Okay, good morning. Thank you. We will call this meeting to order and begin with a roll call, please
Commissioner Escalante
roll call sir
here
Commissioner Hart here
Commissioner Jackson
here
Commissioner Kelly
Commissioner Lee here
Commissioner Lopez presented Commissioner Loenberg
Mr. Nautoff here
Commissioner press the auto here
Commissioner Williams
Yes
Commissioner Wilson. Yes here and chair Harmon here. We have a quorum. Great. Thank you very much
Um, I will turn to our chief counsel to report out on yesterday's closed session. Thank you. Thank you chair Harmon
At the end of the day yesterday the Commission met in closed session it received litigation information and advice on
Friends of Oceana dunes versus California Department of Parks and Recreation at all and on sheer versus California Coastal Commission
And that concludes my report
Great. Thank you very much. Okay, Chris. I'll throw it back to you for our virtual meeting procedures, please
Good morning. This Coastal Commission meeting is occurring both in person and through zoom
This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online at Cal-Span.org.
If you have internet access and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak
on an item, we recommend you use the Cal-Span website.
Those who wish to address the Commission today can do so in person through the Zoom platform
or by phone.
The speaker request forms may be found on the Commission's webpage, paper forms, and
The Scannable QR code for Paperless Submittal are available on the Commission staff table
just outside the meeting room.
For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the Commission's agenda
webpage which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking during general public comment may be given up to two minutes
to speak at the discretion of the Chair.
Requests to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted after
9 a.m. on each day of the meeting. In order to provide the opportunity for the broadest
range of public participation, you may speak on a specific topic one time only each month.
Those speaking on an agenda item that is not general public comment are typically allowed
two to three minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair. We will accept a request to
speak on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing on that particular
item. If you have internet access, please go to the Commission's 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 562-477-9089. Again, that number
is 562-477-9089. Staff will provide you with a telephone call-in number and instructions
for how to participate and provide testimony by phone.
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting through a meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address the commission, the organizer will invite you to turn on your
video and microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedures.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
that we will go to agenda changes please. Thank you Chair Harmon. We have three changes to today's
agenda all of which are noted on the agenda changes memo posted to the online agenda. First
item 10a has been moved to consent for a city of Fort Bragg LCPM amendment. Next item 10b has been
moved to consent also for a city of Fort Bragg LCPM amendment. And finally item 14a has been moved
to consent for a Santa Cruz County LCP amendment. I'd also note that there will be no enforcement
report today and that's item eight on the agenda. That concludes the changes to today's agenda so
that brings us to item four general public comment and with that I'll turn the mic back over to you
Madam Chair. Thank you Mr. Toyful. Okay Galen to you. For members of the public I will be announcing
the names of the upcoming speakers and invite you to speak when it is your turn. Each speaker will
be allowed two minutes during general public comment at the discretion of the chair. In order
to allow for live video testimony on Zoom, we will be bringing you in as panelists. As we bring you
in, your Zoom will reload. This may take a moment. To speed up this process we will bring in several
people in at a time, but please remain muted and keep your video off until we ask you to speak.
After your time is up, you will be moved back to the attendee mode for members of the public
present in the room. I will call your names in order that they appear on our sign up list.
When you hear your name, please line up behind the podium and introduce yourself when you
approach to speak. There is a raise hand function that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio, you can raise your hand by dialing star 9.
If you are participating by Zoom, you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item and are able to do so,
please raise your hand now. When it is your time to speak,
we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
you can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six so looks like we have a total of 11
people or pardon me yeah 11 total to speak starting off in person with eric andrew
neighbors and adam leverance if you could just turn on the mic please sir thank you good morning
My name's Eric neighbors. I'm here to discuss the Lorenzo butterfly effect of municipal finance
Currently the state is playing a game of leakage
We are flushing our capital down the toilet by paying interest to private lenders while ignoring the massive revenue streams. We already own
We allow oil industrial oil surges
To be labeled as natural because our financial architecture is too weak to fund a response
This is an invite this isn't an environmental failure it's a mechanical failure of the ledger. I'm here to install the national coastal infrastructure self banking act.
We anchor a four billion dollar principle to grow the money, not the debt at a 20% yield, which most people get for investing in infrastructure.
We will receive back $800 million annually.
We split that immediately, $400 million back
to the principal fund and $400 million accessible
for the triad.
By year six, this engine doubles.
We hit a state of $1.8 billion in revenue,
split down the middle, $900 million to infrastructure anchor
and $900 to the triad.
The money scales with the problem until the problem is dead.
The triad funds commission autonomy.
All of you guys that obviously don't have enough money
to access air for pristine air reforestation
and at will automatic mechanical cleanup
of this oil seepage.
But more importantly, I'm prepared to give
a consultant briefing on how AI's material engineering
is currently dismantling the oil industry.
We are moving towards 1,000X advancements
in materials engineering.
And in three years, that will render petroleum
a stranded asset.
We are out-engineering the old guard.
To manage this transition,
we are establishing the Sovereign Oversight Commission.
Stop being farsighted and start being,
Or stop being foresighted and start being foresighted.
The growth is exponential.
By year six, we have 900 million for the triad
and 900 million to keep funding growing forever.
We can resand our beaches,
reestablish the globe starting right here.
I'm Eric Nabors and I'm here to lead the oversight.
Let's stop the leakage and start the flow, thank you.
I also had a big problem trying.
You sir, okay
Next up we have Adam lever ends in person followed by Benita Ernst and Suvi
Cawthon on zoom
Adam lever ends. Good morning commissioners and staff. I had a slide I could hope to be called up
I love these small venues. You're like real people I
Mean, I missed the bit. I missed the big screen behind you
But but no that those of you I've interacted with it's always been pleasant
But I mean, some of these places, I need binoculars to see where you are, so my fault, it's always the man's fault.
Yesterday, you saw a video encouraging the city of Newport Beach to adopt benchmark rates for recreational leases of state lands.
This is moorings and boat birthings, as most of you know after two years.
This flyer here, in October of 2024, the executive officer of State Lands stood before all of us in San Diego and talked about appalling rate discrepancies in Newport Beach and what she described as, quote, real, definite inequity going on here, close quote.
State lands, they're experts at setting rates for lease of state lands.
They proclaim this in each staff report.
They set rates, if there's large concentrations of usage in geographic areas,
they do an analysis about every five years and set what they call a benchmark rate.
They've set a benchmark rate, Category 1, for Southern California,
including Orange County down to San Diego.
If the city were to adopt that rate, there's no more local corruption of appraisal processes.
There's no more political motivations, which State Lands has noted in a couple of reports
that things appear to be politically motivated.
There's four council seats up for election this year.
State Lands had told them we wanted to see progress in three or six months.
Well, now it's going to be until after the election.
Go figure.
But anyway we're trying to spread the word the city will not want to do this because
it allows people like me to pay the same rate as other people and that seems equitable.
A person with a $29 million home on the harbor paying a fraction of what I pay out in the
middle of the harbor doesn't make sense.
So I'm just trying to spread the word on this and I continually hear from staff here and
state lands that they're working closely with the city. Stakeholders need to be engaged. There's
going to be need to be some pressure to get equity and fairness and thank you all again.
Thank you. Next up on zoom we have Benita Ernst followed by Susie Cawthon and then Karen Baker.
Benita Ernst please go ahead. Good morning commissioners and staff. Today I'm speaking
about the Oceano Airport, L52. I have a graphic, yep. CDP requests by slow county airports
as expected to go before you in the near future. Oceano is a community divided, literally,
by a land-heavy, low-utility, fixed-wing airport. I'm here today to propose a vision of modernization
over maintenance.
The Oceano Airport is geographically
redundant, within approximately 15 miles,
we have two full-service regional airports in San
Luis Obispo and Santa Maria.
Just beyond are airports of Paso Robles, Lampoque,
San Ionese, and Nucuyama.
Maintaining a seventh fixed-wing runway
in a sensitive coastal zone is no longer a strategic necessity.
It is a luxury, the disadvantaged community of Oceano
should not be forced to subsidize with its coastal land.
Next slide.
The proposal is simple.
By transitioning L-52 into a dedicated heliport,
vertiport, they would preserve the modern
and critical aeronautical functions.
This keeps the national system intact
while liberating more than 60 acres of prime coastal land.
Slide, please.
And you can even go to the next one.
This is a matter of coastal access and environmental justice.
The current airport footprint and fencing
blocks residents from easy and safe beach access
and prevents the restoration of our valuable wetlands.
Under the Coastal Act, you are tasked
with maximizing public access and protecting
sensitive habitats.
This underutilized, costly fixed wing runway mainly
serves a small number of hobbyists.
This is not asking to close Oceano Airport.
This is asking to evolve it.
And you, the commission, are our bulwark
to Oceano being used by wealthier interests.
Thank you for your time today.
Thank you.
Next up via Zoom, we have Susie Cawthon,
followed by Karen Baker, and then Noelle Gould.
Susie Cawthon, please go ahead.
This is Anthony from AGP video.
If you have any speaker, please mute that speaker so we can not have any feedback or
echo delay.
Okay, is that currently okay? That's much better. Thank you.
Go ahead, unmute. Yes, that's much better.
Thank you. Okay, my name is Susie Cawthon. I am currently
serving on the Parks Commission for the County
of Santa Barbara, I have formally served on the Human Services Commission for eight years.
And I know that with your responsibilities come, are very grave and that you accept these duties
with expertise and with devotion and that is why I am absolutely flummoxed that this commission
allowed building to proceed on the incredibly sensitive parcel which is at the entrance to the
the estuary for the carpentry of salt marsh.
I can only assume that you did not do proper due diligence
and visit this strip of land,
which you setting foot upon it is obviously unbuildable.
It would be a horrible, horrible disservice
to the beautiful salt marsh and the environmental gem
that it is for carpentry.
As you're entrusted with coastal access
to the environmental protection,
This was a very huge mistake.
And I know you have recently needed to course correct
on several other decisions,
and I'm looking forward to the opportunity
for you to course correct on this one.
I would please implore you,
you need to come see this strip of land,
you need to visit this environmentally sensitive space.
It is not a buildable parcel.
It should be purchased by a land trust or something
because it needs to preserve
this very delicate sensitive area
for all of the Carpentaria Valley.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Ms. Cawthon.
Next up, we have Karen Baker, followed by Noelle Gould,
and then Samantha McDonald.
Karen Baker, please go ahead.
Ms. Baker, please go ahead.
You can hear me?
Okay, can you hear me now?
Yes, we can hear you.
Please go ahead.
Okay, great.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Karen Baker.
I watched on Tuesday the public comments
the Better Neighbors LA about hosted only short-term rentals, and I was concerned enough to speak
today. Better Neighbors LA should not be treated as a neutral neighborhood group. It's a hotel
union connected advocacy organization, and its hosted only proposal would directly benefit hotels
by eliminating most whole-home short-term rentals. But this issue should be looked at through the
the eyes of families trying to visit the coast.
A hosted only rule may sound reasonable,
but it does not work for most families.
Families need privacy, kitchen, laundry,
and a space to be together under one roof.
I cannot imagine most parents choosing a vacation rental
where the owner is required to sleep down the hall
from their children.
This is not a realistic family lodging model.
Whole home rentals serve a completely different need.
They serve families, grandparents visiting their children
and grandchildren, multi-generational travelers,
wedding guests, and people who cannot reasonably fit
into one hotel room.
Families should not be forced into only two choices,
a hotel room or a bedroom inside a stranger's house.
Hosted only is being presented as a compromise,
but for family coastal lodging,
it functions as a de facto ban on whole home coastal access.
I support reasonable short-term rental rules,
such as permits, taxes, noise standards, occupancy limits,
enforcement and accountability.
But please do not eliminate an entire category
of family-friendly coastal lodging
under the label of hosted only.
Please protect whole home short-term rentals
and preserve real coastal access for families.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Baker.
Next up, we have Noelle Gould,
followed by Samantha McDonald,
And then Steve Starkey, Noel Gould, please go ahead.
Should I introduce myself before the timer starts?
Yeah, please go ahead, Mr. Gould.
Yeah, I'm Noel Gould speaking as an individual,
not as a member of the Coastal St. Peter
and Neighborhood Council, and good morning, commissioners.
I'm asking you to confront a basic Port Master Plan problem
that staff has avoided.
The certified Port Master Plans
visitor serving commercial category,
this restaurant's visitor serving retail,
harbor tours, sport fishing, museums, community or conference centers, and
exhibit space. It does not describe or contemplate a 6200 seat regional
concert venue larger than the Greek theater. Planning Area 1 is described as
emphasizing public waterfront access through promenade, parks, museums, academic
uses, and visitors serving commercial uses. That is fundamentally different
from a high-intensity ticketed regional entertainment venue designed to attract
major touring acts, and thousands of attendees per event.
The 2009 approval contemplated a small community outdoor amphitheater while the current project
changes that into a 6200 seat flat concert venue.
That is not a minor refinement, it's a 12-fold increase in capacity and a fundamental change
in operational intensity.
The SEIR itself admits that the smaller previously approved alternative would reduce impacts
to noise, transportation, public services, and cultural resources.
A 500-seat community amphitheater and a 6,200-seat regional concert venue are not equivalent
under the Port Master Plan, CEQA, or common sense.
Simply calling this an amphitheater does not transform a 6,200-seat regional concert venue
to the same use or impact as a 500-seat community amphitheater.
This is a fundamental change in scale, intensity, regional draw, impacts land-use character.
And that is precisely why a Port Master Plan amendment should have been required.
This project materially exceeds what was originally contemplated and approved, allowing a project
of this magnitude to proceed without a Port Master Plan amendment effectively rewrites
the certified plan through staff interpretation rather than through the public process required
under the Coastal Act.
I ask the Commission to please require a Port Master Plan amendment before this project
proceeds any further, thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Gould. Next up we have
Samantha McDonald followed by Steve Starkey. Samantha McDonald please go
ahead. Hi my name is Samantha McDonald from Newport Beach. I believe I have a
slide that I submitted this morning. Awesome thank you. As you guys know I
often show up to these meetings with a serious tone talking about the moorings
in Newport but today I just kind of wanted to spark a bit of joy. My partner
Michael and I are on vacation currently in the Channel Islands at Santa Barbara
Island in the National Parks. And even though we sailed 8,000 nautical miles
together across Baja, French Polynesia, and the Atlantic Ocean, we've never
actually been to the islands in our own backyard, so it's really special. All the
photos on the screen were taken in the past 48 hours. We had a stowaway hermit
warbler join us for a sail. We had dolphins play on our bow. We had a sea
lion pup yesterday come to play for 10 minutes jumping around our boat. Very
curious who we are. I wish I could show you all the photos that we have but you
know Santa Barbara Island is remote and due to a storm the dock was wiped out so
really if you have your own boat that's the only way to visit you can't get here
by ferry so it really is special to be able to hike around to see everything
that's on the island and see everything beautiful underwater and yesterday we
had the whole island to ourselves we did not see a single person on the entire
island and it's so magical to be here especially just a few miles next to one of the most populated
places in America and be able to escape. It really is incredible to have access to some of the most
beautiful underwater ecosystems from our boat and this is what we're fighting for you know anyone in
California should have affordable access to this opportunity and not the wealthy and we're seeing
that slip away so quickly in Newport Beach and this is what losing affordable access means is
losing the ability to do this and losing the ability to have this joy and to live on a boat
and to experience these things and be part of the water. So I really hope that you take this into
consideration of what we're really fighting for and it's not because we want to be cheaper it's
because we want access in a way that we just can't otherwise. Thank you. Thank you Ms. McDonald. Next
Next up we have Steve Starkey. Mr. Starkey, please go ahead.
Can you see me and hear me? Yes, we can. Please go ahead.
That was a nice positive note from Samantha, but good morning to the Commission. As you
know, my name is Steve Starkey. I'm speaking regarding the project that's already been
spoken of this morning, Nondio's 501 Sandpoint Road in Carpentaria, the new construction
project that's under consideration by the commission. My focus today is on the setback
requirement from the Carpinteria Salt Marsh for new construction that appears to have been waved
by the commission to the owners of 501 Sandpoint Road. The project is on a piece of land which is
known to be a sensitive habitat as was described to you earlier today. Commonly, the setback
requirement for new construction on Sandpoint Road has been a hundred feet
from the Carpinteria salt marsh. In this case, in the case of 501 Sandpoint Road,
the footage appears to be closer to 25 feet. I live down the street at 775
Sandpoint Road. I'm considering construction on my own and I wish to
know if you're establishing a new precedent regarding setbacks on
on Sandpoint Road adjacent to the salt marsh
and by granting permission to this one owner.
If that's the case, after proper review by the commission,
I'm hoping you can provide clarification
on the setback issue,
which the homeowners on Sandpoint Road can use
going forward on their own construction projects.
That was all.
So thank you very much for your consideration this morning.
Thank you Mr. Starkey.
We have three folks on Zoom that we're not able to find,
so if you can hear me, please raise your hand
and we'll be able to get you to speak.
We have Kent Allen, Robin Redicel, and Michael Spano.
Kent Allen, Robin Redicel, or Michael Spano,
if you could please raise your hand.
We've allowed you to speak.
It's under Dean Pinchoff.
Please state your name and you can go ahead and speak.
Hi, yes, it's Robyn Ruddesel.
I'm using an other Zoom account, sorry.
It's okay, thank you.
Please go ahead.
All righty, well, good morning.
I'm a member of the Coastal San Pedro neighborhood
council board, but I'm speaking today as an individual
regarding the Walker's Cafe project at 700
Paseo Del Mar here in San Pedro.
Walker's Cafe is one of the last authentic historic
coastal gathering places on the San Pedro Bluffs
and was designated by the city of Los Angeles
as an official historic cultural monument.
It's across from Point Furman Park,
the lighthouse in Sunken City,
and is a lower cost visitor serving coastal resource.
The city approved project adds a massive
residential structure across nearly the entire lot
with no front or backyard.
There's only a narrow space between the back of the cafe
and the residential structure where they plan
put a patio with outdoor dining in an area that should be reserved for emergency access,
operations, loading, and trash handling.
The goal seems to be to squeeze the most massive structure possible onto the slot along with
this historic coastal resource.
The project also raises Coastal Act public access concerns because parking needs due
to the cafe's intensified use would rely almost entirely on existing public coastal parking
serving Point Furman Park and the other surrounding visitor destinations. Point Furman is one of the
most historic and visually distinctive coastal neighborhoods in Los Angeles. A much smaller
residential structure within the footprint of the existing garage area could allow both housing and
the historic cafe to coexist successfully while preserving operational and emergency access,
visitor serving use, coastal neighborhood character and the long-term viability of the
cafe itself. When this project comes before you, please carefully scrutinize whether it truly
protects the Walker's Cafe, a historic visitor serving coastal resource, or merely leaves it
behind as an accessory to overdevelopment. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Rodezel. Looks like Michael
Michael Spano is on the boat with Samantha, so Mr. Spano, please go ahead.
Good morning, Honorable Chair Harmon, commissioners, and staff.
I'm Michael Spano, and I'm the proud owner of my 37-foot sailboat and a mooring
permitting of Newport Beach.
I just want to remind you all that I can only have this maritime experience
because of an affordable place to park my sailboat.
Owning my boat has been an incredible experience.
I have addressed this commission from many different parts along the West Coast, including
Mexico.
Today, I address you all from the calm side of Santa Barbara Island.
But this journey hasn't been easy.
Maintaining my boat has been a labor of love for nearly five years, and I'm still undergoing
major improvements to my boat.
Why am I telling you this?
It's simple.
I couldn't afford to improve and maintain my sailboat, let alone enjoy her if Newport
Beach were to alter their mooring program. Can we agree that the wealthy may have their
playgrounds but we should also reserve space for common people to dream as well? This is
my dream and like the many Californians that came before me that have shared and written
books about it, it would be such a shame if this dream were to fade away and become a
memory we tell our grandchildren about. And that's really all I have to say for you all.
Thank you for your time. Thank you for listening.
Thank you, Mr. McDonald.
All speakers have been accounted for.
Madam Chair.
Thank you so much.
No problem.
I forgot my job here.
All right, appreciate the public.
Thank you for sharing your testimony.
And I'll return to the commission
for any comments, questions.
OK, Commissioner Wilson.
Because this is the time to do so,
I just want to thank the community of San Pedro
for having us.
And what a wonderful space this has been.
And what a wonderful town.
Because I know it's part of a bigger city,
but I have to tell you, it's got a real good town vibe.
And I just want to say I've really enjoyed it.
And I think everyone did.
So thank you for having us.
Yes, it's been great.
OK.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, I think this is the appropriate time.
I just wanted to show I recently had the opportunity
to visit Maui, and in that used an amazing self-guided tour
guide called Shaka Guide.
And I reached out to the owner saying,
We need this in California, because they only do one stretch, which is San Luis Obispo to
slow.
And they emailed this morning to let me know that in the next few weeks, they'll be releasing
an entire California coast GPS guide split into four parts.
So just wanted to share, I've got no investment in that company, nothing else, but it was
an amazing experience.
And I was told that there is a heavy emphasis on conservation and the history of the attempts
to protect the California coast in that guide.
So I look forward to experiencing that
and just wanted to put that on everybody's radar,
giving it as our 50th year.
Thank you.
Okay, excellent.
Thank you very much.
All right, so we will continue on
and we are at the items pulled
from the regular calendar to consent, I believe.
That's correct, Madam Chair.
That's item six and it provides for applications
to be moved from the regular calendar
to the consent calendar.
There are three items that we're recommending
be moved to consent and those are item 10a for a city of Fort Bragg LCP amendment to update ADU
provisions in the LCP, item 10b another city of Fort Bragg LCP amendment regarding tiny homes,
and item 14a for a Santa Cruz County LCP amendment that addresses housing element redesignations
and rezones. With regard to item 10a the Fort Bragg amendment for ADUs we received one letter from
the public and made some minor clarifications within an addendum posted to today's agenda.
In terms of comments received on item 14a which is for a proposed Santa Cruz County LCPM amendment
to redesignate and rezone three sites in the county's coastal zone to facilitate housing
development. Correspondence was received from the county the Sierra Club the non-profit affordable
housing developer proposing a project at the 7th Embromer site and multiple community members,
all in support of the staff recommendation. Correspondence in opposition was received from
the Santa Cruz Port District and one community member, preferring that the commission simply
deny the amendment for all the reasons related to the 7th Embromer site. The Port District's
concerns are that the proposed rezoning would impede the overall master planning process
envisioned by the LCP for the whole of the roughly 10-acre LCP designated coastal priority site
and would also preclude the Port District's preferred visitor serving accommodation project
there. The Port District notes that they are no longer in negotiations with the county,
which staff notes that the staff report is not up to date at this point and that it believes
that the Envision housing project will severely impact any potential visitors serving and public
access related development at the site. While staff agrees that it would be preferable if the
whole of the site was master plan together, staff also believes that the compromise developed in
tandem with the county to designate a portion of it to accommodate housing where a 100 affordable
housing project is currently in the works appropriately facilitates housing while also
leaving a large enough area that the master planning and vision can still accomplish LCP
priority use goals. So we respectfully disagree with the port that respects in that respect
and continue to believe other types of visitor serving and access related development are
possible at the site. As to the other letter in opposition, that letter suggests that the
seventh umbrella site should be used solely for harbor related activities rather than a mix of
uses but we note that the LCP dictates a mix of visitors serving residential, parks, and related
open space uses so the outcome suggested by the commoner would not meet LCP tests. Overall staff
continues to believe that the suggested modifications related to the 7th and Brommer site are necessary
to balance and preserve the various LCP and housing related priorities for the site and the county is
is in agreement with the recommendation.
Thus, we continue to recommend
that the commission approve the amendment
if modified as suggested on the consent calendar.
I'd also note that the district director, Dan Carl,
and his staff are online and available
if there are any questions on this issue
or additional details needed on this item.
In regard to the other matters
to be moved to the consent calendar today,
those applicants are also in agreement
with the staff recommendations
and we're not aware of any opposition.
Thus, staff recommends that the commission vote
and approve this item.
That concludes my comments, Madam Chair.
Great, excuse me, great.
Thank you, Mr. Twifle.
Are there any ex partes?
Any public comments?
I guess we have a few public commenters.
First, I'll start with item 10B.
We have Adam Leverins here in person.
And we're bringing up your presentation.
Good morning again, Adam Leverins.
I think you've detected for me
that housing is a big concern of mine,
as well as some of the other things I'm concerned about.
I've had an interest in what are now called tiny homes since
before they were tiny homes, cabins,
converted sheds, RVs, boats, everything.
The image that I hope you can all see,
I found these based upon staff materials, 500 square feet
or less.
The first four of these images, the trouble I have
is with the definition of tiny homes that's in this agenda item and it says
small towable residential structure and then it defines that they'll be licensed
by the Department of Motor Vehicles these first four things are tiny homes
but you can't really move them they're not towable I mean you can hire a wide
load truck and I've checked in various states all kinds of permitting special
requirement certain hours of day, this adds cost.
To make them towable adds cost.
The last two images, they could be
trailer the next to the bottom one.
If you were to pull off the porch and the bottom one
is more typical of what would be built on a travel frame.
The staff report says you guys have until last day
for Commission action, April of 2027.
really look at this definition.
A tiny home doesn't need to be a DMV, registered something.
These things can be site built.
There's all kinds of options.
And by going with this definition,
you're restricting what can be used for accessory dwellings,
as well as driving up the cost
by making it have to be towable,
so that somebody could build something in their backyard
that could house somebody else without having to be licensed
by the Department of Motor Vehicles and be able to be towed
is gonna really restrict the number of these that get built.
And given the time until you're required
for your final action, I hope that definition
can be changed, thank you.
Thank you.
For item 14A, we had two people from the County
of Santa Cruz signed up to speak,
Mark Connolly and Kimberly Finney,
but we aren't able to find them on Zoom
If either of them are on Zoom, please raise your hand.
And then we also had, okay, I see one hand raised
under the name GSD662, you should be able to unmute yourself.
Hello?
Hi.
Hi, good afternoon from again.
My name is Kimberly Sedley, and I am the county's lead
on the surplus sale of the 7th and Romer property.
The property consists of three contiguous parcels
to a totally 8.3 acres.
It's owned by the redevelopment successor agency
and subject to oversight from multiple state agencies,
including the Department of Finance,
HCD and the Surplus Land Act and the Coastal Commission.
Over the past several years,
the county has worked to carefully balance these agencies,
often competing priorities and legal requirements.
The RSA's resolution that was developed in coordination
with HDD and Coastal Commission,
which declared this property surplus,
directed the County to pursue approximately three acres
of affordable housing, one acre of open space,
and the remaining acreage
for visitors serving accommodations.
To accomplish that, a lot line adjustment is required
before the property can be sold.
The County has spent years in good faith negotiations
and discussions with the Port District,
including six months under an exclusive negotiating agreement
with the port and a housing developer HCHW
attempting to reach agreement
on a viable lot line adjustment and project approach.
Despite those efforts, no financially
or physically viable proposal was presented
that can meet the county's affordable housing obligations
while also supporting the port's
proposed low density luxury RV park concept.
The county does not agree with the port's assertion
that affordable housing and coastal priority uses
are mutually exclusive on this site.
Under the Coastal Commission staff recommendations
before you today, approximately five acres
would still remain available for future visitor serving,
recreational, open space and coastal access uses.
We support approval of the staff's recommended modifications
as written and respectfully urged the commission
to avoid additional conditions or procedural requirements
that could further delay the implementation of this project
and jeopardize available funding.
Thank you.
Next, we had three people from Community Housing Works,
Steven Suiasiki, Steven Moreno and Maraseo Fuller.
We are only able to see Steve Moreno on Zoom
if you wish to give a comment.
Hi, this is Steve Moreno.
I'm a project manager with Community Housing Works.
I'm actually here just available for questions.
We are in support of the agenda item
and do urge you to move it forward as presented.
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
And then we had two other speakers for this item,
Thomas Weldon and Mike Guth.
Thomas Weldon, I see that you're on a phone.
You should be able to unmute now.
You can unmute by dialing star six.
There you go, I see you're unmuted.
Hello, can you hear me, I'm Thomas Weldon?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you, sir. I have a prepared statement where I'll read. Jesus said in Matthew 26 verse 11,
the poor you will always have with you. Unfortunately, in this country we have more and
more working poor. Now, this land of 7th and Bromer has been for the working poor
a place that they could have access to the ocean and the way they would have access to the ocean is
often on Sundays, which is probably the busiest day at the harbor, they would be able to park
They're boat trailers and vehicles on 7th and Bromer, and this is taking place for the
past at least 20 years, possibly even more.
Now, I want you to picture yourself.
You as a Commissioner have worked six hard days, either in the fields or in some other
endeavor and you want to take you and your buddies and you're a working poor
person which is like I said more and more of us are and you want to take you
and your buddies out to the ocean and go fishing and I have fished a lot out in
the ocean and and you go out you have a wonderful day and you actually get
healed, you feel better, you come back and you're ready to work another six days.
The ocean somehow has a healing effect on people. Now I want you to imagine
yourself in the future. So Edmonton-Bromer has been developed. It's pretty much
housing and maybe a park and you have a plug. And so I want you to imagine that
you don't have parking available because some of the bromaries have been
developed in the housing and there's no parking available so you don't get
access to the ocean. Now we have in the future the ocean is gonna lie so maybe
be 25 to 30 years. Sir please finish your thoughts. Okay the parking that you
have on the Harper, Harper is no longer available because the ocean is
driven. Thank you sir. Thank you. And then our only other speaker for this item is
Mike Guth. We have your presentation. Go ahead. Oh very good. Can you hear me? Yes
we can hear you. Good morning chair and commissioners. Mike Guth speaking for
the Sierra Club, yet again you've got an item in my neighborhood. Next slide
please. This small parcel 7th and Bromer, well not that small, eight acres, I
believe presents a microcosm of competing coastal act interests. Just
heard Mr. Weldon speak about how it actually is part of the harbor's
overflow parking plan that was required for their CDP through the city to do
expansion in the harbor, it isn't mentioned in the staff report. So it's got visitors serving
aspects going on right now. It's long been planned for visitor serving uses, but also we have a need
for housing and the Sierra Club supports 100% affordable housing projects. And I think the staff
recommendation of 3.5 acres is the appropriate one and the Sierra Club supports the staff
recommendation but there are competing interests here surely. Next slide please.
There we go. Just to give you the bigger picture in circle is where we're talking about North
Monterey Bay and I highlight you can see in the lower right where we were last month in Gonzales.
Next slide please. This is the mid-county coastal plain pleasure point in the foreground the middle
county area there is called Live Oak. There's the harbor in the circle is the site. Next slide please.
You can see here that from this land in the circle you can get to either side of the harbor and get to down coast and up coast beaches.
Fantastic location both for housing and for visitor serving areas. Next slide please.
And this shows how you can you don't see the site in your lower left, but it shows where you're coming from. Next slide please.
In the original County planning next slide, please.
This area in the circle on the left, it's been in the cross hairs of both
development and visitor serving for decades.
We support the balance proposed and there's a false narrative that the
coastal commission doesn't support housing.
You are turning over a housing lot here to ministerial permit approval
from this point forward.
And so that should rely the myth that the coastal commission doesn't
to support housing in the coastal zone.
We support this, thank you.
Thank you, no other speakers.
Great, thank you very much.
Before I turn to my colleagues,
I'll go back to Mr. Toyfoss,
or Director Hucklebridge, excuse me.
Yes, we wanna respond to some of the comments.
First, I'd like to go to Shanna Gray
to talk about the North Coast tiny homes item, Shanna.
Thank you, morning.
With regard to item 14B,
our commenter showed us the definition of tiny homes.
And this definition for tiny homes
was provided by the city as part of their overall ordinance
related to tiny homes themselves
and tiny home community development areas.
Tiny homes don't necessarily need to be towable.
Some can have a permanent chassis,
others will have a temporary one.
When they are towable, they must be licensed.
HCD really only has jurisdiction over tiny homes
that are permanently affixed.
In this case, under staff review,
we based on how the tiny home communities
were addressed in the zoning,
there are, it's bifurcated.
We really have two things that we're looking at.
There's the tiny home communities
and how all this ordinance applies to them.
But there's also all of the other portions
the LCP that we believe cover any other type of permanent concept for a tiny
home. So if there is a tiny home on a permanent foundation it could be
considered an ADU and in those cases it would be subject to all of the ADU
standards. And so resulting we do think that the way that it is presented here
in this particular situation is appropriate,
based on the two different types of things
that might be considered, the tiny homes versus ADUs
that are actually also tiny homes.
And so we think that everything is covered
the way that it should be covered in this case.
So, we're available for additional questions.
Thanks, Shanna.
Now I'd like to go to Nolan to address the issues
of the Santa Cruz County item.
Nolan. Yeah, thank you, Kate.
Nolan Clark in the Commission of Central Coast District Office.
The parking issues at Seventh and Bromer, just to respond to that briefly,
sit staffs understanding that the site is infrequently used for overflow parking.
I would also just note that there are other overflow areas.
And as explained in the staff report, only approximately three point five
the 10 acres of the site would be reserved for affordable housing development. So if it's the
will of the community once the other coastal priority site uses are developed, that parking
be a part of that development plan to accommodate any overflow parking issues at the harbor,
then that's certainly still feasible. The development of the housing site won't preclude
that as an option. Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
And that concludes staff's comments.
Great.
Thank you very much.
All right.
I will begin with Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
You know, the discussion about the Fort Bragg tiny homes
just reminded me of a situation I encountered when
I was the regional parks director,
and I just think it's something I want to note for LCPs.
So the tiny homes, one of the initiatives
that state parks had during the last 10 years or whatever
to build small cabins for people to provide more access to the coast and to
parks because a lot of people don't have all the camping gear and everything they
need but the problem at least that we encountered in the coastal zone in Sonoma
County is that they had to be on wheels which is sort of in the case of what we
were building or wanted to build was sort of an artificial kind of the way
the speaker talked about it and I know that this is something that is
is apparently incorporated into LCPs,
but I think it's worth focusing on going forward.
I think generally speaking, it sounds like it's being addressed
in the LCPs in terms of tiny homes versus ADUs,
versus whatever, but I think it's just something
to take note of as we try to expand public access
to the coast to have local jurisdictions
when we're considering LCPs, not make that requirement.
It sounds like a small thing, but it's actually not.
You know, it's a big deal in terms of people being able
to spend the night at the coast.
Commissioner Wilson.
Thanks.
I wasn't going to talk on that, but it's definitely
part of the definition.
And as you know, we've had definitions of mobile home
come to us often.
And it means the ability to remove the structure
within 24 hours, not how big it is, how tall it is,
or other things like that.
So those definitions are not just on us,
but they also are in state statutes and other things.
So we just have to make sure we're aligning.
My question has to do with the housing in Santa Cruz.
And I'm 100% in favor of this project.
But what we've seen in some places
is deed restrictions on housing or other uses that
may have used conflicts with maritime uses in that right
to farm provisions.
basically meaning that if you are if we are aligning residential development
next to farming or maritime uses such as fishing and or these other things
there is a deed restriction that often is in the residential uses that basically
means that they can't really complain about the smell of fish or those sorts of
things so that part of what and having been on a Harbor District this is part
or the fear of, or whatever the concern is,
that you're trying to operate these long-standing uses
for harbor uses, and then what could come in
as conflicting complaints, I guess,
and the expectations that people have
because it's residential,
and then now that's what's impinging upon,
now the harbor district has to,
or the harbor users have to address that,
which they didn't have to before.
So I don't I didn't see it addressed in what we have in front of us today
And I was gonna bring it up before it was on consent
But I just I'm if I would put it out there that and and I'm I'm in favor of moving forward with this
But I would encourage the the district and the and the city to if they can figure out some language to deal with that
That issue and also flag it for future
Projects that come before us the Commission. Thank you
Thank you, Commissioner Jackson
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the report. I just want to make sure I'm clear
with regard to the definitions, so my understanding from the report and staff's
Comments that
Notwithstanding what these definitions are with regard to mobility and non-mobility
The municipalities themselves through zoning changes or their current definitions
Can build those tiny homes that they want to build notwithstanding our?
my confusion I guess on the definition of tiny homes and their
mobility chassis
Etc
Through the chair if I can respond I'll turn it over to Shana
But my understanding is that's correct and that it might be a tiny but called a tiny
home if it meets that definition or maybe an ADU or some other it might fit in another
way into the LCP but a structure smaller structure that's used for you know habitation whether
or not it's towable or not you can you can still permit it it just might be called something
different Chana did I did I get that correct?
absolutely accommodated yes the I think what she was saying is both both of
those types of no different structures would be accommodated they just might be
called something different okay all right thank you okay thank you
Commissioner Lopez yeah hate to belabor and extend the conversation I just
wanted to share context because I had a reason to have to dig into this issue
about why, right, wheels are required and it was back 70s the state took back
authority over anything on wheels whether it was inland or coastal and it
was because many local jurisdictions were pushing out mobile home parks
because of their condition and what they felt was a nuisance so the state took
that back all mobile home parks at that point went under HCD and anything on
wheels afterwards were more easily permitted to the state why we ended up
with two different definitions is a vestige of that.
So just wanted to share that as context as we move forward in understanding why there's
two different titles.
That's the reason why.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Any further comments?
So motion.
I'm happy to move items that have been moved to consent.
Motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner Lowenberg.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
none, so approved. Thank you. Okay, now we will keep on. We're at item seven, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That brings us to item seven, and the Deputy Director Report for the
Energy, Ocean Resources, and Federal Consistency Division. We only have negative determination
concurrences to report this month, so an additional vote to approve by the Commission is not required
today. I do want to note, however, that we receive correspondence from Nina Beatty raising concerns
about the scientific research buoy project proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and Scripps Institute of Oceanography. That's one of the items we're reporting on the
negative determinations. Those concerns relate to the inclusion of an echo sounder on the buoys
monitoring array. While we are working with Ms. Beatty to better understand and address her concerns
and provide her with additional information, I would note that this is a standard type of
scientific research equipment and it uses low energy and does not raise the same types of
concerns that high energy seismic survey or sonar equipment does raise. So we continue to feel that
it was appropriately evaluated and appropriately concurred with through the negative determination.
That concludes my DDR and I'm not aware of any speakers signed up to comment on this item.
Okay thank you. Any ex partes? Any speakers? Confirming no speakers. Great. Okay do three
or more commissioners object to the deputy director's report. Seeing no objections the
commission concurs. Thank you. On to item nine please. North Coast District's deputy director's
report. Thank you. Yes item nine is the deputy director's report for the North Coast District
which includes six waivers, one immaterial amendment, and one permit extension. We do have
one item of note in this month's report. We have received correspondence from Mendocino County and
from the Albion River Bridge stewards regarding one of the waivers being reported to you today,
specifically for the Caltrans-Albion River Bridge geotechnical investigation in Mendocino County.
In this case Caltrans is proposing geotechnical drilling consisting of nine
borings within paved road surfaces and roadway shoulders, the purpose of which
is to support evaluation of a potential future Albion River Bridge replacement projects.
The application was submitted to the commission as part of a consolidated permit process agreed
upon by Caltrans, Mendocino County, and the commission. The Mendocino County correspondence
indicated a preference for this item to be heard at a local hearing. However, it is not feasible
in this case. While we recognize that a Mendocino County location would be ideal, there are no
commission hearings scheduled in Mendocino County this year and this is an active project that is
subject to the Permit Streamlining Act. The correspondence from the Albion River Bridge
Stewards raises nine issues and two separate comment letters and requests that the item be
heard as a full CDP rather than a de minimis waiver. To more effectively address this these
issues we responded in an addendum to each of the points and this addendum has been posted to the
tab for this agenda item but I am going to summarize it for you. The commenters argue that
the waiver is procedurally flawed claiming it conflicts with the purpose of the consolidated
CDP review and relies on disputed commission jurisdiction that has not been adequately
analyzed. They also contend that the waver including mapping and technical details
and their sorry they also contend that the waver lacks complete and accurate project description
including mapping and technical details and therefore cannot support a proper evaluation.
Additional concerns include potential impacts on public access and recreation as well as possible
effects on Esha, riparian habitat wetlands, and nesting birds. Further objections assert that the
waiver does not sufficiently address water quality protections and that no best management practices
are provided. Paul mentors also argue that the project's location in a highly scenic area
requires visual historical and cultural resources review which they assert that the waiver does not
include. They state that separating this investigation from the larger bridge replacement
project and properly avoids evaluating cumulative impacts and they conclude that the waiver lacks
enforceable conditions needed to protect coastal resources. After reviewing all of these concerns,
staff determined that the procedural and jurisdictional issues were correctly addressed
and that the other substantive contentions were already considered during the review and
evaluation of the project application. In general, there seems to be a fundamental
misunderstanding as to how staff reviews waived projects.
Analysts received the full application, including a complete project description, all relevant
maps and plans, BMPs, and any other relevant materials.
Then the projects are evaluated for consistency with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal
Act, including their potential to adversely impact coastal resources.
Only after this full analysis is completed can the ED make a determination that the development
involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on cultural
resources.
Caltrans has submitted a full CDV application with attachments, including four-hole location
plans, drilling specifications, BMPs, and avoidance and minimization measures.
These materials were properly reviewed by commission staff and do not change the staff
recommendation that the proposed project qualifies for de minimis waiver. Staff
continues to recommend that this item remain on the deputy director's report. If
four or more commissioners object to the Caltrans waiver, it will be pulled from
today's agenda and brought back as a full CBP at a future hearing. As to any of
the other the other items on the DD's report, staff is not aware of any
opposition and we are asking whether three or more commissioners object to
any of those items. Staff are available for questions and I would also note that there
are a number of Caltrans staff available to answer specific questions related to the Albion
Bridge geotechnical investigation. That includes my presentation.
Great, thank you very much. Are there any expertise? Okay, any public comments?
Yes, as Shanna mentioned, we have a group from Caltrans available for questions and
And then we have two members of the public available to speak, Jim Hyde and Anna Marie
Weibel.
First up, Jim Hyde.
Please go ahead.
Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
And thank you for pronouncing my last name correctly.
My name is Jim Hyde.
I'm the president of Albion Bridge Stewards, where I 501c3 nonprofit whose mission is to
advocate for the preservation of the last remaining timber trestle bridge on State Route
and the historic landmark Albion River Bridge.
As we state in our public comment letters,
we respectfully ask that commissioners object
to this de minimis waiver
for the Caltrans proposed
Albion River Bridge geotech investigation.
This is not a no impact investigation.
Caltrans proposes nine boreholes,
some up to 150 feet deep, drill rigs, drilling fluids,
mud tanks, waste drums, spill controls,
lane closures, reversing traffic controls and flaggers.
The work would occur over several weeks in a sensitive coastal corridor that includes
Highway 1, a designated highly scenic area, and Wild and Scenic River, and an Asia-adjacent
habitat.
We're also really concerned about public process.
Some critical application materials were not available until after we submitted our first
comment letter last week.
They may have been available at a commission office in Arcata about four hours away, but
weren't distributed by email or postal mail to an interesting person's list.
Those missing materials disclosed important details that aren't in the waiver notice,
including possible weekend work, possible simultaneous drilling, guardrail removal,
55-gallon waste drums, and the fact that boring locations may even completely change.
That information is essential to evaluating coastal resource impacts.
Four of those boreholes are proposed along an extremely narrow switchback road that provides
RV and other large vehicle access to a campground and marina. It's hard to imagine how controlled
traffic and boring rigs wouldn't restrict access to those important visitor serving recreation areas.
In March, Mendocino County relinquished local permitting authority so that this could be
processed as a consolidated CDP, the Commission should not convert that process into a no-CDP
waiver. Please object to the waiver. It warrants regular CDP review with full public disclosure,
coastal act and LCP allowance, and enforceable conditions. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hyde. Next up we have Ann Marie Weibel. Ms. Weibel, please go ahead.
Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Please go ahead.
I am a member of Albion Bridge stewards but I'm speaking as an individual.
I hope that you will oppose the Caltrans de Minimos waiver for this investigation.
I assume you read the extensive correspondence and agree with the public that the public has
a right to be properly and timely informed about such important issues with a project
in the coastal zone, especially one that deals with a historic bridge that was placed in
the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places.
Caltrans, when doing the geotechnical investigation on the west side of the bridge, left all the
points.
I'm sorry to interrupt you, this is Anthony from AGP Video.
Is there some type of alarm going on in the background there
that you can please turn off so we can hear you clearly?
Thank you, I was wanting to do that,
but I felt that was gonna lose my time, thank you.
That's okay, I paused your time,
so if you wanna turn that alarm off
and we'll get back to your.
Yes, sorry.
Thank you.
So when Caltrans did their attack
in the geotechnical investigation on the west side
of the current bridge.
They left all the samples in the rain
and went for three weeks,
never revegetated the staging area,
did not replace the guardrails,
and did not deal with invasive weeds.
With the last geotechnical investigation,
the native tribes were contacted.
I don't believe that has happened
in this case with the waiver.
The biological reviews were contradictory
and listed some threatened, endangered animals
and plants that do not live here, but that do live here.
So for us to receive information,
you know, that's not even on your webpage,
less than 48 hours before this meeting
and having a waiver that is not,
acceptable. So please oppose this waiver and schedule the CDP application for a local
commission meeting. And I thank you for all your work.
Thank you, Ms. Weibel. That's our last speaker, Madam Chair.
Great. Thank you very much. Okay. While I will return to the commission, comment.
Thanks. I just wanted to quickly comment on the Crescent City item and just
acknowledge how great this is to do a sea-to-market sales. I just I really was
excited to see this moving forward and just want to express my excitement about
that. It's going to be great for Crescent City and hopefully bring more visitors
to that amazing place which was just listed as the last affordable housing
area in California, or I think it's you could get a house under 400 on the
coast of California. Thanks, Annie. With regard to the Albion Bridge, I just
want to express my appreciation to the public for their love of this beautiful
bridge and this beautiful place and express my confidence in Shanna and our
staff and in Caltrans that they're going to take the care that's necessary to
make sure that this job is done in a very cautious fashion.
And of course, we're just talking about geotechnical
studies at this time.
Just want to appreciate our staff and all the effort
that they put into this.
Commissioner Williams.
Yeah, thank you, Chair Hart.
I mean, sorry, Chair Harmon.
I advise Chair Hart for the comments.
Yeah, so with regard to that, I don't necessarily
have anything to add. I think the staff comments speak for
themselves. Do appreciate everyone for all their work on
this and the comments today from the public. And I think I'll
just pass it back. So thank you. Thank you. Okay, do three or
more commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors
report? Okay, seeing no objections, the commission
concurs. Thank you. Now, item 11, please.
Great. Thank you, Chair Harmon, that will take us to the north central coast calendar.
And in the DDS report this month, we're reporting one waiver and two immaterial amendments.
We're not aware of any objections or controversy regarding these matters. And so the question is
whether four or more commissioners object to the items in the report. And if not,
then the commission will concur. Great. Any expertise? Any public comments, Galen?
No public comments. Just a group available to answer questions.
Awesome. Okay. Any comments? Seeing none, do four or more commissioners object to any item in the
deputy director's report? Okay. There's no objections. The commission concurs. Thank you,
Mr. Khan. All right. Moving on. Next will be the central coast calendar and the DDS report.
And in it, we're reporting five waivers. We did receive objections to two of the waivers,
and so I'll run through those now. The first objections are to the City of Pismo Beach
Beach Cleanup Waiver. We received comments from the Surfighter Foundation and a member of the
public. We responded in an addendum posted Tuesday but I'll also summarize here. Namely,
Surfighter supports the City's beach cleaning plan but asked for clarity on the equipment
used and suggested biological monitoring to protect rack and invertebrates.
Other comments raise concerns about visitor data, sand compaction and impacts to public access.
Staff acknowledges these concerns but after working with the city and state parks we find
the program appropriately balanced where mechanical cleaning is limited to only one to two times per
month along the most heavily used roughly 3,000 square linear feet of beach and is limited to dry
sand, including above the highest high tide line in the summer, to protect grunyon and to preserve
rack and habitat. The City will use Surf Rider preferred sand sifting equipment and will provide
before and after photos to ensure rack is not being targeted for removal. With these measures
in place we believe that the proposal protects natural resources while simultaneously maintaining
a clean and accessible beach at one of the Central Coast's most used and visited public recreational
access beach destinations and we continue to recommend approval of the CDP waiver.
The second objections are to one of the single family home projects in the Del Monte Beach area
of the city of Monterey raising concerns about basement excavation and sandy soils and the
removal of a mature Monterey Cypress on site. In response we'd note the applicant obtained the
proper geotechnical reports which found that the near surface and subsurface soil conditions are
suitable for the construction of the proposed residence, and along with typical construction
methods there should not be any significant stability or safety concerns. And regarding the
tree removal, as noted in the waiver notice, the tree is ornamental and not native to the Del Monte
Beach area, although it is native to the Greater Monterey Peninsula down coast. The applicant
prepared an arborist report from a qualified arborist who inspected the tree and found the
trees anchoring root system has been previously disturbed. Those roots have been reduced and
therefore recommended its removal where it will only be removed outside of nesting season
and when active nests are not present. The city's local approval also requires replacement of the
removed tree and the arborist recommended a replacement with a Monterey Cypress or a Catalina
ironwood. So in sum the project is a modestly sized replacement home in an infill residential
neighborhood and we believe that the issues raised by the commenters were appropriately addressed
through the city's permitting process and we continue to believe a CDP waiver is appropriate
in this case for that project as well. Past that we're not aware of any objections or controversy
regarding the other matters in the DD's report and so the question is whether four or more
commissioners object to those items and if not then the commission will concur. Thank you.
Great, thank you. Any ex partes? Any public comments? Yes, we have Mitch Silverstein in
person and then Cynthia Replagal on Zoom. Good morning, commissioners. Mitch Silverstein,
California Policy Senior Coordinator for Surf Rider Foundation. We submitted written
comments about the waiver for Pismo Beach's five-year mechanical beach cleaning program.
Our SLO County chapter had some concerns. We raised two primary ones in the letter.
First, was the type of equipment that the city proposed wasn't binding.
I want to note that I'm still kind of researching which type of equipment is best for this.
There's sifters which pass debris through a screen, then they return the sand and any
associated organisms to the beach.
Initially, that suggested less ecological impact.
The rakers, by contrast, they comb debris from the surface without the screening step,
Meaning less depth penetration, but also no mechanism to return organisms to the beach.
So I don't really know which one is best.
But you know, they did, the city, the city did, sorry.
Anyway, so the reason we care is because rack and invertebrates form the base of the beach
food web that shorebirds and surf fish rely on.
This brings to our second concern that the five-year program lacked a biological monitoring
component to track these potential impacts on dry sand invertebrates and rack habitat.
We do appreciate staff's thorough response and the addendum.
The city confirmed it intends to use the sifter.
This is likely more effective than removing buried trash.
So that's a good thing.
We also tentatively agree that the program's limited
frequency, one to two cleanings per month,
confined only to high use areas
with already reduced habitat function,
strikes a reasonable balance.
The city committed to before and after
photo documentation of B-track areas.
That's a modest but meaningful substitute
for form of monitoring.
My hope is that Surfighter Slough County volunteers
keep an eye on operations independently
since the commission will rely on city provided reporting.
I'll close with this, Surfighter,
our ultimate goal as a coast,
where cities and volunteers don't need to clean the beach
in the first place,
because beach goers leave it the way they found it.
Programs like this are a practical necessity
in the meantime,
but we'd be rather working ourselves out of the need
for this kind of job, so thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Silverstein.
Next up, via Zoom, we have Cynthia Replagal.
Ms. Repligal, please go ahead.
Ms. Repligal, oh, please go ahead.
Sorry, had a little trouble getting unmuted there.
I'm Cynthia Repligal, a Pismo Beach resident.
I moved to the Central Coast 10 years ago
from Southern California and marveled
at how little trash littered the sand.
Pismo Beach isn't Santa Monica,
which had 4.2 million annual visitors per its 2024 EIS.
It's been doing mechanical raking since the 1950s
with three daily tractors that remove 44 tons of trash
after a single holiday weekend, per a 2018 Smithsonian article.
Santa Monica sees tens of thousands of visitors on a busy summer day.
Pismo Beach, a city of 8,000 people with less than 600 downtown public parking
spaces, claims to see the same with no source and
no scrutiny. Staff's footnote in the addendum compares
this to Santa Cruz's beach cleaning program,
but that program has been processed as a full CDP with public hearings and
and findings since 1995, and the Commission's 2025 staff report describes it as serving
the most popular beach destination on the Central Coast with an estimated 1 million
visitors.
That staff report notes more than 100 miles of Southern California's shoreline are groomed,
every one authorized under a full CDP, which means this Commission has never approved a
beach grooming program on a waiver.
The Addendum dismisses manual cleaning as having limited effectiveness, although it's
how most beaches on the California coast are managed. It ignores the weekly beach cleanup
promoted on the city's tourism website and that actual trash load data from coastal cleanup days
and the annual city-led cleanup the morning after July 4th was not submitted and no alternative
analysis was conducted. Something I love about my city is running on the beach in a peaceful early
morning. My background is the morning in June before many tourists arrive. Other early rising
locals and tourists also enjoy beach recreation then. This morning calm would be shattered
by a noisy smelly diesel tractor raking trash. Approving this waiver would be an unexplained
departure from the commission's own established practice. I respectfully urge commissioners
to require the city of Pismo Beach to proceed through the full CDP process. Thank you.
Thank you Ms. Replickel. We have two speakers that we're unable to find in the webinar,
So if you hear your name, please go ahead and raise your hand.
We have Lori Mazuka and Celia Antonia Zarate.
Lori Mazuka and Celia Antonia Zarate.
Seeing nothing.
We do have Riley Gerbrandt available to answer questions and that is it.
Madam Chair?
Okay.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Vice, I mean Vice Chair, Director Hucklebridge. Yeah, I'd like to turn it over to our Central
Coast staff to respond to some of the comments we heard. Sure, just real quickly on the beach
cleaning program, we continue to think a waiver is appropriate here. We have authorized certain beach
grooming programs via waiver and other communities, and I think the reason for that is we have a pretty
good protocol on how to do these things. I think the first and foremost, we want to limit these
type of more mechanical grooming and cleaning programs to the most heavily used urban beaches
like the city of Santa Cruz and like the roughly, you know, 3,000 less than a mile
distance in the city of Pismo Beach, which is pretty heavily used. And just we think we've
honed in on some pretty robust biological protections just to make sure that we're only
dealing with the dry sand buffers against the dunes and the Pismo Creek lagoon system.
And again, frequency, we're only talking about one to two times per month
including to protect Grunian and other sensitive or potentially sensitive
species and habitats there. Try to balance the recreational usage with the
habitat function of all urban beaches. With that though our staff ecologist is online here in case
there are any specific questions but otherwise I think we'd maybe just leave it there and
we're available for questions. Great, thank you very much. Okay I'll return to the commission.
Comments? Commissioner Nada. Thank you for that further clarification from staff because I think
I think that the potential for disruption of habitat,
I don't know what happens if there's nesting birds there.
That's gonna be monitored, I hope.
But I really appreciate the public
bringing this to our attention,
and it sounds like it's gonna be monitored closely,
and staff has worked through that.
So I just wanted to express my,
I share some of the concerns,
but I appreciate the work that the staff's done.
Okay, great, thank you.
So do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objection, the commission concurs.
Thank you.
Okay, item 13, please.
That brings us to item 13A.
Claire Villegas in the commission statewide planning unit
and Dr. Rachel Pausch in the ecology unit
will be giving the staff presentation from Zoom.
Claire, please go ahead when you're ready.
Thanks, Erin.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Item 13A is a notice of impending development prepared by the Resource Conservation District of Santa Cruz County in collaboration with the University of California at Santa Cruz for forest health and wildfire resilience vegetation treatments.
Next slide, please.
As the Commission will recall from prior presentations, Coastal Act Section 30605 offers public works plans, or PWPs, as an alternative to Project by Project review.
The Commission has certified five PWPs related to forest health and fire resilience, consistent with statewide goals to streamline these projects and the Governor's initiative to cut the green tape.
This Notice of Impending Development, or NOID, is being submitted under the Santa Cruz County RCD Forest Health and Fire Resilience, PWP.
The PWP area is shown in the hatched area on the slide.
This PWP was certified by the Commission on July 8, 2021, and expires on July 7, 2031.
The issue before the Commission today is whether the project described in the NOID is consistent with the certified PWP.
Commission action is thus limited to imposing conditions to bring the project into conformity
with the PWP standards.
Next slide please.
The project area is located on UCSC's main residential campus, outlined in red on the
map.
While UCSC plans to treat almost 2,000 acres across the campus, only 274 acres are located
within the coastal zone and the subject of the snowed.
The coastal zone treatment areas are west of Empire grade and identified on the map
with arrows.
A lack of disturbance over most of this area, such as natural fire, has resulted in denser
forests, fuel accumulation, changes to wildlife habitats, and shifts in ecological succession
pathways.
The 2020 CZU Lightning Complex Fire, which burned over 80,000 acres near the project
area, underscore the need to reduce fuels and restore natural disturbance regimes.
UCSC is thus proposing treatments to restore ecosystem processes, promote biodiversity,
restore degraded habitats, and protect sensitive resources. Treatments are designed to address
fuel accumulations and facilitate returning the landscape closer to natural historic conditions.
The project primarily involves ecological restoration treatments shown on the map in
green, which make up about 98% of the treatments. Approximately 2% of the treatment types will be
maintenance of existing fuel breaks and wildland urban fuel reduction shown on the map in purple
and orange. Ecological restoration treatments could be implemented through a combination
of manual and mechanical treatment, prescribed fire, limited herbicide application, and prescribed
bivory. Annual treatment and prescribed broadcast burning could be implemented across the project
area, while mechanical treatment, pile burning, and prescribed bivory could only occur across
a maximum of about 217 acres. Herbicide application would be targeted to invasive species
and would only occur on a maximum of one acre. Treatment can occur any time of the year
depending on funding as well as seasonal and timing restrictions. UCSC anticipates starting
working under this noise in 2027. I will now turn it over to the Commission's staff ecologist,
Dr. Rachel Pausch, to provide additional context on the ecological conditions of the project area.
Thanks Claire and good morning commissioners. Next slide please. The project area contains a
variety of ecosystems and vegetation communities shown on the vegetation alliance map here on the
left. These include redwood forest, Douglas fir forest, and grasslands. There is no chaparral
or coastal sage scrub in the project area within the coastal zone. The project area today is
characterized by forests that are far denser than their historical pre-industrial condition,
largely due to intense land uses in decades without beneficial fire. Many tree species,
including oaks, madrone, Douglas fir, and pines are now more vulnerable to disease,
which increases tree mortality and adds to fuel accumulation. The pictures on the right
demonstrate the encroachment of trees into grassland due to the lack of disturbance over time.
This coastal prairie area has continued to decline as conifers and shrubs establish
and dry plant material accumulates. Overall, the landscape shows clear signs of shifting
vegetation types, lower species richness, and elevated susceptibility to high-severity wildfire.
Next slide please. The CalVTP includes an extensive list of standard project requirements,
or SPRs, and mitigation measures. The project has been designed to protect coastal resources
through implementation of 71 different SPRs and 17 mitigation measures. These include a suite of
best management practices to protect biological resources, including protocol surveys for special
status wildlife and plants prior to implementing proposed treatments, biological monitoring during
all treatment activities and buffers from identified resource areas such as water courses
and special status plants and wildlife.
Impacts of soil health will be minimized by retaining vegetation cover, limiting heavy
equipment use and keeping root systems intact to protect the soil structure.
UCSC proposed a minor clarification to one SPR which staff supports.
This SPR broadly requires delineation of water course and lake protection zones and UCSC
clarified that these zones will be flagged when they are within 300 feet of project activities.
Staff found that the proposed changes to this SPR do not revise the SPR, but rather provide
additional specificity on the implementation of the SPR. In the case that project implementation
cannot treat the entire campus at once, the SPR would apply to the current treatment areas
rather than the whole campus. This additional specificity does not raise any issues regarding
consistency with the PWP. Otherwise, UCSC is proposing to follow the standards approved
in the PWP to ensure that resource impacts are avoided and strictly minimized. As a staff
ecologist covering this area, I have reviewed the proposed NOID and agree that as conditioned,
the project is consistent with the biological protection requirements of the certified PWP.
And I'll pass it back to Claire. Thanks, Rachel. Next slide, please. After
After publication of the staff report, staff received three letters of support and a letter
from Sierra Club, California, which requested modifications and recommended additional special
conditions.
I'll provide a brief overview of the responses we provided in the addendum released on Tuesday.
First, Sierra Club requested the SPR related to water force and lake protection zones not
be modified as we described.
However, as mentioned, UCSD is only adding detail on how this SPR will be implemented,
is consistent with the Cal BTP and the PWP. They also describe concerns about crown separation,
vegetation retention, and potential type conversion, citing language from the PSA that
speaks to the retention of 10 percent understory cover and 25 to 100 feet spacing between retained
patches. To clarify, the language Sierra Club sites refers to the proposed general treatments
for understory vegetation rather than for trees. The retention percentage would vary with the
treatment type with ecological restoration treatments in forested areas having increased
retention including additional smaller trees up to a minimum of 25 percent of understory vegetation
retention and 25 to 75 feet spacing between retained patches. As discussed earlier, lack
of disturbance has resulted in high densities in forest areas across UCSC and staff thus finds the
project is appropriately conditioned. Sierra Club's concern regarding the retention of dead
trees or snags for use by wildlife are addressed through existing standards that require a
registered professional forester or qualified biologist to identify and mark snags during
biological surveys and retain five to eight snags per acre. Regarding bulldozer use, the project
already includes strong restrictions for mechanical treatment that require the least invasive methods
and prohibit heavy machinery in water course and lake protection zones except on existing roads.
Finally, regarding consistency with county riparian regulations, the proposed work is primarily
ecological restoration, which is allowed under existing exemptions. The work also avoids most
activities to find its development and includes protective measures that meet or exceed county
standards. In conclusion, staff appreciate Sierra Club's review and thoughtful comments,
but finds that UCSC and the RCD have proposed a project that complies with the CalVTP and its
project requirements, promotes ecological restoration and forest health, and is fully
consistent with the PWP and county policies as conditioned in the staff recommendations.
Next slide please. Before I close, we want to thank the RCD and UCSC for their partnership
to improve wildfire resilience in Santa Cruz. Staff recommends that the commission approve
the annoyed as conditioned. The motions can be found on page five of the staff report.
This concludes the staff presentation and we're available for questions.
Great. Thank you very much. Are there any ex partes?
Okay, any public comments? Yes, we have the applicant who'd like to speak
with a group available for questions and then we have one additional member of the public.
So first up we have Erica Carpenter. Ms Carpenter, are you available?
Please go ahead and unmute yourself and go ahead.
Good morning. Thank you all for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Erica Carpenter
and I'm a principal environmental planner with UC Santa Cruz. On behalf of UC Santa Cruz and the
Resource Conservation District of Santa Cruz County, we appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
Next slide please. So just wanted to give you a little, just a brief background on the wildfire
vegetation, wildfire vegetation management plan and why it was initiated for the UC Santa Cruz
Maine residential campus. As discussed in the staff presentation approximately six years ago,
the CZU lightning complex fire really devastated the Santa Cruz mountains. The figure on the left
in this presentation shows the wildfire severity ratings at UC Santa Cruz, but also shows the
footprint of the CCU Lightning Complex fire in the upper left of the figure. It came approximately
a mile from the northern edge of our campus and our entire campus community was evacuated during
the fire. Really the fire became a catalyst to addressing increasing wildfire frequency and
severity in the Santa Cruz Mountains. During this time UC Santa Cruz was also preparing a
long-range development plan for the campus that would guide the development over the next 20 years
And the environmental impact report determined, that was prepared for this long range plan,
determined that the increase, that the plan would increase the risk of wildfire on our campus.
And so a mitigation measure was actually included in our environmental impact report that required
preparation of the plan, as well as implementation of treatments on the UC Santa Cruz campus.
Next slide, please. So approximately two years ago, we began preparing, preparing the plan.
As discussed in the staff presentation, approximately two years ago we began preparing the plan.
A technical working group was established which really included faculty and staff members at the
university with relevant technical and resource expertise to advise on treatments. The university
also conducted broad outreach with several open houses both in person and virtually to get input
from our campus community as well as the broader Santa Cruz community. You see Santa Cruz would
continue this outreach to the community as we begin treatments on our campus in the near future.
During preparation of the plan and the PSA addendum we also engaged with various resource
agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife and we appreciated the opportunity to also to engage with the coastal staff on this
project as well. Next slide, please. So the objectives of the plan, which were discussed
a little bit in the staff presentation before, are really to steward the natural resources on
our campus in a manner that aligns with campus values of biodiversity, resiliency, sustainability,
traditional ecological knowledge, unique campus integrity, and the overall academic mission of
the university. The goals of the plan are also based on these objectives and include established
ecosystem and campus community resilience to wildfire while promoting biodiversity,
restore degraded habitats and protect sensitive resources including valuable coastal ecosystems.
Next slide please. The staff presentation touched on this a little bit but I just wanted
to provide a couple more slides on some of the vegetation type transitions that are happening
on our campus. These particular slides show some grasslands in our upper campus that have
really transitioned over an 81 year period from 1941 to 2022. They were nearly contiguous
in the 1940s and have since been reduced to three small pocket meadows due to woody encroachment
of vegetation on these grasslands. And this has really resulted in a decline of ecosystem
health due to a lack of disturbance on the land. Next slide please. This next slide also shows
some vegetation type transitions that are happening in the coastal zone on our campus.
This picture shows the mortality of of manzanita trees that have been overtopped by Douglas fir
trees. These conditions really are not unique to UC Santa Cruz but are very similar to other areas
across the Santa Cruz mountains. Next slide please. This slide here shows, well this slide also just
addresses vegetation type transitions. This figure illustrates kind of pre- and post-ecological
restoration treatments proposed in the coastal zone. The image on the left is a forest which has
been left undisturbed. The image on the right is a forest that has been treated to reduce fire risk
to be more resilient and to enhance wildlife habitat. The density of the vegetation in the
image on the right on the slide was developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
based on similar vegetation treatment program projects and have been incorporated into the UC
Santa Cruz wildfire vegetation management plan. Field reviews with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service have confirmed that the proposed snag and woody debris retention levels are appropriate for
listed wildlife species and their habitats. Next slide please. And finally Rachel touched on this
a little bit in her presentation, but these are, there are a number of measures that are required
in addition to the robust, robust, excuse me, ETP, PSA addendum, and PWP environmental protection
measures. The UC Santa Cruz would also be implementing mitigation measures from the
university's long-range development plan environmental impact reports by qualified
professionals prior to and during treatments. And then next slide please. And finally, thank you,
thank you for the opportunity to be here today and I and our team are available to answer any
questions. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you. Thank you Miss Carpenter. We have Mike Goof
available via Zoom. Mr. Goof, just one sec. Mr. Goof please go ahead. Are you able to hear me? Yes,
We can hear you. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Mike Guth again for Sierra Club,
California. Next slide please. I want to let you know that the Sierra Club supports the staff
recommended modifications and we have some comments. We put in significant comments there
on page seven of your correspondence file and to mention that we find many laudable
aspects to the plan. We just heard Ms. Carpenter and we heard Dr. Pausch talk and often what
happens in the plans highlight the good parts and our concern is often what might, what
kind of discretion does the plan allow further. And we certainly appreciate Coastal Staff's
dialogue with us during this process. We put in extensive comments. The addendum came out
responding to them. We don't accept all of it, but we very much appreciate the dialogue
and I'll say on this one we're in the same room together talking. Next slide please.
We highlighted also these encroachment things. These are the kinds of treatments we very much
support. We have experts in our Santa Cruz Conservation Committee and they've been to
these areas and they see these things. This is the kind of stuff we support ecological restoration
and then you get blurry lines between ecological restoration and fire management. Next slide please.
And the plan as it went through the RCD, in our view, tried to exempt itself from standard
project requirements that your staff has now clawed back in special condition 8, which we very much
support. This is 270 acres out of a 2000-acre overall plan at 270 in the coastal zone. Like
I said, we're generally supportive, but it raises an opportunity to discuss one more thing. Next
next slide please. And that is a bias towards over thinning. Next slide please. And overall
thinning fire concerns overrule ecological restoration. And we really should be protecting
communities in another way. And if you look at this slide, this is why. Again, we appreciate
the dialogue. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Guth. There are no more speakers. Madam Chair.
Okay, great. Thank you very much with that. I will see if our staff wants to respond or just return to the Commission. I
Think I just want to appreciate
Mr. Goose comments and I think to summarize at the heart. Mr.
Booth
disagrees about
What level of vegetation management and what methods of removal are appropriate in our open spaces to ensure that sensitive wildlife and plant
species and coastal resources are being protected. However in this case our
staff ecologist Dr. Pausch reviewed the project treatment prescriptions and is
comfortable that the level of proposed vegetation removal and the methods to
implement this work will adequately protect sensitive species and resources
while also reducing the risk of future catastrophic wildfire. So as proposed
with the conditions that staff is recommending in the staff report we
We believe the project is consistent with the requirements of the PWP and will protect
coastal resources in this area.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you very much.
All right.
I'll return to the commission.
Vice Chair Hart.
Sorry, I'm commenting on everything.
But on this particular one, I mean, I share this here, a club's concerns, although while
acknowledging the amount of work and effort that went into this.
And I was just, I just wanted to ask you, Erin.
Once we approve the plan and the trees are marked and the plan begins, do we ever have
any is there any review for the review or this is the final sign off?
For this project, this is the final sign off.
There are monitoring and reporting requirements in the special conditions.
So we will get reporting back on the project.
Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you.
Madam Chair, I'm happy to make the motion.
I guess my only comment is this is now that we're dealing with more and more of this wildfire
realities that affect so much of our landscapes and obviously our minds need to be a little
more elastic as to how we approach all of these solutions and how we reassess how to
deal with it.
But up in my neck of the woods, there's been a lot of clear cutting somewhat around the
Smith River, somewhat around concerns from wildfires and cleaning up and the rush to
do all of this.
And it's really impacting erosion and the roads and the highways.
And now Caltrans is coming in, billions of dollars in infrastructure, and the way they're
treating the wild ones that may be a couple miles up the slope, that's going to have a
dramatic impact.
So I just, I appreciate sort of your thoughtfulness and thoroughness thinking about this and keeping
as abreast as to how we move forward with these approaches of handling our wildfire
risks.
Thank you.
And I'm ready to make the motion.
I move that the commission determine the development described in the notice of impending development
VTP-NOID-0001-26 as condition pursuant to staff recommendation.
consistent with the certified Santa Cruz County Forest Health
and Fire Resilience Public Works Plan.
And I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
OK, that's a motion by Commissioner Escalante,
a second by Commissioner Wilson.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
All right, seeing none, the motion carries.
And with that, I believe we are done for the day.
So I want to thank staff for their hard work.
The team at AGP, you guys are awesome, and the town of San Pedro for having us.
We're very happy to be here and look forward to seeing you all next month in San Diego.