younger lagoon and that you know they're very they're very involved in studies on
adaptation so I to the extent that you're interested in this sort of
natural adaptation I was just curious and and if you're not working with them I
I thought it could be a helpful collaboration.
Yeah, I would love to get any contacts that you have
that we can connect with.
We're connected to a few people through the UC system
on their work on adaptation,
but I'm not quite sure exactly who you're referring to.
There's some incredible folks there,
Gary Griggs and Don Crowell specifically.
Reach out to me through my email,
my coastal email and I'll connect you.
Yeah, we'd love that.
Thank you very much.
Okay, thanks so much and thanks for your work.
I should have two more, sorry.
Third, I remember when we had the Monterey,
Calam D cell hearing and I remember there being a discussion regarding how much of that water would be going to Salinas and Castroville
And I was wondering if if staff knows
My recollection was that there was some concern
About that about how much water would be available for the inland communities how much would be going to Monterey
I know that the project is still in development, but could you comment on that based on all the question? I
don't remember offhand what the
How much water was intended to go and even if they had the specific amounts yet
So I don't think we're prepared to we can look into that and get back to you on on the specifics of that or maybe
Commissioner Lopez might have a better sense
Yeah, so they're not not to put a specific amount on it
But it's a percentage so as the water gets drawn in a percentage would have been existing groundwater and a percentage would have been
Sea water and the percentage that came from that groundwater aquifer that was originally freshwater would have to stay on the Salinas Valley
valley side and the proposal was that was what would be sent to casterville in
order to meet the needs of the community there if that makes sense um sort of so
when the D cell so as the D cell moves forward it's pooling into an already
existing groundwater pool correct so where they're set is sort of between an
existing aquifer and seawater yeah I just wanted to again note that which was
an issue at the hearing just the impacts on Marina's own water system that that
unique to them and you know I always I just think it's important to be aware of
that and the impacts on that community but sounds like very complex problem.
All right my final question it the Kimberly Burr who was going to be
commenting who apparently could not get through has contacted me regarding the
Sheep House Creek NTMP in Sonoma County and I was wondering if we could get a
Update on that if staff is dealing with or if you know with the situation, you know, mr. Carl's here
If that's appropriate. I
Just know she was calling in to testify about that and didn't get in
There's not really much to report
The county's still considering I believe whether or not they're gonna require a coastal permit, which is the next big
question
We're continuing to work with the applicant and also Cal Fire to try and come up with
You know what could be done here and what could be consistent with the coast lack. Excuse me the LCP
So we're still in you know in that discussion, but whether or not the coastal permit is required. That's that's the really the next
well, I mean
It's been resolved in the in in that we've identified that a coastal permit is required
The question is whether or not the county is going to require that permit so they have some concerns about it
so I just wanted to express you know given the
significant amount of money that's been spent in that area for conservation of the general headlands for example also wildlands and
You know that's such a critical watershed
I just am really wanting to express my appreciation to you and your staff for your involvement and continuing to monitor that situation
Thank you, and we will and we're like I said, we're trying to get a good outcome here
But we've been working with the county because they have a number of concerns about this particular type of vehicle
for these types of projects and there's a lot of those kinds of projects in the county
and they haven't to date required coastal permits for them and so it it could be this kind of ripple effect.
The NTMP? The NTMP specifically, yeah. Okay well thank you very much Mr. Curl for your
involvement and appreciate it. Thank you those are all my questions, thanks Chair. Commissioner Lopez.
I just want to appreciate everybody who came in today to talk about water you know in any
community in California waters what we fight over and we're not special here in Monterey County in
that respect while we are in many others. I will share that the conversation continues to evolve
where the ground has shifted under us while these projects have existed and been proposed and at
times approved. Now we're really dealing with the realities of sigma on our end of the lettuce
curtain as some call it on the inland side with a shift in expectations from the state for us to
to balance our groundwater supplies, so as we reassess where controls exist, what
the needs are, there's going to be some hard decisions to be made, and so I just
appreciate everybody staying at the table and remaining true to this
conversation because I personally believe, as I've shared with many of you,
we have solutions at our fingertips, we have a plumbing problem. In Monterey
County, much like the state has a plumbing problem, we don't have a water
supply issue, we have a plumbing problem. Putting the right water in the right
places and making sure that the solutions get developed in the right
places that we can all agree upon to the extent possible because we're not always
going to be at the at the end of the day on the same page is important. So I
appreciate the folks who came forward today to point out some of the unique
circumstances for the community of Castroville their dependence and need
and for us on the Salinas Valley side the stakes are big. This four billion
dollar industry that's direct impact turns into six billion dollars by the
the time it revolves once through this particular economy and those are the
folks that we talked about yesterday as you drive through the field you see
working that's their income that's how they make ends meet that's how they
burst into the American Dream via the opportunity to grab a foothold on the
ladder here in the Salinas Valley and so water means a lot to all of us here
like it does to everyone else in this state and I just appreciate the
willingness of staff over the years as I've watched many a hearing from behind
to desk when I didn't sit here to engage on these issues in a deep way while
maintaining the core mission of this body and so just appreciate everyone who
came forward today and this body for all the work that's been done over the years
and look forward to its continued evolution as we do so as we continue to
make key decisions for everyone who lives here and beyond here. Thank you.
Thank you. Commissioner Eckertley. Thank you Madam Chair. Just shifting gears
because I was not here this morning I wanted to highlight for everyone that
April 28th is California Ocean Day. This is a day where advocates from all over
the state come to Sacramento to meet with legislators and other decision
makers to talk about how fantastic California's Coast and Ocean is and the
work that we're doing to protect it and there's going to be a bunch of events
happening but I wanted to highlight for this Commission and the public that our
fearless leader Dr. Kate Hugglebridge will be receiving the Ocean Champion
Award at a reception held at the Stanford mansion. That reception will be
held at the Stanford mansion in Sacramento starting at 5 p.m. I know I
will be there and I hope anyone who is in the neighborhood will also join us.
Will you send us a date?
Yeah, can you send us an invitation to get something circulated for all of us?
I will.
I will.
Okay.
Place, date, time?
Great.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Very exciting.
Any other?
Commissioner Wilson.
I just want to say coming from a community that has bears roaming through it fairly consistently.
Our policy is that when a bear is up a tree, you make everyone leave, and it turns out
The bear will climb down on its own and continue on its way.
So for any community that has a bear and a tree, please don't shoot it unless it's really
posing a significant danger or has a pattern of already doing so because most of the time
they're just roaming through, they're scared, and they're going to get out as soon as possible.
So thanks.
Full service advice at this commission.
Thank you.
Commissioner Notoff.
you're not off. I just wanted to thank folks for coming out and appreciated the
reminder about the serious situation at Tijuana River and assure the public
that the Commission has been working diligently with all interest at the
state federal local level to try and resolve this issue and get and get that
place cleaned up as fast as we can. It's a very complicated issue with
international relations impacts and the Commission is fully engaged on that
issue. And I did want to just applaud the collaboration that's resulted in the
presentation today on the surf surf capital. I like that with it. AL, that's
good. And having been involved in designating and protecting special areas
along the California coast, whether it's ASBS's or marine protected areas,
national marine sanctuaries. There's a lot of interlocking
protection designations with various levels of protection along the coast. And
I'm sure you're looking at the existing network of protected areas and how
this approach would interact with those it's one of the I'm glad you're working
with the the Ocean Protection Council would be involved in that since they
have kind of the bigger picture of how those things work together and best of
luck on that all right awesome thank you very much and thanks again to the public
all right so we'll move on to item five the consent calendar please thank you
Chair Harmon, we have no items on the agenda
as consent calendar today, so that brings us to item six.
Items moved from the regular to the consent calendar
for all districts on the agenda today.
As mentioned during the agenda changes earlier this morning,
there are only two items that staff recommends
be moved to the consent calendar,
and those are item 13A, an LCP post certification
and appeal jurisdiction map adoption
for the city of Morrill Bay.
And item 15A, follow-up to locally issued emergency permit
Drainage and stabilization efforts at a residence in the live Oak area of Santa Cruz County
Staff is not aware of any opposition to the items moved the consent calendar and the applicants are in agreement with the staff recommendations
We're therefore recommending the Commission vote and approve this item. Great. Thank you. Are there any expertise?
Okay, see none any public comments. Yes for item 13a we have Rachel Wolfson and see Ray here in person
They have a presentation
Good morning. My name is Rachel Wilson, and I have a couple of concerns about the coastal appealable zone map for Morrow Bay.
If you could pull up. First of all, as you look at the coastal appealable map, the area in pink is appealable.
And it normally goes out all the way to Highway 1, which is our major north-south road.
Looking at the next slide though, to me there's a problem and there are some confusing boundaries
within this map.
If you notice right there, those parcels, those are homes.
And if you notice, the boundary goes right between the middle of some of the homes.
So some houses are split in half.
So is that home within the coastal appealable zone?
Is it not within the coastal appealable zone?
To me it would make sense to draw the map to actually show entire parcels included in
one area because which zone applies.
Next slide please.
Again, coastal appealable zone, we actually have lines going through motels.
Half of it is in the coastal appealable zone, the other half is not in the coastal appealable
zone. So would it be possible to redraw this map so that the lines don't actually go through
any individual parcels? So that there's not confusion from the beginning? So that there's
not litigation later? Is my home in the coastal appealable zone? Or is it not? That's question
number one. Number two, next slide please. As you look at this beachfront property, beach
comber drive, which is on the left-hand side right there, is on a bluff overlooking the
California coastline. And it is also part of our coastal trail. Highway 1 is in the
yellow on the back, but what's interesting to me is that none of the homes in this area,
even though they are sitting on a bluff top
right across the street from a bluff,
very short area, are not in the appealable zone.
Well, good morning again, Steve Ray, continuing here.
Yeah, so what Rachel was pointing out here
in this area of the city, there's
a road that goes right up a very small, narrow road, which
is actually part of the California Coastal Trail.
That's the California coastal trail.
It sits on the bluff top there.
Homes right up literally to the street.
Right across the street is the bluff.
And yet those homes are not in the appealable zone.
Wondering where the 300 foot setbacks from coastal bluffs
and the mean high tide line is only about 140 feet away.
So that's also not in compliance with the act.
So there's a lot of confusion about this map.
Next map, please.
Okay, now here you can see up close that on the left,
you see the red line.
That's the boundary for the peelable zone
right up to the houses there on the coastal trail.
And over to the right is, it's true,
I can't draw a straight line.
You found out evidence now.
But it goes down there and that is a cliff
right there across the street there,
and next picture, please.
This is taken halfway down that bluff, looking up.
And you can see the house right there at the top of the bluff.
And yet, it's not in the appealable zone
of the Coastal Act, so we're wondering what's wrong there.
Next one, please.
And this, again, is just kind of a closer up one
of showing it from the top.
So the problem is here, this map has a lot of issues with it.
And I'm sorry we did not get to the staff early enough
to express our concerns about it.
But this can be fixed through amendments down the road.
But then you wind up with a whole lot of confusion
in the meantime.
Now is the time to fix this.
Make sure all the parcels aren't set time split.
Make sure the setbacks are proper.
We would be happy to work with staff on this but we ask that you not approve this today and give us a chance to
Work with staff to get this map fixed. Thank you
All right
So for item 15 a we have the applicants and the representatives
online
Available for questions and then we have in person Mike gut or goof and we have we have your presentation and we'll bring it up
Good morning chair and commissioners
I
Was here for the substantial issue determination on item 15 a
Three years ago and the county hearings were five years ago. This is on the circumstance. That's been going on for 40 years
I was going to talk about how this is not an approval project next slide, please
Because it's not but that's actually not the biggest deal that's going on here
Next slide, please
We don't allow this kind of stuff under County code under except in certain circumstances. Next slide, please
and your own staff defines, interprets the code.
I'd like to go to the next slide, please.
I wanna talk about protection of coastal access,
which was closed out on this area
in a court case last year in March.
If you look at the little orange line
going from Capitola on the right
to Twin Lakes, the state beaches on the left,
at a low tide and a good sand year,
you can walk from Capitola on the sand
at the base of the bluff all the way to the state beaches,
Except for Black Point in green there,
and people always went up a little staircase in Sunny Cove
over Jeffrey Drive and down to the beaches.
Except till in 1986 when the owners
put barbed wire across it.
And I didn't move to the neighborhood till 89,
but the people were livid about it still when I was there.
This is 40 years ago.
Next slide please.
You don't have to take my word for it.
This is from your own staff reports, past staff reports,
talking about the barbed wire.
I want to point out that justice delayed is justice denied.
I'm going to ask you to click ahead a few spots.
Next slide, please.
And again, and again, and again, and again.
There's Charles Paulton, you probably remember him
being at Coastal Commission hearings 30 years ago
saying you got to do something about this.
It had open coastal violations since the early 90s.
We, you know, I appreciate how much you all enforced the Coastal Act and administer it.
And we certainly do our best on our side.
But here we failed.
We let this get closed out because the court case was 40, 39 years after the closure from
the era when we didn't have enforcement monies in the central district.
Now we do.
We can't let something like this happen again.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. So I'll return to staff. Thank you. Sure. First, with respect to Mr.
Gooth's comments, I guess I tend to agree that collectively we may have failed with respect to
access at this site. There are a number of reasons for that. This was a very difficult case.
Ultimately, it was decided by the courts. Sorry. Ultimately, yeah, I can see you. Ultimately,
it was decided by the court last year that there is no prescriptive right of access here,
which pretty much closed down the kind of coastal resource issues associated with this project.
I mean there are remaining lingering things that we have some conditions for that we worked out with the applicant, but the actual access
question was basically closed off by the, you know Superior Court last year determining that there's no prescriptive right of access here.
So we continue to recommend that this be approved on the consent calendar. We take Mr.
Mr. Goos comments seriously and agreed that in other cases we do want to stand
up for and we do for access and do everything we can this is just one that
just didn't work out that way. And then on the second thing or excuse me on the
13a I'll quickly I have a quick comment and then I'll pass it to our technical
folks who are online. The question about bisecting appeal boundaries is very
common, and the reason for that is because they're based on geographic features, and
so the boundary is mapped from whatever that geographic feature is, and it will go through
boundaries. It never goes on a parcel-by-parcel basis. We deal with that regularly. When appeals
come in, they have to make an appeal contention based on the portion that's in the appealable
area. Should the Commission find a substantial issue, then the entire project is before the
in and out of the appeal area.
So that's not an uncommon thing to see at all.
But I will pass it to Chris and Esther,
who are online, who can tell you a little bit more
about the bluff kind of questions there.
I know they used the best available information
to determine where these boundaries were.
But I'll pass it to them, I think they're on the Zoom.
Thanks, Dan.
Yes, I'd like to touch on the bluff appeal issues
that were brought up in the Coastal Act
and the regs, we are supposed to measure a peel jurisdiction
based on 300 feet from the both landward and seaward
from the bluff line or edge.
And this means the top of the coastal bluff.
Another consideration is that this coastal bluff
has to be subject to marine erosion
within the last 200 years.
So in the case of the bluffs along the waterfront,
inland on the inner waterfront of Morro Bay,
Before the fill of the harbor in the 1940s and 1950s,
those coastal buffs were directly impacted
by the water flowing out of the bay,
whereas the small bluffs that are brought up
in the northern part of the city, for the most part,
have been fronted by dunes
for the entirety of the state's existence.
And so those dunes would constitute a 300 feet
from the back of the beach appeal criteria.
And in this case, that's measured from the first line
of terrestrial vegetation.
So that would be the front edge of those dunes.
And when we reviewed available LiDAR elevation data
and other data sets, we determined that 300 feet
in the back of the beach distance was seaward
of the first public road,
which in that area is Beach Comer Drive.
That also touches upon the difference
between the Highway 1 appeal jurisdiction
and then the appeal jurisdiction moving seaward
along Beachcomber Drive.
That's because the first public road
is the criteria for appeal in those areas.
And so it follows, it will move seaward beyond the highway
where there is a fully accessible through road.
Okay. Thank you.
Just on that point then.
So am I hearing then that if a property is,
the line goes through a property,
the property is in the appeal,
half of that property is in the appealable zone.
Correct.
The portion, if someone were to file an appeal,
it would have to be based on contentions
that are within the appeal zone.
And then if the commission were to find substantial issue
based on those contentions within the appeal zone,
then it would go to a de novo hearing
for the whole project in and out of the appealable area.
It's a kind of a weird twist,
but it comes up from time to time.
So the answer is yes.
Yes.
I'd also like to add that the map does not
preclude the underground conditions
and so that there can always be a survey performed
at the site location based on the coastal resources
such as wetlands and bluffs in order
to get a more accurate boundary at the time of a project
and that we don't have to rely just on what the map says.
All right.
Any other comments, questions?
Motion?
Motion to approve consent.
Motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner Lopez.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
OK, seeing none.
Good discussion.
Thank you very much.
All right, I'm going to suggest we take a brief bio break.
We could be back at 10.35 promptly.
Thank you.
OK, thank you very much.
We are back and we are now on item seven.
Mr. Teufel.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
That brings us to item seven
in the Deputy Director's Report
for the Energy, Ocean Resources
and Federal Consistency Division.
We have six negative determinations to report
and three waivers and a CDP time extension
for your consideration.
I wanted to note that one of the negative determinations
is the result of close coordination efforts
we've had with the U.S. Navy
to expedite review of several projects
that will result in nearly 700 apartment units
for military personnel
across five Navy installations in San Diego.
Beyond that, I'm not aware of any objections
to the items being reported in the deputy director's report
and I believe the only speakers we have
are applicant representatives available for questions.
With that, I would ask whether three or more commissioners
object to the waivers or time extension
in the Deputy Director's Report.
Great, thank you, any ex partes?
Any public comments?
Confirming that we only have one person
available for questions.
Great, thank you so much.
Do three or more commissioners object
to any item in the Deputy Director's Report?
Okay, seeing no such objections,
the commission can curse.
Thank you, item 8A.
Thank you, before we move on to that,
since I have the mic, I just want to take the opportunity
to respond to Commissioner Notoff with a brief update
on the Tijuana River pollution crisis
and acknowledge that one of the items
that the commission approved yesterday
was a map adoption for the Tijuana River Valley.
And importantly, that changed the commission's
retained jurisdiction in a really key location
relative to the pollution crisis.
And that is near Saturn Boulevard.
We've been working very closely with the city
and county of San Diego
with regards to a project at that Saturn Boulevard location.
And as you may recall, that's a location
where a change in elevation and a culvert setup
has resulted in significant hydrogen sulfide air emissions
due to the kind of churn of water at that site.
We're working very closely with them on a project
to change the configuration of culverts
to address that issue, which we expect
to significantly reduce the amount
of hydrogen sulfide air emissions
and improve the air quality in that area.
And that map adoption from yesterday allows us to pursue a consolidated permitting approach for that
Where by the permit application would come to you all we expect within the coming months to expedite the completion of that work
Which is very important
So we appreciate the coordination with the city and county of San Diego on that and appreciate the Commission's approval of that map adoption yesterday
Thank you for that clarification
I had I was wondering exactly that if that was going to help and I assumed it would or you wouldn't have recommended it
Thank you
Absolutely. Thank you. And with that I will turn the mic over to our
Manager of our energy and ocean resources and federal Consistency Division Holly wire
Thank you, mr. Teufel. Good morning, chair Harmon and commissioners
The next item is item 8a consideration of the statewide strategy for coexistence of California fishing communities and offshore wind energy
Commissioned staff previously provided an informational briefing on the statewide strategy its development and its content at the February hearing
The strategy is intended to guide the development
of offshore wind in a manner that recognizes
and protects the economic, commercial,
and recreational importance of fishing activities.
It was developed over the past two years
with a working group made up of fisheries representatives,
leaseholder representatives,
and California Native American tribes.
State and federal agencies served
in advisory roles on the working group.
This working group did an enormous amount of work
to develop the strategy.
It held eight full meetings
and more than 60 subgroup meetings.
And in December of last year, the working group expressed full
or qualified support for each chapter of the strategy
and the strategy's template agreements.
In January, we published the statewide strategy
for public comment and invited tribal consultation.
We hosted a tribal roundtable and two fishing community meetings
to discuss the strategy and provide opportunities for Q&A.
The public comment period closed on February 23rd.
The comments we received are provided
in Appendix B to the staff report.
Commission staff reviewed and considered the comments
published and published a revised strategy on March 27, which is before you for consideration
today. We also included a response to these comments in the staff report. Now I will
turn it over to Dr. Heather McNair, an environmental scientist in the energy division, to provide
the staff presentation. Thank you, Holly. Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
As a follow-up to that informational briefing we provided in February, today we are presenting
the staff recommendation to approve and adopt the statewide strategy for the coexistence
of California fishing communities and offshore wind energy.
During today's presentation, I will focus on how the statewide strategy meets the requirements
of Condition 7C and relatedly the conditions of Senate Bill 286.
I will also summarize the comments received on the draft strategy and staff response.
I'll note an additional correspondence packet
and addendum have been posted to the agenda.
Next.
In 2022, during the review
of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's
Consistency Determination for Offshore Wind Leasing,
the Commission identified reasonably foreseeable impacts
to commercial and recreational fisheries
from offshore wind development.
As a result, the Commission included condition 7C
as part of its concurrences,
which required a working group to develop a strategy
to avoid, minimize, and mitigate those fishing impacts.
Senate Bill 286, authored by Senator McGuire,
later codified and expanded these requirements
through the addition of Coastal Act Section 30616.
In preparing the staff recommendation,
we therefore reviewed the various elements
of Condition 7C alongside the requirements
introduced by SB 286.
Our analysis found that the strategy before you today
fulfills all elements of condition 7C, as well as the requirements of SB 286 that are
programmatic in scope. Next. Eight specific elements make up condition 7C. Those elements
are summarized here. Elements 1 and 2 were fulfilled by convening the working group that
developed the statewide strategy and by focusing it on the mitigation hierarchy of avoiding,
then minimizing, and finally mitigating impacts to fishing activities from offshore wind energy
development.
Element three was fulfilled by including best practices for communication with fishing communities
in chapter two and tribes in chapter seven.
Chapter three provides best practices for avoiding and minimizing conflicts during site
assessment activities which fulfills element four.
Two separate methodologies for assessing socioeconomic impacts are provided to address element five.
One method addresses commercial and recreational fishing and the other addresses tribal fisheries.
The statewide strategy then provides a framework for compensatory mitigation to be administered
through direct compensation and resiliency funds, fulfilling element six.
Template agreements to satisfy element seven are included as an appendix to the strategy
and will assist in the establishment of the compensation programs.
The entire strategy fulfills Element 8 as it's targeted to fisheries and fishing communities
that may be disproportionately affected by offshore wind energy development.
Chapter 7 is also included to provide specific guidance for tribal fisheries, recognizing
that cultural, ceremonial, and subsistence practices may experience impacts not captured
in commercial and recreational frameworks.
The statewide strategy thus meets the elements of condition 7C and the related refined requirements
listed in SB 286.
Next.
We found that the strategy also meets the additional SB 286 requirements.
It recognizes locally negotiated agreements within the template agreement section, which
states that the strategy does not limit other cooperative arrangements between developers
and the fishing community.
The Working Group completed the strategy
before the required January 1st, 2026 deadline,
and we're bringing it forward for your consideration today
in advance of SB 286 deadline of May 1st
for its review and adoption.
Compensation for Working Group member participation
was provided by the California Fisherman's
Resiliency Association
through an Ocean Protection Council grant.
I'd also note that some further SB 286 requirements,
such as project-specific mitigation
payment structures and monitoring
would be most appropriately addressed at the CDP
and federal consistency review stages
for individual offshore wind energy development projects.
We're therefore committed to assessing compliance
with these requirements as part of the review
of such future projects.
Next.
In summary, we believe the strategy fulfills
all eight elements of Condition 7C
and all requirements programmatic in scope in SB 286.
Implementation of the strategy will support offshore
wind energy consistency with coastal act policies
focused on the protection of commercial
and recreational fisheries.
Next.
Since the strategy was released in late January,
we've received 56 comment letters,
all of which are provided in Appendix B of the staff report.
We've also received input from tribal consultation,
a tribal roundtable, and two fishing community meetings.
Based on these comments, several minor edits
have been made to the strategy for clarity,
but no substantive changes have been made.
These edits are described in section seven
of the staff report on page 24.
Many of the comment themes also align
with working group discussions,
a summary of which can be found
in exhibit two to the staff report.
Next.
Many commenters noted that the guidance nature
of the statewide strategy and for example,
requested that the strategy include explicit mandates,
enforcement mechanisms, or stronger language.
However, the strategy is designed to guide
and inform decision making
through existing regulatory processes
and neither Condition 7C nor SB 286
called for the establishment
of new regulatory authority for the commission.
As such, the applicable recommendations of the strategy
would become enforceable through future regulatory action
by the Commission on Individual Projects.
Next.
Several commenters also requested that the strategy
apply greater scrutiny to high-resolution geophysical,
or HRG, surveys, and called for
before-after control impact studies
to assess potential impacts of such surveys.
However, HRG surveys are not the same
as high-energy seismic surveys,
and the body of best available science
reviewed by commission staff shows no evidence
of population level or fishery scale
adverse impacts from HRG surveys.
As such, the strategy does not call for monitoring design
to detect these large scale population effects.
The primary known impacts of HRG surveys
on fishing activities is temporary disruption
and spatial exclusion while surveys are underway.
Therefore, the strategy focuses on avoiding
and minimizing such disruption through
advanced communication, real-time coordination
on the water, and coordinated survey timing.
Next.
Commenters raised several concerns related
to compensatory mitigation, including the absence
of a universal formula to calculate compensation,
the need for fisheries input into negotiation process,
and the division of compensation between direct payments
and resiliency funds.
However, the working group found that a universal formula
for calculating compensation is not feasible
because compensation must be informed
by project-specific design and operation details.
The methodologies in the strategy, therefore,
provide guidance for assessing impacts
using project-specific information
and set the expectation that those results
will inform compensatory mitigation amounts
in individual project proposals.
In response to these comments,
we are recommending a few changes to this strategy,
including clarification that the Fisherman's task force
will be consulted to advise the Commission for negotiations,
and that additional fisheries stakeholders
may also be consulted by the Executive Director
at her discretion.
As a reminder, the purpose of the Fisherman's task force
is to provide a structured and consistent input
into the socioeconomic analysis
and compensatory mitigation negotiations.
We are also recommending revised language in the strategy
to avoid implying that the resiliency program
would only receive funds remaining
after direct compensation is allocated.
The distribution of funds between direct compensation
and the resiliency program will be developed
as part of discussions between the commission staff
and project applicants and will be informed by input
from the Fisherman's Task Force and fishing community.
The final allocation would be determined by the Commission as part of its consideration
for an individual project application.
Next.
Finally, some commenters asked whether BOEM's bid credit for community benefit agreements
or CBAs would influence or supplement mitigation proposed through implementation of the statewide
strategy.
Because bid credits are a federal leasing tool, the Commission has no authority to oversee
or direct them.
Therefore, the strategy intentionally does not contemplate or provide for the use of
these bid credits in this way.
Instead, CBAs may be pursued voluntarily by a project developer, but would be separate
from compensatory mitigation that may be required as a result of the Commission's Coastal
Act and CZMA review processes.
Next.
In closing, the strategy provides guidance to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to
fisheries and fishing.
in a way that prioritizes productivity, viability,
and long-term resilience of fishing communities.
The strategy fulfills all elements of Condition 7C
and SB 286 requirements within programmatic scope.
Staff therefore recommends the Commission approve
and adopt the statewide strategy.
The motion and resolution are provided
on page five of the staff report.
Awesome, thank you so much.
Okay, to my colleagues, are there any ex partes to report?
Okay, seeing none, I'll turn it over to you Chris. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We have 27 speakers sign up for this item
We'll start with the five in the room
We'll have Rick Robbins followed by Steve Ray Bill Walter toy Biles and Kuevila Rick Robbins go ahead
Chair Harmon members of the Commission. Good morning. I'm Rick Robbins director of Marine Affairs for RWE
Our lease is located offshore Humboldt County and we sincerely appreciate the opportunity
to have participated in this very innovative process as a leaseholder.
I particularly want to thank the Commission staff as well as all the working group members
for the truly remarkable effort that went into the development of the 7C strategy.
No other state has undertaken such a substantial effort to develop a strategic framework to
provide clear and practical guidance for coexistence among tribal nations, fisheries, and the offshore
wind industry.
The fact that the group was able to develop a strategy that all members could support
represents a major success. To everyone's credit this consensus was made
possible by the Good Faith effort by all members to build understanding, knowledge,
and trust as we learned as we worked and learned together through the two-plus
year process. The strategy provides thoughtfully developed guidance on
avoiding minimizing and mitigating impacts to fisheries to fulfill
condition 7C that commissions conditional concurrences with the leases
and the requirements of Senate Bill 286. The strategy was to what designed to
align with and operate within the comprehensive federal and state regulatory frameworks governing
offshore wind development.
This alignment with the regulatory framework explains a lot of the contours and details
of the strategy and this in particular is an area where the working group learned, adapted,
and tailored the strategy accordingly.
The strategy benefits from an integrated approach to fisheries compensatory mitigation to ensure
a coordinated approach on this important issue.
The proposed governance model vests the fishing industry with a leading role in the distribution
of resiliency funding through regional resiliency committees.
The strategy includes clearly defined roles
and responsibilities for developers, fishermen,
and regulators throughout the development process
to set appropriate expectations and reduce conflicts
as projects move forward.
This early strategic investment in coexistence uniquely
positions California to advance offshore wind products
responsibly and successfully.
Thank you again for the opportunity
to participate in this process and speak today
in support of the commission's adoption
of the statewide strategy.
Thank you very much.
Perfect timing.
Steve Ray, Bill Walter, Torrey Biles, and Coie Villa.
Well, good morning again for the third time.
Madam Chair, commissioners, staff, other staff,
and members of the public.
I'm Steve Ray, if you need the reminder.
But I'm here today for the third time
to talk about items in Morro Bay.
Very busy place.
I mean, it's three times and it's not even lunch yet.
So what do we have to look forward to in the future?
But the important thing here is that sometimes soon
you guys need to come back to Morro Bay
and deal with us and a lot of these issues that are here,
so we look forward to having you back to Morro Bay.
In regards to this, I'm not an expert
in farm energy systems.
I'm not an expert in fishing, but I follow Commissioner Lopez's philosophy.
That is, he said it's not about the water, it's about the plumbing, and in this case
it's not about the fishing or the fishes, it's about, you know, how they're going to
go about doing it.
And I believe the next speaker behind me is representing the fishermen, and I would listen
very closely to what the fishermen have to say
and what's going to make this work for them,
because that's going to be the key, the success of all this.
Because I'll be honest with you, I love eating fish.
That's what I eat, OK?
And I want to continue having good fish, good seafood.
That's affordable.
And it's going to depend a lot on what
these kind of projects do to our fishing industry.
So please make it work for the fishermen
And for all of us fish-eaters out here.
And so this is the last time I'm going to be seeking to you.
So you get a break from me the rest of this hearing.
And as of note, I just do want to thank our dog, Ariel,
who's been such a great, good girl for this hearing.
And for all of you who stopped by and petted her,
she asked me to say thank you.
And so I thank you for me, too.
Thank you.
Bill Walter, Tori Biles, and Kueh Vila.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Bill Walter.
I represent the Morrill Bay and Port
St. Louis commercial fishermen.
And sure, there we go.
Anyway, we have a long experience
with these industry-to-industry agreements.
We did the cable committees.
That's been functioning for over 20 years.
functioned so successfully that they haven't needed my legal services for anything on that
item since it was set up.
And we were so pleased to see it acknowledged in the consistency determination.
We then, of course they would prefer not having these projects.
But proactively, we engaged with CASA Wind and Total Energies.
We set up an industry-to-industry model, a trustees committee with fiduciary duties,
and active engagement of the fishermen.
The real concern immediately is regarding the site surveys, because the experience of
the fishermen is site surveys are very, very damaging.
And when NOAA reviewed these projects and this technology, they said, there are no criteria
developed for considering effects for environmental, for ESA, Endangered Species Act, fish species
specific to HRG surveys.
That's why you need enforceable protocols and you need good science behind them.
They also identified the effects.
To propose action, these site surveys that have already been conducted in federal waters
will introduce a variety of disturbances and impacts which will adversely affect essential
fish habitat.
Some effects will be rather long lasting and may disrupt habitat areas of particular concern
and EFH conservation areas designated by the Pacific Coast Ground Fish FMP.
And I've quoted that in many other sections.
So that's a fundamental difference that we have with the staff.
And can I say just a couple more things?
Please finish, sir.
We've got a lot of speakers.
Thank you.
But I think I'm representing two associations.
I don't know if that matters.
But anyway, so what we would,
there just isn't any science on the effects.
Professor Popper, I've quoted him at length.
He says there is no knowledge about these impacts.
Those impacts have to be addressed.
Thank you.
Next, Tori Biles, Koei Bila,
and then our first threesome speakers will be
Amy Jester, Susan Callery, and Asher Dubois.
Tori Biles.
Thank you.
I'm Tori Biles.
I'm a principal economist with Granada Research
at Memorial Bay and my residence is there as well.
I just want to lend my support to the development
of offshore wind energy and thank the commission
for providing the fiduciary and public oversight
of development of offshore wind.
I'd like to point out and have the commission
note that the misguided foreign policy
by the federal government, especially its invasion of Iran,
is making offshore wind and other alternative energy
sources even more affordable than they ever have been.
And also point out that the over $1 trillion military budget
that the president has proposed represents a massive taxpayer
funded subsidy to the oil and gas industry.
So take those economic considerations into account.
I think the offshore development of offshore wind energy,
along with other alternative non-fossil fuel energy sources,
is really the very right thing to be doing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Kuey Beelan.
I wanted to say that I feel this process is
being rushed if you had hearings in January
and now you're approving it, it's only the middle of April.
I don't really think the public really understands any of this.
I'm not sure that US commissioners really
understand the long lasting impacts of wind energy.
I personally, I went to a state and they have very like,
they don't have a lot of regulations
and the energy industry there is very powerful politically.
And the water was like muddy, green, very, very dirty.
And so I personally wanted to go fishing in Monterey Bay.
And I couldn't because of the protected habitat area.
And it takes like at least eight hours on a boat trip
before I can actually fish, like fresh fish.
And so I'm thinking this will impact,
it's not just about the fisher, the professionals who fish,
but also those consumers and recreational people
who want to recreate as well and fish for fun.
There are a lot of stakeholders involved,
and I don't think this should be approved now.
It needs to be addressed more carefully,
and you should all understand the impacts, the long impacts.
Now, if you look at the Chevron freight shell
mounts in Summerland, the submerged mounts,
they say that I read that there's chemicals down there.
There are other impacts that are in.
For the last two platforms that they want to leave,
they had offshore drilling there.
The company apparently seems to want to just quick claim
those two last platforms from what I read.
But I think if you go investigate that,
it should be informative.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have no more in-person speakers.
We have 22 on Zoom, starting with Amy Jester,
Susan Callery, and Asher Dubois.
Amy Jester, you may unmute and begin.
Good morning commissioners and staff.
My name is Amy Jester and I'm speaking on behalf
of the Redwood Region Climate and Community Resilience Hub
based in Humboldt County.
First, I wanna express appreciation
to the state agency team, fisheries representatives,
tribal nations, and lessees who have dedicated
significant time and effort over the past two years
to develop the statewide strategy.
This work reflects a serious and good faith effort
to grapple with the real and complex question before us,
how floating offshore wind can move forward responsibly,
avoiding harm, ensuring meaningful protections
and benefits for the marine environment,
fishing communities, and tribal nations,
and helping California transition
to a renewable energy future
that meaningfully slows climate change
and supports the long-term habitability
of our communities and our planet.
Our commercial and tribal fisheries are foundational
to the culture, economy, and identity of the North Coast.
Any energy transition that ignores
externalizes impacts to fisheries, risks repeating the boom and bust patterns of industrial
resource extraction that have historically depleted rural and tribal communities while
exporting benefits elsewhere.
The strategy being considered here today is important precisely because it acknowledges
those risks and begins to define a different path forward.
California is at a critical moment.
We face urgent climate and energy needs, but also an obligation to proceed thoughtfully,
currently and collaboratively. Identifying pathways to offshore wind
development that support climate resilience, sustain fisheries, and deliver
long-term community benefits will require continued engagement, adaptive
management, and strong policy guidance. CORHUB supports the Commission voting in
favor of approval and adoption of the statewide strategy as a critical
planning tool. It contributes an essential framework to help the state,
coastal communities, and the industry move forward with eyes wide open,
integrating long-term risks, cumulative impacts, and shared benefits into the
criteria that will state future decisions. Thanks so much. Thank you. Next Susan
Callery, Astrid Dubois, and then Chintan Desai. Susan Callery. Yes, good morning
commissioners. I live in Arroyo Grande and I'm with the Slow Climate Coalition.
Before retirement I was the managing editor of NASA's Climate website for many years and I led Earth science communications at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The ocean absorbed more heat last year than in any year since modern measurements began in about 1960. That marked the ninth consecutive record.
Ocean acidification is getting worse.
It's affected 40 percent of the ocean surface and 60 percent of subsurface waters.
Gray whales are dying in the Bay Area as
climate change reduces the availability of their prey in the Arctic.
In recent years, about a fifth of gray whales entering San Francisco Bay have died,
many after colliding with ships in this heavily trafficked port.
In recent weeks, seven gray whales died in Puget Sound,
likely linked to warming waters and loss of Arctic sea ice,
which is disrupting the base of their food chain.
Many fish species are moving to find cooler waters,
which will impact fishing communities.
Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy,
including offshore wind,
is critical to protecting the fishing industry and
ocean impacts. And I just want to add something quickly. The survey techniques used in offshore
wind are the same as those utilized by Scripps Institute of Oceanography and the Monterey Bay
Aquarium, just to clarify that. I want to thank everybody who contributed to this report. I know
how hard it is to please everyone. I urge you to approve and adopt the statewide strategy.
Thank you. Thank you. Next, Asher Dubois, Chintan Desai, June McIver. Asher Dubois.
Hello, my name is Asper, and I work with Brightline Defense, which is an environmental justice
non-profit organization, and our mission is in promoting sustainable environments
in empowered communities throughout California. I have brief comments today, but Brightline Defense
strongly agrees with the staff recommendation for the commission to approve the statewide
Strategy for the coexistence of California fishing communities and offshore winds, and
are glad to have the opportunity to register our support.
The development of this statewide strategy showcases the important insight that comes
from strategic and direct community engagement with critical stakeholders and that in turn
leads to better policies.
We are encouraged that after two years of regular meetings, all the convened members
of the working group expressed full or qualified support for each chapter of the statewide
strategy and are really glad that the commission undertook this effort as the offshore wind
industry is built from the ground up in California it is crucial that the state proactively shapes
planning and development to ensure responsible and equitable outcomes for the environment
and community. And we are glad to see this effort to address the impact to California's tribal,
commercial, and recreational fisheries. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Chintin Desai,
June McIver, and Steve Schleilblauer. Chintin Desai. Good morning Chair and Commissioners. My
name is Chintin Desai. I live in San Luis Obispo, California, and I am here to speak in support of
item 8a. I want to start with something personal. Like many people in the Central Coast, I've
experienced underemployment over the past few years, working below my potential,
searching for stable, meaningful work in a region that doesn't always have enough
of it. That's exactly why offshore wind matters so much to me. This is not an
abstract policy debate. This is about whether people like me, people who live
here, who love this coast, will have access to the kind of long-term good
paying jobs that let us build a real life here. Offshore wind near Moabay
represents that opportunity. I'm asking you to take it seriously. Now beyond my
story, I want to highlight a few things from this statewide strategy that I think deserve your
attention. First, this plan was built the right way. It is the product of a two-year collaborative
process, more than 60 meetings and working groups made up of tribes, fishermen, and wind developers.
And all members expressed full or qualified support for every chapter. That kind of consensus
is rare and it matters. Second, Port San Luis is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. It's uniquely
positioned to serve as an operations and maintenance port for offshore wind, given its proximity to the
the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area.
The Harbor District already took a first step in 2023
by adopting Resolution 2313.
This commission can help us take the next one.
Third, this is about more than clean energy.
The Central Coast is going to lose fossil fuel jobs
and eventually the jobs of Diablo Canyon.
Offshore wind is the pathway to replace them,
not just with any jobs, but with great jobs
that create real economic resilience for our communities.
I urge you to adopt this strategy.
Thank you, Chair and Commissioners for your time
and for your leadership on this issue.
I'm proud to live in the Central Coast
and I trust this commission to make the decisions
that honor both its people and its future.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, June McIver, Steve Scheiblauer and then Molly Kroll.
June McIver.
Good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners.
My name is June McIver
and I'm a resident of San Luis Obispo.
I would like to express my support for approval
and adoption of the statewide strategy
for the coexistence of California fishing communities
offshore wind energy. This strategy was developed over many hours of intentional and thoughtful
dialogue among knowledgeable stakeholders acting in good faith and the spirit of cooperation.
Your smart and experienced staff have combed through the strategy and produced an excellent
report. Not only does the strategy provide guidance for the responsible development of
offshore wind energy in a way that is compatible with commercial and recreational fishing,
Development of renewable energy sources such as offshore wind energy and phasing out the burning
of fossil fuels in order to fight climate change are essential to the long-term viability of
commercial and recreational fishing. Continued warming and acidification of the ocean is the
biggest threat to the fishing industry and our marine ecosystem. Thank you for all you do to
protect our amazing coast and our future. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Steve Scheiblauer, Molly
Crowl and Jim Stewart, Steve Scheibler. Thank you Chair Harmon and Commissioners. My name is Steve
Scheibler. I represented a non-profit central fishing organization, the Alliance of Communities
for Sustainable Fisheries on the 7C Working Group. Alliance members are comprised of commercial
fishing association representatives from Pillar Point south to and including Santa Barbara. First,
I want to again thank Coastal staff for their two plus years of determined work and support of the
working group. To be clear, Alliance supports the outcomes of the strategy that you are today
considering. Did fishing interests get everything they feel they need from the strategy? No.
But they do feel that the power and weight of California's Coastal Act, which requires fishing
to be protected, is still the best bet they have to survive the enormous loss of fishing opportunity
coming from offshore wind development and coming from the cascade of effects on seafood production,
deckhands, processors, tourism, and more. Even if a certain fishery such as market
squid or lobster are not displaced by offshore wind, offshore wind's cascade
of effects can and will undermine key port infrastructure, creating survival issues for all.
Strategy that will require coastal staff to negotiate with offshore wind developers
fair compensation in the form of an industry resiliency fund
that will enable fishermen to keep fishing. California needs fishermen to keep fishing.
California wants fresh local seafood. Who wants a future where the only seafood available comes
from fish farms 7,000 miles away. I believe your coastal staff feels the weight of this responsibility
and have fisheries participants best interested heart. It is imperative that they have invited
fishing representatives to be consulted with the negotiators during this step-by-step process.
Thank you so much for hearing me. Thank you. Next, Molly Crowell,
Jim Stewart, and then Tom Kernhardt. Good morning Chair and members of the Commission. My name is
Molly Crowell, Senior Policy Director for American Clean Power California. We are a multi-tech clean
energy trade association working in California, and we represent offshore wind developers.
I'm speaking in strong support of the adoption of the statewide strategy, which represents a
significant milestone toward the development of responsible offshore wind. I'd like to thank the
Coastal Commission, staff, participating agencies, and all working group members for the thousands
of hours spent drafting and negotiating the strategies. This is a first of its kind effort
that California should be proud of. The result is a strategy document that provides guidance that
will support the comprehensive federal and state regulatory frameworks that will govern the permitting,
construction, and operation of offshore wind. Ultimately, the strategy will promote long-term
coexistence between fishing and offshore wind activities as California seeks to transition to
a carbon-free electric system in an effort to mitigate climate change. Adoption of the strategy
today will be a unique and meaningful achievement toward the successful offshore wind development
in California. Thank you. Thank you. I'll just note that we have about 10 more people that we're
able to find and then I'll list out names that we aren't able to find as well. We'll continue with
Jim Stewart, Tom Cunhart, Alan Allward. Jim Stewart, go ahead. Hi, I'm Dr. Jim Stewart, the co-chair of
the Sierra Club California Energy Climate Committee. I'm actually speaking for the 150,000 members of
Sierra Club in California. We're panicked about the impacts of climate change, the droughts, the
the fires, the melting snowpack, et cetera, et cetera.
And we know that offshore wind is crucial
to reduce California's addition to climate change
by earning fossil fuel.
We want to commend the commission staff
on their wonderful two years of hard work
to develop an excellent compromise
to ensure that offshore wind is developed in consultation
and ensures that all parties benefit from the project,
including the wind industry, the fishers,
the tribes, and the local communities.
Some in the audience may be hoping that clean energy
can be built somewhere else,
but we need to tell you that's not possible.
Everyone must share the responsibility of cleaning energy.
So on behalf of current and future generations
and the desperate need to reduce global warming,
we urge the commission to approve
this important step forward to install offshore wind
with a collaborative approach.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Tom Kunhardt, Alan Allward and Glenn Silaway.
Tom Kunhardt.
Hi, I'm Tom Kunhardt.
Good morning Chair and Commissioners.
I live in Oakland, California.
I'm also here to speak in support of item 8A.
I'm gonna take a bit of a broader approach.
As a young teenager, I remember in the Boston area
reading Life Magazine and National Geographic.
And like many people having a desire
to go West young man and go to California.
In 1977, I did just that.
I followed my forward thinking older sister
and I've been in California ever since.
raised two daughters here.
I'm lucky enough to have four grandkids here.
But if we start to develop offshore wind,
the effect of it, as many have pointed out,
is gonna help reduce the ocean acidification,
reduce the warming of the oceans,
which if we don't do that, the fisheries will die off.
And so that's the more urgent issue.
Plus the broader picture is,
it's gonna impact well beyond the California coastline
if we start to generate more renewable energy,
burn fewer fossil fuels,
and really support the long-term effort
that we're all trying to do and mitigate climate change
and mitigate the warming of our oceans
and the acidification.
So I'm not just here on behalf of my grandkids,
but grandkids and future generations
from many other people in other states
all around the world.
So thank you for your hard work these past two years.
It's really impressive.
Glad you included Fishers, the tribal communities
and everybody who are all stakeholders in this.
It's a very impressive effort on your part.
So I'm pleased to pass item 8A.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next, Alan Allward, Glen Silaway and Carol Swain.
Alan Allward.
Alan Allward, it seems you got moved back to attendee.
We're gonna move you back in as a panelist.
Alan, if you can accept being moved to panelists.
All right, while that's happening,
let's move on to Glenn Silaway.
Glenn Silaway, go ahead.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Glenn Silaway.
I'm a resident of Morrill Bay,
where we've experienced discussions
about the need and possibility of offshore wind
on the Central Coast for over 10 years now.
I support the staff recommendation and urge you
to vote yes on the motion in TH8A.
The working group's two year process complied
with the requirements at SB 286
and generates a forward looking template
to ensure that the concerns of the fishing communities
are considered into the future.
We now need the clean energy created
by offshore wind more than ever.
This motion and the collaborative approach
it embodies moves us forward.
Thank you for doing this and keep it up, thanks.
Thank you, Alan Allward, you've now been moved in
as a panelist, you should be able to unmute now and begin.
Alan Allward, there you go.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, yeah, my name's Alan Allward,
I was on the 7C working group
as the fisherman's representative.
I'm also co-chair of the Alliance of Communities
for Sustainable Fisheries and a longtime board of directors
of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen's Organization
and went through many years of negotiations
with the Castle Wind Energy Company
finally concluding in the successful agreement.
However, they did not get a lease.
So I came into this operation with some background.
When the Seven Sea Working Group began its process,
we, all of us fishermen who had been through this before
had the idea that this was not going to happen
in the amount of time allotted.
And certainly things got compressed at the end.
One of the things that happens
towards the end of the meeting
was there was a substantial change
in the fishermen's participation
in the actual negotiation process.
We were kind of shown to the door and said,
well, you can hear about it afterwards.
And we might come and ask you a few questions along the way.
But we were not in the room at the negotiating table
the way it finally came out.
And we had been expecting
to have an industry to industry agreement
which is, I think a lot of people were expecting that.
There were explanations for why that wasn't possible
but many of us were very disillusioned with that change.
And I had another thing that bothered me
which was the site survey.
We had a request for research
because the autonomous underwater vehicles
operated off the bottom.
present a entirely different exposure to sound
for the creatures that live on the bottom.
And I have talked to the fishermen
who observed that one particular prey species
that was common in the mouths of the fish
when he brought them up was no longer there
after the surveys were completed in that area.
I think there's room for investigation to be done.
I would like that to get a priority, thank you.
And also read the Bill Walters comments
and the Tom Hafer comments
for the Morrill Bay Commercial Fish Association.
Much of this stuff, much more clearly than I think.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next Carol Swain, Joshua Medrano and Melissa Arend.
Carol Swain.
Good morning Chair, commissioners and staff.
I am Carol Swain joining you from my home in Morrill Bay
here in support of item 8A.
My deep appreciation, first of all,
I wanna express for the comprehensive two year study
that you sponsored.
The study provides a reasoned roadmap for how offshore wind can coexist with our fisheries.
This issue is about clean energy, clean air, clean water, and clean beaches not ravaged
by a calamitous oil spill, such as each and every one of us has witnessed.
Last but not least, the current conditions in world affairs has clearly shown that wind
energy is a means to strengthen national security. Nobody ever started a war over wind.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Next, Joshua Madrano, Melissa Arendt, and Dr. David Merritt. Joshua Madrano.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honorable commissioners. My name is Joshua Madrano.
I am the Executive Secretary, Treasurer, Principal Officer of the Tri-Counties Building and Construction
Trades Council of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties, and also a resident
of the beach community of Ventura.
I come to you today because you have a unique opportunity to be a part of history for the
betterment of our energy resources here in California.
Now, we all know that there is the term coined of just transition, but unfortunately that
is not an accurate statement. An accurate statement would be just unemployed. The reason
I bring that up is because often here in California we put the cart before the horse. As we did
to move towards electrification, started closing down refineries and oil facilities, we are
now pinched for the energy that our community deserves. Now, you have an opportunity to
To make progress, and while making progress, to be able to afford head of household careers
for future generations to come.
We urge you to follow the staff's recommendation to move forward with offshore wind here off
of the Central Coast, where we, the people who not only live here but raise our families,
back to the community and participate, where we can all thrive together. Appreciate your
time and look forward to your decision of moving forward with these projects. Thank
you for your time.
Thank you. Next, Melissa Arendt, Dr. David Merritt, Nancy Kirschner-Rodriguez. Melissa
Arendt.
Thank you very much. My name is Melissa Arendt. I'm from Northern Economics Inc. and we were
fortunate to be able to collaborate with the Commission and the Working Group on development
the socioeconomic impact methodologies for commercial recreational and tribal fisheries.
And today I just wanted to acknowledge that we are here in case there are any questions related
to that methodology either one for tribal or commercial recreational fisheries. So thank you
very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. David Merritt, Nancy Kirshner-Rodriguez,
and then Daniel Chandler. David Merritt. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Yeah, thank you. I'm a PhD environmental scientist living in the Riverside area.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak up in favor of clean affordable energy. In other words,
yes, on 8A. Thank you commissioners and staff for your exemplary service. California badly needs new
large sources of clean affordable energy. Offshore wind is absolutely essential.
There are numbers of cold benefits to clean energy, but in California, I think cleaner air
and improved public health are very prominent. Every time a clean energy project is delayed
or canceled, it is a vote for something else. It is a vote for the status quo of dirty energy.
It is a vote for air pollution. It is a vote for public health. The inland empire where I live
and the San Joaquin Valley have by far the worst air quality in the US.
Public health costs are measured in the billions of dollars and tens and thousands of lives
in excess mortality and morbidity. Please vote yes for clean energy. Thank you.
Thank you. Nancy Kirshner Rodriguez, Daniel Chandler, and then I'll list names that we
aren't able to find in our attendees list. Nancy Kirshner Rodriguez.
Thank you very much. My name is Nancy Kirshner Rodriguez. I am the Senior Director and
West Coast Lead for the Oceanic Network, a national nonprofit organization. We are dedicated
to advancing the offshore renewable energy market and building a strong locally driven supply chain.
I come today to say that your California leadership matters more today than ever and
I urge you to support number 8A. We have since 2013 been focused on connecting businesses,
governments, the workforce leaders to support policies that create workforce opportunities
and industry growth while also educating and equipping local communities to see responsible
offshore wind emerge.
We have over 400 supply chain members, including shipyards, vessel owner, operators, naval
architects, component manufacturers, maritime colleagues, including fishing and maritime
surveying.
We really urge you to support this, because offshore wind energy is already becoming one
of the foundational energy sources that coastal states on the East Coast are depending on.
And there's no question with the type of work together, we can maximize economic benefits
for all.
We are on a long and important journey together.
I remember hearing Kate Hucklebridge testify before a special meeting of the Joint Fisheries
Committee in 2019. And her commitment then to the coast and the ocean has brought us here today.
I thank the Coastal Commission staff and commissioners as well as the dedicated members
of the task force for developing this comprehensive document and I urge your support.
Thank you. Daniel Chandler. This is Daniel Chandler. I am representing 350 Humboldt.
This week we heard about new scientific evidence that the amok, the global current that brings
warm waters from the south to the north, is slowing down. This raises the real possibility
it will stop in this century with disastrous consequences for large regions of the world.
Physics, chemistry, and biology are ignoring our so-called inadequate efforts to address climate change.
So it is extremely important that we have agencies like the Coastal Commission.
We ask the Commission to approve the coexistence strategy and further urge that the same process be used in developing community benefits.
California and the world need floating offshore wind, but local communities need to benefit as well.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Now I'm going to list off names that we weren't
able to find in our attendees list.
We do have some people that are logged on with generic names.
If you hear your name, please raise your hand.
Rick Ummhoff, Mo McEwen, Jerry Bernhout, Rachel Mahler, Julia
Dowell.
Again, that's Rick Ummhoff, Mo McEwen, Jerry Bernhout,
Rachel Mahler, Julia Dowell.
If you've heard your name, please raise your hand.
All right, I'm seeing no hands raised, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much.
Okay, with that, I will close public comment
and return to our staff.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
I'd like to first speak to some of the comments
about site surveys.
The site surveys in federal waters
for offshore wind projects were evaluated
in the consistency determinations
for leasing and site assessment in 2022.
And in addition, this issue of site surveys
come up repeatedly so we have responses to those comments both in the staff report and
in the addendum.
We review the best available science each time surveys come before the commission for
consideration.
Taking a broader look, the pathway to getting to a statewide strategy that had qualified
support from everyone in the working group was very narrow.
Not everyone in the working group got everything they wanted in the strategy.
A letter from the facilitators in exhibit two to the staff report describes the issues
that led different members of the working group to provide qualified support for the
strategy.
And qualified support means that they have some remaining concerns like you've heard
today, but they can live with the approach that we've laid out.
Thank you.
Awesome.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
With that, I'll return to the Commission for comments.
Commissioner Wilson?
Sure.
Anyone else ready?
Sure.
I'll start.
I'll start.
Sure, I'll start. I'll start. I think that this process was exemplary. And I'm incredibly
grateful for the real careful focus on trying to find a balanced outcome. And I think, Ms.
Weier, what you just said, qualified support, no one got 100% of what they want. To me,
I see this all the time in local government
is representative of the right outcome
if no one is 100% happy.
But what I am hearing is pretty close to 100% happiness
with the process and with the opportunity to be heard
and to have the concerns fully aired
in a way that felt fair and meaningful and real.
And so that to me is so important.
and I've said this a few times now,
feels to me like a model for a lot of the big decisions
that we will be facing as a state in the years to come.
And so I'm really proud to be a part of the commission
at this time when our staff did such amazing work on this
and grateful for the participants as well
for engaging in good faith.
This is a really complicated to say the very least matter
and one that implicates a lot of very personal things.
And so I really appreciate the willingness
to come to the table and to be honest
and direct and collaborative.
And I think what we have before us is the right outcome.
So I for one will be supporting it with much gratitude
and look forward to the comments of my colleagues.
Commissioner Wilson.
Thanks.
I just had to get my notes together.
I didn't want too much of a stream of consciousness,
as I usually do here.
So I just want to be clear.
The approval of this strategy is not
the end of the conversation.
And so as in Humboldt County, we've been deep, deep in this.
Humboldt Bay is one of the many communities
up and down the coast already in the middle of these processes.
And I want the people I represent to remain at the table
and not just at the regulatory moments,
but through the whole arc of this process.
I want to flag something I believe
we must hold ourselves accountable to,
and that's the existing condition bias.
We evaluate impacts.
We tend to measure proposed changes
against today's conditions,
but that's really half the picture,
and some people spoke to that.
We are already seeing effects of climate change
on the North Coast.
like seeing shifting temperature changes in the ocean,
just changing ocean conditions in general,
including sea level rise.
And those impacts are transforming our coastlines
and fisheries now.
And this is before a turbine ever gets built.
And so we talk about a just transition,
but that concept really has real moral weight.
It recognizes that communities who have been left behind
and in our obligation to say, you know, not this time.
And I respect that, but we have to be honest,
we are still working out what that means in practice.
A transition is not a destination, it is a direction.
And the conditions we are transitioning through
themselves are changing.
What we owe our communities is not a perfect framework,
it's an ongoing presence and our willingness to listen,
adapt and keep reducing harm as we learn more.
that this means ensuring that people have access to good information and practical solutions
and that they can participate meaningfully. And I think this strategy really gets there.
And I think this effort is really good. And so we don't owe, or we're trying to get to,
but we will not get to, is a perfect framework. It's our ongoing presence and willingness
that's really going to be what we're trying to get there. So in Humboldt County with the
assistance of core hub and others which we mentioned today we've been talking
you know federal state tribal local governments nonprofits everybody has
been in this process and and and we've been facilitating engagement on this for
some years now and we're not alone we communicate and share with communities
all along the coast to build similar capacity and I'm grateful for that
effort and so I support the strategy and I'll be watching closely and and you
And we all have to ensure not just the commission, but the state and the feds honor our commitments
as we move forward.
But again, it's not just commitments to the communities that we represent, but it's the
commitment to really having an impact in pushing back against and responding to climate change
in general.
So we have to be really cognizant of that.
And so with that, I support this motion.
Thank you, Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, I just want to share a couple thoughts.
We're sitting here today in the shadow
of two huge wind turbines, right?
We're inland.
Those process one of the largest solid processing facilities
in the world.
And that was done over a five-year debate about whether
or not the condor, which is endangered, would be impacted.
Does it flow from the Pinnacles to the Big Sur coast?
very difficult conversation for this community. At the end of the day we did the studies and
discovered it could be done and so not just the two were in the shadow of today but four more near
the community just eight miles south of us in Solidad were built. The solutions were debated,
they were emotional and at the end of the day a lot of folks just didn't like the aesthetics and
There's different reasons that drive our passions.
And I get where we're looking at this item
through a lens of wanting to be perfect.
And we're not gonna get there,
as I shared earlier about the water conversation.
It's really about compromise.
And I forget the term you use,
qualitative, qualified agreement or something, right?
To me that's compromise.
And that's why government is here.
That's why there's not one person appointed
to make this decision.
and you have a body of 12, to give our perspectives
and opinions.
I'll share that we're carrying our weight
here in inland Monterey County when Apple went 100% green.
We did that at the south end of my district
with one of the largest solar fields in the country.
We're proud to be home to that facility.
This is gonna be hard.
There's gonna be hard continued conversations
that have to happen because when I look at visiting
with my fishermen in Monterey, they also share,
they dream of restoring that fishery, seeing it come back.
And when they look at something new,
being inserted potentially into that landscape,
even though we have the sanctuary and everything else,
there's questions about impacts.
The impacts are already real,
given the realities of the shifting environment
that we're seeing based on the decisions of this country
for the last hundred years in the rest of the world.
And so for those reasons,
the fact that this is a compromise,
the fact that we're not looking for perfection today,
but for a framework that will also give those investors willing to take on this major challenge
a framework to make key decisions around.
They need to understand what they're entering into in terms of an agreement on potentially
taking one of these routes.
Some may still look at this and say it's not worth going through those hoops, we're out.
Some may decide to go down that path and there still will be more hoops to jump through.
But I think this is a fair set of ground rules for people to play around and for that reason
And I'll be supporting this today and look forward to seeing this move forward.
Thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
Thank you.
I recall that when Senator McGuire talked to us about this bill a couple of years ago,
he just, you know, set a very ambitious timeline.
And at the time I remember that we had one staffer doing it and I scratched my head and
how are we going to get this done. But it's really quite remarkable that you've come this far.
You know, I very much value the partnership of commercial fishermen who have worked for decades
to protect California's coast from offshore oil and gas drilling that have the impacts that
people would be are concerned would negatively impact the fishing industry. And they've been
such great partners in getting at us to this point where we have really commercially viable
proposals for non-fossil fuel development.
So I hope that folks will continue to be at the table and work together, and that we will
get to a point where we see real alternatives to the fossil fuels energy that is causing
so much trouble around the globe and especially here at home.
So I want to congratulate staff, I marvel at your patience and persistence and the concept
of qualified support is one that I wish we would see more of across our government agencies.
So I will be supporting this and thanks for your good work.
to everyone who's been at the table.
I'll entertain a motion if anyone's ready to make it.
I move that the Commission approve and adopt the statewide strategy for the coexistence
of California fishing communities and offshore wind on the grounds that it meets the requirements
of condition 7C of the Commission's conditional concurrences with consistency determinations
CD-0001-22 and CD-0004-22 and is consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
Second.
And we request a yes vote.
It's a motion by Commissioner Nodoff, a second by Commissioner Wilson.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Congratulations, and thank you.
Okay, let me just do a quick housekeeping check.
Chris, our lunch is not here yet, I assume.
I'm not quite ready yet.
Okay, then if it's okay with everyone, let's keep going.
Thank you, Chair.
That brings us to item 8B,
and I'd like to invite our staff environmental scientist,
Annie Rosen, to provide the staff presentation
for this item, once she's able to get her seat.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
This item is a court ordered remanded hearing
on a limited issue that arises
out of the commission's 2019 conditional concurrence
for a consistency determination
from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or BIA.
Sorry, I thought I heard it ringing.
Is this better?
Yeah.
Okay.
Got it.
Okay, my apologies.
Let me know if, give me a signal, if I need to get closer.
That 2019 consistency determination
was for a lease of federal trust land and loan guarantee
to be issued to the Trinidad Rancheria,
allowing them to build and operate
a proposed 100-room five-story hotel
adjacent to an existing casino within their Rancheria land.
Next slide, please.
The consistency determination related to the proposed hotel
was reviewed by the Commission twice before.
In June 2019, the Commission objected
to an earlier iteration of the project,
but after revisions, the BIA submitted
a new consistency determination and in August 2019,
the commission conditionally concurred.
The one condition added required evidence
of an adequate water supply for the hotel
prior to construction.
This condition has yet to be fulfilled and remains pending.
Next slide please.
After the commission's conditional concurrence action,
a community group called the Humboldt Alliance
for Responsible Planning, or HARP,
filed a lawsuit against the commission
to challenge the decision
and raise several arguments in that case.
The trial court ruled in favor of the commission.
Harp then appealed.
The appellate court ruled in favor of the commission
on all grounds except for one,
finding that there was insufficient evidence to conclude
that there would be adequate fire protection services
available for the proposed hotel.
The court thus issued an order directing the commission
to hold a new hearing limited to the sole issue
of the adequacy of fire protection services
under Coastal Act Section 30250.
In its order, the court also provided
that the commission may consider new evidence relating
to fire protection services.
Next slide, please.
Today, the commission is therefore being asked
to evaluate only whether the project
would have adequate fire protection services
as required by Coastal Act Section 30250.
The commission's findings for its 2019 conditional concurrence
on all other issues, such as water adequacy
and visual resources, are not affected
by the court's ruling and remain in effect.
Therefore, no other issues beyond the adequacy
of fire protection services are at issue
for this hearing today.
Please note though, that a commission objection today
would effectively object to the consistency
determination as a whole.
This is because the commission cannot issue
a partial objection as its decision.
As I will now discuss, staff is recommending
the commission conditionally concur
with the BIA's consistency determination.
Next slide please.
The region surrounding Trinidad-Rancheria
currently relies on a mix of career
and volunteer fire departments with varying levels
of staffing, training, and experience.
Mutual aid agreements among local fire agencies
help ensure enough equipment and firefighters
respond to fire events.
Typically, the jurisdictional agency responds first,
with additional local agencies automatically joining
and more distant agencies responding as needed
for larger fires.
For example, a fire on January 2nd in downtown Arcata,
within the jurisdiction of the Arcata Fire District,
drew responses from more than a dozen other agencies.
Humboldt County also has what is referred to
as an Amador Agreement with CAL FIRE
to provide fire protection services in the county
outside of the peak fire season,
typically from mid-December to mid-March.
CAL FIRE uses Amador Agreements
with various government entities throughout the state
to provide enhanced fire protection.
In addition, during the peak fire season,
CAL FIRE provides fire protection services
in the county separate from the Amador Agreement.
Thus, in one form or another,
CAL FIRE provides mutual aid support throughout the year
in the project area.
However, as a state agency, its staff and equipment
can be deployed elsewhere in California,
so these CAL FIRE services are not currently guaranteed.
Next slide please.
The height of the proposed hotel poses
fire response challenges beyond what is typical
of structures in the Trinidad area.
For buildings above three stories,
specialized equipment and training are needed
for effective firefighting and for firefighter safety.
Hook and ladder fire trucks are often used
to respond to fires in tall buildings,
enabling firefighters to rescue people from upper floors,
to access the roof, and to suppress fire
in the upper portions of the building
without entering the structure.
Currently, the nearest fire agency
with a hook and ladder truck is Humboldt Bay Fire in Eureka,
approximately 25 miles south of the project.
To add fire protection capability,
the Trinidad Rancheria recently purchased
a hook and ladder truck.
This would allow Cal Fire
or another dedicated fire protection service provider
to use the truck in case of a fire.
Trinidad Rancheria is also pursuing
establishing its own volunteer fire department.
As I will discuss later,
commissioned staff are recommending condition terms
that would require a demonstration of training
and capability for a fire protection service provider
to use the truck along with other protocols.
I would also note that Humboldt County
is currently undertaking a coastal fire planning study
to evaluate and make recommendations
to improve fire services in the area of the proposed project.
This study is expected to be completed in July of this year.
Next slide, please.
Trinidad Rancheria has put forward several proposals
to ensure adequate fire protection services
would be available to the proposed hotel
during construction and operations.
To ensure ongoing Cal Fire service
during the off-peak season, Trinidad Rancheria
is working with the county to finalize
a cost-sharing memorandum of understanding, or MOU,
for Cal Fire Amador services.
Under the proposed MOU, Trinidad Rancheria
be formally designated as receiving Cal Fire Services and the Trinidad Rancheria would
pay 20% of the county's costs for the Amador Agreement. The MOU is scheduled for consideration
by the County Board of Supervisors next month. To ensure comprehensive fire protection services
for an operational hotel, Trinidad Rancheria has additionally proposed to pursue a dedicated
fire service agreement or what is often referred to as a Schedule A agreement directly with
Cal Fire. In contrast to the current Amador Agreement, a Schedule A agreement could be
be structured to provide a sufficient force of full-time firefighters, training to operate
the hook and ladder truck, and any other applicable training needed to serve the proposed hotel.
These dedicated personnel could not be called away by the state and would be available year
round.
The Trinidad Rancheria would reimburse CAL FIRE for its services as part of the Schedule
A agreement.
CAL FIRE uses these Schedule A agreements and a number of other jurisdictions throughout
the state.
Next slide, please.
To memorialize these commitments made by the Trinidad Rancheria, and to ensure adequate
fire protection services would be available to the hotel during construction and operations,
staff are recommending two new conditions, in addition to the existing 2019 condition.
Condition two would require the BIA or Trinidad Rancheria to submit evidence of the finalized
cost sharing MOU for Cal Fire Amador services, or equivalent evidence of continuing Cal Fire
service to the Trinidad Rancheria prior to hotel construction.
In addition to the Amador Agreement with CAL FIRE, Commissioned staff is recommending additional
measures for fire protection services.
Condition 3 would require the BIA or Trinidad-Rancheria to submit a two-phase fire protection plan
for the proposed hotel for Executive Director Review and Concurrence.
Next slide, please.
The first phase of the fire protection plan would be provided prior to hotel construction
and would include a description of the available fire protection services, including fire agencies,
staffing, training, equipment, and response capabilities,
maps of fire truck access routes
and all available water access points for fire suppression,
security measures to minimize the risk
of accidental fires or arson,
a schedule for the installation and activation
of all interior fire suppression systems,
including sandpipes and fire sprinklers,
and a summary analysis of the adequacy
of the combined fire protection services
available to address a fire
during the hotel construction phase
and to prevent its spread to adjacent areas.
The second phase of the fire protection plan
would be provided prior to hotel operations
and would be more comprehensive
because of the occupancy of the hotel.
This plan would include a description
of the fire protection services
that would be provided to the hotel
by CAL FIRE, mutual aid fire agencies,
and any other responders,
including their access to and capability to use
the firefighting apparatus needed
to adequately serve the hotel,
such as the hook and ladder truck.
As an example, this requirement could be met
if Cal Fire and Trinidad Rancheria
signed a Schedule A agreement covering those elements.
It would also include updated maps
of all water access points and fire truck access routes.
Evidence that all interior fire suppression systems,
such as standpipes and sprinklers,
meet relevant fire protection standards
and that an inspection and maintenance regime
is in place for critical fire protection systems
and equipment.
A description of the planned Trinidad Rancheria
volunteer fire department and its capabilities,
and a summary analysis of the adequacy
of the combined fire protection services available
to address a fire during hotel operations
and to prevent its spread to adjacent areas.
Each phase of the fire protection plan
would be reviewed for adequacy
by an independent expert third party reviewer
to evaluate whether additional measures
should be incorporated into the plan
based on applicable codes and standards
for fire protection services.
Trinidad Rancheria would provide the reviewer comments
to the executive director, along with a discussion
of how it has modified the plan in light of those comments.
The fire protection plan would also include a description
of how the county's coastal fire planning
study recommendations were incorporated.
Next slide, please.
Pursuant to the court's order, commission staff
has evaluated whether the proposed hotel
would have adequate fire protection services
as required by Coastal Act Section 30250.
Commission staff received letters in opposition
to staff's recommendation from HARP,
as well as four individual commenters.
Staff additionally received a comment letter
from County Supervisor Steve Madrone,
expressing concerns about the adequacy
of fire protection services available
to the Trinidad Rancheria.
Staff also received a comment from an individual
suggesting additional requirements be applied
to the project.
These written comments are posted
in the correspondence packet.
In its addendum posted on April 14th,
the Commission responded to those comments
and included modifications to the recommended condition three.
The addendum also includes a summary of a recent discussion
that commissioned staff had with another of the area's
tribal groups at the request of the Churai Ancestral Society.
During this discussion, representatives
of the Churai Ancestral Society raised concerns
about potential impacts to cultural and coastal resources
associated with stormwater runoff
from firefighting activities.
Commissioned staff acknowledged these concerns,
but note that they are outside the limited scope
of this court-ordered hearing.
Finally, the BIA and Trinidad Rancheria submitted
letters in response to HAARP's comment letter which are included with the addendum. These
letters provide rebuttals to several of the legal points raised by HAARP in its comment
letter and do not object to the staff recommendation or the recommended conditions. With the incorporation
of conditions two and three, staff recommend the Commission find the subject consistency
determination consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies
of the California Coastal Management Plan. The corrected motion and resolution can be
be found on page eight of the addendum.
Next slide please.
This concludes my remarks.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you commissioners.
Great.
Thank you so much.
Okay, with that, I will turn to Chris
and we'll begin the public hearing.
All right, we did have Robert Hempstead signed up
the Trinidad Ranch for your vice chair.
We aren't seeing them on Zoom.
Robert Hempstead, if you're on Zoom, please raise your hand.
I see a person under the name Karen felt raising their hand.
You should be able to unmute now.
Good afternoon, Robert, I'm so glad that you're here.
I appreciate today.
Mr. Hen said we're having a little bit of trouble
understanding you, so if you could try to get close
to your mic and may I also ask before you begin
how much time you'd like, sir?
Well, I guess a couple of minutes should suffice,
but if you want to allow a little lecture.
Thank you.
Sure, I appreciate it.
I'm not quite a professional speaker,
but I will try with this.
It's pretty hard to hear.
We are still having trouble hearing you.
It sounds like you're a whole room away.
If there's anything you can do to improve your sound quality,
It still seems very distant.
It's still the same.
Is there a number I can call into?
That's a little better from where you just said that.
Did it move?
OK.
OK.
Go ahead.
Through your time, commission, and staff,
and thanks for staff working with us to put this together.
This is difficult for me, I guess,
because I'm trying to understand the concerns here.
I looked at it as the sum of,
while I want to work with the commission and work with the community to move forward.
We are a sovereign nation.
We work hand-in-hand partnerships with entities and local agencies, municipalities.
Essentially some of the requirements kind of are interesting to me because the
initial plans dating back prior to 2018 before the salt adapters apart
would have had sprinklers and fire suppression in there and we initiated
instead that we would build to those standard codes and everything else
right so they've been in commercial buildings since prior to 2011 in
California. So it's it kind of undermines the tribe's
sovereignty and right to state that you know we're not trusted to build to the
state standard when we've always stated that that is the standard we're
building to right back in 2018 when we started this whole process used in the
engineering and design of the said building. The schedule A would benefit
everybody and we are going above and beyond what any other municipality or
agency is required to do, right. So just to the south of us in Arcata where I
operate my whole small business and live, you know there was a massive fire that
was discussed, right? Some of that fire was in a two-story building. Ladder trucks required for
three it's saying. Okay, well numerous ladder trucks that showed up to that scene and was necessary.
We are going to provide a ladder truck for the north end of Humboldt County here
that is not here. That is a huge benefit to the entire community. And then to say that,
well hey we need to have, we need to know your people are fairly trained on it.
Well, we're going through those steps. Just like everybody else who gets on a ladder truck
has to be certified. That's the same training we're looking at, right? So we have that stopping
right to stand up our fire department, have our volunteer fire department, and go ahead and move
forward with that and have proper training. We constantly have been looking to resolve these
issues. It has been hung up in court and it's in doing so it's kind of driving
right. So the reality of building this hotel has increased by 60% in cost since
2018-2019 when all of this began. So the feasibility of it. So we're a small
tribe. We're not a rich tribe. We're in an economically depressed area. We are
trying to make it sustainable for our community, my enrolled members, my elders
that looked to me, that voted me in, and trust me to allow these guidance and to
learn from them to lead the tribe in the future. We're doing it in a sustainable
way. I'm doing it in a correct way. I'm looking at how I steward the land and
listening to my elders and we're constantly looking out for the
environment, whether it's in the MPAs down on our harbor and looking at the
environmental violations and fines that we've done all the cleanups down there
over the last 20 years. We're good stewards of the land. We build things
correctly and we're a sovereign nation and we recognize that we have to work
with, you know, cooperative entities and we look at those partnerships and see
how we can better those. But the, I think it was brought up prior. It's, you know, sometimes
Commissioner stated something about people don't like the aesthetics.
That's the reality. That's why we're here. The neighbors to the south that purchased some homes
after we've been here, this time of memorial, after we had our economic driver say of our small
casino that doesn't really make anything they didn't like it so that's the aesthetics that
they're arguing against but we're on trust land where sovereign nation have the right to build
that i have the right to try to make it financially sustainable and have a support for my members
services to help drive our education funds right that's what we're doing here we're not looking to
to get rich. We're trying to make it work. I can better my community. And I want to have
the support for the fire truck, the ladder truck. I want to build those mutual aid agreements
and look forward to that. And I do appreciate not working with the concerns in there, but
Just told that hey, thank you, sir, please finish your thought
I'm just looking at the
The support for the staff recommendations and to move forward is really what we're asking for
That's what we're really welcome to see and I hope the commission sees that today and we can move this along
Thank you so much. I appreciate it Chris. Thank you
We have three other speakers signed up one in person two on zoom
We'll start with Kuevila in the room and then we'll go on to Jay Bryce Kenny and Katrin Holman
Kuevila
Could you turn on the mic ma'am?
Please turn on the mic. Just press the button button. Oh, okay. I I grew up
not too far from Pacific Palisades and
Most of the town was burned down
And I heard, or read, that there wasn't enough water in the water hydrants.
And that definitely, if that was the case, that would definitely be a major cause of
that terrible tragedy.
And to this day, many people have not been able to rebuild their homes.
So obviously that's a great tragedy and then loss of life is obviously something that,
you know, leaders should be taking into consideration.
I don't know if this is correct, but I'm not sure if there's enough local water pressure
in that area in Trinidad, that project.
And I would say that that should be looked at.
And also one way to maybe help mitigate is to make sure that, like, plants are cleared,
well, you know, in a wide enough area so that the fire won't spread because of that.
But I would say that if the courts approve it, then there's really not much that opponents
can argue about against, I mean like oppose, it would be approved by the court if it went
to litigation but I definitely would say that water sprinklers and other issues, I mean
factors like that could help but I would say it would be helpful to look into the source,
source if they will have enough water to prevent major disasters like Pacific
pellemids. Thank you. Next speaker Bryce Kenny. Good afternoon. I'm here on behalf
of the heart organization and Madam Chair if I may have four minutes I might
need that much time. Yes, go ahead please. Thank you. The proceedings here today are known as
quasi-judicial and the American judicial system is symbolized by someone sometimes called Lady
Justice. In her left hand are a set of scales that symbolize the weighing of the evidence that
comes before her, and her right hand is a sword which symbolizes the awesome power of the law,
and she is blindfolded to symbolize that she cares not who comes before her, but only
the merits of their case. If you read the early documents about the formation of the
Coastal Commission, you see that the intent was to protect, in many cases, highly scenic
coastal areas like Trinidad. You might ask, protect them from what? Protect them from
over-development, from five-story hotels plunked down in the middle of one- and two-story structures.
In all the hundreds of words written in rebuttal to the comments received in this matter,
no one has explained how you can concur with an opinion that does not exist and has never existed.
The BIA knows how to amend a written consistency determination when it wants to, as it did in 2019.
but in 2019 neither version in the record even mentioned fire protection. So how can you be
concurring with their position on that issue? Now in response to the comments that have
been submitted we have an unsigned letter that purports to be from the BIA and it seems to be
concurring with your position, a post hoc rationalization, the machinery is running
backwards. All parties agree that the hotel is proposed for an already developed area,
but section 3250 of the Coastal Act says existing developed areas able to accommodate it.
and of course we're talking about the issue of fire protection services. The word existing
modifies able to accommodate it to make it read where the public services are presently adequate
and the and the balance of the text explains it and if they are not presently adequate
then the hotel must be sighted in another area where fire protection is adequate.
Conditions are properly used to address the physical appearance of a proposed building, not the Public Services that are addressed in Section 3250.
That is why your former Executive Director John Ainsworth originally said that conditional concurrence was improper for the water availability issues.
Sometimes the old way of doing things is the best way.
Your federal consistency in a nutshell paper still on your website says conditional concurrence should be used very sparingly.
And until about seven years ago, that was how it was used.
This case seemed to mark a retreat from that position.
Notably, CAL FIRE has not weighed in publicly to confirm that it will enter into a Schedule
A agreement with the Rancheria.
I see my time is up and I thank you.
Thank you.
We just had one other speaker, Katrin Homan.
We do see one person under the name Kat, but we do have a number of sign-ups for other
items with the names that start with Kat.
We haven't been able to move them over.
Katrin Homan, if that's you, please raise your hand.
All right, we're not seeing hand raise and we couldn't move them in earlier to we have no other speakers
Great. Thank you very much. Okay with that. I'll return to our staff. They have any closing comments mr. Street
Yeah, just a few comments
We appreciate the discussion and cooperation we've had with Trinidad Rancheria over the last several months
And we absolutely respect their tribal sovereignty nor condition was intended to simply memorialize
many of the commitments and plans that they have already put in place, but also to provide
the necessary assurance that adequate fire protection services would be provided consistent
with Coastal Act Section 30250.
With regard to water supply, I would just reiterate that Condition 1 of the Commission's
2019 concurrence requires evidence of an adequate water supply prior to construction of the
hotel, and this includes water that would be needed for fire response.
As we've mentioned several times, our review adhered closely to the appellate court remand,
which directs the Commission to evaluate the adequacy of fire protection services pursuant
to Section 30250.
The court did not overturn the Commission's 2019 concurrence, nor did it require the BIA
to prepare a new or supplemental consistency determination, and the 2019 consistency determination
still stands except for that sole issue of Fire Protection Services.
And I'll let Sarah S. Miley respond to some of the other comments.
Yes, with respect to the comments that Mr. Kenny presented on behalf of HARP, we address
those comments in the addendum, but I'll just quickly highlight those responses.
His reading of Section 30250 seems to suggest that the Commission could never condition
a project to make it consistent with the CCMP, and that's just not how we interpret it.
We condition projects all the time to bring them into consistency.
we just be left objecting or and that's that's really not accurate so we do
think that we have the ability to condition this project and I would also
note that in the underlying litigation the issue of whether the commission had
the ability the legal ability to do a conditional concurrence was litigated
and the court determined that the commission did in fact have that legal
authority and had the discretion to conditionally concur instead of object
project. So that's been established already. And I think with respect to his earlier comments
about highly scenic coastal areas and over development, that's not an issue today for
this hearing. The question of scenic visual resources or scenic coastal area development
is not part of this hearing. That was already discussed in the prior consistency determination
review in 2019. Thank you. Great, thank you all so much. Okay, with that, I will
return to the Commission, see who would like to start us off. Commissioner
Wilson. I want some context here a little bit because I think there are
many people who imagine that we have some sort of permit authority here and
this is not a permit authority and ordinarily we wouldn't even be asked to
Comment on this at all except that it was this 2018 or 19 that we
19 so it was my first meeting the Commission
Traumatizing
Not just for this but other things there's there's there was
You have to go back and watch it. Anyways
Which I'd never do I want to just
So one might ask like why are we even doing this and as far as I understood from that
Meeting was that basically
The tribe is asking for a federal loan guarantee on the on the
construction and that the BIA made a requirement that it needed to conform to all these federal laws including
czma
Right and that required us to do this assessment
And if there was no federal loan guarantee as part of that project, we wouldn't be talking
about this at all.
So I think, as far as I understand, so I just want to be really clear, we're not permitting
this project.
We don't have that control over this situation.
We're just talking about whether there's consistency and it's up to another agency to determine
whether they want to use that or not use that.
really not up to us. So I just want to be really clear about that. And with that
though I do have a question in the phasing element of the of the conditions
which is that phase two would happen after the loan guarantee would be
approved. And so I'm just kind of wondering like then what would be the
obligation to to actually do phase two if the loan guarantee has already been
approved and and moved forward like what is there how would we even how would
there even be a retroactive sort of what would that situation be will look like
thanks Commissioner Wilson I can take a shot at that I would say oftentimes with
these types of federal consistency reviews when when the Commission
contemplates or includes a condition like this it goes to the federal agency
and then they determine how best to integrate that into their decision-making process.
And so for example they could include with their loan guarantee some mechanism of ensuring that
that condition is is complied with or enforced. We would also as a commission have the opportunity
and ability to follow and track the project to ensure that that phase two is being implemented
and if it's not, we'd have re-opener provisions.
We have mediation abilities to look back at this
and determine if the condition is being complied with
and the commission's expectations are being met.
I mean, I really hope we would not be in that position.
That does not sound like a comfortable
or efficient way to,
it just is not a place we wanna be.
So that does, I mean, I'm just saying that does concern,
concern me from our position in this.
So those are my questions.
And then let other commissioners ask or talk
about what they want to.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
And I just really appreciated your comments, Commissioner
Wilson, to clarify the position of the commission
in this particular action.
So at this time, I'm prepared to make the motion.
I move that the commission conditionally concur
with consistency, determination, CD004-19 on the grounds
that if modified with the conditions recommended by staff,
the project described therein be fully consistent
and thus consistent and maximum instant,
practical with the enforceable policies
of the California Coastal Management Program, CCMP,
and asking for a yes vote.
That's a motion by Vice Chair Hart,
a second by Commissioner Lowenberg.
All in favor, any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Thank you very much.
Okay, Chris, I suggest now lunch break.
Yes, lunch is ready.
I do encourage everyone here to support the people
that have been catering outside.
We have a food truck, Pacheco Picasso,
and the pizza wood oven from Luigi's
out in the back of the parking lot.
Thank you very much.
if everyone could be back at 1 20 please. 1 20. Okay. Hope everyone had a good lunch.
We're going to fix the thermostat over here and get back into it. So I will turn to Miss
Hagee. Thank you chair. My script says good morning chair but it's afternoon I believe.
And members of the commission, today we're going to give you an update on implementation
of a consent cease and desist order that you issued last year.
As you'll soon see, this order provides a panoply of public access and associated amenities
to the spectacular Big Sur coast.
Some of the amenities are in place already today and others are going to be put in place
soon.
But we wanted to give you and the public this update today since this hearing is the closest
location we will be this year to the site.
We hope that some of you may be able to swing by and enjoy this lovely spot on your way
home.
And this report also flags its availability to the general public today as well.
You heard yesterday about some of our access cases and some creative resolutions as part
of our celebration of the 50 years of the Coastal Act.
This case we're going to talk about today is yet another example of what we can do,
especially when we have a cooperative party to work with.
It's also generally an example of the importance of the Coastal Act and its enforcement tools
in protecting the precious coast, and moreover, taking the bad news of violations and turning
them into the good news, in providing access for all of the public to its amazing grandeur
of the California coast.
So with that, I'm going to bring in Rob Montelmog, the council who is our lead negotiator on
this matter, and he'll take it from here.
Rob?
He has a PowerPoint also, you can put that up.
Thanks, Lisa.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and members of the commission.
On this slide, you can see one of the many incredible views that are available on the
public trails on oceanfront bluffs that are owned by the County of Monterey.
Just a few years ago, however, it was difficult to reach this public property.
A prior owner had installed private gates and threatening signs on a public road and
locked the unpermitted gates for most of the week without any CDP.
The prior owner also hired a guard that harassed people who tried to enjoy the public property
without eating at the restaurant nearby called Rocky Point Restaurant.
In addition, they built unpermitted private parking lots on public property
that is protected for open space, among other violations.
But happily, these views have been easily accessible to the public again
since the current owner of Rocky Point Restaurant, Esperanza Carmel,
agreed to a consent cease and desist order, restoration order
and administrative penalty, which was issued at the commission's June 2024 hearing.
Respondent decided to close the restaurant while they apply for permits to construct
a new building there, however the whole area around it is still open to the public as I will discuss.
I'll be showing you many photos to update you on this matter, but first I'll begin by providing
some background on the coastal act violations that were at issue in this case. The requirements
of the consent orders have not yet been fully carried out, however we do have some exciting
updates and so we wanted to let you know about them at this month's meeting which may be the
closest to the site this year. The properties at issue are located between Carmel and Big Sur
Village. You can see Rocky Point Restaurant where the violations occurred at the Yellow Star.
The properties are less than three miles north of Bixby Bridge, a very popular visitor destination.
Gonzales is visible on the right at the White Star. On this slide, you can see a
California Coastal Records Project photo that shows the approximate boundaries of the properties.
The parcel outlined in white is owned by Respondent and contains Rocky Point Restaurant and its parking
lot which we will refer to as the Rocky Point property. As you can see the Rocky Point property
is surrounded on three sides by the parcel outline in black. That parcel also contains the only road
leading to the Rocky Point property. The parcel outlined in black is owned by the County of Monterey
and we will refer to it as the county property. Next slide please.
On this side you can see the approximate location of historic trails outlined in blue. Both the
Rocky Point property and the county property have trails that have long been used by the public.
For over six decades the public has driven down the road you see here on the county property,
parked in the parking lot on the Rocky Point property, and used the trails on both parcels
that are outlined in blue. It's very likely that the public therefore has prescriptive rights to
use the parking lot and trails on the Rocky Point property. In 1994, the county recorded a deed
restriction on the county property to protect it for open space and habitat conservation.
This deed restriction also protects public access, as we will discuss later. Next slide, please.
Now we'll briefly give an overview of the violations at issue in this case, which involved
the former owner of the Rocky Point property's installation of an unpermitted lock gate and
threatening signs that block public access to the road on the county property and by extension to
the parking lot and trails. The red star at the top shows where the unpermitted lock gate and
signs restricting access were installed and you can see how that gate would have blocked the public
access road when it was closed. In addition, the yellow star on the left shows where a large area
was cleared on the county property for private employee parking and construction of sheds and
a water tank. In the center, the yellow star shows where vegetation was cleared on the county property
for use as a private, customer-only parking area. As you can see, major violations have
occurred on property owned by the county and so commission enforcement staff has coordinated
closely with county staff. Next slide please. Now I'll show you an overview of the properties.
Here's a view of the coast from Highway 1 near the county road that leads to both the restaurant and
and the public trails.
It's hard to see in this image,
but Rocky Creek Bridge is visible from the properties.
And if you walk far enough out on the bluffs,
you can also see Bixby Bridge.
Next slide, please.
This photo shows the view as you drive down the county road
towards the restaurant.
Next slide, please.
The parking lot on the Rocky Point property
can be seen here.
This is where the public parks access both the restaurant
and the trails.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows one of the trails on the county property.
also see a lot of invasive ice plant. We will discuss how respondent will address
invasive species like ice plant soon. Next slide please. In this photo you can see a low rope fence
on the left that demarcates the trail that crosses the Rocky Point property. The trails on the county
property connect to the trail you see here and respondent will be improving them as we will
discuss later. Next slide please. Now we're going to discuss the history of public access in this area.
In this photo you can see a map from 1898 and the location of the property is at the white star at the bottom.
The northern stretch of Big Sur where the properties are located has been generally accessible to the
public for a very long time. In 1870 Charles Bixby built a road from Carmel to the site of what is now
Bixby Bridge and it passed right by the properties. In contrast the rest of Big Sur was very isolated
and sparsely populated until 1937 when Highway 1 was completed.
In the 1950s, Rocky Point Restaurant was opened, and on the right you can see an old photo
showing the view from inside the restaurant.
The public quickly began using the restaurant's parking lot to access trails and fishing areas
on the bluffs.
In this image, you can see someone fishing from the top of a rock on the county property.
Fishing is a low-cost activity that's much cheaper than the expensive restaurant and
fishing is very important to many people in environmental justice communities.
The people who fish here are very dedicated, and you can see that this person climbed to
the top of this large rock to do so.
Also, even while the unpermitted gates were locked, people still managed to get around
them to fish.
Next slide please.
On this side, you can see an old menu from Rocky Point Restaurant that features a sea
otter.
California's sea otters were over-hunted in the 1800s and were thought to be extinct
in the state until one remaining colony was discovered near Bixby Bridge, just a few miles
south, in the 1930s.
By the 1950s, sea otters had spread north to the area of the properties, to the delight
of visitors.
In this photo you can see the kelp beds just offshore, which sea otters still inhabit today.
The properties provide environmentally sensitive habitat areas for extremely rare native plants.
The harsh soils, rock and salty breezes stunted the growth of the coastal sage scrub, causing
them to evolve into dwarf varieties.
The plants are so unique to this area that today, many of them are sold in nurseries
under the label of Rocky Point varietals.
Next slide please.
And now we're going to discuss how the county property was protected.
On this slide you can see an argument in favor of Proposition 70, a bond initiative that
was passed by voters in 1988. The bond initiative required that any land bought with Prop 70
funds be protected to preserve coastal views, open space, habitat, and the existing uses
of the land. Next slide, please. In 1990, the county bought the land surrounding the
Rocky Point property using Prop 70 funds. Accordingly, the county recorded a deed restriction
that stated that quote, the property shall remain as scenic open space and perpetuity
and shall not be developed in any manner by any person or entity, public or private,
except to maintain the existing uses. This deed restriction ensured that the existing public
access use would be preserved, along with the habitat and open space. Next slide, please.
On this slide, you can see a photo of the bluff edge on the Rocky Point property.
Respondent agreed to remove the unpermitted development and restore the habitat there.
Respondent also agreed to resolve the resource penalties under Section 308 21.3 by undertaking
a number of actions. These include moving a permitted entrance sign in order to improve
views from Highway 1 and removing permitted lights on the bluff that shine on the ocean
and adversely affect the shoreline ecosystem. These also include a plastics reduction plan
to reduce waste when the restaurant reopens. Finally, Respondent also agreed to record an
offer to dedicate a conservation easement to protect the habitat and open space of these
bluffs forever.
Next slide please.
On this slide you can see one of the views from Rocky Point property on the left.
Respondent agreed to cease and desist from blocking public access.
In addition, Respondent agreed to resolve the public access penalties under Section
30821 by taking a number of actions.
Respondent agreed to install a number of public access signs to consolidate and improve the
the trail system, and to record public access easements on over 80% of the Rocky Point property.
In addition, Respondent also agreed to provide a number of free public access amenities.
These will include 24 public parking spaces, 8 EV chargers, as well as a public viewing
area.
Finally, this also includes permanent public restrooms with four stalls, two of which would
be ADA accessible.
We estimate that the total value of the resolution of both of the resource penalties and public
penalties is over $4 million. Next slide please. Now for the good part, now we're going to show
some before and after photos of the violations. In 2012, the prior owners, Peter and Grace Wong,
bought the Rocky Point property and began undertaking unpermitted development. In 2017,
they installed the unpermitted gate that you see here on county property on the left. They locked
the unpermitted gate whenever the restaurant was closed. Because the restaurant had limited hours
and was closed several days a week and throughout the whole mornings. This meant that the gates
were locked most of the week. However, following the hearing, Respondent was required to keep
the unpermitted gate permanently open, as you can see on the right. While the gate is
still visible in that photo, Respondent has since removed it entirely. Next slide, please.
On the left, you can see an unpermitted sign next to the gate that states keep out. There
were also signs that said private property, even though this land is actually public property
owned by the county. On the right you can see that Respondent has already removed the
unpermitted signs here. Next slide please. Now we will show the unpermitted development on the
Rocky Point property. On the left you can see one of the many signs that the Wongs installed in an
attempt to block public access to the parking lot even though the public had been using it for over
60 years. On the right you can see that Respondent has removed the unpermitted signs. Next slide
please. On the left you can see a 2020 Yelp review that includes a photo of a guard who
kicked a member of the public off of the premises. Many reviews were posted online that complained
about the restrictions on public access. The photo on the right of the same area shows that the guard
is now long gone. I can also report that since the area was reopened to the public people are
leaving much better reviews online. Next slide please. In this photo you can see part of the
parking area on the Rocky Point property that is currently open and available to the public.
Respondent agreed to provide public access to the entire lot while they apply for a CDP to renovate
the parking lot, renovate the restaurant, and provide other public access improvements required
by these consent orders. They are required to provide 24 public parking spaces in any renovated
parking lot. Next slide please. In the left photo you can see some of the private outdoor
seating that was used by the restaurant. Respondent agreed to improve this area and maintain it as
a public viewing area. In the meantime, on the right, you can see that they are already providing
picnic tables to the public. Next slide, please. On the slide, you can see on the left, you can
see that currently there are a lot of very small trails on the bluff top to protect public safety
and sensitive habitat. On the right, you can see the approved plans for Respondent to put up small
rope fences and signs to try and encourage people to stay on the main trails. We do want to note
that we don't expect this to deter anyone from fishing as even the unpermitted lock gates did
not deter them. Next slide please. Commissioned staff has worked with Respondent on all of these
plans including the Restoration Plan, the Interim Public Access Plan, and the Long-Term
Public Access Plan ever since the June hearing. Finally, last month, Commissioned staff approved
the last remaining plans. Respondent will soon be installing the public access signs you see here
and they believe they will able to they will be able to get them put up in time for Memorial Day
and the summer season. We want to note that a few of the parking spaces will have 30 minutes only
signs to make it easier for people with disabilities to use the ADA temporary restrooms that will be
put out there soon. Next slide please. On this slide you can see the arrow pointing to a billboard
style sign that obstructed one of the most scenic highway views in the state of California.
Commissioned staff notes that there are a number of unpermitted structures on the county property
that are in the Big Sur LCP critical view shed as well as in violation of the Prop 70 deed
restriction which also protects views. However, Respondent has agreed to remove them and will be
doing so very soon. The large restaurant sign that you can see in the center has already been removed.
the new public access signs will be installed in an existing sign easement highlighted in yellow.
Respondent will also remove the fence and other structures as well as the invasive eucalyptus
trees on the right as we will discuss. Thus, even with the new public access signs,
the coastal views here will be dramatically enhanced. Next slide please. On the left you
can see invasive ice plant on the bluff. Respondent's restoration plan has been approved and they will
will begin undertaking a large amount of invasive plant removal and native plant restoration
this year as you can see in the approved plans on the right. Next slide please. On the left
you can see the unpermitted private parking lot the Wongs built on the county property
on area protected as open space by the Prop 70 deed restriction. On the right you can
see that the area has now been colonized by invasive plants, however, Respondent will
begin removing those this year. Next slide please. On this side you can see the large amount of
invasive eucalyptus trees at the entrance to the county property. On the right you can see part of
the approved plants for their removal with the eucalyptus shaded yellow. Cal Fire uses the parking
lot here for staging during wildfires but eucalyptus is highly flammable so it would be really great to
have this removed and the area made safer for everyone. Next slide please. On this side you
You can see the lights on the bluff, bright light shining on the ocean at night greatly
disturbed the sensitive species and habitat here, Responda agreed to stop using these
lights and will remove them entirely soon.
Next slide please.
On this slide, you can see a KQED news article showing a person picking up human waste on
the side of Highway 1.
Due to the severe shortage of public restrooms in Big Sur, many visitors have had to use
the side of the highway as a restroom of last resort.
This has been a particular problem for visitors to the very popular Bixby Bridge, which is
less than 3 miles south of the properties.
Next slide please.
Respondent will be providing temporary restrooms soon in the general location of the White
Star, which is a great location that's easy to spot right when you drive in on the county
road.
Respondent is currently applying for a CDP to install permanent public restrooms as required
by the consent orders, which will likely be located in a slightly different place on the
property.
On the map on the right, you can see that there are also very few public EV chargers shown in green in the regions surrounding these properties, which is shown at the yellow star.
Respondent has agreed to provide eight public EV charges and has also included this in their CVP application.
Next slide, please. Respondent is currently working with commission staff regarding the required recordation of a public access easement, as you can see here.
please. Respondent is also working with staff on a required conservation easement which is shown
here. Next slide please. And now to conclude this presentation we're just going to give you a brief
tour of the amazing scenic views that Respondent has agreed to permanently protect and provide
public access to. This photo was taken on the county property looking east towards Highway 1.
Next slide please. Here's another photo of the views this one looking southeast. Next slide please.
This slide shows another view directly to the south. Next slide, please.
And now we're looking to the west where people fish. Next slide, please.
This this photo shows the view to the northwest. Next slide, please.
And here you can see one of the trails in the foreground and the white star shows where the
restaurant is. This is looking north. Next slide, please. This photo really shows how much of the
County property is full of native coastal sage scrub. This photo is taken looking northeast.
Next slide please. The views are also very scenic from the historic trail on the Rocky
Point property. This photo is taken looking south. Next slide please. Here you can see
a final view looking northwest from the Rocky Point property. Sea otters inhabit the kelp beds
in this cove. As you saw these are very special properties and for too long they've deserved much
better. We want to thank Respondent again for the years that they have worked with us to ensure that
this habitat is protected and that the public can easily enjoy it. Next slide please. And finally
we'll conclude by showing them how to get there. You can still map your phone to Rocky Point
Restaurant even though it's closed. From Gonzales the trip is a bit over an hour if you take 101
north to the 68 west to highway one south. From Salinas the trip is less than an hour and you can
take the 68 west straight to highway one. We will provide another update once the public access
improvements are all constructed. However, we do want to note that even though the restaurant
is not currently open, the consent orders require the parking lot and these trails to
be open to the public at all times. The unpermitted gate has been removed, new public signs should
be out there, as well as restrooms by Memorial Day. So we hope that everyone watching can
go out and visit. That concludes my presentation, and we're available for questions. Thank you.
That was awesome.
Thank you so much.
Miss Hagee, did you want to add something?
No, that's it.
We really wanted to put the map up so people can take a screenshot and we hope the public
all goes out there.
It's very rare to have amenities in Big Sur at all and much less free parking and free
picnicking areas and it's all open right now to the public and we hope everyone goes out
and has a wonderful time.
I love it.
I agree.
Okay.
Thank you.
sorry we have no no one sign up to speak on this item okay thank you I'll return
to the Commission for their comments mr. O'Malley thank you um I guess I have a
little bit of a bias towards I love all the staff but I love a little bit bias
towards the enforcement staff based on kind of my background and what I did in
my career um I only want to say two things amazing work and second to mr.
Model Mag. Great levity bringing to this situation. I love when you're laughing at your own jokes before we get them. Thank you
Commissioner Lopez. Yeah, I just I want to thank staff. I would just happen to drive by this property
I think it was last Friday and was able to pull off and see the gate open
After reading the report so just an incredible job of working with the new owner to make this happen
one thing I would love to see included if possible is a
Permitted fishing sign only I didn't see that in the list of what was permitted and often if it's not included people will make an assumption
Or be told you can't and also with that a collection spot for a two for collection of line that public may find
Along routes as they get stuck in trees behind folks and they don't find them
So making sure that we have that full wraparound now one just in mr. Model mugs presentation
If the pro if the allowed fishing sign was of the gentleman on top of the rock that would be extra special
But just I know that's going a little beyond but thank you. Great job
Commissioner I'm sorry. Just just to respond
I think that's a great idea about the the line collection and since they have a plastics reduction plan
We'll just make sure that's in part of it. Thank you
Commissioner not off. It's good to see we're making progress when I was there
I think I was there on March 20th because I was down there for my anniversary
The Rocky Point sign was still there so I and you know
This hasn't been getting used as much as I hope so
I think really getting that sign on the highway is going to make a big difference
Because once people turn off they're like whoa we can just I mean it's quite
It's a very special place and I'm and it's good to see we're making progress, but I think the signage is
Critical to get done, and I I hope that we can get it done by Memorial Day
You know, there's so much
You know crowding around peace places and big sir big big be bridging particular
Maybe this can relieve some of that actually, you know, maybe we can help get people off the roads to instead of and go
enjoy that so
Let's keep making progress. Thank you
Thank you. Commissioner Lopez. Yeah one brief follow-up
I would really love to ask if we could have this presentation made at our Board of Supervisors
again to help get the word out about its availability, so we just, and also request
Mr. Montemag make that presentation.
Thank you.
He would be thrilled.
I'll speak to him.
We'd love to do that.
Thank you for the invitation.
Yeah, thanks.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you.
And I think we now know who left that gift that was cleaned up.
I'm sorry I couldn't help myself.
That's all you had to say.
Okay.
Thank you.
I was waiting.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
We've lost the plot here.
Any other comments?
Okay.
I'll just add my thanks and appreciation to our enforcement staff.
This was so awesome and a wonderful way to come back from lunch and excited to go see
it.
Great. Thank you so much.
Okay. We will now move on to item 11.
Mr. Carl.
Actually, item 10, yes.
So in the North Central Coast District Director's Report
this month, we're reporting one waiver
for a series of minor improvements
at the Olympic Club Golf Course in San Francisco.
We're not aware of any objections
or controversy regarding this matter.
And so the question is whether four or more commissioners
object to it, and if not, then the commission will concur.
Thank you, any ex parte's?
Any public comments?
We just had one speaker, Kuevilla.
Could we repeat the items on the deputy director's report?
There is one item that we're reporting.
It's a waiver for the Olympic Club Golf Course
in San Francisco.
It's for a series of minor improvements.
If you could turn on the mic, ma'am.
I think it would be good to have it permitted as well,
because if there are exceptions, then that could be like given
for other items as well.
So I ask that that be reconsidered,
that permit be issued for those things.
And I'm very thankful to the Informants Department
for helping us to access the area, the land
around Rocky Point.
It's really a great blessing.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
No other speakers would you like to respond mr. Sure I would just
Note that this this project has BMP is included in it. There aren't any coastal resource impacts
Our ecology team has looked at it. We've looked at it all different sorts of ways
This is exactly the kind of project that qualifies for a waiver
Thank you very much. Okay. I'll return to the commission do three or more commissioners object to this item in the deputy directors report
Seeing no objections the Commission concurs
Okay now we are at item 10.1. Yes, that will take us to 10.1 a this is the city of San Francisco's housing update and
Luke Henningson who's on the zoom is going to give the presentation. We do have a PowerPoint for this item
Thank You Dan and good afternoon
chair Harmon and commissioners
Item 10.1 a is a city and county of San Francisco
LCP amendment that proposes changes to both the LCP's land use plan and implementation plan
intended to facilitate infill residential development with an emphasis on transit oriented
development and affordable housing. The proposed amendment is in part a result of the city's
response to its regional housing needs allocation or arena assessment under which the city is
required to accommodate an additional 36,200 housing units city-wide by 2032.
Although the city's coastal zone is relatively small in relation to the
overall city and is about 90% public and open space,
it does include existing developed areas the first few blocks
inland of the Great Highway, as can be seen on the left of the photo
here on slide one. The city considers these areas to be
important opportunity sites for additional infill housing, and the proposed amendment
is intended to facilitate such development. The city estimates that the proposed changes
would facilitate roughly 720 new housing units in the city's coastal zone, with at least
some 15% deed restricted as affordable housing. And I'll note that staff provided an addendum
for this item yesterday that includes responses to comments received on the staff report and
incorporates some fairly minor corrections to the report, none of which changes our basic
recommendation which continues to be for approval as submitted. Next slide please.
Slide two shows an aerial of the western half of San Francisco with the coastal zone outlined
in yellow. Highlighted in orange are the developed coastal zone portion of the city's Richmond
district which is just north of Golden Gate Park and Sunset district which is just south
of Golden Gate Park and inland of Ocean Beach. The new proposed policies are directed primarily
at these two areas which, albeit small in relation to the rest of the city, provide
existing developed areas in the coastal zone able to accommodate infill development.
The proposed land use plan changes would modify two policies that would allow increased residential
density and infill development in these orange areas. The proposed implementation plan changes
would provide the development standards intended to achieve such infill development,
such as increasing height limits near transit bridge areas and commercial corridors,
encouraging transit-oriented development and including requirements that development be
generally compatible with the area's character, with heights generally being higher further inland
and then lower as you get closer to the coast. In addition, the proposed changes include the
city's own local version of Density Bonus via its proposed Housing Choice Incentives Program,
which would serve as a voluntary alternative to state density bonus law for housing developers.
The City's Housing Choice Program encourages increased residential density and affordable
housing and creates clear parameters and development standards for allowable heights
depending on density, use, and location. In particular, the City targets commercial
corridors in transit-rich areas for increased density and affordable housing.
Overall, the proposed LCP changes seek to accommodate residential development in an
already urbanized environment able to accommodate it and with an emphasis on higher density and
affordable housing. Next slide please. The most obvious outcome of the proposed changes is an
increase in scale and height in particular in certain coastal zone areas clustered around
transit-rich commercial corridors, generally more than one block from the coast.
Slide three shows one such area on Sloat Boulevard, just across the street from the zoo
and about two blocks inland from Ocean Beach. Under the proposed amendment, allowable base
heights on Sloat would be 55 feet raised from a base of 40 feet. If a project were to also qualify
for the housing choice program, the allowed height would be 100 feet. And if a project was also 100%
affordable than the allowed maximum height would be up to 130 feet or reference the apartment shown
in this photo are about 60 feet tall. Next slide please. A similar area of the Sunset District at
Judah Street which is a commercial and transit-rich corridor with excellent walkability would also
have higher height allowances. For this area of Judah Street, one block inland from the Great
highway, which can be seen on slide 4 with the specific area highlighted by a red arrow there.
The allowable base heights would increase from 40 to 50 feet, and if combined with housing choice
allowances, heights up to 85 feet would be allowed. If a proposed project here was also 100%
affordable housing, the height allowance for that project could potentially be as high as 115 feet,
115 feet. Next slide please. A similar height increase would be allowed for the Richmond
District shown on slide 5 with Golden Gate Park to the south and North Ocean Beach to the west.
The red arrows indicate the areas which would experience the most significant allowed height
increases comparable to those on Judah Street and generally at least one block inland from the beach.
specifically just north of Golden Gate Park on Fulton and on Cabrillo north of the Safeway site
which is highlighted here with the yellow arrow. The housing choice program would allow for a height
of 65 feet at this site with any potential 100% affordable housing project being allowed
potentially an additional 30 feet or up to 95 foot maximum. And it's important to note that the
Safeway site, again shown with the yellow arrow, is currently proposed for an 85-foot, 500-unit
housing development utilizing state density bonus law with only about 13 percent affordable units
currently proposed. Next slide please. A potentially significant increase in development potential is
proposed for the site at 999 Brotherhood Way, inland of Lake Merced and more than a mile inland
of the coast, half in the coastal zone and half outside of it. The general location of
this parcel is circled in red on slide 6 and it's already developed with a church, associated
non-residential buildings, parking lots and landscaping and it's zoned for a potential
maximum of approximately 1,000 residential units for the entire parcel. For all these
areas where new height allowances are created through the proposed amendments, it's important
to note that heights would generally be higher further inland and generally lower when getting
closer to the coast, hence a sort of stepping-down effect where public views are given higher
priority closer to the coast. Next slide please.
The proposed land use plan changes are evaluated against the Coastal Act. Overall, the proposed
land use plan changes seek to accommodate residential development in an already urbanized
environment able to accommodate it, and with an emphasis on higher densities and affordable
housing, which is exactly what the Coastal Act directs.
The Sunset and Richmond District Coastal Zone areas in question meet the applicable Section
30250 criteria, as they are developed areas served by adequate public services, including
transit, and which are capable of accommodating additional development.
The changes do not allow for any sort of building to be developed in open space, parks, or sensitive
habitats and should not affect any such areas.
In addition, a focus of the amendment is to encourage and provide for as much affordable
housing as possible, as directed by sections 30604F and G of the Coastal Act.
In short, the proposed land use plan changes do not raise significant coastal resource
concerns, and in fact speak to the type of infill densification that is necessary if
development is to be clustered within developed areas able to accommodate it as directed by
the coastal act.
Because the areas where the implementation plan would concentrate such development are
already fairly densely developed, these types of proposed changes should not lead to any
sort of significant adverse impacts to beaches, open spaces, and habitat areas.
Rather, it appears that the main potential issue areas would be in relation to public
views and coastal character from larger buildings and in relation to public access from denser
development that could increase on-street parking demand.
In terms of public views, while it is true that larger buildings may alter the coastal
viewshed, it is also true that such development would generally be inland of the prime coastal
views at the immediate shoreline and would be seen against the backdrop of the already
developed in relatively urban, Sunset and Richmond Districts, extending well inland
from the coast and outside of the coastal zone.
Importantly, the most notable public views in the city's coastal zone are predominantly
in the area seaward of the first row of buildings, meaning along the Great Highway Corridor,
taking in Sunset Dunes Park, Ocean Beach, and the Ocean, with slide 8 here showing that
distinction.
Next slide, please.
Slide 9 provides a different perspective from ground level and looking inland from the coast.
The primary change to these views that could potentially be facilitated by the proposed
amendment would generally be to the already developed built-out environment of buildings
sitting at the inland edge of this view, as well as inland of the first row.
That said, the first row of buildings is already a fairly substantial wall of structures generally
comprised of two to four-story buildings behind which is the densely developed urban skyline
of the city and the developed sunset and Richmond districts. Put another way, this view corridor
is already framed on its inland edge by a substantial amount of established development
and the proposed increases in height are not expected to significantly alter the way in which
the shoreline corridor and its public views are perceived and appreciated. Next slide please.
Slide 10 gives a sense of the primary public coastal view corridor looking along the shore,
along Sunset Dunes Park and Ocean Beach, where that inland row of buildings is seen here
on the left.
Again, these are the most critical public views in the city's coastal zone, and our
assessment is that it shouldn't be significantly adversely affected by the development that
could be facilitated by the proposed amendment on its inland edge.
In this context, staff does not believe that these types of changes raise significant coastal
resource concerns and in fact represent the type of infill densification that is necessary
if development is to be clustered within developed areas able to accommodate it, as is directed
by the Coastal Act and LCP.
As for questions of public access impacts stemming from potential issues with parking
supply and demand. Staff notes that the proposed densification is directed at areas with significant
public transit options and the city envisions the program being paired with transit improvements
as well as site-specific transportation demand management or TDM programs. When also considering
the larger public parking areas on the Great Highway Corridor near Golden Gate Park and
along Slope Boulevard as well as a fairly large supply of on-street parking otherwise.
It appears that the changes should not themselves lead to any sort of new or significant public
access impacts and that public access would not be significantly affected as is directed by the
Coastal Act and LCP. Next slide please. In conclusion, staff recommends that the
the commission approve the LCP amendment as submitted.
The two motions necessary to do so can be found
on page five of the staff report
and this concludes the staff presentation.
Thank you very much.
Great, thank you.
I'll turn to the commission
to ask if there are any ex partes.
Okay, seeing none, Chris.
All right, we'll start with the applicant,
Joshua Switzke and Diggin Ministero.
that they are here in person.
Hello.
And I believe you've asked for 12 minutes total?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Yes, we may not need the whole 12 minutes upfront.
We may reserve some time for rebuttal.
Of course.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Oh, and we have some slides.
If we could get the slides.
All right, thank you.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
It's very much a pleasure to be here.
I'm Joshua Switsky, Deputy Director of Community Planning
for the San Francisco Planning Department.
I'm joined by Peter Milianich, the deputy city attorney.
We are here to ask you to support
your commission staff recommendation
to certify San Francisco's local coastal plan amendment
related to the family zoning plan,
which is San Francisco's state mandated
housing element rezoning.
I want to start by thanking the coastal commission staff
who have been diligently spent very many months
working with us, reviewing the plan
and helping us prepare this local coastal plan amendment
to get us to this recommendation for you here today.
Next slide, please.
Of all the cities in California
that are struggling with long-term and acute housing
affordability and availability,
San Francisco, as you probably know,
is generally one of the most least,
one of the least affordable housing markets in the country.
The local housing market has come roaring back
since the pandemic and demand is once again straining
mightily at our tight housing supply,
where even reasonably played middle-class professionals
cannot find anything on the market,
if there is anything at all, let alone folks lower
on the income spectrum.
Next slide please.
Against this backdrop, San Francisco was assigned
a notably high RINA target for this housing element cycle
of over 82,000 units.
I'll just note that San Francisco currently has
about 400,000 units in it today.
And with an additional sort of quasi-mandated buffer,
we were planning for over 90,000 units in the city.
We have been doing major planning for housing
over the last couple decades
and accounting for units that we've already planned for
and can count on.
We had a shortfall of about a little bit over 36,000 units
that we needed to rezone for.
And we're obligated to complete that rezoning
by January, 2026,
which was three years after our housing element
was approved in January, 2023.
And our city adopted that rezoning
in December of 2025.
Next slide please.
Besides the quantitative requirements
to create capacity and identify sites,
our housing element and the family zoning plan
were geographically guided by the policy requirement
of the state and our local housing element
to affirmatively further fair housing
and to undo decades of exclusionary zoning
and housing policies.
Next slide please.
The areas of the city in blue on the map to your left
shows parts of the city that the state rates
as high opportunity neighborhoods,
where the city should be directing the rezoning
and new housing capacity for multifamily housing.
These are areas that are higher income,
have higher performing schools, have low pollution,
and as you know, have great access to open space resources
that other parts of the city do not have.
The map on the right shows where new housing construction
has been concentrated over the past two decades,
which as you can see is the inverse of the map on the left.
This did not happen by happenstance,
but by a great zoning disparity
where zoning on the west side of the city has for decades
largely been limited to exclusionary single family zoning
and other zoning with height and density limits
and other requirements so restrictive or onerous
as to make multifamily housing illegal or infeasible.
Next slide please.
The family zoning plan rezoning is essential
to allowing the types of medium density, mid rise
and modest urban infill that is of the scale
that are the sweet spots for multifamily housing construction
across the income spectrum.
Both 100% affordable housing, mixed income housing,
rental ownership, the whole gamut,
including allowing a wider diversity of housing types,
including small scale incremental,
what we call missing middle infill
in these residential neighborhoods.
The housing, the rezoning program includes
the housing choice SF local program,
which is a signature component of the plan
and includes extra incentives and flexibility
for 100% affordable housing projects.
Next slide.
The family zoning plan was not a hasty or rushed effort.
First building on the three years that the city spent
from 2019 to 2020 through the end of 2022,
developing and hashing out the housing element
and policy direction with the public and decision makers
and which set the policy framework
for focusing the rezoning on the west side,
high opportunity neighborhoods.
The family zoning plan process itself
was a subsequent three year public effort
to refine and debate the zoning proposal itself.
Dozens upon dozens of public workshops,
open houses, hearings, focus groups,
and other efforts shaped the rezoning into its final form.
Refinements were made over this process
through in every part of the city,
including the coastal zone,
to end up with the plan that we have before us.
Next slide please.
The final plan is a reflection of the values,
not just of affirmatively furthering fair housing
and environmentally climate-responsible smart growth,
but also of the Coastal Act itself in the Coastal Zone.
All of the rezoning is located
in already developed urban neighborhoods
and infill sites inland of the coast
and what constitutes a very small percentage
of San Francisco's overall Coastal Zone,
which you've heard is primarily publicly owned open space.
Height limit changes are much more limited
in the Coastal Zone relative to other areas of the city
that were rezoned and generally stepped down
towards the coast.
The family zoning plan's core land use principle
is to focus density around major public transit infrastructure
and commercial districts to minimize driving
and maximize walking, cycling, and transit usage
and increase access to services and public amenities.
Indeed, also more people living in these areas
can support more robust retail and other services
for visitors that visit the coast.
Besides incentives for affordable housing
and encouraging a wide range of medium and small scale infill,
The rezoning includes robust protections for existing tenants and minimizing the potential
for displacement.
Next slide, please.
There are effectively two sets of height limits that are part of this rezoning.
The base height limits, which is the map you see before you, are the limits that apply
to set the base zoning for housing projects that use various preexisting bonus programs
such as the state density bonus program.
In the coastal zone, these base heights are generally 40 feet, which are for the most
part the existing height limits and in a few areas were raised to 5 stories or 55 feet.
The base zoning changes also contain various changes to density limits and some other general
zoning provisions.
Next slide.
For projects using the new Housing Choice SF program, which is an essential component
of this plan, there is a higher set of mapped height limits, particularly along and immediately
fronting major transit streets and commercial streets, which in these coastal, and these
heights in this, the coastal zone area generally are about two to five stories above the base
height limit, generally resulting in a range of ultimate height limit, height limits of
around six to eight stories.
As you can see on this map on the west side of the city, these commercial and transit
streets generally run perpendicular east west to the coast.
This means that is just the term as the very terminus of these streets that and just at
the edge of the coastal zone inland from the coast itself
and our space intermittently every few blocks
north and south.
There is no blanket rezoning linearly across north south
along the coast by any stretch.
Away from these corridors, the four-story height limit
is generally maintained with more flexible rules
to allow small-scale incremental multifamily infill
on small lots with up to six stories on corner lots.
The program also provides incentives
in the form of modest additional height above these heights
and flexibility on some zoning standards
while still requiring adherence to our core design standards.
And these additional bonus benefits are provided
for 100% affordable housing buildings
and projects that provide family-friendly amenities
and other community benefits that are defined in the program.
Next slide, please.
And I'll just conclude with a few renderings.
Admittedly, these are not specifically of spots
of the Coastal Zone, but they're renderings
that we've done to show folks the general character
and nature of the kind and scale of infill development
that will happen as a result of the family zoning plan.
You may not be able to sell the middle building
as a rendering of a hypothetical four-story infill
multi-family building set amongst other three-story
buildings which is characteristic of many neighborhoods
across San Francisco including the sunset
in the Richmond district.
Next slide please.
Here's one of our major rail corridors.
This is Ocean Avenue, what six and eight story buildings
will look like along one of these corridors.
Last, next slide.
And then here's one of the Sunset District
commercial corridors showing a new eight story building
starting to fill in along that corridor.
And then last slide, just to wrap up,
hopefully this gives you a flavor
of the sort of incremental and modest,
moderate scale infill that you can expect
that would be accommodated in the coastal zone.
We are proud to be here today to seek your support
for the recommendation for certification
of our local coastal plan amendment.
And we are happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much.
All right.
We have eight speakers signed up to speak on this item.
We'll start with Eileen Boken, Dr. Ariane Aroy,
and then Debbie Leifer.
Eileen Boken, I see that you're on via phone.
You should be able to unmute now.
Eileen Boken, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods,
speaking on my own behalf, strongly opposing
the proposed LCP amendments as currently submitted
and urging the commission to continue this item
as requested by the law firm of Loiseau Drury.
The new San Francisco mayor was elected last year
and subsequently made massive changes
to the housing element,
making it inconsistent with its EIR.
This EIR is now under legal challenge.
The coastal zone in SF is for the most part
just a few blocks wide.
Therefore, changes not only to the coastal zone itself,
but also to the areas just outside the coastal zone
would have significant impacts for decades to come.
The most significant impacts would be
from the proposed amendments to LUP objective 11
and policy 11.1, adding the words, quote unquote,
each parcel sets the stage for spot zoning.
During yesterday's executive director's report
on the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act,
a presentation was made regarding the battle
with the Southern Pacific railroad
over removing tracks in Monterey
in order to turn the area into luxury hotels and condos.
The Coastal Commission prevailed
and saved this section of Monterey coastline
from becoming Miami Beach.
However, by approving this LCP,
the commission would facilitate the exact opposite outcome
in San Francisco and would change SF's Ocean Beach
into Miami Beach.
Today's equivalent of Southern Pacific
is the Tech Oligarchy, which has similar goals.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Dr. Ariane Aroy, Debbie Leifer, and then Evan Rosen.
Ariane Aroy.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners.
My name is Dr. Ariane Aroy, and I've
worked in community health clinics in San Francisco
for over 25 years, serving the indigent, immigrants,
people of color in the homeless.
I've given my best years to serving them
and doing academic research on these issues.
I want to encourage you to reject this amendment outright.
If passed, this up zoning amendment would undermine
the power and the authority
and the role of the Coastal Commission.
What is before you is not responsible planning.
It is a failure of governance,
A decision to expand development in a known hazard zone
while ignoring the accelerating reality
of climate disruption.
Along San Francisco's West side, including Ocean Beach,
the coastline is already in retreat.
And yet this amendment proposes to increase development
capacity in this vulnerable zone.
This is not planning, this is willful disregard.
The California Coastal Act is explicit.
development must be limited in hazardous areas
and coastal resources must be protected for the long-term.
This amendment does neither.
It replaces site-specific coastal judgment
with blanket up-zoning driven by political pressure,
not environmental reality.
San Francisco already has substantial
underutilized housing capacity.
For example, South of Market,
the politicians who are being funded by developers,
investors, corporations and the tech community
are giving paybacks to their donors,
even while they fail to prepare the city
for the climate emergency.
They use the homeless crisis as a cover
for luxury development projects.
This is not housing need.
This is about development or developer entitlement.
Thank you. And next is Debbie lifer, followed by Evan Rosen and then Kathy Herzl. Debbie lifer.
afternoon commissioners, my name is Debbie lifer, my comments relate to the Safeway housing proposal
at 850 La Playa street in San Francisco. I live around the corner from the proposed
project on the Great Highway for over 25 years. So this is my neighborhood. I'm not at all against
development, the proposed
redevelopment, the proposed
development is way out of
scale, proportion and density
for our neighborhood. Everything
around us is noted is no more
than four stories high and this
proposed project at 85 feet
high is just about double that
scale and doesn't match the
existing physical character,
density or height of the
surrounding neighborhood. And
because of that, it would have
significant increase in parking and traffic,
congestion, noise and air pollution along 48th Avenue,
La Playa, Balboa, Fulton Streets, and the Great Highway.
And in significant increase in demand
in our existing utilities,
including water sewage and power systems,
the U-shaped bulky and cavernous design
would limit sunlight, casting shadows all around,
as well as potentially producing a wind tunnel
in between the two buildings.
And it's pretty windy out here at Ocean Beach.
While I believe that housing growth is essential,
a maximum of 65, five or six stories,
as we saw at Slope Boulevard, seems much more appropriate.
Additionally, the proposed affordable
and family-sized units really fall short
and fails to make a serious effort
to provide low and moderate housing.
The project envisions 526 units.
However, only 68 units or 13% would be affordable.
Only 130 units or 25% would have more than one bedroom.
A far greater and affordable housing
and family-size housing are necessary
to serve the public good.
Let it be noted that the benefits of this project
should not go to the developers,
because it pencils out,
but should go to the cost of the residents.
This project's very important to me.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Evan Rosen followed by Kathy Herzl
and then Susan Wolf.
Evan Rosen.
Approving or denying an amendment
to a local coastal program land use plan
is perhaps the most important action this commission takes.
The land use plan paves the way for all future development
and all future LCP implementation plan amendments,
including the one before you.
This proposed amendment does raise substantial issues
lack of conformity with chapter three of the Coastal Act, which is the standard of review
for LCP land use plans. And yes, it sets the stage for turning Ocean Beach into Miami Beach.
The proposed amendment would remove the words, preserve the scale and character of existing
residential neighborhoods from policy 11.1. Yet the word character is essential to protecting
the coastal zone. Character originates in chapter 3 section 30251 of the coastal act. Permitted
development shall be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas. So do we really
want to remove preserve the scale and character of existing residential neighborhoods? Of course not.
The proposed amendment would replace that language with this language. Consider the location of each
parcel relative to both the city context and the coast. There's nothing about city context in
chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and the proposed land use plan amendment would change objective 11,
which now states preserve the scale of residential and commercial development along the coastal zone
area. The replacement language before you ensure development in the coastal zone advances housing
and community development goals appropriate
for the location of each parcel.
Yet, there's nothing about housing
and community development in chapter three
of the Coastal Act, which is the standard of review.
Substantial issues of conformity
with chapter three obviously exist.
Accordingly, you must deny certification
of these terrible proposed local
social program amendments as a matter of law.
Thank you.
And next is Cathy Herzl followed by Susan Wolf and Nancy Okada.
Cat, is this under the name Cat on Zoom?
You should be able to unmute now.
All right, I'm not seeing any movement.
We will move on to Susan Wolf.
And Susan, you should be able to unmute now.
Here, can you hear me?
There you go.
We can hear you.
Okay.
So I just want to remind you of the last thing that you, that you okayed in my neighborhood
at the Irish Cultural Centre.
I happen to have the geotechnical report for that building,
and the geotechnical reports clearly states
that water is 21 feet down.
You clearly approved a building that underground
has a parking garage, a mezzanine, and pools.
This cannot be built, especially since there are
no known inspections of the buildings on the same block.
We also do not have hydrant upgrades on this part of the city.
This proposal is absolutely not okay.
What you're saying is that if you have a house on the beach worth $3.1 million,
four stories tall, your view is not obstructed.
But if you live on, say, 41st Avenue,
they can build a house right behind you where your house is shaded 24 seven.
I also want to say that San Francisco has absolutely no privacy or lighting laws, and
I can prove it because I had to sue a neighbor for $120,000 because he had cameras and lights
on my bedroom window, and that was in this district not that far from the beach.
Furthermore, you have taken away parking along Sloat Boulevard for a bike lane that I have
walk from the beach to Sunset Boulevard, which is maybe three quarters of a mile, and seeing
one bicycle rider. And how you're going to build more housing in this area is absolutely absurd
when the only public transportation is the very infrequent bus on 46th Avenue and the El
Terreville. There are no stores work within walking distance of this area. The
Safeway is possibly a mile and a half from here and the Lucky's is that far as
well. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Nancy Okada, you should be able to
unmute now. I see you're on a phone. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay,
great. Wonderful. Thank you, commissioners, for allowing me to speak. Anthony Okade speaking as
an individual. This is a very, very upsetting proposed LCP amendment. You know, the Coastal
Commission was created by the people of California, and it's one of the very few state agencies that
still speaks up for the people. If you saw the petition that was submitted in correspondence
with over 300 names of people throughout the state that are very concerned about this. You know
that the people care beyond San Francisco about access to the ocean at the area near Golden Gate
Park, Ocean Beach, the Sunset and the Richmond. Please say no to this planned high rise destruction
This is San Francisco's one of the most precious assets,
which is really relaxed access to the ocean.
The job of the Coastal Commission in this matter is simple.
To protect the coast, enforce the Coastal Act
and its statutory standard of review under chapter three.
If approved, this LCP-LUP amendment
would negatively impact the coastal character
and the public views forever in the coastal zone
of San Francisco's Ocean Beach.
This is one of the few places where you can actually go
and be alone, get away from the city,
enjoy the ocean without feeling the pressure
of any kind of a big city around you.
It is a unique experience.
And I'm sure you all have probably experienced it
at some time, as well as the beauty of Golden Gate Park.
Please send us back to the city and tell them no.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Joffemore.
You should be able to unmute, I see that you're on the phone.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Great, thank you.
I heard the word generally deployed by applicants
repeatedly without precision amidst regulatory requirements.
And so I respectfully ask the commissioners
to please reconsider the analysis here before proceeding.
The staff recommendation of April 2nd
made the following factual assertion, quote,
the entire first blocks of houses closest to the coast
would not be eligible for height increases and quote,
and based on those facts staff engaged in an analysis
which included the quote,
the area where developments scale could increase is inland,
which leaves the most critical shoreline views
of and along the beach and ocean untouched and quote.
However, the addendum released just yesterday by staff
now suddenly admits that the building heights
right at the coast could reach almost a hundred feet,
more than doubling permitted heights.
what is going on here and was this error made by applicants
or by staff or both?
It is extremely troubling that this material error
is being characterized today as quote minor
with a footnote in the addendum claiming
that the original statement is quote partially correct
ends quote.
No, it's not partially correct.
It's 100% wrong to tell the public
that critical shoreline views will be quote untouched
but then later say, oops,
while failing to reset the analysis
and now mischaracterizing the facts today
that there is a stepping down effect.
There is no stepping down requirement
to find in the proposed LCP period.
You should not be approving any LCP amendment
based upon effective analysis and shifting facts,
especially in an earthquake zone and soft sand
is getting wetter and softer as the sea level rises.
What you should be doing instead, please,
is increasing the size and protections of the coastal zone
in response to sea level rise.
You are a regulator
charged with protecting coastal resources.
And the applicant is not being clear
when they claim that development will be quote
generally inland and quote.
Please review further.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We just had the one speaker
that we weren't able to locate, Kathy Herzl.
Kathy, if you are on Zoom, please raise your hand.
All right, I'm seeing no hands raised.
Okay, now I'm seeing one has raised a cat
under the name CAT.
You should be able to unmute.
And go ahead, I see that you're unmuted.
Now you're muted again.
Now I see you're unmuted, go ahead.
If you are speaking,
we're not hearing anything on your, on our end.
It appears you are unmuted.
Give it a few more seconds.
And we're still not hearing anything.
So unfortunately, I don't think we'll be able to
wait for your comment at this time.
We'll move on.
Madam Chair.
Okay, thank you very much.
I believe that the applicant has three minutes remaining
if you wanna respond, no obligation of course.
At this time we would just like to say
we're happy to answer any questions the commission has
and we look forward to hopefully getting your support
for the certification, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, I'll return to our staff.
Mr. Cross.
Thank you.
Quickly, with respect to the error that was identified,
we did, there was an inadvertent error,
we did correct that through the addendum
and it doesn't alter our staff recommendation
or analysis as explained in the addendum.
I would note that this proposal
is not without its scale concerns,
we totally recognize that,
but we believe that the key views are protected
as Luke indicated earlier in our initial presentation.
And the increased scale would be seen in the contents,
context of an existing quite urbanized developed area
of the Richmond and Sunset Districts
extending inland from the coast and well out of the coastal zone.
Because the coastal zone is actually, as you saw in the presentation,
a pretty small sliver of this developed area of the western side of the city.
So we don't think it's going to lead to any public view concerns,
especially as it rolls out incrementally over time.
And I think one of the things that we all need to recognize if we're collectively
going to address these kind of housing concerns,
these are the types of things that you're going to be seeing.
And if you can't do it in a city like the city of San
Francisco, which is quite an urban environment compared
to a lot of the coastal zone that we see,
this is the type of thing.
This is the type of projects that we should expect.
So we'll leave it there.
We're available for questions.
Thank you very much.
OK, so I'll return to the commission
and begin with answering.
I think Commissioner Lowenberg, you want to start?
So I think I am the only, sitting up here,
the only born San Francisco and the only one
that lives in the city.
I am proud that I was the chair of the Planning Commission
a number of years ago.
I worked on a plan very similar to this then
and proposed it to Mayor Frank Jordan.
It didn't get approved because it wasn't the political will
to do that then, nor was there the affordability pressure.
This isn't political pressure.
This is affordability pressure.
So whoever said political pressure,
falls on deaf ears with me.
Either we as a society are gonna address housing issues
and affordability and create enough housing,
or let's just stop talking about it.
Because we go down this road, we come up with plans,
and people say, not here, put it over, enough.
Either we're gonna get serious
and take this seriously or we're not.
We're being asked to approve the tiniest little sliver
of San Francisco, which is bounded by a huge park,
a Golden Gate, the new Sunset Dunes Park,
which is a huge buffer between the ocean and any housing.
So you've got that entire view corridor going down
what was the Great Highway.
And even if the Great Highway comes back,
It's still a great view corridor.
So let me just say, and when the orange that you had,
I helped write that ring con plan.
So I'm proud as can be to see it be in bright orange
because we created thousands of units of housing there.
And I hope we create a lot more housing.
I have been saying for years, we need to up zone Lincoln,
Fulton, Sloat, Geary, all the transit corridors
in San Francisco need to be up zoned.
Look at New York, look at what they did around Central Park.
You sculpt back or you sculpt too.
There's a way of doing it and doing it right.
I think this is absolutely,
I would encourage all my commissioners
to please vote for this.
I would also say that every permit that's gonna go,
for any new development is going to have scrutiny.
We all know that.
It's gotta go to planning, it's gotta go to building,
it can go to permit appeals.
And it can go to the Board of Supervisors if it gets elevated to that.
So this is not, we're not blanketly approving development here.
We're allowing people to plan and hopefully build a lot more hands.
What was it?
700?
I mean, 700 units?
This is what we're talking about.
The great potential that we're talking about right now.
I mean, I want a zero on top of that.
I mean, either we get serious or we don't get serious.
So having said that, I'd like to make the motion as is.
Yes.
Excuse me, ma'am.
This is not a time for back and forth.
Commissioner Lowenberg, I'll come back to you.
Absolutely.
Everybody should make a comment if they want.
Thank you.
Yes, I got a list.
Thank you.
Not off.
Okay.
Commissioner Rodone.
Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank Coastal staff for the staff report and recognize the amount of work that
goes into these amendments.
Thanks to both staff and the city.
to thank the city for their outreach and engagement about this revision of the LCP and their
thoughtful approach to this. Change is difficult, and I appreciate the residents' comments
and their concern, but I also encourage the residents to remain engaged as the projects
move forward with both the city and the developer to help mold the best possible outcomes. There's
still potential for that. Housing and especially affordable housing is so badly needed in San
Francisco and the Bay Area and I understand that we're all dealing with
the new state laws but I appreciate the city and the county's approach to bring
more affordable housing in the city in a creative way in a brave way in many
regards and I'll support this amendment as presented to today. Thank you.
Commissioner Lee. Thank you to staff for the recommendation. I just wanted to
commend the city and the county of San Francisco for finding a way to meet an
address the arena numbers in a way that actually emphasizes and prioritizes production, as
opposed to, for instance, where I come from where they just said, we'll just assume every
single one of these single family houses will add an ADU, and now we've met our arena numbers.
And without any tie to actual production, that happens in an infill way in densely urban
environments.
In particular, in this area, I'm very familiar with this neighborhood.
I was on Great Highway last month visiting some friends.
And this is an incredibly expensive city,
still a couple of the last remaining
relatively affordable neighborhoods
that gives young families and people who work in the city
a chance at ownership in a city like San Francisco.
And so to create infill development in a way
that creates and keeps the nature
and preserves the personality of,
like in the images that we saw four stories,
I don't know if maybe the speakers have never been
to Miami Beach and don't know what it actually looks like
there, but still keeping with the character
of the neighborhood to surgically create units
in a way that emphasizes density, access,
and prioritizes the transit-oriented nature
of what our communities need to be,
especially in dense populations.
This is an elegant solution.
Like what Commissioner Lowenberg was talking about,
We need to find ways to slope up to areas of density,
slope down to areas of view corridors and access.
And I'm in support of this recommendation.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart.
I have a question in it.
Mr. Switzky, is that the correct?
And also to staff,
and I'm not sure who's better to respond to this.
I wanted to inquire about the potential for this area
to become one of the designated areas under SB484,
a layered bill that would allow for categorical exclusion for 100% affordable housing. I don't
know if you all have thought of that or aware of the bill. So this is...
Can you clarify which bill?
Sure. This is last year. There was a bill that was passed and signed by the governor,
SB 484. And it basically sounds like you aren't...
I'm not familiar with it, 484.
Okay. And it's always possible. I have the wrong bill number. I don't think so, but it's
possible but in any event the point is that the Coastal Commission as you're
hearing here is very interested in supporting affordable housing on the
coast and one of the ways that we are working with the legislature to do that
is by designating areas I think what is it three dr. Huckle three three or five
I can't remember three I think it was three but it's only for uncertified
areas so it's okay so this this area wouldn't qualify for that particular the
effort that the Commission itself will be doing for to develop categorical
exclusions for affordable housing. In uncertified areas that do not have an
LLCP. That is correct. Oh I see okay because that would be such a great way
to streamline affordable housing here. The hope is that if the Commission can
do this and will do this in uncertified areas then then certify areas may take
it upon themselves to do it as well we kind of create a model. Well great well
Well, at least I've highlighted the bill for you, even though it's not applicable.
But I appreciate it.
Thanks very much.
Thanks, Chair.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, I'll be brief and just share that I want to align myself with the comments of
Commissioner Lee, Redoni, and Loenberg.
This is the moment that we find ourselves in, and this is an opportunity, surgically,
as Commissioner Lee shared, to start bringing solutions to our communities.
And so aligning myself with those comments, I'm going to be supporting this today.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson
Thanks. I just wanted to ask
The timeline so just I want to know how our staff worked with the city of of San Francisco and and
How were we able to bring this so quickly to?
Get in front of us
Sure, I can answer that
I mean as we do with most local governments as these things are going through locally
We're participating with them and talking to them about the coastal zone components of it
Which happened here over the last year or so?
Which also gives us a head start when they actually the LCP amendment actually gets submitted
Which happened here as you heard from mr. Switsky, they adopted this in late 2025
It submitted it to us earlier this year
We're hearing this today about a month after we filed it
So we're moving at pretty good speed to get it to to the Commission for a decision
And again, that's built on all that work that takes place before we even get the submittal.
Okay, I just want to just point out this seems like pretty smooth process.
Okay, great.
I just have one sort of question and it's in relation to the four-story issue or in
terms of like, are we talking about like single-family homes could be, if there are, say there are
two-story single-family home can be torn down and basically replaced with a four-story single
family home or is there a density requirement in that process for single
family? I'm just talking about. Commissioner, good question. So we actually do have minimum density
standards now that were adopted as part of this this ordinance particularly
within a certain distance of the major transit lines and so if you are I
believe within a half mile of one of these major transit lines there is a
minimum density requirement for new construction homeowners that are doing
Expansions of their homes or remodeling are not subject to any of these rules
But if a of a building were to get demolished and is in one of these areas, there's there are some minimum density standards
just the reason to ask that is because in general the closer we get to the coast and the bigger the
Box that we call a home is the less likely it is actually that someone's primary residence, right?
It's just how it's just how it is
And so what we find is that when we're, I really appreciate the affordable housing requirements that are in here and those density requirements, because I think that that is really what's going to make things affordable, because that's what we need to see, especially on the coast.
on the coast. That we have enough honest in my opinion it's maybe not the
opinion of this board and it's not even our policy necessarily that we that we
have enough high-end expensive places to live on the coast is probably kind of
part of the problem. So I've just I feel like you guys are getting this is your
focus and I just want to make sure that we're not encouraging redevelopment
because we see it in so many of the communities we're talking about they
tear down and you know a duplex or whatever and then they build a 5,000
square foot box and it happens a lot and then that just gentrifies certain neighborhoods
in a way that and then what happens is honestly that's someone's probably their second home
or you know because it's close to the coast it's not near where they actually work.
I'm just kind of wondering how this might address that potential problem.
I think someone referred to it you know with the but I'll just ask that question.
Yeah, I think you're you're exactly right. Those are concerns that we shared. And so this program has both minimum density standards for new
construction
There's also a large a large home
Limitation that was also put in actually city-wide as part of this ordinance. So there is a unit size limit
that's either 4,000 feet or 1.2 f ar that actually limits the size of either individual homes or
or units in new buildings because we wanted to make sure
that they are inhabited, that they're family sized,
but that they're inhabited and that we get reasonably
scaled multi-family housing in these areas.
I appreciate that answer and I'm willing to support,
thank you.
Thank you.
I'm happy to support actually, let's put it that way.
Great, thank you.
Well, I will join my colleagues and associate myself
with them, I'll leave it at that.
They all said it better than I can.
So I will turn to, oh, okay.
I'll turn to Commissioner Jackson.
Sorry, thank you, thank you for the comments today.
You know, this is always tough.
You know, we're celebrating 50 years of the Coastal Act
that was designed to keep us,
to help us from turning into Miami.
I'm from Florida, I know what Miami looks like.
We don't want to be New York City.
Maybe some cities do.
The challenge is HCD, having dealt with this
as a local elected in a very dense city,
has imposed this one size fits all mandate on all of us.
And so you look at a city like, I'll take my city.
1.4 square miles.
We've got to put in 600 units.
San Francisco, my god, you're dense.
I mean, it doesn't take a brain surgeon
to say, my God, we are dense.
But yet, you've got a mandate that says one size fits all,
you've got to do this.
And I recognize the housing challenges.
We deal with this every day in my city.
But when you're allowing potential buildings
to go from 40 to 50 to 80 to 120 feet,
that's not a modest adjustment in my opinion.
That's a huge and fundamental shift in scale and community
character.
I don't see that as thoughtful planning, in my opinion.
I think it's overreach.
I think it's pushing coastal communities
toward a level of intensity, again,
the Miami-fication and the New York intensity
that these cities were never designed to absorb.
And we all hear about affordability,
but if affordability is really the goal,
let's be honest about it.
15% is not enough.
And if you're gonna ask communities
to absorb this level of change,
I think the affordability requirements
should be meaningfully higher.
You know, I am confident we can meet our housing goals
without abandoning the principles that have protected
and defined our coast for generations,
and therefore I cannot support this.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
First of all, I want to also say change is a four-letter word
and change in a city like San Francisco doesn't come easy.
And Commissioner Jackson, I just would point out
that the 120, if it goes to that, is 100% affordable.
All right.
I got it.
OK.
And we do not live in a dense city.
As someone who's lived there 66 years,
it is not a dense city by any stretch of the imagination.
There might be a few dense areas, like down in Rincon now.
You could consider it dense.
But this area is not dense, at all, in my personal opinion.
And I grew up very near here.
So with that, I move that the commission certify
the land use plan portion of the LCP amendment,
LCP-2-SFN-26-004-1 as submitted by the
City and County of San Francisco,
and I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
Thank you, that's a motion by Commissioner Lowenberg,
Second by Commissioner Lopez. May we have a roll call vote, please?
Yes, Commissioner O'Malley. Yes
O'Malley. Yes, Commissioner Hart. Yes, Hart. Yes, Commissioner Jackson. No
Jackson. No, Commissioner Rodoni. Yes, Rodoni. Yes, Commissioner Lee. Yes, Lee. Yes, Commissioner Lopez. Yes
Lopez. Yes, Commissioner Lowenberg. Yes,
Lowenberg. Yes, Commissioner not off. I
Not off. Yes, Commissioner Moreno
More no very happily. Yes, Moreno. Yes, Commissioner Wilson
Yes, Wilson. Yes chair Harmon. Yes
Harmon yes, the vote is 10. Yes one. No
Thank you. The motion carries next motion. Please the next motion
I move that the Commission reject the implementation plan portion of the LCP amendment number LCP dash to
dash S
Nf
Dash to six dash zero zero four dash one as submitted by the city and county of San Francisco and I recommend a no vote
second
Thank you. That is a motion by Commissioner Lohenberg a second by Commissioner Lopez. They're asking for a no vote
May we have a roll call, please?
Commissioner Hart no
Hart no Commissioner Jackson. Yes
Jackson yes, Commissioner Rodoni
No, we're don't II know Commissioner Lee. No Lee. No Commissioner Lopez. No
Lopez, no Commissioner Loewenberg. No
Loewenberg. No, Commissioner not off. No not off. No Commissioner Moreno Moreno. No, no
Moreno, no Commissioner Wilson
No, Wilson. No
Commission O'Malley. No
O'Malley. No chair Harmon. No
Harmon no, the vote is one. Yes ten. No
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you for the really good work.
Okay, before we move on to the next item,
I understand there are some folks in this room
who we're gonna introduce who had quite a hand
in creating this space that we're sitting in.
So I'm gonna turn it to you Commissioner Lopez.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just wanna give an opportunity
to the Gonzales Youth Council.
I know they have a representative
who's gonna come forward and just share a few words.
As I shared yesterday, it was their vision
that created the facility we're sitting in today.
So it's my honor to introduce a member
of the Gonzales Youth Council to share a few words with us.
Turn on the mic, sir.
Testing, okay.
Greetings, Coastal Commission.
My name is Ricardo Rodriguez Perez.
I'm currently serving one of the youth commissioners
for the Gonzales Youth Council,
and I was part of one of the members
that created this community center.
And you guys wanna introduce yourself?
Do you want to introduce?
Sure.
Yeah, my name's Aiden Boroncon.
I'm a current senior, and it's my first year in the GYC.
My name is Berni Ochoa.
I am also a senior, but it will also be my first year.
Hello, my name is Melanie Ochoa.
I am a junior, and this is my first year in GYC.
Hello, everybody.
My name is Rolando Perez.
I work alongside my brother.
I'm also one of the Youth Commissioners.
Unfortunately, Shelby Anderson, who is another Youth
Commissioner here, isn't available.
We just wanted to take time to introduce ourselves
and simply thank you all for playing a detrimental role
in overall California and the Coastal Commission.
I kind of got to learn a little about what you guys do
just now, so yeah, I just want to say thank you
for continuing to advocate for our coast.
Living here in Gonzales has been beyond amazing, yeah.
And thank you very much Chris Lopez
for giving us the opportunity to make a public comment.
Thank you, and thank you for reading it.
They couldn't join us yesterday
because they were in school in the morning,
but please join me in giving them a round of applause
for this incredible team.
Thank you, appreciate you, thank you.
Thank you guys so much for joining us.
Okay, yes please.
Real quick, I just want to thank,
I was texting Supervisor Lopez
and also my city manager yesterday
after seeing this amazing space that you all created.
So thank you for the inspiration,
We need something like this in our city. So you've inspired me to push something similar in Hermosa Beach. So, thank you
Okay, I love it. All right next item is item 11, please
Yes, item 11 and I just would note about the San Francisco item when the Commission does the double negative
That's actually approving it and I think some people don't understand that
So just so people realize that was to approve the San Francisco LCP amendment
So yes, that takes us down to item number 11. This is the Central Coast District Directors report and this month we're reporting
Two waivers one extension two emergency permits and one LCP certification review
We did receive an objection to the permit extension. This is for the American Tin Kennery resort project and Pacific Grove
Raising some concerns about construction related impacts on harvest seal pumping and nearby waters the letter sites elevated mortality rates
from the construction of the Monterey Bay Aquarium sea otter research facility and generally raises concerns that
ATC a project of much greater size and scale will similarly result in negative marine mammal impacts
So we'd like to note a few things about this
First for the ATC project and as some commissioners they were present during the initial
CDP approval will recall the issues of construction related marine mammal impacts were well acknowledged debated and conditioned for
Staff including the Commission's ecology team discussed concerns and protections with local marine wildlife experts and other regulators at length
And incorporated their suggestions into special condition three
Which requires the executive director to approve a marine wildlife protection plan prior to any construction occurring that plan includes detailed measures to avoid any
construction related impacts including avoidance of the loudest construction methods during harbor seal pumping season
Including prohibiting grading and excavation from November through July
There's also a required on-site biological monitor and stop work authority should any disturbance occur among other requirements
So we're currently working with the permittee on the parameters of the plan
And are including feedback from regulators surrounding surrounding properties and the parties who submitted today's comment letter actually
We continue to feel that the CDP is well equipped to avoid any significant marine mammal impacts and second
With respect to the aquarium project reference. We'd note that we did receive monitoring reports from the aquarium's biological monitors
And they generally found that there were not significant construction related impacts on area seals
The reports indicate 177 instances of identified seal disturbances of any kind over a nine month construction period
Which include any behavioral responses including heads lifting from it from any outside stimuli?
But 85% of these disturbances were linked to events not related to construction
Including birds calling passing vehicle and foot traffic and daily operations on surrounding properties
Many of the remaining construction related disturbances were related to truck noise
It should be noted that the ATC project is conditioned to direct traffic away from the street located adjacent to the beach
This suggestion came from the commenters themselves and we appreciate their input
We'd also note that 2024 was a record low for Harbor seal pup counts and
Based on nearby data from Marin County, which is the closest counts to Monterey that count Harbor seal pups at that level of detail
And given these larger regional trends and high levels of disturbance unrelated to the project staff is unable to make the same conclusions as the commenters
We also want to note the benefits of monitoring in addition to the data collection having an observer on the site provided opportunity to inform visitors
about the impacts of standing too close to the beach.
Collected data have also resulted in discussions
on how to further reduce impacts from surrounding properties
unrelated to the project.
We believe that the issues raised by the commenters
for this item continue to be appropriately addressed
by the existing coastal permit and the developing plan,
and we do not see any changed circumstances that
would warrant additional consideration of this topic.
Therefore, we continue to recommend the CDP extension.
I'd also note that we received an objection
to the LCP certification review for Santa Cruz County's LCP amendment which made minor
changes and modified provisions related to temporary structures, gross site area calculations
and timber harvesting activities. The objection raises substantive issues associated with
the initial approval of the subject LCP amendment where those issues have already been decided
on by this commission and the required changes have already been implemented by the county.
As such, these comments are outside the scope of this hearing today and as much as this
certification review is limited to the question of whether the county adopted the suggested
modifications to the LCP amendment that were approved by the Commission, which they did,
as indicated in the staff report. Thus, we have no further comment on the objection received
and continue to report the certification review to the Commission, which will allow the amended
LCP to take effect in the form directed by the Commission. So past that, we're not aware
of any objections or controversy regarding the other matters in the report, so the question
whether four or more commissioners object to any of the items and if not then the commission
will concur. Thank you Mr. Carl. Any ex partes? Any public comments? Yes, we have one speaker,
Tom Aikman. You're being moved in as a panelist, you should be able to unmute.
Tom, I see you're in as a panelist, you should be able to unmute, there you go.
Thank you. This is Kim Aikman and I'll be speaking for my husband who has a horse voice today.
Go ahead.
We have spent, of course, the past 20 years watching
and learning about the colony of harbor seals
that lives along the shoreline
just across from the American tin cannery.
We appealed the hotel development two years ago
because we believed the noise
from the proposed excavation and rebuilding will be so loud
it will harm the seals that have become a tourist attraction.
At that time, we had only the one example
of the nearby construction noise
that killed harbor seals, a road construction project
alongside the puppy beaches.
A third of that year, seal pups were lost to that noise
before NOAA stepped in to delay the road work.
NOAA scientists later wrote a technical report
on how the noise kills seals.
I'm sorry to say there was the second construction project,
which you mentioned, that produced a similar loss.
Details of that one are in our written comments
attached to the agenda item.
The Coastal Commission did attach mitigations to that one,
But it didn't really work well.
And the monitors would not know that
unless they had local knowledge of that colony.
And we can explain that more if you would like.
We want to make you aware of that second real life
example of harm to the neighboring harbor seals,
because these projects are a drop in the bucket compared
to the ATC hotel proposal.
We know there's no final plan yet,
but proposing to tear out an estimated 70 tons of granite
for an underground parking garage, excuse me,
70,000 tons, for an underground parking garage,
knock down a century-old factory building,
level a hill, and remove 79 mature trees,
is likely to create more noise than can be controlled.
Thank you for listening.
I think we might actually have one more speaker,
Reggie Meisler.
It was a bit confusing with this agenda item.
It was like marked 11 and 11A, which is not typical.
I'm sorry, but Reggie is here for the next item.
OK, Reggie is here for the next item.
Confirming that?
All right, we have no one more speaker.
OK, in person, right here.
Hello?
Reggie, we're going to move on to item 11a next.
So just hang on tight.
And go ahead.
Please turn the mic on, ma'am.
OK, I read that there is a waiver and I didn't hear it,
So I was wondering what that is.
And the deputy director's report says report.
I'm sorry, Ms. Waver.
Could you repeat your question?
It says Central Coast District 11,
deputy director's report report by deputy director
on permit waivers.
I was just wondering what that is.
Emergency permits.
Mr. Carla.
So there are two waivers that are being reported today.
One is at Cal Poly Pier in San Luis Obispo
for some improvements that are at the foot of the pier,
essentially, including a public access overlook.
The second one is for 28 acres of restoration
at Pismo State Beach on Grover Beach.
I take it back.
Both of these projects, again, include the sort of BMPs
that we tend to put on permits like this.
And thus, we think they qualify as waivers.
They're being done by private.
Ma'am, I would just suggest that you go on our website
to the agenda and pull up the report, where
they have detailed information about what's
included in the deputy director's report.
But I don't think he really reported on it.
We can't get into back and forths in this way.
If you'd like to finish your public comment,
please go for it.
Well, then I oppose the waivers.
Thank you.
Chris, any further commenters?
I hope you have no other speakers.
Okay.
Mr. Carl, unless you have anything, okay.
I'll return to the commission.
Do four more commissioners object to any item
in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Thank you, and we will continue on.
Sounds good.
That'd bring us up to item number 11A.
This is the city, an informational item
related to the city of Santa Cruz's
recreational vehicle, oversized vehicle ordinance
and safe parking program.
Kiana Ford is on the Zoom
and she'll be giving our staff presentation.
We do have a PowerPoint for this.
Do you have anyone on commissioners?
Is there feedback happening?
You're fine.
Okay, great.
Today with item 11A, we are going to provide
an informational overview of the city of Santa Cruz
oversized vehicle and safe parking program
and its implementation over the last three years.
The primary purpose for this informational briefing
is to solicit commissioner feedback
on extending the program for an additional five years,
which would be enacted via executive director approval.
In addition, the city is hoping to foster a discussion
with commissioners on the 24 seven component of the program,
but is not proposing any changes at this time.
Next slide, please.
As an overview, the city's current program
was approved in 2024,
and it authorizes a midnight to 5am restriction
on parking of oversized vehicles on public streets,
rights of way, and parking lots in conjunction with a safe
parking program offering alternative sites and
accompanying social services. The safe parking program
provides alternative overnight parking spaces for oversize
vehicles in two main ways. One via overnight only parking
spaces that also offer trash and hygiene facilities. And two
via 24 seven spaces that provide the same elements as the
overnight only spaces with additional amenities and
support services. The program also provides temporary parking
passes for residents, as well as a partnership program with local hotels for visitors to
park at hotel parking lots. Next slide, please. To go back in time, in 2022, the city began
pursuing an overnight oversized vehicle parking ban and safe parking program via a city issued
CDP as a way to address the public access and public health issues associated with long-term
overnight parking of such vehicles. That CDP, which was appealed to the commission, included
a midnight to 5 a.m. prohibition on oversized vehicle parking as well as a prohibition on
oversized vehicle parking within 100 feet of certain roadway features which would have rendered
a large portion of the coastal zones roads as off limits to such parking. While the program
included a safe parking component that component was not fully fleshed out at the time and ultimately
the commission found the program raised a substantial issue. In 2023 city and commission
staff worked together to bring the program back before the commission with a revised program that
removed the 100-foot ban entirely and better developed the parameters of the safe parking
program where the commission ultimately approved the program for a one-year pilot term after which
time the city would need to pursue a new CDP. Then in 2024 the city approved a new CDP that largely
carried forward the parameters of the pilot program but which included additional built-in
review loops in consultation with the commission's executive director. That 2024 CDP was appealed
to the commission and the commission ultimately voted to find that the approval did not raise a
substantial issue but only after the city agreed to two changes. First that the city would reduce
the permit approval from five years to two years and second that the city would return to the
commission for an informational briefing which is why we are here today. A major focus of the need
for the informational briefing was not only a check-in to see how well the program was operating,
but also an opportunity for commissioners to provide feedback to the city and the executive
director on both the program and whether the coastal permit authorizing it should be extended.
Next slide, please. Since the implementation of the current program in 2024, the city has
documented decreases in the average amount of trash collected on the west side and in issues
related to leaking Blackwater tanks and oversized vehicle fires. In addition, city staff and the
the public have observed more parking turnover along coastal streets while demonstrating that
the number of oversized vehicles in the city has largely remained the same via the city's point in
time count. Lastly, the safe parking program has served between 8 and 34 people monthly in the
overnight only parking spots and 82 people total in the 24-7 parking spots with 28 of those participants
moving on to permanent housing. Overall, the city firmly believes that the program has developed
into a well functioning essential part of the city's social services agenda.
While the city is committed to continuing to provide overnight parking spaces sufficient
to capture all demand for overnight coastal parking of oversized vehicles, questions have
been raised by city staff about the financial and logistical challenges of the 24-7 component of
the safe parking program. Overall, the city has experienced a loss in funding for homelessness
and social services and is spending approximately $500,000 a year on the 24 seven component of the
safe parking program which is located far inland and outside of the city's coastal zone. At maximum
capacity the 24 seven parking can accommodate up to 15 vehicles which amounts to approximately
26 individuals on average. The city is interested in exploring whether those funds could be reallocated
to serve a larger number of people in need of support services and is seeking commissioner
feedback and whether exploring other avenues would receive support. To be clear, the city
is not proposing any changes to the 24-7 component at this time, and in fact has reiterated that
this component is still in the early stages and would require an extensive public comment process,
but is simply soliciting feedback on whether such a change can be supported and in what manner.
If supported, the city would need to come back to staff with a proposal for any change to determine
the correct coastal permitting pathway. Next slide please. To conclude, staff believes that
the city's program has been shown to be a successful and effective tool to accomplish
its dual objectives of providing needed social services and in a manner that protects coastal
resources. Regarding next steps, the city is primarily requesting to extend the program
for an additional five years and staff is supportive of such an extension, and to do
so requires executive director concurrence. The city would also like to hear feedback from
commissioners on exploring transitioning the 24-7 component of the program into different ways of
providing support services which if supported would require the city to submit a proposal
to commission staff and the executive director which would require further analysis before any
action were taken. While the commission is not being asked to vote on anything as a body at this
informational briefing, the executive director hopes to hear from commissioners on these points.
With that city of Santa Cruz playing director Lee Butler is here and intends to speak to you next and that concludes staff's presentation
And we are available for questions
Great. Thank you very much. First. Let me ask if there are any expertise on this
Okay, seeing none. Mr. Butler
Thank You chair Harmon and commissioners
I'm Lee Butler community development director for the city of Santa Cruz and I would actually like to cede my time to our
City council member Sonia Bruner who is on video here
And you've asked for five minutes, correct?
We can do it in less than that.
You're welcome.
And we have council member Brunner on Zoom.
I see that you're unmuted.
Go ahead.
Great. Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Sonya Brunner, a council member at the City of Santa Cruz.
And I'm here to speak regarding implementation of an oversized vehicle ordinance in Santa Cruz,
which has been generally successful in addressing the concerns that led to its initial enactment,
large entrenchment of individuals living in oversized vehicles,
and the associated environmental and coastal access concerns.
We've seen improvements from before the ordinance with RVs that rarely moved,
large accumulations of trash, and smelly outdoor bathrooms.
This was accomplished while not significantly reducing the number of people residing in
oversized vehicles in the city and while providing the alternative safe parking locations with
access to trash and hygiene facilities.
Maintaining safe parking is important to us and we fully expect to continue that.
people in oversized vehicles is such an important component of our overall homelessness response
strategy. Maintaining at the same time we have federal funding reductions and local
service provider issues that are resulting in a reduction of homeless services in Santa
Cruz and we take a holistic view of addressing homelessness. So we are committed to continuing
building services to our
unhoused neighbors and we want
to invest in the most effective
programs, including for those
who reside in oversized
vehicles.
Speaking on behalf of myself
and the other two council
members, we are interested in
exploring program investments
that lead to the best outcomes.
So, evaluation of alternatives
to the 24-7 parking program
should be assessed.
for all of us. I'm interested
to hear commissioners
perspectives on that
exploration and we want to
continue building on the
success of the oversized
vehicle ordinance thus far and
we appreciate the support from
the commission and commission
staff and we look forward to
continue collaboration with the
commission, the community,
stakeholders and all to achieve
That sounds good, great, thank you very much.
All right, we have nine other speakers.
We have one in person and eight on Zoom.
We'll start with Kueh Vila in person.
Okay, not for this item.
Eight speakers all on Zoom.
We'll start with Alicia Cool, Carol Palahamas,
Reggie Meisler.
Give us a moment as we move you in.
All right, Alicia is moving in.
When you're able to, please unmute and begin.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Hi, thank you so much.
My name is Alicia Cool, and I'm speaking
on behalf of the Santa Cruz Homeless Union.
And we have always opposed the oversized vehicle
ordinance in general.
We don't see it as successful.
What it's really done is displace individuals
into other areas of town, Watsonville, associated areas.
it really hasn't done anything to remove oversized vehicles in general. They just sort
of moved around town. Sorry, I'm actually in the public location so if you hear background noise,
I apologize for that. We oppose removing the 24-hour safe parking program with the OVO in place.
the reason being is that the safe parking program already only serves a small portion of people
that are in RVs serving 15 spaces and the last count for the pit count for people in RVs was
about 162 although we would agree that it is inexpensive safe parking choice it is the one
that is the most utilized at this point. It is full and it has a waiting list. And so removing
that and considering things like tent spaces and things like that just would definitely not make
any sense. What we request is that you look for ways to make the program more affordable
so that it can actually be expanded instead of closed. And we would remind the community
that spending money all the money on homelessness for staffing
whereas very little go ends up going to the participants of these programs
is not the model that we'd like to see. These programs can be ran
in a more cost efficient way utilizing volunteers and program participants
themselves and not closed. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Hold on Reggie. Next is Carol Polhamus then Reggie Meisler,
Piggie Lee Kennedy. Carol Polhamis. Carol, I see that you're in as a panelist you should be able
to unmute. Hello. There you go. Sorry. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Carol
Polhamis and I'm speaking on behalf of West Side Neighbors. Our group is comprised of members from
the area of the city from just past the boardwalk all the way to natural bridges and areas
significantly negatively impacted by issues related to unregulated vehicle overnight parking.
We have previously communicated with the Commission on record and have membership in the stakeholder
group. We would like to express our appreciation for the city for its efforts to address the
impacts of overnight vehicle camping on city streets and for creating a safe spaces parking
program to assist people living in their vehicles out of necessity. After the OVO was put in
place. The daily RV count on the four most impacted streets has declined from an average
of 68 to 21 today with a concomitant improvement in the concerns previously outlined. We strongly
support the city's request to extend the CDP for the OVO for five years. We continue to support
the city's efforts to provide overnight safe spaces parking with new supportive housing coming online
as well as a decline in funding from the federal government. We understand the need
for flexible use of the funding allocated for the 24-7 parking program as needs change.
The OVO and Safe Spaces parking program have been designed to assist people living in their
vehicles while mitigating the negative impacts unregulated camping creates. We request that the
city CDP be extended for five years. Thank you. Thank you. Next Richie Meisler, Peggy Lee Kennedy,
Deborah Elston, Reggie Meisler.
Hi, my name's Reggie Meisler.
I was the original lead
appellant of the oversized vehicle ordinance
on behalf of Santa Cruz Cares.
I appreciate that the city is trying to
maintain overnight only safe parking
and not try to use this money for like the Armory Tent shelter
because the cost figures are the same.
The reason why RV safe parking 24 hours so expensive
is because of social workers.
And if you look at the Armory tent shelter,
it's basically the per person cost is basically equivalent.
It's about $35,000 per person per year.
So I think increasing investment in the overnight only safe
parking could make sense.
The issues that we've seen historically
is that the requirements for people in that program
are unclear, people don't know about the program, it's hard to get registered in the program,
it's very unclear how long you can be in the program, it's very unclear what, like, what,
because there are rules like you can't throw trash away once you enter the safe parking
space, which doesn't make sense because they supposedly are offering you things like sanitation
services at the safe parking space, which is in a city parking lot at night. So I think
there's a lot of problems with the overnight safe parking that hopefully, if OVO continues,
that we can iterate on. But I agree that this method of spending a lot of money on caseworkers
when Section 8 vouchers are not increasing, the number of people who have Section 8 vouchers,
losing it. Like we have 250 families who are losing their COVID vouchers right now. So
I think it is unrealistic to try to get people into housing that subsidize. So let's work
on safe parking. Thanks. Thank you. Peggy Lee Kennedy, and Deborah Elson I think we lost
so we'll move on to Dylan Werner Christ and then Serge Cagno. So Peggy Lee Kennedy. Thank
parking tickets are not a homeless service. That is really wrong and the
fact that you put up signs and you are ticketing people and displacing them as
your carrot to remove people out of the area is really inappropriate in the
first place but if you want to know what's really happening how about let's
Let's talk to the people who are directly affected.
I hear, I read all this about the neighbors,
the stick and brick housed people, how it affects them,
but you know what?
You're giving tickets out for leaky septics
when it's a part that's like 20 bucks or something,
which is a huge problem for people sometimes
when they have no money.
But the cost of going out and issuing these tickets
and giving these people fines,
that's totally inappropriate
when you could have other solutions.
And maybe there's garbage
because there's no garbage cans for them.
So how about let's look at real solutions
like low income housing,
because it doesn't seem like those people
are getting the low income housing.
We need to know what's happened to these people
that this has directly affected,
not the stick and bricks, more privileged people
who are living in Santa Cruz in the coastal zone.
I'm talking about the people we should be helping
and protecting here, and this commission needs
to look at that.
You know, how about let's do a survey
and talk to the actual people directly affected.
I've done it as a volunteer.
I mean, I'm sure you could come up with a little chunk
of change out of all those tickets and street signs
that have been put up to do something really basic
like that to talk about people's needs
and meeting them where they're at.
That's what we should really be doing.
Thank you.
And I'm really opposed to this.
Thank you.
Next, Dylan Werner Christ, Serge Kagno,
and then Dr. Graham Press.
Dylan Werner Christ.
Hello.
Can we get a few extra minutes?
Be like maybe five?
We asked that. Excuse me sir,
you the representative from the ACLU? Yes. Okay. Yes. Five
minutes. Thank you. Beautiful. Thank you. I appreciate it. Hi,
commission. My name is Dylan Verner Chris with the ACLU of
Northern California. We're one of the original appellants for
this permit. First, I just want to note that we disagree with
Santa Cruz findings of the number of RVs used for housing
the city has not reduced since since the implementation of the
program. We've done several counts of vehicles both in safe parking and on the streets and have
repeatedly found both the sharp reduction in the number of vehicles on the street and the number
of vehicles participating in safe parking programs. This is what we long warned of when we initially
appealed this project that poor people living in RVs would leave Santa Cruz if this ordinance came
into effect. Next I want to briefly outline some procedural concerns. After the Coastal Commission
granted the city's permit in 2023. The city established the Stakeholders Group as required
by the permit that consisted of our offices and other homeless advocates to inform and
provide input regarding the implementation of the approved project. Since then we've
been part of those meetings. So we were surprised here less than two weeks ago that the city
is contemplating or wants to end the Tier 3 safe parking program that is a core part
the program. We have received no notice from either the city or commission staff about this
desire despite our position as stakeholders and this lack of any notice or discussions
raises concerns about the city's actual commitments to transparency and their representations about
permit compliance. Lastly, I just want to talk about some of our substantive concerns focusing in
on the city's request to sort of dissolve that Tier 3 parking program.
So the staff report describes the city's request,
which is to do away with a $500,000 program that is housed over one-third of participants and
sheltered 82 people as a quote, minor modification to the permit. This beggars belief. By the city's
own admission, this program has quote, operated successfully, served as an important tool for
the city to provide services to those who need it and help 10 people move into longer term housing
and get it, it's now potentially on the chopping block. The dissolution of this program will
unavoidably lessen or avoid the intended effect of the permit. Participants in the program will
return to parking on city streets. There will be no pipeline from the tier 2 program to a wraparound
tier 3 program that can actually help to house people and many people will return to parking in
the coastal zone, occupying the same parking spaces that they had before the permit was issued,
others will leave Santa Cruz, which is what we've long warned about. According to the
staff report, the city would rather fund expanded case management services
and other outreach programs and include, and they they mentioned tent-based shelter spaces
with the money in question. This suggests that the city's preferred programs have little nexus
the needs of people who live in recreational vehicles nor any access to coastal access.
This is not about people who live in tents, this is about RVs. These programs could be valuable,
but they're not tied to the permit goals. The City's preference for other programs should
not trump its duties to comply with the needs of the issue permit or to facilitate the coastal
access of the environmental justice community at issue here. Lastly, the City does nothing
to articulate how it's proposed elimination of the tier 3 program is
quote, reasonable and necessary as the permit conditions require. The city
writes that it quote, may seek to reinvest funds currently used for the
24-7 safe parking program and that it might in the future seek to reinvest
those funds in a number of ways that could be of greater benefit to the
community. There's no articulation of necessity here, only the desire for
flexibility and a preference for such. The Commission, this is not what the
permit conditions require and the Commission should not approve this. We
urge that if you continue the program that you require the continuance of the
Tier 3 program as well. Thank you. Thank you. Next will be Serge Cagno and then
Dr. Graham Press. Serge Cagno. Good afternoon. My name is Serge Cagno. I live
in my Sprinter in Santa Cruz. I'm subject to the ordinance. I've worked and
consulted using my vehicles in office.
I presently am the executive director of a program
called Stepping Up Santa Cruz,
which provides wraparound case management housing navigation
for those who are homeless
and other vulnerable populations in Santa Cruz.
The city's wish to end the 24 seven safe parking
is clearly not a minor modification to their permit.
I would ask that you clearly support the continuation
of the 24 seven program,
along if you're continuing to support the ordinance.
I'd like to add a few facts to the commission for this item.
Though mentioned in the permit
as something the city has been exploring,
the city has never made a RV wastewater dump in the city.
There is no location for people to do that within the city.
Ending this program takes away one option for these people,
which was all about cleanliness for the city.
So what they're supposed to do about that is left unsaid.
Other Santa Cruz programs have recently ended their showers,
bathrooms, laundry, and even mail services.
And no new services has come up.
This also ends more services for people
and makes living in the area difficult.
Watsonville recently passed an ordinance
that oversized vehicles can't be on any city street
for city parking lot any time of the day.
This just makes the whole area more difficult to live
and to access the coast.
In one of the exhibit one,
the 24 seven average was 26 months to secure housing,
but the not just the overnight safe parking programs
as the city website states is up to 30 days
with a possibility of extension,
which app does not allow for the time
that it takes to house somebody.
The city has another program, a tent based program
called 1220 and from, sorry, and the last thing is,
they can have outsourced case management
like my program that bills Medi-Cal.
So to save themselves money,
they could easily not provide the case management
but continue providing the 24 seven parking.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Next is Dr. Graham Press.
I believe you might be under the name
a National Vehicle Residency Coalition.
We haven't been able to move in
as panelists we've been trying.
You should be able to unmute now.
Can you please confirm that you are Graham Press?
Yes, that's me.
Can you move me in as a panelist?
I'd love to call camera, I can.
Okay, you should be prompted right now.
Give it a moment as it loads
and we have your presentation up.
You may begin when you are ready.
You're muted still.
sorry about that. Can you hear me now? Yes, go ahead. Wonderful. Good afternoon,
Chair and Commissioners. My name is Dr. Graham Press, and I'm the Executive Director of the
National Vehicle Residency Coalition. I also live in Santa Cruz in the coastal zone, and I am here
in opposition to the city's proposal to extend the OVO, the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance, and
eliminate its full-time RV safe parking program. Next, please. Our coalition works across the
country to advance the rights and representation of people who live in vehicles in policy,
programming and public discourse.
We organize the largest network
of safe parking program providers in the US.
We do this because for many people,
a vehicle is not just transportation, it is home.
It is shelter.
It is often a person's most valuable possession.
A mobile home is safety, privacy, storage, stability,
and the only thing standing between many people
and their absolute displacement.
In Santa Cruz, next please.
In Santa Cruz, the full-time RV program
a key part of that balance that made the city's oversized vehicle restrictions possible. Removing
that program while keeping the enforcement structure in place would break that balance.
It would leave people with fewer real options and it would move further narrow access to the coast
for lower-income people and people whose housing takes mobile form. The issue also reaches beyond
current program participants. California's coast belongs to all of us, including vacationers,
traveling workers, remote workers, elders, families, and people caring for loved ones
while living in oversized vehicles. Choosing to live in a vehicle does not erase a person's rights.
Vehicle residents have the same right to coastal access as anyone else. Next please.
The California Coastal Commission has the mandate, the responsibility, and the opportunity to
protect meaningful access rights for all people to our coasts. This means pushing back against
oversized vehicle ordinances wherever they may be and against their growing use across the state as
tools of exclusion and management. We ask that you provide feedback to not extend this OVO program
and at least to preserve the 24-7 safe parking component. Thank you for your time and
consideration. I'm available to ask any questions or assist in this matter on behalf of our
organizations. Please email me at gramm at vehicleresidency.org to learn more. Thank you.
Thank you. And we were able to locate Deborah Elston. They called in on phone now. Deborah,
you should be able to unmute. Deborah, there you go. Good afternoon commissioners. First
of all, I just wanted to say this has been a long term program that has been in the works
for many many years and there's so much back history. This program was developed, researched
In the whole state of California, which many other counties already have an ordinance similar
to ours, and I really have supported everything that the city has been moving forward.
I feel that this program has been very successful, and the neighbors have continued to see great
improvements.
Consistency and enforcement needs to move forward.
The program has been supporting all sides in helping RV people get their vehicles started,
moving forward, having a safe place to park.
And I realize that's part of the contention here, but I believe that can be worked through.
We support continuing this ordinance.
I have worked with these neighbors for probably 10 years and we really need to consistently
keep this ordinance in place and moving forward.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you.
All our speakers are accounted for.
Madam Chair.
Great.
Thank you very much.
So I will return to you, Mr. Carr.
Yes.
Just a couple of things.
One is just to reiterate that this permit has a very unique structure.
It's not normal, but it's what this permit does.
And the planning director and the executive director,
if they concur, can extend the permit.
And so that's really the question that's before us today
because the permit expires in a month.
So that's the key question here.
I think there's some confusion over the city's,
what they're looking for is some input related
to the 24-7 component.
They're not suggesting that it be dropped.
They're not proposing that it be dropped.
They're not proposing that it be replaced.
They're not reposing anything.
They wanted to see if the commissioners had
any perspectives that they wanted
to share about that particular component of the program
to be able to take that in terms of if they were to go back
and think about other ways they might want to spend the $500,000,
they'd want to know that there was some interest or willingness
to consider other sorts of options.
We've said, if you come up with things that are just
as good for the community, that's something
that we could consider.
But it's not before there's no proposal to do this today.
And it's unknown at this point, if they were to come up
with a proposal, whether it would qualify as minor
or require a permit amendment.
So I just want to be clear, there
seemed to be some confusion in the comments
that suggested that that component of the program
is going away.
For example, if it were to be decided,
the executive director could just decide that.
That's not how this is going down.
And so I just want you guys to have that nugget,
and then we're here for questions.
And the city obviously is here for questions.
Thank you.
Well, I'm going to take my prerogative
and begin if that's OK.
Can I ask a follow-up question, Mr. Carl?
Because that clarification is really helpful.
So to make sure that I am understanding correctly,
there is no proposal or idea today or even tomorrow
that the 24-7 parking would be removed.
But we are, however, being asked to provide input
on whether we might be open to its removal
and its replacement with some other suite of options.
That's correct.
Okay, that's very helpful, thank you.
So I'm gonna start because I'm guessing
I'm gonna be in a different place
than my colleagues on this.
As some of you may remember when this originally came
before us in the Coastal Commission,
or at the Coastal Commission,
I was a relatively new commissioner,
and so certainly predicated my no vote on reasons
that I now understand to be fully outside
of the Coastal Act, but I still do remain quite uncomfortable,
certainly on constitutional grounds.
And frankly, as to the question before us,
the removal of the 24-7 component,
from a Coastal Act perspective specifically,
while I don't think, based on the numbers,
that that program seems to be particularly efficient,
I think Vice Chair Hart pointed out,
serving eight folks in one month for that much money
is really challenging.
But to remove that program while also continuing
those regulations in the coastal zone
seemed to me to really be specifically excluding
a particular class of people from our coast.
So while I had problems with the program
as it was originally envisioned,
I think those problems are only magnified
and perhaps even become more specific to the Coastal Act
when we get rid of this 24-7 program,
which seems to be sort of the fail safe
that continue to allow folks regardless of housing status,
regardless of socioeconomic status to access the coast.
So my view is that I'm open to something
other than 24-7, and I think we should be,
but I wanna be really mindful
that whatever the alternatives are,
and certainly case management is so good,
it's so critical, it's so necessary,
but if we're saying that in lieu of access to the coast,
we're providing you with an extra case worker,
I don't think that that lives up to our obligations
of providing access for all under the Coastal Act.
It may be good municipal policy from a financial perspective.
It may be, frankly, the right way
to use what is now a set of very limited funds
when it comes to homeless services.
But when we think about preserving access for all
under the Coastal Act, I just wanna make sure
that we're mindful of how some of these restrictions
can, if not by the letter of the law,
in practice, effectively exclude a class of people
from our coast.
So that's my concern.
And I guess it hasn't changed too much
in the intervening years.
But I really do appreciate you all coming back
and continuing this conversation.
And I know our executive director is incredibly thoughtful
around these issues and have a total trust
that our staff will be balancing all of the various elements
that we need to consider when it comes to these programs.
So thank you for being here.
Would anyone else like to weigh in?
Commissioner Notoff.
This came before the commission,
my first Coastal Commission meeting, I think, in 23.
And I just want to acknowledge that
the testimony that we heard then,
I feel like one of the things that I was focused on
that hearing was engaging the stakeholders and people were not feeling heard at that time.
While there's still concerns about the program that we heard today, a lot of those folks are
engaged in the stakeholder process. What I'm hearing is that with the 24-7 program in place,
that's one of the things that people are holding onto as something that they're relying on. So if
If we were to replace that with something, there would be a pretty high burden to make
sure that it provided that kind of commensurate support.
But I did want to just acknowledge that I've certainly from what I've heard in between
two years ago and now, there's a lot.
There's something's working because people are more engaged.
Commissioner Waltham.
So for me, I still have an issue around the nexus
or the linking of the program to the access,
I guess is what I'm saying.
I'm just going off the experience in the town
that I live in, which is not my jurisdiction necessarily.
Sorry, this is really hot mic.
That's not me.
It's the microphone.
The boo, it's two 12-year-olds over here, got it?
All right.
Touche.
Yeah.
OK, so I just want to, for me, because we, in Arcada,
we were really proud of the program
that we had for the parking program that we had.
And it was contained on one side.
But it was really grant funded.
And when that money ran out, the program ended.
And for me, I guess what I'm getting at
is if we get into a place where we permit the programs
in such a way that if the agency finds itself without funds
or the resources to do it, then they're
kind of in this place where then they
have to provide the services because it's
part of the permit, then what I don't want to have
is to dissuade other jurisdictions from even trying
because they feel like they might get locked
into a forever program that really,
that maybe where funding isn't necessarily consistent.
I guess for me that's a,
I just feel like that's an issue for me
and I want to just express it.
I don't have an answer to that whatsoever.
When we had the program, it was wonderful.
A lot of people were served.
It was really great and it was really,
it was terrible when it had to end.
And I want to reflect to that,
But yeah, the federal government is cutting Section 8 housing funding, which is terrible
across all our jurisdictions.
And I want to really point out, they will be, we will be seeing homeless people being
created from those cuts that's coming.
It speaks to the federal administration and their priorities or lack thereof, especially
when the easiest and simplest and cheapest way we can keep people off the streets is
Section 8 housing because the housing already exists and all you got to do is
put people in it and it's just shocking to me that we're even talking about that
so I'll put that one aside my just my concern is the link between access and
the program and I don't know how we extricate that necessarily or what we've
kind of put ourselves into by creating this this link but I don't want to see
other jurisdictions you know veer away from providing those kinds of services
if they think that they're gonna get locked into it when their funding runs
out and so that was that's just a concern I have as much as I love the
programs and I think they should happen so yeah and I'll just I guess take my
prerogative again to respond briefly I totally totally agree with you but I
think it's impossible to decouple the program from the question of access when
the program itself, the impact has a relationship to access. So
you know, I also don't want to totally decouple it because we
have a responsibility to consider impacts and outcomes at
the same time. So with that, Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, I think staffs looking I'm supportive of the
recommendation to give that authority to our executive
director, along with the city and there's concurrence to make
these findings and changes and I'll share why. Being a representative for the
County of Monterey and my day job, we have seen some of the impacts from the
policies brought up by public commenters today specifically the ones in Watsonville.
We've seen folks drive over the hill because they've been pushed out. What I
found quickly was a change in the data around a survey. There was a population
under a safe parking program we used to have in the County of Monterey. When you
ask folks are you willing or looking are you willing to move into or looking for
housing back then the response was no I'm housed I'm in an RV I don't need
additional housing now that data has shifted based on the movement of these
folks who've left Santa Cruz County and moved into Monterey County and so what
the population is looking for is different and so we are seeing shifts in
willingness and ability of folks to do that in our instance we did not offer
24-7 with our own safe parking program it forced driveability to be tested
daily of the vehicles and also registration if those vehicles are
hitting the road they are required to be legally registered by having that
policy that was not 24-7. My question and what often happened was folks would
drive out in essentially squat on a piece of the coast and say well now this
is mine before we had our safe parking program so that question of access we
were limiting someone else's access because now somebody had set up shop and said this
is now my piece.
And so there's a lot of different approaches in the population shifts.
I see what drives people into these situations and a certain population that wants to call
this permanent.
I also now see more folks based on our data saying we're looking for places to go.
Section 8 vouchers would be great, help us find a pathway out.
And so because the population shifts, moves and desires are always shifting, I'm willing
to give that five years, four years, if that's what's left on the permit, of flexibility
to the executive director to continue to monitor those realities and make the program fit the
moment that we're in.
Because as we know, we've quickly shifted just in the last year and a half with this
current administration in terms of availability of resources.
And as we move forward, if they shift again, we won't have to revisit it here.
authority will lie within the executive director and there's nobody who knows the coastal act
better so I am comfortable with that direction today thank you. Commissioner Jackson. Thank you
madam chair thank you to all the the speakers today I've got a couple questions and if I missed
this in the staff report forgive me I'm a little slow today with my 12 year old colleague over here.
what is the ultimate goal of this safe parking program? Is it to provide overnight safe parking
with provided wraparound services, with the ultimate goal of moving people off the streets,
out of their vehicles into either temporary supportive housing or long-term temporary
housing. I'm missing that piece. I believe that's the goal, but I mean you could ask
Mr. Butler if you'd like for the city to explain what they think the goal of the program is,
but that's our understanding. Because to me that's the, you know, are we providing a
de facto camping ground? Are we providing a safe place for people to park with the ultimate
goal of moving them out of their cars, out of their vehicles? Because, you know, if I'm
I'm a 20 something year old dude in my sprinter van.
I'm quite comfortable living in a van as a single guy
and I look for a place to squat.
So is that what we're getting or are we getting,
what is it you're trying to get to I guess is my question.
Thanks for that question, Commissioner Jackson.
I'm gonna provide a response
and then I'll offer the opportunity for Larry and Wally,
our homelessness response manager
to also see if he'd like to add anything.
So when we presented the oversized vehicle ordinance
to the commission initially,
we recognized that we are going to have people
residing in their vehicles.
And while we don't have restrictions
as it relates to smaller vehicles,
oversized vehicles, we knew that they needed a place to go.
If we were saying you can't park on the street,
you need a place to go.
The challenge as council member Bruner mentioned earlier
was that we had significant levels of entrenchment.
And it was something that commissioner Lopez referenced
where we had people staying for very extended periods of time
and with that came significant amount of debris
and a significant number of outdoor restrooms
and reduced access for community members
who wanted to visit the coast.
And so while we wanted to make sure that that movement occurred
so that the entrenchment didn't happen,
we also wanted to make sure that there was a place for people to go.
And in doing that, we wanted to make sure that they had bathroom services and trash services.
And so these safe parking places offer both of those.
And that's really the key, is provide them with opportunities for a place where they can park overnight,
where they're not going to be going to the bathroom near our sensitive
habitat, where they're not going to be throwing their trash out.
And we tried lots of different things.
We put dumpsters out there.
We've tried porta potties, but really the, the root causes of the
challenges, the entrenchment were remaining.
And so that's what we brought to the commission with the safe parking as
an opportunity to, um, ensure that we weren't driving people from our
community because we recognize that coastal access is important for all
levels, all income levels. And anything you'd like to add? Yes, and just to add,
and with respect to the 24-7 ongoing program, the purpose of that program
explicitly is to move people on a pathway towards housing. So with that
program, we invest part of the staffing as there's a case manager that supports
other supportive services, connection to health services,
but there's also specifically a housing navigator.
So we have two full-time positions
with a nonprofit operator
that are really trying to support people on those pathways.
So out of your population of eight to 34 a month,
how many of those are seeking a path
to getting off the streets
and how many of those are van lifers?
So with respect to the information of the 8-30 enrollment,
that's the overnight program only.
So that does not provide case management
and supportive services.
So there's two tiers to this program.
So the enrollment that's fluctuated between a low of eight
and a high over 30 over the last four years
has been that overnight only
that does not have those supportive services.
It's the 24-7 ongoing program
that has the supportive services.
So can I pull up in my Sprinter van
park there every day, 24 hours, 7 days a week and sleep, live, work, play?
No.
So for that program, enrollment and that, that program is overnight only from 8 pm to
8 am so you need to move daily.
Okay.
Wow.
Okay.
Thank you.
No, I'm just not, I'm not certain it's the government's,
I don't understand because I think what you've created
is a de facto campground is what you've done.
And I think the role, I mean, I certainly understand
and can relate to the need to get the folks
who are seeking assistance off the streets,
safe accommodations with a path towards
temporary supportive housing, or permanent supportive housing.
But I think, from what I've heard and what I've read,
it seems to me like you've created a de facto campground
where folks can't pull in their RVs every night
and hang out by the beach, which is not
a bad thing for those who want to live the van life.
So thank you for that.
Appreciate it.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks, and I really appreciate the thoughtful comment,
and I appreciated it the first time around.
But I just keep having this very pressing feeling,
and I just can't overcome it, which
is that as coastal commissioners,
we are getting so far away from really what
we are responsible for.
We are responsible, obviously, to make sure
that the public has access to the coast
and to protect the natural resources in the coastal zone.
We are not responsible for homeless services.
We are not responsible for determining where people go,
if there's no parking areas by the coast, which is really
what happened here, right?
You made the parking areas unavailable at night,
so people had to go somewhere other than,
but you allow it during the day, right?
You allow them, yeah.
So I just feel so uncomfortable because I find myself,
and I'm sure we all do, thinking,
well, does this make sense?
Or, gee, it seems like an awful lot of money
for this number of people,
but I know nothing about housing services
for homeless services, zero.
I shouldn't, I should not be in a position
to make any decisions regarding that to tell you the truth.
I know a lot about environmental policy, but not this.
So I just have to say, I continue
to feel uncomfortable as we move.
For example, the 24-7 isn't even near the coastal zone.
So these are the things that, when it comes back
to us for a decision, I really need
to have a clear rationale of what
are the coastal commission issues clearly
within our jurisdiction?
And what are the other issues that really are beyond those?
And we should not be making decisions regarding,
I mean, I obviously understand the issue here,
we're pushing people away and all of that.
And I'm extremely sympathetic,
but I'm very concerned about the cost
and what's happening with Section 8,
I couldn't agree more with Commissioner Wilson
in what he said is, it's just gonna get worse, you know?
It's a horrible situation for folks
that don't have a place to live.
So anyway, you know, I just want to express that
I really hope that that happens when it returns to us that you're able to make
that to distinguish it in that way. Thanks. Anybody else? Okay, thank you very
much. Thank you to our staff. Okay, I'm just gonna ask our staff, are you guys up
for powering through or you want to take a break? You're good? Okay, and my
colleagues, if you want to get up, please just go one at a time. Thank you. Alright,
So let's keep going alright that will take us down to item number 12a. This is Santa Cruz County's proposal regarding short-term rentals
And Nolan Clark our coastal program analyst from the Central Coast Office is going to give our staff presentation. We do have a PowerPoint for this one
Okay
Good afternoon chair Harmon and commissioners item 12a is a proposed Santa Cruz County
LCP amendment to update and refine the county's short-term rental provisions
which have been in operation since 2011.
Short-term rentals or STRs are quite popular
with visitors in the county,
including in the Pleasure Point area shown here on slide one.
I would note that an addendum has been prepared
that responds to comments received on this item,
but that does not change the staff recommendation,
which remains a recommendation that the commission
approve the subject LCP amendment as submitted.
Next slide, please.
Santa Cruz County outlined here in white on slide two
is located between San Mateo County to the north
and Monterey County to the south,
to the north of the Santa Cruz Mountains,
it's San Jose, Silicon Valley,
and the San Francisco Bay Area.
The county's coastal zone is highlighted here in light blue,
which encompasses a large area
on the county's rugged north coast near San Mateo,
the urban centers of the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola,
and unincorporated coastal live oak, Rio Del Mar and Aptos,
and the primarily agricultural areas in south county
outside of the city of Watsonville.
Next slide, please.
The proposed amendment would retain many of the county's existing short-term
rental provisions including the registry and waitlist program, good neighbor
policies related to noise, guest safety, and trash management requiring clear
signage with operator contact information, and minimum use
requirements for short-term rental permit renewal. In addition, the proposed
amendment clarifies and refines these provisions including by only
allowing one person or entity to hold one short-term rental permit at a time
in the county, more restrictive parking requirements, stronger enforcement mechanisms to ensure
short-term mental platforms compliance, a new 24-hour hotline where complaints can be
registered and responded to by the county, prohibiting short-term mental use and accessory
and dwelling units, indeed restricted affordable housing, and improved tenant protections.
Next slide, please.
Notably, the proposed amendment retains the county's designated area construct.
These are three areas in the county's coastal zone where the demand for visitors serving
accommodations, including short-term rentals, are highest and includes the Davenport, Swanton
designated area or DAZDA, shown here on slide 4 in light purple to the middle left, the
Live Oak designated area or LODA, shown here in orange in the bottom middle, and the Seacliff,
Aptos, Laselva Beach designated area or SALSDA, shown here in green to the right of the LODA.
These areas have long had set limits on the number of allowed, unhosted, and hosted short-term
The proposed amendment retains the existing limits
for the DASDA and LODA and adjusts the limits
for the SALSDA to correct past counting errors,
but retains the same number of operating short-term rentals
in the SALSDA, clarifying those limits.
Additionally, the proposed amendment restricts
short-term rental density by limiting short-term rentals
to no more than 20% of the parcels on any given block,
and no more than two short-term rentals
immediately adjacent to each other.
Further, the proposed amendment also implements
new county-wide limit of 270 unhosted rentals that applies outside of the three designated
areas and adjusts the limit on hosted rentals outside of the designated areas to 185. Finally,
the proposed amendment includes a drawdown provision that enables the county to reduce
these limits over time only if there are unused unhosted short-term rental permits. Overall,
and as you can see from the slide, rentals are focused in the LODA and Salzdale areas
primarily which have long been vacation destinations.
And in total there are roughly 682 unhosted and 252 hosted allowed throughout the county
a roughly 1% rate as compared to the overall available residential units.
Next slide please.
The proposed amendment affects only the county's implementation plan and thus the standard
of review in this case are the provisions of the LCP's land use plan or LUP.
Like many, if not most, LCPs, the Santa Cruz County LUP includes specific provisions related
to short-term rentals, which identify them as a part of a larger visitor accommodation
mosaic that balances accommodation supply with visitor demand.
The LUP also directs that public recreational access be protected and maximized, and recognizes
the importance of coastal visitors, including those who stay in short-term rentals.
Most notably, the LUP requires that short-term rentals are regulated such that the benefits
are balanced against potential impacts.
The benefits attributable to short term rentals
include providing unique coastal access opportunities,
including for entire families to stay together,
providing a means for property owners to earn income,
and providing revenue stream to the county
through the collection of transient occupancy taxes.
On the other hand, potential impacts
include potential neighborhood conflicts
and the possibility of impacting
the availability of housing.
In the case of the proposed amendment,
the county believes that a balance has been struck
that ensures the continued operation
of a limited number of short-term rentals
while also protecting against oversaturation
and potential impacts to available housing supply
and staff concurs.
The proposed amendment maintains the existing number
of operating short-term rentals based specifically
on current market conditions,
implements strong good neighbor policies,
and enables the county to address
unpermitted short-term rentals
through stronger enforcement mechanisms
such as administrative penalties
and the ability to subpoena hosting platforms
to gain access to listing data.
All told, short-term rentals are roughly limited
to 1% of overall housing units in the unincorporated county,
which we believe represents a good balance for this area.
Next slide, please.
In conclusion, staff believes that the proposed updates
to the county's short-term rental provisions
strike a balance that offers unique visitor accommodations,
which facilitate coastal access while minimizing
and mitigating potential adverse impacts
to neighborhoods and housing availability,
as directed by the LUP.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the commission approve
the amendment as submitted, and the motion to do so
is found on page six of the staff report.
This concludes the staff presentation.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes?
Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, I had communication with Jose Alvarado
on 4-9 at 5 PM.
We had a 15 minute conversation.
We didn't talk much about the content.
The conversation was more a direct request
for additional time to review the item.
And that was where we left the conversation.
Thank you.
Others?
No, okay.
Well, then we will open the public hearing
and I'll turn to you, Chris.
All right, on Zoom we have Mark Connolly,
principal planner from Santa Cruz County,
as well as Fernana Diaz-Piny also with the county.
They're both on Zoom.
I'm Mark Connolly, I see you're on and ready to go.
Please go ahead.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon,
members of the commission,
Connolly principal planner county of Santa Cruz. I first want to commend and thank Coastal staff
for their incredible hard work and partnership with this ordinance. The county is really trying
hard to balance the short-term rental ordinance and short-term rentals in general with neighborhood
impacts and really balance our visitor accommodations. This short-term ordinance,
just so you guys are all aware, was really developed with close consideration and partnership
with owners, managers of existing units, and stakeholders as well. So this has got a really
robust outreach component to it as well. I just want to note quickly that we've
reviewed all of the correspondence and the addendum that was prepared by staff
and without getting into details anything related to that I just want to
say that staff concurs and supports the responses that staff has prepared in
that addendum. And with that, myself or Fernando DSP, policy planner, who's really our short-term
rental expert, are here to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to our other
speakers. We have seven total sign-up for this item. We'll start in the room. We have Joe Hall
and Marcella Hall. And then after that, we'll move back to Zoom, starting with Charles Watson,
Noah Suarez-Slykes and Fong Bui.
Go ahead.
Press the bottom of the mic to turn it on.
There we go.
Hi.
My name's Marcella Hall, and I'm here
to support the revisions to the existing vacation mental
ordinance in Santa Cruz County.
I also want to thank supervisors Cummings and Koenig
for the work that they put into these revisions.
They spent many hours at neighborhood meetings
listening to both sides of the issue.
We've lived in the loaded district 45 years now.
The ever-growing, non-hosted, short-term rental business
seems to be the main cause of short-term rental problems.
Revisions to the existing ordinance
address problems that were not foreseen years ago,
about 15 years ago or so, when the original ordinance was
past. The ones I'm particularly happy about are the calling for a permanent complaint
line providing a single point of contact for reporting violations. This addresses a situation
where the emergency contact information for a short-term rental has not been kept up to
to date. The other provision that I strongly support, excuse me, provides for spacing requirements
to prevent a resident from being completely surrounded by short-term rentals. And finally,
it prohibits online advertising of short-term rentals that do not have permits to operate
such businesses. In the years that we have lived in the Live Oak area, we have seen many
owner-occupied homes and long-term rentals converted to short-term rentals. The increase
of short-term rentals and the resulting decrease of permanent housing continues, while at the
same time the state is requiring communities to increase housing. Thank you.
Joe Hall. Then it will be Charles Watson, Noah Suarez, Sykes Fongbuie, and Joyce Harrington.
Hello. My name is Joe Hall. I live in the Loda. And I first want to thank you for taking
the time to hear us all out. Done it a number of times before. And I think the ordinance
you have before you reflects a lot of conversation, a lot of give and take, and everybody coming
to an agreement, which I think is pretty important is on this issue. What I have thought about
is how to answer some of the most basic questions.
Why do you want to do this?
Well, for instance, having a hotline is great.
When the sheriff's car rolls up to a big house party,
it's out of control, they generally don't report it
unless they have another car that has to roll up.
So it goes unreported.
So you have to go online the next day and report it,
but it's not in the sheriff's record.
The hotline solves that problem.
Seems like a minor thing, but it's important.
There are other small things in this ordinance
that are important, but what's even more important,
two years ago, we passed an increase in our TOT tax,
and a half percent in there now is devoted to enforcement.
So what you pass here now can get enforced,
because we've lived for 15 years with an ordinance
that nobody really enforced,
so everything could go whatever they wanted to do,
whenever they wanted to do.
I'd also, before I close, like to thank all our neighbors
who wrote the letters that you saw.
They were all pretty intelligent, nice.
Nobody got really mad about the latest party
they had next to them, so they were good.
And I want to thank the Coastal staff
for working on this with us.
It's been actually about 17 years
when we started this process.
The ordinance has been in place less time.
But in closing, I'm appreciative that we're here.
I hope you can support these changes.
They've been through a long, long process,
and I'm much older as a result of it, so thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Charles Watson, Noah Suarez-Sikes,
Fong Bui, and then Joyce Harrington.
Charles Watson.
Good afternoon, chair and commissioners,
Charles Watson of California Strategies
on behalf of Airbnb.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today.
We respectfully request that the commission
adopt the alternate motion
to allow up to an additional 12 months
before taking action on the Santa Cruz County LCPA.
We were not aware that Santa Cruz County
had submitted the LCP for consideration
and only learned that it would be voted on
when it appeared on the agenda two weeks ago.
Given this limited timeframe,
we have not had the opportunity to fully review
and understand the potential impacts of the proposal.
We would greatly appreciate additional time
to thoughtfully evaluate the ordinance
and provide meaningful input
on behalf of our host community.
Short-term rentals play an important role
in providing coastal overnight accommodations,
particularly for families and groups who benefit
from access to multiple bedrooms, kitchens,
and shared spaces.
These options help make coastal visits more accessible
to a diverse range of travelers.
With this in mind, we again kindly ask the commission
to consider delaying the LCP for up to 12 months,
and we would welcome the opportunity
to work more closely with commission staff in the future
to stay informed about potential STR related proposals.
Thanks for your consideration.
Thank you.
Next, Noah Suarez Sikes,
Phong Hui, Joyce Harrington, Noah Suarez-Sikes.
Alrighty, okay.
One second please, great.
Good afternoon commissioners, good to be here again.
My name is Noah Suarez-Sikes
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.
We are here to support the staff recommendation
to pass this LCPA and approve Santa Cruz's
short-term rental ordinance without amendment.
The LCPA's cap on un-hosted STRs is essential to prevent the continued loss of long-term
housing.
Un-hosted STRs tend to be both significantly more expensive and significantly more damaging
to communities.
By incentivizing hosted over un-hosted, Santa Cruz can preserve both neighborhood character
and long-term rental housing stock.
Moreover, the LCPA includes requirements for distance between STRs so that residents don't
get surrounded by luxury short-term rentals, preventing the hollowing out of coastal communities.
Unhosted STRs in an unincorporated Santa Cruz County's coastal zone are not affordable
lodgings.
Data from AirDNA shows that between April 2022 and March 2023, the average cost for
an unhosted STR ranged from $269 to $642, far exceeding the threshold to be considered
a low-cost overnight accommodation.
Hosted STRs are slightly better on this scale, averaging $186 a night while still providing
visitor lodging.
unhosted STRs to spread would be damaging to the entire county. Research in Los Angeles found that
a 1% increase in Airbnb listings was tied to a 4.9% increase in rent and that STR regulations reduced
rents by 2%. Similar results were found in Irvine where long-term rents fell by 3% after the city
enacted a ban. Santa Cruz County has regulated STRs for 15 years and what it is asking for here as
as part of a periodic adjustment is eminently reasonable regulation that the Commission
has approved elsewhere.
Caps on non-owner-occupied STRs exist in every jurisdiction that has submitted an LCPA before
the Commission since 2022, the limit of one STR per person has been approved in Half Moon
Bay and Trinidad, and minimum distance regulations were adopted just a few months ago in Encinitas.
This regulation is reasonable, helpful, and strikes a good balance between visitor accommodations
and residential needs.
And we hope that the Commission will keep it
without amendment of staff who adjusts.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Fong Bui, Joyce Harrington, Fong Bui.
Hi there.
My name is Fong Bui,
and I'm speaking on behalf
of the California Short-Term Rental Association,
which represents SDR operators across the state,
including in Santa Cruz where,
and we respectfully request a short delay
in consideration of the Santa Cruz LCP amendment.
We always support reasonable regulations, compliance,
and encourage all of our members to be good neighbors.
However, we only became aware of the LCP amendment
two weeks ago when this item was placed on the agenda.
And there hasn't really been sufficient time
for us to fully analyze the proposal
and provide meaningful input.
All of our members, as part of Kalsra,
had also raised concerns with us
that they haven't had a chance to learn
about how this new amendment may impact them.
So we're requesting a brief continuance
to allow for more thorough stakeholder engagement
and help ensure that the commission has a complete record
before making a decision.
Thank you for your time and we appreciate your consideration.
Thank you.
Next, Joyce Harrington.
We're having trouble promoting you as a panelist.
Can you please accept being, there we go.
You should be able to move in momentarily
while you're moving in.
We are also looking for Gabriel Klein.
We aren't seeing you in the attendee lists.
Gabriel Klein, can you please raise your hand
so we can find you and then Joyce Harrington, go ahead.
Okay, hi, I just found out about this literally
about two days ago from an email from Airbnb.
I've been a host in Santa Cruz of a vacation rental
on Opal Cliff for 23 years back when there were about
a dozen of us in town doing such a thing.
And I was permitted in 2011 and continue to be permitted.
Very briefly having looked over this,
even though it looks like there's major changes.
I am in favor of the vast majority of it
because I think what I've seen is a lot of bad actors
when it comes to some hosts, not all of them.
You have a lot of us who are hardworking.
This is how I make my living.
I'm now 77 years old and I want to continue to do it
as long as I can.
But there are some bad folks out there
that make for bad neighbors and they're greedy.
they're not present when there's issues.
I'm in Santa Barbara County now is where I live
because my grandkids are here,
but I have a property manager
who is three miles away from Opal Cliff
and I have two cleaning people I've had for 10 years
that will, on a dime, come help me.
So, and I'm very strict with my guests.
I don't let them park in front of neighbors
even if it's public parking.
And I can't say I haven't had problems through the years,
but they have been pretty minimal.
but I kind of like the guarded approach
to keeping everybody honest and straight and on top.
It's a business
and you need to manage your business appropriately
and your neighborhood and your neighbors
are of utmost importance in this.
Airbnb 12 months is too long to dredge through this stuff.
A couple more weeks or maybe one more month
and we should be able to nail this down.
And just from my looking at it
Well, I've been on since this morning,
not sure when this was gonna happen.
And just looking at it, it's going in the right direction.
It's not bad and it's not a bad thing for Airbnb.
I've been with you also too.
So take care everyone.
Thank you.
And we are still not seeing Gabriel Klein.
Madam Chair, there are no more speakers.
Great, thank you very much.
Okay, back to our staff.
Just a couple of quick things.
They would note that we're not supportive of a continuance at this time.
There has been quite a public process for this going back to 2024.
The county has been working on it that entire time, as indicated by Mr. and Mrs. Hall.
This was a well attended, well engaged stakeholder participation sort of thing that was led by
supervisors Cummings and Koenig and ultimately it arrived at this compromise, which is what
all of this stuff is all about.
the qualified agreement that you referred to earlier today.
And for better or for worse, Airbnb and the Short-Term
Rental Association didn't participate in that process.
So I'll just leave it at that.
We think that this is an appropriate balance.
This community has worked on this for a very long time,
two decades really.
And this is really honing in and refining,
as opposed to one of these new short-term rental ordinances
that you have been seeing where places haven't actually
had that experience, the county here has.
So with that, we're available for questions.
Thank you very much.
OK, I'll return to staff.
Commissioner Nada.
I just wanted to say that this is not
like some of the other short-term rental things
that we've seen in front of us lately.
This one's been going on for like 15 years.
So they've been able to see what works, what doesn't work.
And as we've all discussed quite a bit on the Commission,
the short-term rental, the nature of short-term rentals
has evolved itself in 15 years.
And there were some unintended consequences
that I think these communities are dealing with.
And here we have a case in Santa Cruz County
where they've had enough experience on a regular basis
So that they could make some adjustments so that seems perfectly reasonable to me and I would support staff recommendation
Thank you
Commissioner Wilson just a couple things one is we're still at you know 182 units
Which I think when I looked at some of the stats for the county seven units per acre
it's almost like a hundred acres of
over time that's been converted out of residential use into commercial use without environmental
analysis or analysis on renin numbers or any of those things but that's just where we've
been accepting that as we kind of move forward and I think it's something that we need to
take into account at some point but the most important point I want to make is that this
sets a cap that's basically at its existing conditions right now which I think is great
For me, it's minimal.
I prefer caps that are lower than the existing conditions
and create more housing through attrition.
But minimally, we're at this place.
Because when you're capping and you're freezing the market
of STRs at the current levels, basically what you're doing
is you're removing the marginal buyer from the situation.
So what that marginal buyer is is the buyers that are,
that if you're keeping this opportunity open
for this conversion, then basically you're setting
housing prices and rental prices at its commercial value,
rather than its residential value.
And when you do that, you price out people
who are buying houses, or you're pricing out people
who wanna live there as a residence.
And so I'm very thankful that they're setting an example,
a good example of why we do caps that are set
at what the market is right now, and again, I preferably would go lower, but it's not
what we're talking about today, but I just want to recognize that the marginal buyer
or the marginal renter, I guess, is part of what drives these prices, and this helps
take care of that, so I really want to appreciate that, and I support what's on the table, so
thanks.
Are you prepared to make a motion Commissioner Wilson could do that and just a second here
sorry Commissioner Lopez yeah I just brief comments I know this is an issue that we've
heard a lot about recently and I appreciate the response from staff about participation
in the process just for my clarity when was this passed by the Board of Supervisors this
amendment update yeah just one moment please guessing that's probably right
But we can double-check our actual paper, but you know, I think we have probably somebody who attended that
Yeah from my recollection. I believe it was August or September of last year
But as we noted earlier, this is the result of an ad hoc committee over the last two two and a half years
Right for me. It was that question of when something passes, right?
Then we know where it's going and it's in a timeline and prep time to this question of preparation. That's all
In so in the in the big context the numbers it would have been nice to have like a chart that showed
Sort of where they are where they're gonna be a you know digging for that
I thought it wasn't in there and the chair pointed out to me it is it's buried over here
So just having sort of a quick visual to see where those numbers shifted to better understand how we stayed at the same number
Without having to sort of self create that would be helpful but long-term
For this conversation. I think just one thing that I want in as part of the mix is this conversation
that's been present more recently in Monterey County
about what happens when you limit
and stock gets reintroduced.
I think we're seeing more second, third, fourth homes purchase
to sit, continue to sit vacant, right.
And I think that's a big challenge.
And I, it was hard to find the figure, but I know the estimates
that between 7.5 and 9.5% of homes in Santa Cruz remain vacant
because they're somebody's second, third, fourth,
or home that's not used as part of Airbnb or something else.
when I think about access.
To me, I appreciate the conversation
about wanting to see teachers, but they're not
buying third, fourth, fifth homes to kind of hold, right?
And so I think it comes back to the conversation
we had before about San Francisco, what we build,
and how it is affordable by design.
And the more that we do that, we're
going to see more opportunities to really have
the folks we want to have presence
in our communities there.
And again, it gets into that which piece do you want to see.
But again, I appreciate staffs work on this and just wanted that as part of the conversation
as we move forward.
Thank you.
I'm happy to make the motion.
Thank you.
And I'll just say I'll lend myself with Commissioner Wilson's comments.
I too would love to see a lower cap with attrition over time but agree that so much work went
into this and really grateful to Santa Cruz for being on sort of the leading edge of the
conversation around short-term rentals. Commissioner Wilson. Yeah and that and I
want to just say that it's more likely that you're gonna get people to purchase
their second and third homes if they're more likely to be able to commercialize
that property in order to afford that. And so I want to and and and so I just
want to be really clear that we really we really need to focus on affordability
in everything we do and so with a motion I'd like to motion a
certified move that the Commission reject implementation plan amendment LCP
dash 3 dash SEO dash to 5.0049 dash to dash part B as submitted by Santa Cruz
County and I recommend a no vote a second it's a motion by Commissioner
Wilson a second by Commissioner Jackson I want to make sure am I doing this right
Okay.
They're asking for a no vote.
Any objections to unanimous opposition?
No?
Okay.
Unanimous no's.
The motion fails and the IP is approved and submitted.
Yes.
Thank you for clarifying.
A bit late in the day for the double negatives on that one.
Thank you.
Okay.
Appreciate it.
All right, we're just gonna swap out folks just take us a second
Thanks everyone and then we're ready for the vote on 12 a
ever done, okay
Okay, this will take us to item number 12c. This is a city of Santa Cruz
LCP amendment related to their coastal hazards update and I'd like to ask rainy graven
She's our supervisor in the Central Coast District Office to give the staff presentation. And again, we do have a PowerPoint for this
Good afternoon chair Harmon and commissioners item 12c is the city of Santa Cruz's beaches and bluffs
Hazards adaptation LCP amendment next slide, please
The city of Santa Cruz roughly circled in red on slide 2 here is the most populated coastal city on the central coast
with approximately 63,000 residents as
As shown on this slide, the city is located
on the northern end of the Monterey Bay,
opposite the Monterey Peninsula,
near Capitola and Watsonville,
with Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area
just over the Santa Cruz Mountains to the north.
Next slide, please.
Santa Cruz is the quintessential beach town
with its approximately six mile long shoreline,
primarily fronted by public beaches
and coastal access infrastructure,
including the world-renowned West Cliff Drive.
As shown here on slide three, the city's shoreline
includes a mix of wide sandy beaches
and smaller pocket beaches,
as well as iconic surf breaks
and more developed visitor serving features and facilities
like the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk and the Municipal Wharf.
Next slide, please.
The commission first certified the city's
local coastal program or LCP in 1985.
Oh, excuse me.
Next slide, four here, gives you a sense of some of the city's coastal attractions, including
the Boardwalk, West Cliff Drive, Lighthouse Field, State Beach, and the Wharf.
Next slide, please.
The commission first certified the city's local coastal program, or LCP, in 1985, and
certified the last comprehensive update in 1994.
The LCP includes some basic coastal hazards provisions that mirror the Coastal Act, but
It lacks the details specificity and an overall adaptation vision necessary to address the complexity and nuances
associated with adapting a built urban environment in the face of sea level rise
the city initiated a comprehensive LCP update effort in 2020 but
Subsequently decided to prioritize updating its coastal hazards provisions in part because of the significant storms and storm damage
Experienced across the city in recent years as seen here on this slide
But also because the city had numerous related coastal adaptation planning and implementation efforts underway
Many of which were happening outside the context of the LCP
And so it became clear that what was needed was a comprehensive coastal hazards update that could integrate and harmonize all of these
efforts
Provide a regulatory lens to address needs in the near term and set the stage for longer term adaptation
And that update is what is before you today next slide, please
The proposed amendment funded in part by the Commission's LCP local assistance grant program
Would add a new beaches and bluffs hazards adaptation chapter to the LUP
The proposed amendment can best be understood as a phase one for the city's coastal hazards and adaptation planning efforts
with additional planning already funded and underway.
The proposed new LUP chapter includes explanatory text,
as well as 18 policies that accomplish the dual goals
of providing needed specificity and direction
to regulate new development today,
while also including policies that lay the groundwork
for more in-depth and directive coastal hazards planning
and adaptation.
In terms of the more baseline development review policies,
new development within the shoreline hazard evaluation area
will trigger a site specific coastal hazards analysis
and must be cited and designed to be safe from hazards
for its anticipated lifetime without relying on armoring.
Further, permittees for new development
are required to record a hazards disclosure
and assumption of risk deed restriction
that, among other things,
seeks to ensure that the property owner understands,
assumes and appropriately internalizes all risks
when developing within a hazardous location,
acknowledges that the development may need to be removed
and the site restored in response to future hazard
conditions or inland migration of the public trust,
and that they bear full responsibility for all costs
associated with any removal or site restoration.
The proposed amendment also includes the regulations
governing shoreline armoring, including in terms of
when armoring is allowable, for example,
for existing structures built prior to the Coastal Act,
as well as design standards, mitigation requirements,
emergency authorization procedures,
and monitoring and maintenance requirements.
Next slide, please.
The proposed amendment also lays the foundation
for additional planning and adaptation
by way of requiring the city to prepare
shoreline adaptation management plans, or SAMPS,
for individual areas of the city's shoreline
within five years time.
The idea is that the SAMPS will provide
even more detailed prescriptions
for each of the city's shoreline areas,
taking into account their diverse circumstances and contexts,
where that SAMP would then be incorporated into the LCP
to guide development at that more refined scale.
The core of the SAMP concept is that some areas
will be more able to adapt without armoring than others
and to nurture such outcomes
so that the city's beaches and shoreline areas
remain viable for its residents and visitors
long into the future.
Next slide, please.
The proposed amendment package also includes
an interim policy to help guide public projects
along the city's iconic West Cliff Drive
until the SAMP for West Cliff is developed and approved.
It prioritizes nature-based adaptation strategies
where feasible, recognizes the importance
of maintaining Blufftop space seaward
and landward of infrastructure in a natural state
to maximize adaptation options over time,
requires native landscaping and drainage improvements,
and explicitly requires the city
to evaluate the feasibility of relocating
threatened infrastructure away from coastal hazard threats
and to avoid the need for armoring,
including specifically along the portion of West Cliff
adjacent to Lighthouse Field.
Next slide, please.
This phased approach afforded by the SAMHPS
is particularly relevant in Santa Cruz
where certain decisions regarding the future
of its West Cliff Drive Promenade, for example,
are still subject to local debate
and there's uncertainty regarding how that promenade
will look and function in the future.
Importantly, however, the amendment does not postpone
all of the difficult decisions to the future,
rather it lays out a rigorous regulatory
and analytical framework to ensure that development,
That near-term development is cited
and designed appropriately.
Next slide, please.
Finally, I would note that we received requests
for changes from both the Surfrider Foundation
and the Sierra Club, which we were able
to accommodate via addendum,
and both entities now support the staff recommendation,
as does city staff.
All in all, the city's Coastal Hazards Amendment
provides a strong regulatory framework
to foster coastal adaptation,
and it thoughtfully balances regulatory policies
for today with needed planning for tomorrow,
all in a coastal-like consistent way.
Commission staff worked very closely with city staff
on the amendment before you,
and we thank the city and its staff
for their significant time, effort, outreach,
and overall willingness to tackle difficult,
but critically important adaptation challenges head on.
Staff recommends that the commission approve the amendment
with modifications, the motions,
and there are two of them,
can be found on pages three to four of the addendum.
Thank you, that concludes staff's presentation.
Great, thank you so much.
Are there any ex partes?
Okay, Chris, turn it to you.
We have the applicants in person,
Matt Vanua and Lee Butler as well.
Tiffany Wise West is also on Zoom
available for questions with them.
Just press the button, there you go, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
And how much time do you need, sir?
I'll keep it very brief, less than two minutes.
It's been a long day, I'm sure, for all of you.
Good evening, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
I'm Matt Fenwa, Principal Planner with the City of Santa Cruz.
My team has been leading this Beaches and Bluffs,
Hadzer's adaptation chapter effort
that we are proud to have before you today.
This has been a result of working hand-in-hand with
commission staff as Raney had noted,
Including over two years of monthly coordination meetings
To really move this important project forward in a thoughtful manner
We've also worked closely with the community and responded to feedback on numerous occasions
We're excited to implement these new LCP policies
That will have both an immediate impact as well as put into place vital planning efforts
To further our city's coastal resiliency into the future
And some of these efforts are also already funded and underway as we speak. So we're really looking forward to those
moving forward still
We want to thank again the community and our local decision makers
For their engagement and thank you again to staff
For the recommendation and commend them on fostering such a great working relationship throughout this project
We'd appreciate your support as well today, and we're available for any questions. Thank you
All right, thank you moving on to our other speakers. We have two in person two on zoom
We'll start with Mike gooth and then Mitch Silverstein
Yes, give us a moment our team has it ready there it is
All very good
low chair and commissioners
back in my Sierra Club hat now and
Wanna let you know the Sierra Club recommends approval as modified with the modifications that were discussed and
we're certainly aware of the hard work that has to go into an LCP update like this and
We're glad to see that the requested modifications from both surf rider and Sierra Club were in there
Sort of minor all over the hard work that they've done but important and next slide, please
They talked about two dozen policies and one caught our eye. I live in the county just down coast from the harbor's turns on coincidentally and
You know
iconic West cliff iconic West cliff iconic West cliff where always the poor East side so it didn't surprise us I'm talking cynically and
Deceaselessly now that they wanted to steal stand out of the drift to go protect the rich part of town
But that was sort of what what their policy was doing and we pointed that out
Next next slide, please and what we have here is the importance of
Adjacent jurisdictions having complementary plants. There's a lesson to be learned here, and I'm glad it's worked out
But if you look there in the slide the city is above the county is below
Sand flows in that vertical red arrow direction
Then comes in a lot from the from the river with a horizontal top green arrow the harbor
It kind of gets caught and it has to be repatriated into the flow down to the lower green area
It's a complicated system to keep sand flowing and without it we down in the county get coastal erosion
and lose our beaches and lose our recreational access and so
Even though it's all resolved now and we're very supportive of what happened
It's a lesson to make sure that we as adjacent to jurisdictions when you have LCPs
That there has been communication on things like sand flow
Next slide please. I don't know if I have another minute or so, but just to give you a show the sandfoam comes down
The Harbor mouth is a natural trap
Sand keeps filling in there and it has to be repatriated and that's where we are on about but I want to thank
Staff for any graven and can't afford for the dialogue this last week or so and we recommend adoption as modified
Thank you. Thank you, Mitch Silverstein and then our zoom participants are Sean Burns and Nancy Okada Nancy
we're not seeing you right now I will wait for you to come on for a second
Mitch Silverstein yeah thank you so surf rider is also in support as
modified we think it's Admiral that the city chose to work on their coastal
hazards chapter first as part of a comprehensive LCP update winter storms
have battered the city's coast over the last few years it's great to see the
city's prioritizing coastal adaptation and and it's focused on preserving their
beaches and surfing resources.
And this chapter is a great first step.
Even though the city is pretty built out,
it's critical to put strong and enforceable standards
on new development so that when projects are approved,
they're properly set back from eroding bluffs and rising seas
that they'll never require armoring
and that parts of it must be removed
if and when encroaching on public tide lands.
The language in that chapter borrows
from a lot of the latest commission guidance,
including many of the special conditions we see when when one of either one of you or us appeal a locally approved project and
Get a better deal for the coast via the de novo process. So it's really cool to see that in a new lup chapter
The same goes with provisions around coastal armoring most of which admittedly falls within the commission jurisdiction not the cities
We did find a chink in those armoring protections though
the emergency armoring loophole and it was two things.
Emergency wasn't defined in the LUP,
which gave the planning director too much discretion
over what to call an emergency.
We're not comfortable with that.
It's too much power and political pressure
on even the greatest planning director.
And then second, the language made it too easy
to indefinitely delay emergency armoring CDPs from coming
in for their regular CDP and mitigating for them.
So I want to thank staff, Ms. Graven specifically,
for the modifications addressing those concerns.
Now emergencies defined as it is in the Coastal Act
and there's some guardrails around the required follow-up CDPs.
It's not perfect because the Coastal Act itself isn't perfect
around emergency armoring but that's a separate battle.
We also agreed with Mr. Guth and Sierra Club on the sand stuff
and we think that's been addressed as well.
So all in all I think this is a great start
for the city's LCP amendment
and Surfrider usually opposes LCP amendment
so really great job on it.
All right, Sean Burns, you're moving in as a panelist.
We're still not seeing Nancy Okada.
All right, Sean Burns, when you're able to,
please unmute and begin.
Yep, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Hello, Board of Commissioners.
Thanks for having me today.
Sean Burns from Save the Waves.
I was there in person presenting earlier.
Sorry, I had to leave due to some family matters,
but I just want to say Save the Waves.
We support this LCP amendment,
and we appreciate working with the City of Santa Cruz and local California Coastal Commission staff
on putting together this chapter with the addition of recognizing surfing and surfing resources.
As I understand, surfing resources in the LCP is fairly new and we appreciate the addition.
Although we would love to see and work with the city and local Coastal Commission staff on next
chapters like the visitor and recreational uses to get more specific on the protection of important
surfing resources as they are culturally significant and an economic driver as you
heard in our presentation earlier this is a level of urgency in Santa Cruz for protection especially
at lighthouse point where the cave and cliff erosion pose major threats to world renowned wave
steamer lane and a surf ecosystem. The upcoming Godzilla El Nino that I'm sure you all have heard
about extreme potential to cause severe emergencies to the cliff in safety, so we must please
and so, instead of being reactive like this LCP and beaches of left are.
I think we lost you.
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
Still no Nancy Okada.
We don't have any more speakers.
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Carl.
Would just note that this is like the Cadillac level of coastal hazard
sections in an LCP
And we want to appreciate the city and their willingness to work with us in this way and to come up with something that is
That cutting edge. This is really at that level and obviously, you know, Miss graven spent a lot of time on this
I want to thank her
But also we're just available for questions
Awesome. Thank you
Turn to my colleagues. I'll start I agree it totally
Cadillac level is such a good way of putting it and I personally find it a very inspiring
approach, the phased approach, the SAMPS, the understanding that the hazards will evolve and
that your community needs to evolve along with the implementation. It just is very well done and
I certainly plan to take this as an example back to my own community. So thank you. Excited to
to vote yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah I'm happy to make the motion if that's all right.
There's two motions.
Sorry thanks.
I'm happy to make both of those.
And I want to say as a member of the local government's committee this is great.
We're going to be definitely having our members review this moving forward so they'll be good.
I move that the commission certify land use plan amendment LCP-3-STC-25-0073-3-part B as submitted by the city of Santa Cruz and I recommend a yes vote.
I'll second.
Actually, you're recommending and you should be looking at the motions in the addendum and the staff recommendation is a no vote if you want to follow the staff recommendation.
You want me.
I'm going into the addendum.
I'm in it right now if you want. You can take a shot.
Well, it's the same motion.
The only difference is whether you want to be recommending a yes vote or a no vote.
It's the same motion.
Okay.
I recommend a no vote.
Don't listen to before me.
Listen to now me.
I'll second the no vote.
Okay.
That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner Lopez.
They're asking for a no vote.
Any objections to unanimously denying the LUPS submitted?
Okay.
So I move that the Commission certify land use plan amendment LCP-3-STC-25-0073-3-part
B for the City of Santa Cruz if it is modified as suggested in the staff report and I recommend
a yes vote.
Second.
Thank you.
Sorry.
We're talking about parliamentary issues up here.
A motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second
by Commissioner Lopez.
They're asking for a yes vote.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
So approved.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
And thank you to our staff.
Very exciting.
One more.
We've got one more.
And that was so good we didn't even need to talk about it.
OK.
That does take us down to 14A, which
is the last item of the day.
And I'd like to ask Maddie Whitman, who's
One of our newest planners at the coastal Commission in the Central Coast office to give our staff our staff presentation
We do have another PowerPoint for this one as well
Good afternoon, chair Harmon and commissioners item 14a is an appeal of a city of Pacific Grove
CDP decision
Authorizing a remodel in addition to an existing 900 square foot single-family residents
next slide, please
Slide two shows an aerial view of the Monterey Peninsula with the project site noted by the red arrow
within the city of Pacific Grove
The city of Monterey is located up coast and the Del Monte forest and the city of Carmel by the sea are down coast
next slide please
Slide three zooms in further to show the project site on mermaid Avenue one block inland from the ocean view Boulevard and the recreation
trail
This neighborhood is built out with residences of varying types and sizes
including single-family residences and mobile homes
next slide, please
This slide shows the design of the city approved residents with the approved plan shown on the left in
relation to the existing residents on the right
The project will result in a roughly 1700 square foot two-story residents
inclusive of an attached ADU.
The appellant contends that the city approved project raises LCP consistency questions
relating to public views and community design, archaeological and historic resources, and
water quality and marine resources.
Next slide please.
With respect to public views and community character, the appellant argues that the project
will alter important scenic views from public vantage points and that the project does not
fit into the neighborhood's design aesthetic.
Slide five shows the view of the proposed roofline indicated by the red arrow as seen
from Ocean View Boulevard and the Recreation Trail.
The roofline is similar in height to the surrounding development and the proposed addition is only
minimally visible from the road and trail.
Next slide, please.
Side 6 shows images of other residences on Mermaid Avenue, which vary in style and size.
The city undertook a visual analysis and found that it represents a relatively modest addition
in an otherwise built out part of town with a mix of residential designs.
It also found that the project would only be minimally visible from public vantage points
and does not represent any significant visual resource problem.
concurs with the city and does not see the residents being out of character or scale with the surrounding neighborhood or
otherwise raising a substantial visual resource concern.
Next slide, please.
Regarding tribal and archaeological resources, the city required an assessment by a qualified
archaeologist that documented site conditions and included a series of measures to avoid and mitigate potential impacts.
the city incorporated these recommendations into its conditions of approval and required that the project have a qualified tribal monitor and
archaeological monitor present during all soil disturbance in
Addition stop work orders would be issued if any significant archaeological resources are found
Commissioned staff reached out to local tribes and they reiterated the need for local tribal monitoring during construction
These measures combined with the fact that the project only includes very minimal grading and site disturbance
Do not suggest that the city's action will result in a significant adverse tribal or archaeological resource impact
Regarding historic resources the appellant contends that the project fails to comply with the requirements of the LCP
Because it does not meet the secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation
the city relied on a professional historic report that found that the project would meet those standards and that the removal of the
converted garage and back porch are permissible because they are not contributing factors to the historic residents
The report also found the project will maintain and enhance many historic features such as the board and batten siding
Original French door and bay window and that overall the project will retain and enhance the residents defining features
Finally, regarding water quality, the project was designed to include enhanced drainage
features that will filter and dissipate storm water, and the project will comply with standard
best management practices during construction.
For these reasons, the project will not result in degradation of water quality or increased
runoff to nearby coastal waters.
Next slide, please.
Some the city's approval is for a relatively minor residential project one block inland from the shoreline in an already developed
Residential neighborhood the project simply does not raise the types of coastal resource concerns that would suggest there is a substantial issue in this case
Furthermore the project will add a small ad you increasing housing opportunities in the coastal zone as a result staff
recommends that the Commission determine that no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal was filed
The motion and resolution to implement staff's recommendation are on page 5 of the staff report and this concludes staff's
Presentation. Thank you. Hey, thank you very much. Are there any espartes?
Hey seen none. I'll open the public hearing and turn it over to you Chris
All right, we had the Appellant signed up speak Leslie Anderson, we're not seeing them on zoom
Okay, now I'm seeing one hand raised under the name iPad 6
You're being moved in as a panelist
Please accept that and your zone will reload
All right. I see that you're in as a panelist. You should be able to unmute and turn on your camera if you wish
Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear and see you. Go ahead. Okay, great. Okay. Thank you for that summary
Okay, so my neighbors and I respectfully asked the Coastal Commission to consider the impacts
of the design of this historic resource. The August 28, 2024 meeting transcript shows Pacific
Grove Historic Resource Committee was told that they had to approve the design because
it contains an ADU. Contrary to IP section 2390-200B2, the phase two assessments submitted
for this project do not. Analyze the resource integrity. Analyze that the garage has its
historic significance in its own right. Offer proof as to how the standards are met. Clearly
define impacts to the resource. Offer alternative designs or offer proper mitigation. The phase
two assessment is focused on the garage describing it in extremely poor condition, but states
garage retains front facing gabled roof and board and batten siding yet because of prior alterations
it can be demolished. With the historic resource the condition of the built environment has no
bearing on its integrity no alternative design or mitigation has been offered for this demolition.
LUP policy CRS7 requires evidence of substantial compliance to the Secretary of Interior Standards.
the standards explicitly state that alteration or removal of character defining features should be
avoided or if demolished should be replaced in kind. We hired our own architectural historian
who did an analysis on both phase two assessments. Both her reports are included in the city file
but are not mentioned in the Coastal Commission staff report. Her reports state the 2019 historic
There is a summary of the
historic survey described the
property as having historic
integrity at the garage is
being treated as a separate
resource.
Mitigation measures including a
focused environmental impact
report may be necessary.
To meet the secretary's
standards of rehabilitation,
any proposed addition must not
be greater in scale or massing
than the original 1926 test.
The addition adds 143% to the
from the road however the proposed addition physically overwhelms the original house which
alters the hierarchy of the building and usurps the original two-story front-facing house. The
project does not meet the standards for rehabilitation and if approved the 1926 house would no longer be
eligible for local listing based on city guidance. She included three alternatives to reduce the
the massing that would meet the secretary of interior standards. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. And then here in person we have Charles Hornisher, who lead the applicant's
representative, and then we also have Garrett McCown from the city of Pacific Grove. They
both wish to speak. Charles Hornisher.
Hello, good afternoon. My name is Charlie Hornisher. I'm the architect representing
the applicant for 685 Mermaid. Wanted to just keep this brief. The question
is whether or not the appeal raises a substantial issue. As outlined in staff's report, this
is a modest rehabilitation in addition to a historic home. The project has been thoroughly
vetted at the local level. We work closely with the city. It's been approved at the historic
resource council. It's been approved at the planning commission and then city council
with 12 of the 13 members recommending approval. From a historic standpoint, the design follows
the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. It doesn't remove it from the list. It keeps
it on the list. The primary structure is preserved and restored. Non-contributing elements, specifically
The altered garage and rear enclosure are removed.
The addition is set back from the original two-story gable and differentiated through
material and detailing, thus allowing the historic structure to remain the primary visual
element.
With respect to visual resources, the City conducted a detailed analysis with story polls
looking at multiple vantage points.
As staff noted, the visibility from the public areas, such as Oceanview Boulevard, are limited
and brief at best.
Regarding the archaeological and tribal resources, the project includes archaeological and tribal
monitoring during ground disturbance with standard stop work protections in place.
Finally, the project results in only a minimal increase to site coverage, 35 square feet.
project improves drainage and infiltration thus resulting in no adverse effects on water quality.
The city's decision is well supported by the record. The project is limited in scope. There's
no evidence of significant impact on coastal resources. For these reasons we respectfully
support staff's recommendation of no substantial issue. Thank you. Thank you Gary McAllen. Good
afternoon chair and commissioners and thank you Maddy and Commission staff
for the agenda report and presentation. My name is Gary McCown. I'm the associate
planner at the City of Pacific Grove and lead planner for the proposed project in
front of you right now at the local level of course. The city believes it has
it has done its due diligence in ensuring compliance with the Pacific
Grove municipal code the PG certified LCP and implementation plan as well as
CEQA in closing the city agrees that with staffs findings and that the
proposed project does present does not present a substantial issue with
respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed thank you for
consideration of this appeal and I'm available for any questions that you may
have thank you all right wonderful thank you so we'll close the public hearing
and mr. Carl just quickly we agree this project has been thoroughly analyzed at
the local level and we're otherwise available for questions thank you
return to my colleagues okay Commissioner Lopez is ready some I move
that the Commission determine that appeal number a 3 pgr 26 0 0 0 7 raises
no substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been
file under section 30603 and I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
Motion by Commissioner Lopez, a second by Commissioner Wilson.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Okay.
Seeing none, no substantial issue has been found.
Great.
Thank you.
So we will break for the day, but I believe commissioners are going to stick around for
closed session.
So take a brief break and be back at 5.15.
Apparently we have a separate room for closed session.
Oh.
Okay.
room diagonal from here, the classroom, we got you that room so AGP can close up
and they don't have to wait around. Thank you guys. Okay 515 in the classroom.