Okay, everyone we're gonna begin there's no gavel so thank you very much good
morning welcome to the July hearing of the California Coastal Commission we're
so happy to be here in Ventura and we will begin this meeting with the world
Now please all right good morning Commissioner O'Malley was it
Commissioner Escalante
present
Commissioner Hart
present
Commissioner Jackson here
Commissioner Kelly here
Commissioner Lopez here
Commissioner Smith
present
Commissioner Preciado present
Commissioner Wilson here a Commissioner Brownfield
Here Commissioner Eckley
Here Commissioner Williams here and chair Harmon
Here we have a quorum great. Thank you very much and it just a warm welcome to Commissioner Smith who is here
She's the alternate for Commissioner not off. We're very excited to have her with us this month
Okay, yes round of applause there. We'll go
Agenda changes, please mr. Joyful
Thank you, Chair Harmon and good morning commissioners. We have five changes to
To today's agenda all of which are noted on the agenda changes memo posted to our online agenda
I'll just quickly run through those the first is item 10 B
Which has been moved to consent and that's for a permit application by the Ocean Protection Council to install marine protected area signage
Next is item 11b which has been moved to consent for a consistency determination
By the US Navy for flood control infrastructure at Naval Base Ventura County
Next item 12.1 a has been withdrawn and that's for a dispute resolution issue with the venture report district CDP
Next item 14a has been moved to consent for a city of rudano beach lcp amendment and
And finally, item 15A has been postponed for a CDP application in the city of Santa Monica.
That concludes the changes to today's agenda.
So that brings us to item four, general public comment, and with that, I will turn the mic
back to you.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
To Simone.
All right.
Awesome.
Thank you.
All right.
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, then wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not
speak on an item, we recommend you use the CalSPAN website.
For those who wish to address the Commission today, can do so in person through the Zoom
platform or by phone.
The speaker request form may be found on the Commission's webpage, paper forms, and a scannable
qr code for paperless submittals are available on the commission staff table just outside the meeting room
For those on zoom we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the commission's agenda webpage
Which is a guide on providing comments via zoom or by phone
members of the public speaking during general public comments may be given up to two minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair
Request to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted at 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 comments are typically allowed two to three minutes to speak at the discretion
of the chair
We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing on that particular item
If you have internet access
Internet access, please go to the Commission's web page and click on the link to fill out a speaker request
If you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone
Please call the Commission staff at five six two
four seven seven nine zero eight nine
Again, that number is 562-477-9089.
Staff will provide you with a telephone calling number and instructions for how to participate
and provide testimony by phone.
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting through a meeting organizer.
When it's your time to address the Commission, the organizer will invite you to turn on your
video and microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone.
Chair that concludes the virtual hearing procedures thank you very much sorry I
forgot that earlier but let's go to general public comment please for
members of the public I will be announcing the names are the upcoming
speakers and invite you to speak when it's your turn each speaker will be
allowed two minutes during the general public comments at the discretion of the
chair in order to allow for video testimonies on zoom we will bring we will
be bringing you in as a panelist. As we bring you in, your video will reload. This may take
a moment to speed up the process. We will bring several people in at a time, but please
remain unmuted and keep your video off until we ask you to speak. After your time is up,
you will be moved back to attendee mode. For the members of the public present in the room,
I will call your names in the order that they appear on our sign-up list. When you hear
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 your phone by dialing star six.
First up, we have Susan Melahue.
I apologize if I pronounced the names wrong in advance.
Tom Jones, Maura O'Neil.
new please press the button at the base at the base it's at the bottom perfect
thank you yeah thank you how's that okay I'm Susan
mail you I'm here to make a general comment it is to Noah's office of
coastal management California needs you and the California Coastal Commission
for enforceable protection of our unique coastal resources.
Without oversight by California's Coastal Management Program and the Coastal Zone Management
Act, much of what we all treasure will vanish.
I myself have watched as the harbor seals of Carpinteria have declined before our eyes
due to habitat loss and climate change.
They are the most peaceful of the semi-aquatic marine mammals,
and their site fidelity requires them to use the small beach where they were born for their daily functions.
It is only with the protections of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
and the California Coastal Commission that these animals still exist
on the small site in Carpinteria where people flock to a bluff top above to see them in their natural habitat.
Please do not underestimate the importance of protections.
There are thousands of people who depend on it and value California's resources.
Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Commission, Tom Jones with PG&E here to give you an update on the conditions for the Diablo Canyon Project.
I want to start off by thanking your staff and my team for the great progress we made.
Your action in December of 2026 was then triggered or predicated on the NRC's licensing action.
They did that on April 2nd which put the permit in effect
and the following conditions we're going to go over.
The bottom line, we're ahead of schedule under budget
and we expect to have major accomplishments
this calendar year.
So first and outside of the conditions of the permit,
we're going beyond that.
We've restored the docent ratio to 20 to one
and I want to bring Commissioner Jackson's attention
to bullet two.
We have eliminated the age restriction.
So you and your family are welcome anytime.
We look forward to hosting you, okay?
All right, we've also decoupled the Patio Coast Trail
with the Point Bouchon Trail,
so those carrying capacities have been increased,
affording more public access.
And then we had some safety concerns
and we're setting up the future operator for success.
So we're redesigning our front gate
and providing a vehicle barrier separation for hikers.
So when we have shift change at the power plant
and hundreds of vehicle leaving,
hikers will be physically protected
and currently they walk over a narrow curb
In a drainage well, so that's all underway the other key highlight here. It's hard to see on this image
I apologize we're working with the Port Harbor district and by putting a small DG path in we're able to unlock we believe by the end of
The year 88 existing parking spaces and parking is quite constrained at this beach like many
So the ports been working with us and we're very excited about that turn of events
You might remember there were phases on this conservation agreement and the north phase over 5,000 acres
We've got the draft plans with staff and we're also aligning those conservation easement restrictions
With state parks as they're the likely successor to us because these properties are contiguous with the montana doro state park
State parks leadership has been down to the site several times and they are anticipating support to move forward with that
So that is on track once those definitions are codified
We can then go to the Public Utilities Commission for approval to convey and transfer these lands because again
We can't act unilaterally, but we expect that and your staff has been supportive on that as well
And finally madam chair if I get one quick update
There's been a major development of wild cherry Canyon the developers home fed have relinquished their lease to a local family
That has a conservation and strong philanthropic background
They've engaged with a nonprofit entity for conservation purposes that entity is completing
They're appraisals now and we have been working with them to negotiate the fee title transfer as well
There's an outside chance Wild Cherry Canyon is permanently conserved this calendar year if not early next year
So we're very excited about that development and much ahead of schedule and a term none of us expect it
We're very favorable for and then lastly
I won't drain the slide the 10 million dollars to support new public access will be in the bank by the fourth quarter of this
year with a nonprofit financial steward.
So thank you very much again for your leadership and particularly your staff's cooperation
and quick guidance so that we look at this now as a project like replacing a transformer.
We're going to knock it out because we're a utility.
We want this project completed and handed to somebody else.
All right.
So thank you very much for your time and attention.
Thank you.
Maura O'Neill, Thelma Alvarez, Dr. Alex J. Mattson, and David Villafranca.
Good morning commissioners.
My name is Maura O'Neill.
I'm a policy analyst for Better Neighbors LA.
A housing coalition focused on protecting
long-term housing by regulating short-term rentals.
I'm here today to ask the Coastal Commission
to consider the benefits of a hosted-only approach
to regulate short-term rentals in the coastal zone.
The Coastal Commission has very few levers
to directly affect housing in the coastal zone,
and STR regulation is a pivotal tool.
Properly balancing the need for visitor accommodation
and coastal housing is the only way to both expand
access to coastal towns, and preserve the vibrancy
of coastal communities that draw visitors to them
in the first place.
Coastal communities have struggled to regulate
an influx of corporate, unhosted, short-term rentals
that drive out residents in hollow-out entire towns.
We have heard coastal residents describe
emptying neighborhoods, and we've heard stories
of residents fearing that they will be next.
Regulating short-term rentals
through a hosted-only framework mitigates these impacts
to housing while still increasing coastal access
for visitors.
Hosted short-term rentals tend to be less costly
than unhosted short-term rentals
and do not remove housing units in the same way.
As you consider future regulations,
we encourage you to embrace hosted only
as a regulatory framework of choice
to preserve both coastal access
and the coastal communities that we love.
Thank you for your time.
Good morning, commissioners.
Let's see if we can get this.
Good morning.
My name is Telme Alvarez.
I'm here as director for Better Neighbors Los Angeles
with my colleague, Maura.
I'm here to echo the same sentiments
about hosted-only STR policies.
Hosted-only STRs provide benefits
over unhosted short-term rentals within the coastal zone.
As corporate entities continue to buy up housing
to flip into expensive luxury short-term rentals,
embracing a coastal-only framework
can ensure that visitors can continue to access a coast
while preserving necessary housing,
especially workforce housing.
STRs and un-hosted STRs tend to place upward pressure
on housing costs, driving workers
that provide the necessary services for visitors
further and further inland.
The fact that hosted STRs are less impactful
to the housing market as they don't remove
entire housing units makes them the right choice
to preserve housing and to prioritize
as part of a regulatory framework.
Un-hosted short-term rentals, by contrast,
are usually pricier and much more likely
to be corporate owned.
Many of them charge exuberant amounts of dollars per night,
far out of the reach of the average working family.
They pull desperately needed coastal homes off the market
and convert them into luxury commodities
exclusively for the wealthy.
As you consider further measures to regulate
short-term rentals in the coastal zone,
we urge you to choose the most equitable framework
hosted only in rentals and protect coastal housing
and coastal access at the same time.
Thank you so much for your attention.
Dr. Alex, followed by David Villafranca, Irene Cook,
Carol Millar.
Good morning everyone, my name is Dr. Alex Matonona.
I am a policy advocate with the Central Coast Alliance,
United for Sustainable Economy, or CAWS.
Today, I just wanna come out
and talk about a few different things.
The first being, of course, just to show support
for the Coastal Commission against the Trump attacks
against the Coastal Management Plan.
Our coast here, we are dealing with a lot
of different things that are on your docket,
the stable pipeline, offshore drilling,
potential mining, as well as offshore wind development.
So, as things move forward in the future,
we wanna make sure that you are,
we are uplifting the voices that are most needed.
So, please make sure that you are ensuring
environmental justice in your decisions,
make sure you're activating and working
our tribal partners and make sure that we are protecting our coastline. So again
thank you for your fight against the Trump administration with the attack
against states rights and we appreciate your support. Thank you. Thank you. David
Villafranca, Irene Cook, Carol Millar, Todd Colart. Good morning
commissioners. My name is David Villafranca. I'm a resident of Santa Barbara
California. From its earliest days of statehood, California has understood
the value of the resource that is the Pacific Coast. The state understood that
the value is so great it must belong to the people. I'm one of the millions of
people that recognizes this gift and have demonstrated my gratitude by
volunteering my time with organizations like Santa Barbara Channel Keepers,
a group that has removed over 50,000 pounds of trash from our local beaches.
Increasingly, it doesn't feel like the coast is for all of us.
On our resiliently beautiful beaches, we dodge oil slicks that seep out of neglected oil
infrastructure that wouldn't exist if we had organizations like the California Coastal
Commission to hold the oil industry accountable 100 years ago.
And look, I think a rocket launch is as cool as the next guy.
But we shouldn't have to fight tooth and nail for the basic human dignity of not getting
rattled out of bed by sonic booms as early as 5 o'clock in the morning.
Now is not the time to weaken organizations like this.
Regulation and stewardship should come from the people who love and live on this beautiful
coast and who work tirelessly to protect it.
As the Commission faces attacks from the current administration, I want to make it clear that
I stand with the California Coastal Commission.
Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
I'm Irene Cook, I'm representing the Society of Fearless Grandmothers.
grey-haired ladies in purple vests are back. We have come before you in San
Francisco, Santa Barbara, Long Beach, and Pismo in the past coming to speak in
opposition of the Sable Project, but today we're here simply to say thank you.
And like good grandmothers everywhere, we come bearing sweets. These cakes are a
token of our appreciation for your half-century of protecting our precious
California coast. Your diligence and determination have been a critical part
of maintaining everything special about our coast. We want to say thank you for
50 years of protecting the coast and we salute your courage. Oops, we salute
your courage in the face of unprecedented attacks and assaults from
the federal government. The fearless grandmothers say thank you for being
fearless. My name is Carol Millar. I'm a member of the fearless grandmothers but
this little thing is for myself alone. My first time out as an activist was when I
was 10 or 11 right before the Prop 20 initiative came on the ballot. I went
around my neighborhood with a petition to save the Wilcox property now known as
the Douglas Family Preserve which sits on a bluff above Henry's Beach in Santa
Barbara. Henry's Beach was, and still is, my beach. Apologies to those who mistakenly
think it belongs to them. Nobody believes more in the healthful effects of sun, sea,
and sand than Germans, and with two German immigrant parents, my fate was sealed. Henry's,
the beach closest to our actual home, became a second home. The types of development imagined
for the Wilcox property were enormous. The number 400 is stuck in my head. One of the
proposals was for a hotel perhaps a hotel with 400 rooms I'm not sure. In the
end, activism and private donations saved the Wilcox but had the Coastal
Commission existed when the property came for sale, I know for certain that
any proposals for development would have had to have been much more modest and
meet many more requirements than anything the city would have asked for.
Thank you for protecting our coast in the 54 years since I pestered the
neighbors for their signatures.
Todd Colart, followed by Clyde Pratt, and Leslie Purcell,
Jim Holtz, and then we'll go to Zoom for Diane Wokey, Terry
Saucer, and Jennifer Savage, are the three on Zoom.
And then that will complete our public speaking.
Good morning, Commissioner.
My name is Todd Colart.
I'm a 50-year resident of Ventura.
I'm here to speak on the SABLE matter,
but because that's an enclosed session for you,
it's not something we can comment on as an item.
I urge you to continue, as others have suggested,
to resist the intrusion of federal authorities
into your domain.
You should rightfully retain the permitting
and authorization regulatory authority
that you've had under Prop 20 and for all the years since then.
And I urge you to resist the Fed's intrusion in that
as long as you can.
If you can maintain permitting authority,
I urge you to make sure that the SABLE project is very firmly
conditioned to include strict liability insurance
to cover incidences such they've had in the past,
as well as performance bonds to ensure that
measures taken that you may require are actually performed.
These are simply, measures have been active
in Ventura County for decades.
I administer those conditions as a permit planner
for the county, and they were effective and useful.
Should you fail to thwart the Fred's effort,
I urge you to engage with the legislature
to come up with some incentives or disincentives
are sable to operate improperly.
In this regard, I allude to the recent legislation
which said that any earnings received
from the Department of Justice slush fund by people
will be taxed at 100% here in California.
Are you thinking about some alternatives
such as the one I'm about to propose?
And that is for any operation that
proceeds without your permitting authority being received first,
such as the feds ordering the sable project
to go forward over your objections,
and you do not issue a permit for it
that you consider, along with the legislature,
language that trebles any considered fines, penalties,
sanctions of any sort for those occurrences
which are in danger of the environment
or other important factors.
So I urge you to look outside your normal permitting
authority for ways to incentivize Sable
to behave properly, even though it may not be
under your permitting authority if the Fed succeeded.
Thank you.
good morning, all. My name is Clyde Pratt. This is my first visit to one of these meetings.
The reason for it is to express my appreciation for what you're doing.
Starting in 1972, I started going up and down the coast of California and have had the good
fortune to be able to live in this part of the world. In 1972, the population of California
It was about half what it is today.
So we've doubled in size.
We've all seen the impacts of that for good and for ill.
But one of the things that's been a relative constant here
is due to your efforts.
Without it, it'd be a different world today.
That's basically what I wanted to say is, thank you very much.
Leslie Purcell, followed by Jim Holtz.
Hi, I'm Leslie Purcell.
I'm fortunate to live here in Ventura
and welcome all of you to this wonderful place.
And it is historically too much land,
so I just wanted to mention that as well.
Also, I had mentioned this, I think,
in comment via Zoom last time.
Surfer's Point Managed Retreat, it's just outside
and to the right.
It's a very nice walk from this hotel,
so hopefully you all will go down
and look at how successful that's been,
because it's actually, the plants are growing in quite well,
the dunes are nice, and it's very popular
for walking and biking and so on.
So, also a good place to see the sunset.
The other thing, oh, I wanted to mention Carol Hart's
sea turtle on the back of hers.
It's wonderful, it's really nice to see that,
so thank you for reminding us
of some of the creatures out there.
The other item is, if you look out to the left
from the shoreline and out across the bay,
you would see the Mandalay Bay Power Plant,
which is defunct.
It's been sitting there for several years.
They were supposed to do something
about taking it down and habitat restoration.
So I don't know if there's anything, you can see it,
it's got a big stack sticking up,
it's definitely visual blight on the coastline.
So I don't know if there's anything
the Coastal Commission can do to move that along,
but we would appreciate that too.
And again, thank you for 50 years, not all of you,
but for the coastal action for 50 years.
Some of us has been coming for at least 20.
It's been a while.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Jim Holtz followed by Diane Wokey,
Terry Salser and Jennifer Savage.
I will be promoting you guys to the panelists,
so please accept.
Thank you.
Commissioners, again, you heard a couple of excellent
professional speakers from Better Neighbors Los Angeles
pushing a couple of issues like hosted only.
nothing wrong with a group of people like hotel workers to you know protect
their own interests, but they present themselves as a grassroots organization
that in this in this case today you know helping to protect housing, but if you
look at the website it is really to protect hotel jobs and by doing so they
want to eliminate short-term rentals they know I believe they know that you
know every city must have some short-term rentals so by pushing hosted
only makes it a factor band for example my place is a two-bedroom two bathroom
condo right on the beach on the strand. It's, you know, everybody who rents there
is families. Singles don't want two bedrooms, they rent a hotel. Families that
want to stay together with a kitchen and everything like that, they want to stay
at my place. And it works out very, very well for them. And this is why you guys
are here, to protect visitors serving accommodations. And by making Homosa
Beach, hosted only, will basically eliminate 95% of the potential short-term
rentals. I mean, yeah, I mean, there'll be a few people there renting to backpackers
from Australia and, you know, looking for a cheap room and that's great. But for
families, hosted only works completely against them. Again, they assert that
corporate-owned. I'm not corporate-owned, I'm myself. Since I speak frequently at
the city meetings. A lot of the other owners call me up. They're not corporate
owned. I haven't spoke to a single corporate person. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Next we're going to Diane Wokey, Terry Saucer, and Jennifer Savage. Diane Wokey
and we do have your presentation. Thank you. Good morning Board Chair and Board
Board members, commissioners. Diane Wokey, board members of the healthy
plane fields. We're eager for the commission to move forward swiftly and
decisively and protecting our coast from the climate changing impacts of
plastic and from overheating of our land and water to the toxic chemical
leachate chemical and bacteria adsorption. The blades backing of the
carpet and expanded polypropylene be of the shock pads as well as any infill
port on top of it. These pull out our coast, significant public health and
environmental health concerns, and even our unborn baby.
We're thankful for the four examples here
where the artificial turf policy has been applied
to the coastal and local youth.
Slide.
We stress the need to further ensure
that this policy be extended beyond playgrounds and pools,
playing fields, landscaping, commercial uses,
rooftops, balconies, docks, and platforms,
outdoor gyms, and restaurants are some examples.
Improper disposal of this unrecyclable
hydrochemical plastic product must also be considered.
The used turf pictured on the left
crosses property lines in Malibu
with toward 2,700 foot downhill run to the beach
there in Malibu.
There are many examples of these on properties
up and down our coast.
Slide.
You've been informed in the past of the plans
for four petrochemical plastic baseball fields
in Pacific Palisades Park.
We've learned that recently
that the plastic has been purchased
And while it won't be rolled out until 2028,
we have asked the commission more than once
to please intervene and protect this park,
which is on LUP and CPP land in a known landslide area,
a very high fire risk hazard zone and riparian habitat.
LA Rec and Parks together with Steadfast LA
at the behest of the Park Advisory Board
are acting in defiance and under recommendation
of the Advisory Board president,
I have one attorney who did this law at USC.
That SLA was founded by Rick Russo in conjunction
with the mayor of Los Angeles.
Guys.
Terri, Sasha.
Yes.
Good morning.
Also acting appliance at Santa Monica Malibu School District
has installed plastic turf at Webster Elementary School
in Malibu and Ocean Park in Santa Monica.
This district's maintenance and operations conduct director
has informed at least one parent attorney
that he did consult the Commission,
which we have not found any documents to date.
Slide five.
The district's high school has two plastic fields
in the local permit zone and directly across the street
from the city's historic Belmar Park,
also with a large plastic playing field in the CDP.
We ask yet again that the Commission
not go on these polluters and permit dodgers
and make them pay, remove, remediate,
and properly landfill these toxic products.
Slide.
Safe, healthy playing fields
in the SoCalStop Artificial Turk Task Force
part of a broader coalition in LA and surrounding communities that are advocating for a ban on
artificial turf installations and prioritizing nature-based solutions. This includes more than
29 neighborhood councils, 119 organizations, and thousands of individuals who are advocating
for a ban. Even LAUSD, the second largest school district in the county, will no longer install
artificial turf in middle schools and lower grades and looking at high schools. As you know, the city
of LA actually has an artificial turf council file in progress. And we are not alone. In Santa Clara,
There are more than 93 organizations working towards a ban and there are
coalitions in Sacramento, San Francisco, and up and down the coast.
Slide.
We are doing our part, but we need your help.
We understand resources may be limited.
However, if the commission ignores these
projects, at least setting a pro-artificial turf precedent, it would be impossible
to reverse. We ask that you set the record straight and identify unauthorized
artificial turf installations to have them removed, remediated and properly
landfilled. And I just want to say thank you for all the work you do to protect our
thank you thank you last but not least Jennifer Savage and that'll complete a
general public comments Jennifer Savage okay we promoted you to panelists sorry
about that you should be able to speak hi thank you so much Jennifer Savage
California Policy Associate Director for the Surfrider Foundation and I believe
that this will get covered in the executive directors report but I just
I just wanted to mention right now that regarding the threat to the California Coastal Commission and to the state as a whole from NOAA with this politically driven review, I just want the commission and the commissioners and everybody listening to know that
do is a politically motivated attempt to strip California of the coastal protections that
our communities and our marine ecosystems depend on and SurfFighter stands with you
and we will fight this every step of the way. Thank you.
Okay. That completes our general public comments.
Great. Thank you very much and thank you to the public for your testimony. I will return
to my colleagues to see if there are any questions. Vice Chair Hart.
I was wondering if staff could respond to the comments on the artificial turf.
Thank you. And good morning commissioners. Um,
there were quite a few sites mentioned that I'll provide updates on, uh,
each of those. We,
we are working with the city of LA regarding, uh, one of the first sites,
the Palisades recreation center.
That was a project where artificial turf has not yet been installed,
but the park is being reconstructed after much of the damage in that area from
wildfires. The majority of the park is outside the coastal zone and only a
very small portion where some of that artificial turf would be located would
be within the coastal zone. So we are reaching out to the city. We have
already had discussions and informed them that a coastal development permit
is required for the replacement of the previous turf to artificial turf and
that we would not be recommending approval of an artificial turf system.
Some of those other examples though, such as the single-family residence in the
city of Malibu, that's an area with a certified local coastal program. And many
of those houses are not appealable, so we don't have information on the use of
artificial turf that has been approved by the city for those sorts of projects,
but we will reach out to the city and discuss alternatives to the use of
artificial turf going forward. There were two examples, Webster Elementary
School of Malibu and the Ocean Park School in the city of Santa Monica. Those
are unpermitted activities. So artificial turf has been previously
installed without the required coastal development permit. So to our knowledge,
no coastal permit issued by the city of Malibu for the Webster Elementary and no
coastal permit for that Ocean Park school. So our enforcement team is
reaching out to the school district for both those cases and requesting that
they coordinate with our staff to look at solutions. So with that I'll just note
that our staff has been supportive of using alternatives to artificial turf,
using natural sod to avoid the use of micro plastics and we'll continue to do
that and reach out to local governments and request they do the same. Okay, thank
you very much. With that we will close. Oh sorry, Commissioner Jackson of course.
Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you to all the speakers this morning. I just had a
question about the shuttered power plant. I did notice that last night and now that
we had a speaker that broached that I'm curious now as to what what's the status
of that? Do we have anything down the Mandalay? I don't have current
Information on Mandalay. Okay. No, but we can we can look into it and get back to you. Thank you. Appreciate it
All right. Thank you very much with that. We will move on to the next item, which is our executive directors report director Hucklebridge
Thank you. Madam chair. Good morning commissioners. It's great to be back
and
It was really happy. I was on vacation last week or last month rather and but I'm all caught up and
And I'm happy to hear the hearing went so well last month, and you don't need me at
all.
But today, as always, my published report, it can be found on the Commission's website,
but I would like to spend a few minutes, and maybe even more than a few minutes, going
over several of the items.
So the first item I would like to address, and we heard a little about it in public comment
this morning, is the federal review of California's coastal management program.
As many of you may be aware, on May 20, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce directed the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to conduct a full formal review of
the California Coastal Management Program under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Under this newly announced review, NOAA has opened a public comment period to gather information
from stakeholders that will be used to determine next steps related to the certification of
California's Coastal Management Program under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
For context, these reviews are known as Section 312 reviews, named after the CZMA section
detailing the review process, and they typically happen every five to ten years.
The California program, which was approved in 1978 and includes the State Coastal Conservancy,
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the Coastal Commission, has
undergone many successful reviews since the CCMP was approved by NOAA, routinely earning
high praise for its innovative and rigorous approach to coastal protection.
In short, California and the federal government have had a really successful partnership for
decades.
This federal review process is one of the most powerful tools in the CCMA.
For almost 50 years, the Coastal Commission has worked in partnership with the federal
government to ensure federal projects that could affect our state's resources include
relevant siting criteria and protective measures consistent with our federal coastal management
program.
California, like other coastal states, has exercised this authority to keep sand on the
beach, fish in the sea, homes above flood waters, and maritime businesses thriving.
Some of you may recall that NOAA just evaluated our program in 2024 and issued a final draft
Report in May of 2025. The process included extensive meetings with state
coastal zone management staff, public officials, other government staff members,
and other interested parties. The federal government also held a virtual
meeting open to the general public to solicit input on the coastal program.
Although NOAA completed a final draft report finding the successful
implementation and enforcement of California's federally approved program
last year, the report was never finalized.
The current action, thus, to reopen the review to California's program is unprecedented
and very concerning.
Unlike our previous reviews, we have received little information from the Department of
Commerce on the basis of this review, apart from what is included in the Federal Register
Notice and a social media post by Secretary Lutnick announcing the review.
Unfortunately, some of the rhetoric in the ex-post is inflammatory and raises questions
about the motivation of this review and what the federal government hopes to achieve.
I bring this to your attention today for two reasons.
First, to raise awareness and increase public awareness of this federal review and share
why it matters.
I also want to ensure all members of the public are notified of your opportunity to provide
public comment as a part of this process.
So why does this federal review matter?
As I said before, given that we were just reviewed last year, this new review is unprecedented.
To our knowledge, this is also the first time in the CZME's 50-year history that such a
review has focused only on specific commercial industries.
Offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, spaceport infrastructure, desalination projects,
and undersea cables.
The Department of Commerce has also stated explicitly that the information gathered during
the public comment period will be used, and I quote, to determine next steps related to
the certification of California's Coastal Management Program.
So what does this mean?
If the California Coastal Management Program is decertified, California would lose its
ability to review federal and federally regulated projects that impact our
coastal and bay communities. This would include, for example, our authority to
review more routine actions such as sand management and changes to land use on
federal public lands, and it would affect our ability to review new
proposals for drilling off of California. CZMA gives states and the
public a voice on federal activities on our coastlines, most of the time we do not raise
objections to federal actions and activities. However, like other states, California does
not always agree with actions proposed by the federal government.
CZMA provides a venue for states and the public to voice those concerns, and was specifically
written to navigate conflicts between federal and state governments.
For nearly five decades, we have worked successfully with numerous federal administrations to strike
an appropriate balance between federal policy priorities and consistency with state coastal
protections.
If our program is decertified, that balance would be upended, and California would lose
its ability to weigh in on federal coastal actions.
Federal activities impacting our coast could be planned and implemented behind closed doors
without any public hearing and little consideration of how those activities would have impact
the lives and livelihoods of our coastal communities, including fishermen, residents, and local
businesses.
This is all especially concerning, given this administration's intention to open up California's
offshore waters and public lands to new oil and gas drilling, despite the longstanding
objections of the people of California.
is the only state program being targeted in this manner at this time. However, this isn't
just a California problem. The outcome of this review could set a precedent that could
be used by this or any future administration to silence other state programs. It is truly
a Pandora's box that if opened threatens to tear apart half a century of successful
coastal management. That would be a travesty. We will do everything in our power to avoid
that outcome, including defending our program and demonstrating to the Department of Commerce
that we, along with our sister agencies, BCDC and the Coastal Conservancy, have diligently
and consistently implemented California's Coastal Management Program.
We will take full advantage of the opportunity to walk through our federal consistency record
with the Department of Commerce and with the public.
We welcome a fair and transparent review.
As a timely example, I would draw your attention to the broad range of federal consistency
items on the agenda today, a fiber optic cable project, a Navy project at Point Magoo, an
offshore aquaculture project, and a national forest fire prevention and vegetation management
project.
These items provide a good representation of our coastal management program in action
and exemplify the benefits it provides.
As described in the staff recommendations, our federal consistency review has resulted
in mutually agreeable measures to protect marine life, fisheries, world-renowned scenic
and recreational sites in Big Sur, and critical runway infrastructure on a Navy base.
These reviews were conducted with meaningful public and tribal engagement, minimal conflict,
and significant project improvements that don't limit federal agency priorities or
economic development.
And this brings me to the second reason I draw this to everyone's attention today.
I want to make sure that members of the public are aware that they also have an opportunity
to provide public comment as part of this federal review.
The Federal Register Notice hyperlinked in my written report, as well as on the highlights
banner at the bottom of our homepage, provides you with full detail on how to engage.
In short, there are three opportunities to make your voice heard.
First, you can sign up to speak in person at the public hearing being held on August
10th from 2 to 6 p.m. at the Hilton Santa Monica Hotel in Suites.
Second, you can sign up to speak online via Adobe Connect on either August 11th from 2
to 5 p.m. or August 12th from 2 to 5 p.m.
And third, you can submit a written public comment to NOAA by August 22nd.
I strongly encourage you to engage
and make your voice heard.
This is our coast and our voice.
So with that, I'll conclude my comments
on the federal review.
It is my understanding that in addition
to the general public comment,
there are additional speakers
that wanna speak on this topic.
And if it's agreeable to the chair,
I might recommend that we go ahead
and take that public comment.
And then after all that's concluded,
I can move on to the rest of the items
in my executive director report.
Thank you.
Director Hucklebridge, should we,
should the commissioners, I'm sure they have questions,
should we do questions on this now
or after we take public comment?
What's your recommendation?
I would recommend we take public comment first
and then we can move to commissioner questions and comments.
Okay, great, thank you very much.
Simone.
Perfect, Molly Trope shows that she should be in person,
maybe Zoom, but I don't see a hand up.
So we'll go to Carla Garabay Garcia, followed by Jennifer Savage, Ana Basis, and Thomas Valdez.
They are all on Zoom. Please go ahead and accept. We're promoting to panelists. Carla Garcia.
Go ahead and unmute yourself. Good morning. My name is Carla Garabay Garcia, and I'm here on behalf
of Monterey Bay Aquarium as the California Ocean Conservation Policy Manager.
I wanted to thank you, Director Hookabridge, for bringing attention to the Trump Administration's
federal review of the California's Coastal Management Program.
Our team at Monterey Bay Aquarium is extremely concerned about the statewide ramifications
of the potential defunding and the certification of the state's coastal management program.
This federal review threatens the future management of our coastline, which is particularly vulnerable
given climate change and the recent federal efforts
to expand development without environmental safeguards
along and off our coast.
We believe that this review is unnecessary
given the previous review only two years ago
and see it as a clear tactic to target
one of the most effective tools for states
to protect local coastal resources.
We're also concerned that this will be replicated
throughout other coastal states.
And I just wanna close by noting
that we really appreciate the commission
and all state agency efforts since 1978
that have resulted in the California Coastal Management Program consistently receiving
strong evaluations for balancing coastal protection, environmental stewardship, public
access, and economic opportunity. We will be participating in NOAA's public comment
period and really encourage others throughout the state to make their voices heard as well.
So thank you.
Thank you. I believe I found Molly Trope. Molly, if you can unmute yourself.
Yes, thank you. Good morning, Chair Harmon and Commissioners. My name is Molly Troop
and I'm the Science and Program Manager
at Santa Barbara Channel Keeper.
Our mission is to protect and restore
the Santa Barbara Channel and its watersheds.
I'm here today to extend our gratitude to the commission
and to your staff for the exceptional work
that you do each day to implement
the extraordinary California Coastal Act.
Thank you for thoughtfully evaluating development
in the coastal zone and ensuring that developers consider
and minimize or eliminate adverse impacts
to both public resources and natural resources,
including public access, terrestrial and marine habitats,
in water quality among other things. Channelkeeper recognizes and is grateful for the 50 years of
work that has been extraordinarily instrumental in helping to keep our California coast with
the natural features that it has today. We are also supportive of and grateful for the
federal consistency review authority that the commission has over federal activities
that impact California's coastal uses and resources. In this moment of extraordinary
scrutiny of the California's coastal management program by the federal administration, we stand
by and support the Coastal Commission. We will be submitting comments to NOAA to voice our support
and we'll be encouraging members of our community to do the same. Thank you. Okay Anna Basius and
Thomas Valadez and then Jennifer Savage. Good morning commissioners my name is Anna Basius and
I'm a Legal and Policy Intern with the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin. EAC is one of the
proud co-sponsors of Senate Resolution 136 and Assembly Resolution 149 which celebrate the
California Coastal Act's 50th anniversary, especially amid the federal administration's
offshore drilling agenda. The administration's new review of California's coastal management
program is a clear attempt to further that agenda. California's coastal management
program has been performing successfully for the last 50 years and has transformed
shoreline resilience by protecting critical habitats, expanding public access, and investing
in natural infrastructure. Over 50,000 acres of wetlands, dunes, and open space has been conserved,
which the public now has access to through over 2,500 access ways and 875 miles of the California
Coastal Trail now open. It has faced no issue since its inception. The Coastal Management Program
is vital to the health and economic stability of California's coastal communities as well as the
coastal ecosystems upon which they are dependent. In the face of federal attacks on conservation
efforts both on and off the coast, Californians deserve a voice in how the coastline they call
home is managed. The oversight authority conferred by the Commission, the Coastal Conservancy,
and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission protects California's
coastal resources and public access, ensuring the public has a voice when federal actions impact us.
This review is an attempt to stifle Californian's objections to the federal government's efforts to
develop oil and gas off our coast. We support California's coastal management program as well
as the Commission and its exceptional work to preserve our amazing coastline. The Coastal
Commission is not alone in this fight across all this all across the state organizations and
Californians are preparing to let the administration know how much we value this program. Thank you.
Okay, Tom Thomas, Alediz. Good morning, Chair Harmon, Commissioners and Staff. My name is Tomas
Olodis and I serve as the California Policy Manager with the SOL. I want to express our
strong support for the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Management
Program at a time when both face significant threats from the Trump administration. For
For decades, California has demonstrated that protecting our coast also means protecting
the people who depend on it.
The Coastal Management Program is more than an environmental framework.
It is a commitment to environmental justice, equitable public access, and meaningful community
participation.
For community communities, especially those that have historically been excluded from
coastal decision-making, the coast is a source of culture, recreation, and economic opportunity.
Protecting California's authority to manage its coastline is essential to ensuring that
communities continue to have voice and equitable access to the benefits of a healthy coast.
We appreciate the Commission's steadfast leadership in defending the Coastal Act and
advancing policies that strengthen climate resilience, environmental stewardship, and
access for all Californians.
Azul stands with the Commission in protecting the Coastal Management Program and the values
of equity, inclusion, and environmental justice that make California's coast a resource for
everyone.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jennifer Savage did you wanna join us?
Let me try again.
Promoting you to panelists again.
Okay, she declined it so I'm assuming
she doesn't want to, no more speakers.
Okay, thank you very much.
All right, well, before I turn to my colleagues,
I'll just say this is incredibly concerning
and I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions
and to learn, I guess, what we can about this process.
So with that, I'll ask my colleagues, are there any questions?
Yes, Commissioner Eckler, Eckler Lee, thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
I also appreciate the opportunity to talk about this
and to make sure the public is aware of what's happening.
This federal review really threatens
how the coast of California is managed and its resources
and our access conserved.
As Dr. Hucklebridge mentioned, for nearly 50 years,
The state has managed our coast and the shoreline of San Francisco Bay through a balance of
local community and tribal priorities, economic opportunities, public access, and environmental
protection.
The California Natural Resources Agency is taking this threat seriously and we are deeply
engaged in active response in close partnership with leadership and staff from the Coastal
Commission, the Coastal Conservancy, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
from the Newsome Administration will also attend the in-person public hearing
in Santa Monica on August 10th to provide testimony on the importance of
this long-standing federal and state partnership that protects California's
coast, our communities, and our thriving coastal economy. For people who want to
make their voices heard, we should all be doing this, but if you aren't sure
exactly what to say, the Surf Rider Foundation is going to be posting key
messages and talking points on their website later this morning to help
members of the public prepare for effective verbal and written comments.
So I encourage you all to get out there either in person or online to make your
voices heard. Thank you Commissioner. Okay Vice Chair Hart. Thank you. I just
wanted to express my strong support for the comments made by Dr. Hucklebridge
that I thought were, I could not align myself more strongly with everything that you said.
Clearly this is the dramatic action that Noah appears to be embarking on, decertification
being the most serious and dramatic action that could be taken by Noah.
And as you described, Dr. Hucklebridge would remove not only just the authority and funding,
but the thing that concerns me maybe the most is the ability of the public to understand
and hear about and be able to comment on all of these federal actions that are taken on
the California coast, which is so critically important to everyone in California.
really the coastal economy is such a mainstay, as was stated, I think, by the resources secretary
and his comments.
So I just wanted to appreciate everything that we are doing at the Coastal Commission,
everything that the resources agency and our state government is doing, and I really could
not encourage more strongly the participation of the public at this time.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson
Yeah, I just want to elevate the
concern in relation to the
Other states that have these programs
I think that this is a could be a really a significant harbinger and I think they should all be paying attention
they should all be paying attention and
commenting on
this process or
Whatever this is in this moment. So thanks
Okay
Commissioner Escalante, it's your hand up
Thank you. Sure heart. Can you hear me? Okay?
We can hear you. Yeah
Okay. Thank you
You know, I am I want to be constructive and I I want to
Me first, you know gratitude to all the advocates I think all the words really
And I appreciate their commitment to continue to fight to protect our coast, our public
access, our natural resources.
This is a time, these next few months are critical in terms of history of not just the
state or this country, but really the world.
So I appreciate everybody sort of getting ready for a significant fight and our staff
working so hard and fighting some of this back and making a strong case legally.
However, you know, I just can't, I can't, I really can't help myself, but, you know,
I feel like this, the Trump administration is selling this nation piece by piece to the
the highest bidder, the lowest morals.
And they're what some of what worries me the most
is that this fixation to really destroy California's people
in our argument, our government, our spirit
and our ultimately our economy is at full display
and this is not just to overturn decades and decades long
of legal precedent that has been fought
improvement time and time again in the courts and in public opinion.
And, you know, this plans to return and violate all these laws that protect our coast and
our public access.
And this particular threat to want to take a state park and hand it over to, was it a
big gift, to Big Oil?
It really just all of it makes my blood boil, but California is 40 million strong and even
though, you know, there is a segment of the population that condones this type of corruption
and lawlessness, most of us adore our state and our Constitution and our people with a
passion and with courage and enormous respect.
And I know that this regime is counting on our apathy and hopelessness to paralyze us
into silence but the world is looking at us and California's we need to lead this fight
and I think this is a perfect stage for us to stand up together and show up in force
until this federal government that not not in California. So anyway I'll wrap that up. Thank
Thank you for indulging me to that time.
Thank you commissioner.
Okay, seeing no further comments, I'll just join with Vice Chair Hart and encouraging
everyone to get involved and make comments.
I will be there myself in person in August with our executive director and just appreciate
the engagement.
With that, I will return Dr. Hucklebridge to you.
Thank you Chair, and again I want to thank the members of the public and organizations
who showed up today in support, we appreciate it, and again I encourage you to use your
voice in the coming months.
So on to some lighter topics, next up I have a couple of announcements from the public
education program, the 27th annual California Ocean and Coastal Amateur Photography Contest
is open. We invite members of the public to pay tribute to the state's spectacular
coast and ocean by entering our annual photography contest. This contest is free and open to
all amateur photographers. Entries close on September 30th, and more details can be found
on our website. The Clean and Green boating team at the Coastal
Commission and the California State Parks partnered with LA City Rex and Park to install
new fishing line recycling stations along the pier.
These stations are the result of a citizen
and a daily dock walker who alerted us to impacts
to seabirds at Cabrillo Beach Pier
from discarded fishing lines.
So we are already seeing a difference on this pier
and would invite others around the state to reach out
if there's an interest in a similar fishing line
recycling station near you.
Please contact Vivian Maddock in our public ed department
and her contact information
is also linked in my published report.
Finally, we would like to highlight
that we have a new Dockside podcast episode available.
It's titled, California Seabirds are in Crisis,
and the heroes at International Bird Rescue
are racing to save them.
So in this episode, we talked to experts
about the massive 2026 starvation event
hitting brown pelicans, branc cormorants, and common mers,
and what it takes to rescue birds on the brink,
and what you can do if you find a stranded bird.
So please check it out.
Next, a few announcements from our environmental justice
and tribal affairs programs.
Our tribal affairs program has just
launched its inaugural newsletter, which
is distributed exclusively to tribal representatives
across California.
The newsletter was developed to provide updates
on the California Coastal Commission initiatives,
public meeting notices, and other information of interest
to California tribes.
This new communication tool is intended to strengthen outreach and foster ongoing engagement
with tribal partners.
If you are a tribal representative who did not receive the newsletter and would like
to be added to our list, please email tribalaffairs at coastal.ca.gov.
Next, we would like to announce that we are opening up applications for a Peter Douglas
Tribal Affairs Internship at the Commission.
Current undergraduate students or recent graduates interested in tribal affairs, environmental
and coastal policy, cultural resources, and land use planning are encouraged to apply.
This is a relatively short-term, paid, part-time position with flexible hours.
The deadline to apply is August 28th, and for more information you can see my published
report or check out the announcement on our website.
Next, I would like to announce that the Commission is now tracking university and college housing
submittals.
with the requirements of Assembly Bill 357.
The Commission's website includes a separate report
that tracks housing-related public works plans,
long-range development plans,
and notices of impending development submitted
by a state college or private university.
Members of the public can find online
a list of all pending items, which is updated monthly,
as well as an inventory of Commission actions
taken since January 1, 2026.
And finally, as I have all year,
I will conclude my executive director's report
by highlighting a few items related
to the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act.
So first, a reminder to everyone
that we are asking members of the public
to share some of their personal experiences with the coast
as a way to celebrate 50 years of public access
and illustrate the many connections we have to our coast.
There's more details on my published report.
And now for this month's Act to Action,
the first 50 years of coastal protection,
we have a few highlights to share with you today.
So first, and I believe we have a slide deck
for this particular item.
So first, I'm thrilled to announce
that as part of our ongoing celebration
of the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act,
we have built an interactive digital history
of the commission.
So I'll just give it a second
and see if we can get the slide presentation up.
group. Next slide, please. So this digital interactive history
highlights the most significant accomplishments and milestones
from the last 50 years. It spans the breadth of the program. Next
slide from the early winds on public access and conservation
and innovate innovative uses of the law, like integration of the
Jonathan club. Next slide, please. to current uses such as
environmental justice, and sea level rise.
It's full of gorgeous photos from our photo contest winners.
Next slide.
News clips and important historic documents.
Each section has an optional pop out feature
with additional information, examples, and resources.
So you can take a quick spin through and get a good feel
for the agency's work, or you can
click through the additional material
for a more comprehensive experience on the topics
that interest you.
The finale is a map of California
with all of the featured projects pinned and linked
so you can focus your attention regionally as well.
It's an incredibly imaginative and informative experience.
And I want to thank our two Sea Grant Fellows, Katie Barr
and Miles Tepper, who worked with Ilana Casey
in our mapping division and our de facto historian Sarah
Christie to pull this together from a massive trove
information that we started with. I really encourage everyone when you get
a minute to take a spin through and reflect on what a lasting legacy the
Coastal Act has provided for the state and how different California would be
today without the vision and tenacity of those early coastal advocates and the
consistent application of the law by commissioners, staff, and the courts
through the decades. So you can find it on our home page under highlights or if
If you have your phones handy, you can scan this QR code and get straight to it.
So next, as part of our monthly Act to Action segment, this month's program spotlight highlights
the commission's access program with a focus on the California Coastal Trail.
And with that, I will turn it over to Linda Loughlin, our public access manager, to walk
you through the segment.
Thank you, Kate.
Do we have a PowerPoint?
There we go.
Next slide.
So as Kate just mentioned, I'm going to talk about the public access program with an emphasis
on the coastal trail.
I will give you an overview of the access program prior to moving into the coastal trail.
You already saw my cartoon.
Just now I didn't know it was going to already be presented.
But here we are in 1972, which is sort of the beginning of our history on coastal access.
The bumper sticker on the left, yes, on 20, is for the Proposition 20.
And the reason that was put on the ballot is the citizens' reaction to the rampant
development that was going on on the California coast in the late 60s and 70s, which resulted
in miles of the coast being blocked off from views and access to the actual shoreline.
So and there's Dennis, the menace, saying,
I went to the beach and it was gone.
And what in this cartoon he's saying,
I couldn't find it because of the wall of development.
I also want to point out that that cartoon is still
very pertinent today when you look at sea level rise.
You go to the beach and it's already, it's been swamped.
So this cartoon lives on in our history.
Next slide is the Coastal Access logo
that was adopted in 1980.
This is primarily used by the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Conservancy.
They are our state agency partner in promoting public access to the coast.
For those of you that haven't looked at this logo as much as I have, this is the Foot and
Wave logo and there's three Cs in that wave standing for California Coastal Commission.
I can see some people hadn't seen that before.
Glad I pointed that out.
We urge everyone who's providing public access, mostly government agencies, but also some
of our nonprofit partners to use this logo anywhere that they are providing public access.
I also want to point out that this, you must have seen many, many of these signs.
This logo along our coastal highway, Caltrans, has been working, partnering with us since
the 1980s to put in hundreds of signs along the coastal highway, whether it's PCH, Highway
1, 101, to lead drivers along the coast, along the shoreline there to find the coastal access
points.
Next, we have what we've been doing each month, and we're going to have that right after this,
our spotlight series on coastal access.
And this is part of our 50th anniversary celebration, and this is part of maximizing our mandate
to maximize public access to and along the coast.
Next slide just shows you where on our website to look for these videos under, big surprise,
under coastal access.
Okay, next slide.
Now these spotlights that I've been presenting come from the public access easements that
the Commission has required over our history.
And these easements are required to mitigate a permit applicant's development upon public
public access. And the typical way that the commission requires these easements is recording
of a legal document that protects public access for the future and it's called an offer to
dedicate public access easement. And the acronym is OTDs and you've probably heard this quite
a bit. But we require permit applicants to record these legal documents but there's several
steps from recording the document to actually have a new public access way to the coast.
And I just wanted to point out that 95% of these OTDs have been accepted by government
agencies, cities and counties and state agencies.
And I listed them here as to the numbers.
State Lands Commission being the highest, they've accepted almost all the lateral easements,
the ones that are parallel to shore in the city of Malibu.
And that's where their numbers come from.
I also want to point out that we have 16 nonprofits that work with us to accept easements in their
areas and the one that I really want to highlight is the Mendocino land trust, having accepted
107 OTDs, which is remarkable for a nonprofit.
It's a lot of work.
And you will be seeing future spotlights where we highlight their vertical easements that
they've opened the pathways to the coast.
So you can watch for that.
Next slide.
This slide shows you where those vertical access ways, again, which is the highest
priority for our agency to make sure they get accepted, which they are, and then opened
to the public. There's 160 vertical easements recorded, and of those 160, 120 have been
opened to the public. This chart shows you, you know, by county where they're recorded,
and you'll see that the green is what's open and the red is yet to come. You probably aren't
Not surprised to see that Los Angeles has the highest number of recorded vertical easements,
but you may be surprised to see that Mendocino is in the number two spot.
This is just a reference to the number of permits that the Commission has approved over
time and the ones that rose to the level of requiring mitigation through requiring a vertical
OTD.
Next slide, I want to show you on the ground, well, this is an aerial, but on the ground
of what the commission has been able to accomplish through our public access easement program.
Here we are in Carbon Beach, access ways, in the city of Malibu.
On the left side of the screen you can see the Malibu pier and to the rest of the slide
is Carbon Beach, which is about a mile and a half long.
It has primarily pre-coastal development that was blocking public access, again views of
and access to this lovely one and a half mile long beach.
Prior to the Coastal Commission being created,
there was no public access ways to, whoops,
can you just go back thing?
There were no public access ways to this beach.
You could see it from the Malibu Pier,
but you couldn't really get there
unless you came in by water,
which of course is not our,
we want something a little higher than that.
The five access ways that were required and are opened,
I put the dates when each one of them
was opened to the general public.
They're all very well used.
The next slide, which you've already seen,
just exemplifies the difficulty that we had
in the beginning of early years, and maybe still are,
the years of opening public access to Malibu.
This is 1978.
And it was opening the Zonker Harris access way,
which is near to the pier.
And the comic creator, Gary Trudeau,
memorialized the day that this opened,
which was highly contested.
And I think you can see the reference to Iwo Jima on here.
And by the way, the access way is definitely still
called the Zonker Harris access way,
operated by Los Angeles County.
Next slide.
I just want to take you down on the sand to one of the access ways.
Appley named via Linda.
I just had to throw this in.
But on the left, there's the before picture.
And you can see a beautiful beach.
This is, again, carbon.
It's on the eastern edge.
There's nobody on it.
Because there was, at that time, there was no access to it.
Then after the public access easement required by the commission
was opened in 2005, you can see all the people out on the beach
and join the recreation that you can by being on the beach.
Okay, next slide.
Now I want to move into just the public education
and outreach part of our program.
We started with the Coastal Access Guidebooks,
and I mean Paper Guidebooks, 1981.
We started this program.
And over time they've been updated
and more books have been created.
So at this point we have on, you can see on the left,
The statewide guide and on the right of the left-hand slide are four that are the regional
guides.
Then in 2015, we shifted to using an online web-based version of our Coastal Access Guides,
using all the information that's in the paper guides, but for those people that want to
go online, you can go there.
This online guide was created in 2015, updated in 2026.
We're really proud of it.
a lot of people use it. In fact, yesterday we were on the beach in Santa Barbara and
some people said, oh yeah, that's what we used to get here. I wanted to point out that
there are 1,640 access points listed in both the Paper Guide and the York Coast. So that's
the number of legal public access ways that we know of and produce for the public.
Okay. Next slide. We're going to move back to 1975. Maybe not everybody remembers the
California Coastal Plan, but this is the precursor to the California Coastal Act. And the Coastal
Trail, so we're moving into the Coastal Trail section of my presentation, is in the 1970
plan where there is a mandate to include a policy to create and complete an integrated
trail system the length of the California coast. And by the way, the official length
of the California coast is 1,230 feet.
I mean miles.
So keep that in mind.
Next slide.
So with the coastal trail comes another state logo.
This one was adopted in 2005 by the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Conservancy, the
two agencies in charge of creating and completing the California Coastal Trail.
So you'll find this logo on many, many, many segments of the coastal trail, including right
out here in front of the hotel, if you take a walk on the promenade going toward the river,
if you look, you will see there's several of these medallions along the way.
Next slide shows that by 2007, the legislature realized that it would be more pragmatic and
would enhance our completion of the coastal trail if we added two additional state agencies
to be partners in the lead on creating, completing the coastal trail.
So in addition to the original Coastal Conservancy and Coastal Commission, Caltrans was added
as well as state parks.
So and the Coastal Conservancy is the lead agency for the four of us.
Next.
Now what is the definition of the coastal trail?
It's an interconnected public trail system, multi-modal braided trail system within sight,
sound, and smell of the ocean.
It provides equitable alternative transportation opportunities that decrease greenhouse gas
emissions.
Next is environmental justice.
The CCT provides free public access along the coast for recreational multi-modal transportation
as well as a respite from inland heat and poor air quality.
Next is the what is the coastal trail map?
You're going to see that in a minute.
It's a mapping tool.
It's not a guidebook.
And it informs planning and permit grants.
It provides public outreach.
It informs active and regional transportation plans.
So next slide is this is what the coastal trail map looks
like if you go.
This is only an online.
It's the only way you can see this is online.
It was created, this GIS map was created
by the Coastal Conservancy and the Coastal Commission
with a significant amount of technical assistance
from Caltrans and it was published in 2021.
I can tell you this was a huge lift
to put this map together.
There's so much information in here.
When you go to it and start looking around,
you should be really impressed.
This map shows the completed segments of the coastal trail.
For where there is no coastal trail, there's nothing there.
And the point of this is to inform local planning agencies,
state agencies, Caltrans, whomever,
to be able to look at where the gaps are
and when opportunities rise,
to be able to bridge those gaps.
This map, I mean, this trail is a work in progress.
It's about 70% complete at this time.
And remember, it's a braided trail system.
So it will be much longer than the state of California's 1,230
miles in length.
Next slide.
I want to move to where we are today.
Here we are.
This is a sample of what the coastal trail map looks like.
We're in Ventura on this map, and the red star
is where the Ventura Pier is.
And the orange lines represent completed coastal trail
segments.
Again, if you walk out the hotel going up or down coast,
you can follow this orange line.
You don't need the map to figure it out
because it's very obvious.
There's a public promenade, it's signed,
people are walking on it, and you should say to yourself,
well, I'm part of a coastal,
a statewide coastal trail system.
And be excited like me.
Okay.
Moving on the next slide,
both the Conservancy and the Commission
have given grants out to video production companies
to be able to highlight segments
of the California Coastal Trail.
And these are to inspire and educate the public
about these segments.
And so I'm just gonna run through,
I just pulled out one for each county that we have.
And you can go to our website and click on any of these.
They're five minutes long.
There's about 50 of them on our website.
So it's an impressive array.
So just the next slide and the next slide and the next slide.
Oh, I should point out surface point bottom right here.
This is where we are here in Ventura.
Surface point is just walking distance from here.
Next slide.
And then the next slide is I want
to point out and talk about a specific segment of coastal
trail that came through our coastal permitting process.
the RENCON multiuse trail that's 4 miles in length.
It's about 15 miles north of here and it was a permit requested by Caltrans and permitted
by the commission with a lot of discussion and collaboration between the commission and
Caltrans staff that created an incredible amount of public access amenities which I'm
going to show you in a minute.
This coastal trail or this multi-use trail opened in 2014.
So it's been in use for quite a while, very, very popular.
Okay, next slide.
I want to show you what this area looked like before.
Before you see on the top right you see a bicyclist who's sandwiched between a truck
that's coming on their left and a parked car on their right and that bike lane, that little
stripe there where they're supposed to ride their bike and I guess they were supposed
to feel somewhat secure.
When cars were parked in a line, which you can see on the bottom right, when people got
out of their cars, they opened their door into the bike lane and that bicyclist is already
battling the trucks on their left.
So it was very unpleasant, very unsafe, kind of a white knuckle exercise.
Most people chose not to do it.
On the bottom left, I highlighted in red a box culvert that pre-existed this project.
That's about four feet tall.
And we're going to show you in a minute what it looks like today.
So these are all the kinds of things that Caltrans did a magnificent job in improving.
So the next slide is the after.
And here we are in that same location.
And you can see that the bicyclists are on the multimodal trail that's separated from
Highway 101, it's very safe, it's very scenic, well used.
And on the far right, you can see a ramp
going down to the beach.
Those are two pedestrians.
There are several of these ramps along this four-mile stretch.
This is all ADA accessible.
You couldn't ask for much more.
And a part of this project also included
the construction of inland parking lots
so that the public would park on the inland side,
go under the freeway and then pop out and be able to go to several different beaches.
The community of La Conchita, which is where we are, is completely blocked, their access
to the beach is completely blocked by the six lanes of freeway and the railroad lines.
And before this project was approved and then constructed, that four-foot height of a box
This culvert was how the people in Lock & Cheetah or any of the public that was in Lock & Cheetah
got to the beach.
And I can tell you it was a very nasty little culvert, and I refused to ever go in it.
So let's move on to what happens when you go in this new, tall, lit, with a little bit
of art, arrives at the beach.
So that's the next slide.
And here we are celebrating, because the underpass that I was just describing that took the place
of the box culvert was dedicated by the California legislature in 2015 to honor Peter Douglas.
And this is called the Peter Douglas Coastal Access Way.
And there's the proud plaque, and if you can look, squint at the people in that picture.
There's three of us still working at the commission, and one retired executive director.
And then here's a picture.
Next slide is the picture of what the plaque says.
No surprise.
It says the coast is never saved.
It's always being saved.
One last slide just shows some beautiful aerial art.
So that's the end of my presentation.
Any questions, I'm happy to answer.
Thank you, Linda.
And now we're going to move on.
We might have come
Okay, Commissioner through the chair Commissioner Williams
Yeah, thanks Linda for highlighting that project
that
it's a beautiful facility if you guys haven't been out there, I'd encourage you all to check it out and
I will just say just in the history of the Caltrans
Coastal Commission relationship. I think that was a wonderful project that was kind of a keystone and helping us
Move forward together and learn how to to accomplish really great things. So thanks for highlighting that
Yeah, so next we're going to move on to the monthly spotlight
Which is located in the city of Dana point. It's the bluff top trail at the Ritz Carlton Laguna Nigel and
this bluff top provides
outstanding public views of the
Shoreline Salt Creek County Beach is right next door and the Dana point. Headlands are just down coast
The Commission approved this Bluff Top Trail as part of a 400-room resort in 1982,
along with conditions to require a continuous paved trail around the hotel.
The purpose of the pathway was not only to provide public views of the dramatic shoreline,
but also to extend this walkway to the pre-Coastal Act County Park called Salt Creek County Park,
where there's access to the beach and other public amenities.
The hotel was required to dedicate, construct, and operate this public trail and it is a
bluff top trail that's paved, it goes up the hill, and so there are several viewing areas
of the commission required along the trail with benches so that the public, you could
have a respite from the uphill climb.
And when you get to the top, there's mounted binoculars and an outdoor fire pit that the
general public can enjoy.
The viewing areas also give the public the fabulous views, again, of the Dana Point Headlands
to the south, Salt Creek Beach to the north, and on a really clear day out to Catalina
Island.
So we're ready for our two videos.
One in English, one in Spanish.
Regular ocean views from this cliff top trail at the Ritz Carlton Laguna Niguel.
Visitors can spot whales and other marine life from sweeping perches while walking along
this paved path.
The trail climbs up along a steep bluff edge to the hotel, offering benches for respite.
From these viewpoints, visitors can see Salt Creek Beach, Dana Point Headlands and, when
the skies are clear, Catalina Island.
Take the bus or park your car for a small fee at the adjacent Salt Creek Beach parking
lot located off of Ritz-Carlton Drive. Here you will find public restrooms. From the parking
lot or bus stop, there are three ways to reach the hotel's scenic cliff top trail. When starting
from the parking lot, most visitors choose the Salt Creek Beach tunnel entrance and enjoy
its iconic murals. Follow the driveway down toward the beach. It will lead you through Salt Creek
Beach Park, a steeply sloping park offering public restrooms, an outdoor shower, gazebos,
and benches. Just before you reach the beach, turn left onto the Ritz Carlton's Cliff Top Trail,
a segment of the California Coastal Trail. It's a five-minute walk uphill from the beginning of
the trail to the hotel's sprawling lawns and cozy outdoor fire pit. The paved path features stunning
overlooks that allow you to take in the gorgeous greenery of the cliffside and the majesty of the
Pacific Ocean. One of the viewing areas also offers mounted binoculars. Another way to access
the trail is to start at the front of the hotel along Ritz Carlton's I.
Take the public beach access stairway in between the trolley stop and the bridge to end up
just outside the tunnel at the beginning of the park driveway.
Or for a less scenic but more level and direct route, take the public beach access stairway
at the other corner of the hotel facing the street to find a path that leads you along
the edge of the hotel and connects to the cliff top trail.
Access like this is made possible thanks to the California Coastal Act and the California
Coastal Commission. Visit the cliff overlooking Salt Creek Beach for some fantastic views of
the California coastline. Are we playing the Spanish version? Yes.
the center of super for the crest of the cantilever a cielo tell don't disappoint from bankers parades cancer is this just me to do this several apply you the salt creek was proven to use the dina point, you can also expect to see the ice like a arena.
The first time the bus was in the car was to be taken to the station at the end of South Creek, the Vicado and Ridge House in Drive.
This time, in my public opinion, the station, or the other bus, is three hours away from the San Diego Panoramica.
The commensar of the station, the majority of the station is in the tunnel of South Creek, and is in the second of the two routes.
Tomé las escalaras de accesso publico a la playa en lotros quien a hotel frenta la calle. Para enco taro un sendero que puede el hotel y connecta el sendero de la cima de la cantilevón.
Esta accesso publicos posible gracias a la laicos de la california y la comision cosera de la california.
Visit la cantilevos con las vistas de la playa de salt creek para de fritar, paisaje, y unas vistas fantástica de la coso de california.
Thank you and thank you Linda for the highlight on the public access program and our public
access way for this month.
And finally, one last thing, I wanted to let the public know that there will be a beach
party this fall to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act.
It will be held in Long Beach on October 10th at Hunipero Beach and the event will be free
of charge and open to the public for an afternoon of speakers, entertainment and activities
to celebrate 50 years of coastal protection.
So more details to come, but please mark your calendars
and get ready to celebrate.
And with that, Madam Chair,
I will conclude my executive director's report
and happy to answer any additional questions
that you or other commissioners may have.
Great, thank you very much.
Excuse me, first I will ask if there are any public comments
on the remaining portion
of the executive director's report.
Okay, thank you very much.
Returning to the commission,
I'll begin with commissioner Wilson
Thanks. I just want to go back to the subject of the California coastal trail. I want to say that the
The uber driver that I had yesterday bringing me from the airport to here
Commented how much he enjoyed riding his bicycle between a Venter and Santa Barbara
and and
And he was he was just really he was going gushing on and on about it
So I just want to say, you have one fan from this person.
And I'm sure there's many.
I know there's many, many, many others.
And I do want to, I think the transition
that you saw that was highlighted
in terms of the bike and pet infrastructure
and in terms of Caltrans is illustrative of the evolution
that we've seen, the very positive evolution we've
seen in Caltrans as an agency.
And thank you so much.
It's been really, I've been on here for a while.
And even in public office for quite a while.
And the battles I've had to deal with
in terms of Caltrans are very different
in scope and scale than they used to be.
And I want to say that the new staff
and the up and comers are bringing it.
And I really appreciate Caltrans for that.
And even they're pushing their own envelopes.
And I just wanna acknowledge that.
That doesn't mean that we won't still be pushing
for more access and more pedestrian
and bike-friendly infrastructure from the agency
because there are internal forces, I would call it.
I don't know if this is the right thing,
but there's the old guard
And we got to keep moving on and keep pushing.
But we have a lot of good people in that agency
that are really helping.
Really appreciate it.
Thanks.
OK, great.
No further comments.
Much appreciated.
Without I'm going to suggest we take a brief break before moving
on to the legislative report.
So if everyone could be back, we're
going to start promptly at 11.
Thank you.
OK, everybody.
Can you please take your seats?
Everyone please take your seats.
Okay, thank you everyone.
We are back in session and we will move on to item 6C,
which is our legislative report to you, Mr. Drake.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
Good morning, commissioners.
This is the legislative report for July.
Staff is bringing two bills to you today
to consider for a position.
But first, I'll provide a brief update
on the legislative session.
July 2nd was the deadline
for legislative policy committees to pass bills for the year.
The majority of bills listed in the legislative report
met that deadline and are now in the Appropriations Committee
of their second house.
There are just a few updates to share
on the commission's priority bills since last month.
First, AB 1976 by Assemblymember Wicks,
which would make a number of statutory changes
related to pedestrian mall projects,
was amended last month.
The amendments removed several provisions of the bill,
including the provision that would have exempted
pedestrian mall projects
from the public access policies of the Coastal Act.
With that amendment,
the bill no longer impacts the commission.
There are a few new bills that have been added
to the legislative report this month
and they're marked with an asterisk.
I'll highlight just a couple of them.
First, SB 1370 by Senator Henry Stern
came into print in mid-June.
This bill would waive state permitting requirements
for vegetation management projects
that are intended to reduce fire risk
and would instead require the Natural Resources Agency
and Cal EPA to issue a single consolidated state approval
for such projects.
The bill was amended in the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee last week to clarify that state permitting
agencies, including the commission,
would still be responsible for reviewing
whether proposed vegetation management projects are
consistent with the resource protection
policies in the statewide fuels reduction environmental
protection plan and for sharing their consistency findings
with the resources agency and EPA to inform their approvals.
With these amendments, the bill would essentially
maintain the current state process for reviewing
and approving vegetation management projects,
which was created by the governor's 2025
wildfire emergency proclamation.
The bill would sunset at the end of 2030.
It's currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Another new bill this month, AB 1751,
by Assemblymember Quirk Silva,
would enact the Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act,
which would require local governments
to ministerially review proposed townhome projects.
The bill would apply in the coastal zone
and it contains language clarifying
that it does not weaken or alter the application
of the Coastal Act or LCP policies to townhome projects.
Staff does not have policy concerns with this bill.
Several fast moving bills
that the commission has been tracking this year
have already made it to the governor's desk.
One is AB 2791, which was authored by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
The bill performs various noncontroversial statutory cleanup throughout the public
resources code.
Relevant to the commission, the bill amends the Coastal Act to correct outdated
references and add a few clarifying definitions.
The legislature passed the bill at the end of June, and
it was signed by the governor on Monday.
So it will take effect on January 1st.
Another fast moving bill is SB 963 by Senator Laird,
which the commission took a support position on.
That's the bill that would establish timelines
for the commission to process de novo appeals of local CDPs
and would also codify some basic requirements
for how to properly file an appeal.
The bill passed unanimously out of the assembly last week
and is now on the governor's desk.
Looking ahead, the legislature adjourned
for its summer recess on July 2nd.
On August 3rd, it'll reconvene
and they'll have one month to pass bills
before the session ends.
With that, Chair Harmon, I'll pause
in case there are any questions about the legislative report
before we move into the bill analysis.
Staff is prepared.
Thank you very much.
Questions?
OK.
Back to you, Mr. Drake.
All righty.
So as I mentioned at the top, staff
has prepared two analyses for the commission today.
Just as a quick point of procedure,
we understand that there are a couple of public commenters.
And so I'll walk through both analyses.
If it's agreeable with the chair and then we'll take public comment before the commission
votes on each bill.
So the first bill staff is bringing to you today is SB 1159 by Senator Chris Cabaldon
and staff is recommending the commission take a support position.
This bill would amend the definition of the word person in the Coastal Act and multiple
other statutes that provide for public participation in agency proceedings including the Brown
Act, Bagley-Keene, CEQA, the APA, to specify that a person does not include artificial
intelligence systems.
The impetus for this bill is an emerging trend of AI being used on a mass scale to bombard
public comment opportunities to try to sway agency decisions.
Staff's analysis describes a few recent instances with agencies in both Southern California
and the Bay Area, where in the run-up to a significant agency decision, the agency would
receive an influx of written comments advocating for a certain outcome.
But when the agency tried to verify the comments, many of the residents whose names were on
those comments said they hadn't submitted them.
This sort of fraudulent use of AI interferes with the line of communication between public
and government, with the potential to cause outcomes that aren't in line with the public
interest.
AI engagement can also monopolize government resources and staff who are often legally
required to respond to comments.
This sort of activity undermines both government's faith in public processes and also the public's
faith in government decision-making.
SB 1159 seeks to address this issue by specifically excluding AI systems from the definition
of person in statutes that provide for public participation in government proceedings, including
the Coastal Act.
Codifying this clarification will provide agencies with a clear legal basis to potentially
reject public comments that are confirmed to have been generated and submitted fraudulently
by AI.
Importantly, the bill distinguishes between fraudulent use of AI, on one hand, from instances
where members of the public legitimately may use AI to help overcome disabilities or other
barriers to participation in public processes.
The bill specifically affirms the continued right
of the public to utilize these assistive technologies
to participate in government.
In conclusion, this bill is a reflection of the fact
that as AI technology continues to evolve,
the law must evolve too.
SB 1159 would help safeguard the integrity
of state public engagement processes
from the fraudulent use of AI,
while still ensuring that people with disabilities
have access to the tools that facilitate
their participation in government.
For these reasons, staff is recommending
that the commission support SB 1159.
I'm happy to answer any questions,
otherwise I can move on to the second bill analysis.
Please.
The second bill staff is bringing to you today
is an updated analysis of AB 1740
by Assemblymember Rixa Burr.
As you'll recall, earlier this year,
the commission voted to oppose AB 1740
unless it was amended to remove
the proposed Coastal Act exemptions.
During last month's legislative report,
staff described amendments that the author
had agreed to make, but which were not yet in print,
which would remove all the exemptions from the bill.
Those amendments came into print on June 15th,
which moved the commission to a neutral position
at that time.
In its amended form, AB 1740 would still add language
to the Coastal Act related to the city of Santa Monica
into transportation projects, albeit now taking a substantially different approach.
Now that this new language is in print, staff is prepared to written analysis with the recommendation
that the Commission take a support position on the bill.
As amended, AB 1740 would now do two things.
First, it would require the City of Santa Monica and the Commission to complete the
City's LCP.
Specifically, the bill would direct the city to submit a complete LCP by the end of 2028
and would require the commission to act on it within six months of submittal.
To help make sure those deadlines are met, the bill would establish a process for how
the commission and the city would resolve any outstanding issues during the six-month
period between when the city submits its LCP and the commission brings it to hearing.
This includes a requirement that if the commission doesn't act after the six months, it will
reimburse the city for costs associated with coordinating during that six-month period.
The bill would also require that if the LCP isn't done by the deadline, the Commission
will provide quarterly written updates to the legislature on the LCP's status and estimated
timeline for completion.
As staff described last month, at the end of May, the Commission and the City of Santa
Monica entered into an MOU that commits to a process for collaboratively completing the
city's LCP in the next 18 months.
AB 1740 is now aligned with that effort.
The bill's proposed deadlines and incentives would provide a useful backstop to ensure
that the Commission and the City complete the LCP in a timely manner.
And if for some reason problems arise, the public and the legislature will be informed.
Also, the proposed process for the Commission and the City to work through any loose ends
in the time between submittal and Commission action supplements the framework agreed upon
in the MOU.
Ultimately, completing Santa Monica's LCP would be a significant long-range coastal planning
achievement for the state.
As amended, AB 1740 would provide additional assurance that the effort currently underway
between the Commission and the City is successful, and it would do so without creating any coastal
act exemptions.
The second thing AB 1740 would do now is expand the existing process that the Commission uses
to fast-track the creation of new multimodal transportation facilities.
Currently, this process can be used only to expedite LCP amendments that allow for the
conversion of a single vehicle lane into either a transit, bike, or pedestrian right-of-way.
AB 1740 would expand this process to allow the Commission to expedite individual multimodal
projects by waiving the CDP requirement if the Executive Director finds that the project
would maintain or enhance public coastal access.
The bill would also broaden the universe of projects that can be expedited to include
more significant reconfigurations of roadways rather than just projects that change one
lane at a time.
Importantly, as amended, the bill would preserve the Executive Director's discretion to evaluate
whether multimodal projects that would eliminate public street parking must relocate or replace
any of that parking as part of maintaining commensurate public coastal access.
Altogether, this second piece of the bill would expand the Commission's ability to
to streamline new multimodal transportation projects
while ensuring that public coastal access
remains available for visitors to the coast.
Before I conclude on this bill,
I just want to note two additional things.
First, in staff's written analysis,
the list of organizations that support
or oppose 1740 is now outdated.
That list is from the time period
when organizations were reviewing
the significant revisions to the bill
and reconsidering their positions,
so there aren't that many organizations listed.
An updated list was published after staff's report
and it shows that about 40 various organizations
are in support of the bill and its new revised form
and none are in opposition.
The second thing I'll note is a recent update
that's separate from but very relevant to this bill.
In the final days of June,
draft budget trailer language was circulated
within the legislature that would exempt
any proposed multifamily housing
or mixed use residential project
Santa Monica's coastal zone from the Coastal Act until the city's LCP is certified. While the
language did not officially go into print, it was reported on in the media, which generated
significant public pushback. Ultimately, the draft language did not make it into the budget that the
governor signed on June 30th. That said, it remains possible that additional attempts to push such
exemptions into law through a budget trailer bill could be made when the legislature reconvenes in
August. Staff will remain vigilant and keep the legislative subcommittee and
the Commission updated over the coming months. With all that being said, as
amended, AB 1740 now aligns with the current effort by the Commission and the
City of Santa Monica to complete the city's LCP. The bill would provide a
legal mandate, added procedural clarity, and incentives to help make sure that the
LCP is complete in the near future. It would also expedite the construction of
multi-middle transportation facilities while making sure that public coastal
access is protected for these reasons.
Staff is recommending that the commission support AB 1740.
And at this time I'm happy to answer questions about either bill
commissioner Lomenberg, Mr. Drake,
I just want to commend you and all the staff, really awesome, awesome work.
You guys worked your tails off on this and it's very, it's admirable.
And I think the conclusion that has the resolution has been
spectacular. So I just really want to applaud Director Hucklebridge, anyone
else on the staff, you should pass that along. Awesome. Really, really good work.
Seconded. Commissioner Jackson, did you want to make a comment? Thank you. Thank you for the
briefing. Thank you to staff. I've got a couple comments, so I'm gonna be a few
minutes, so please, your indulgence. A lot of thank yous to the people of Santa
Monica, the neighboring groups, the nonprofit organizations, the
environmental advocates, the local business businesses, and especially the
young surfers who took time to show up, speak out and stay engaged. Thank you. You
know, it was a big wow because watching the passion, the purpose and your
unwavering commitment to your community was both inspiring and encouraging. Your
city council heard you, your district representatives heard you, and the
leaders in Sacramento heard you loud and clear. Your voices were impossible to
ignore, and your grassroots efforts
made all the difference in stopping a bad bill.
This was democracy in action.
It was beautiful to observe.
The commission several months ago unanimously
opposed the bill, not only because it was a bad bill,
but also because we all believe there was a better way.
That better way is the one our Coastal Commission staff
strives for every day, communication and collaboration
early and often.
When people come together at the beginning of a process,
listen to one another, work through issues
before they become conflicts, and stay at the table,
better outcomes follow.
That's exactly what we're seeing now.
And I hope this becomes the model
for how we move forward together.
At the same time, I think it's important to acknowledge
what this process cost.
For months, time and energy were spent pushing back
against the bad bill, a wave of misinformation
in the narrative that the Coastal Commission
was somehow the reason Santa Monica's local coastal program
wasn't moving forward, and that the commission
was standing in the way of the city's economic development.
Instead, that time could have been spent reviewing,
processing, approving the very projects
the original bill was intended to address
while simultaneously advancing
Santa Monica's local coastal program.
Had we started there, we'd likely be well on our way today.
That's why I believe this process was flawed
and ultimately unnecessary.
I also wanna extend my sincere appreciation
to both the Coastal Commission staff
and the City of Santa Monica staff.
Thank you for staying at the table
and doing the hard work to negotiate
the memorandum of understanding.
That agreement demonstrates exactly
what can be accomplished through communication,
collaboration, and a shared commitment to finding solutions.
As we look ahead, I think we should all be genuinely
optimistic because Santa Monica has three things
every successful local coastal program needs.
First, an engaged city council and a city staff
committed to getting things done.
Second, an exceptional coastal commission staff
that is committed to helping communities
complete local coastal programs through partnership,
communication, and collaboration.
And third, a very passionate, informed,
and engaged constituency.
residents, neighborhood organizations,
environmental groups, local businesses and young people
who care deeply about their coasts
and are willing to stay involved.
This is not an obstacle,
I think it's one of Santa Monica's greatest strengths.
These are the three ingredients
that are necessary for success.
While we have a bill before us for consideration today,
I don't believe it's necessary in many ways.
It reinforces a concern about Sacramento,
in my opinion, never ending race to pass more bills.
Not all of them answering the so what question.
Does this legislation actually solve the problem?
Does it produce a better outcome?
I don't believe it does.
I believe communication and collaboration,
and the work that led to the memorandum of understanding,
accomplished what legislation could not.
That said, I appreciate the recommendations from our staff,
given where we are today, and the progress that
has been made through the memorandum of understanding.
I would vote to support the staff's recommendation.
Again, thank you to everyone who participated.
Your voices mattered.
Your advocacy mattered.
Your commitment to the coast mattered.
And in this 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act,
your engagement is a powerful reminder
that protecting California's coast
has always depended on the informed, engaged public.
Buckle up, the ride's not over.
We can't rest on our laurels, but together,
you all made a difference.
So thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much.
OK, before we hear from more of our colleagues,
let's take public comment.
We have two speakers.
We have Susan Jordan in person, and then
we have Jennifer Savage on Zoom.
Ms. Jordan, please go ahead.
Just turn on the mic, Ms. Jordan, on the base.
OK.
Susan Jordan, I'm the executive director
through the California Coastal Protection Network.
Our coalition of 40 plus organizations is thrilled that AB 1740 by Assemblymember Zabur
has been amended to remove all Coastal Act exemptions.
We knew it would be a very long hard fight, but the end result miraculously reaffirmed the importance of the local coastal program process.
And forged a working relationship between your staff and the city of Santa Monica that will result in a certified LCP.
But the fight is not over.
Assembly Ziber amended his bill on June 15th to remove all Coastal Act exemptions, including
the most controversial exemption that applied to all multi-unit mixed-use development in
the Santa Monica coastal zone between Wilshire and Pico Avenues.
Roughly a week later, on June 22nd, the governor's office unofficially circulated similar but
broader language that would exempt those same class of projects in the entire Santa Monica
Coastal Zone from the Coastal Act until the city certifies their LCP.
So instead of following the normal legislative process, the governor's strategy was to slide
the language into a budget trailer bill and have the legislature vote to approve it within
days.
I'm talking two to three days.
No policy analysis, no policy committee hearings, no public comment or review.
And yes, certain developers, we and others have identified that have appeared before
this commission would be direct beneficiaries of this exemption.
On June 23rd, we were applauding 1740 in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee
and the removal of the Coastal Act exemptions, and the next morning we were scrambling to
stop the governor's effort.
And we did stop it, with credit going to many organizations, community members, and Assembly
members of Burr, who all rose up to oppose the Governor's effort as soon as it became
public.
And I wish I could say that this effort to ram through a Coastal Act exemption behind
closed doors ended then and there, but it didn't.
We have it on good authority that the Governor's office intends to use the same strategy in
August to ram this Coastal Act exemption into another budget trailer bill where it and many
other budget items left unresolved in June will be finalized and approved.
So that I regret that I have to bring this news to your table or dais or however you
want to define it, but this commission and the public who depends on you deserves to
know what is happening behind the scenes.
We are doing everything we can to stop this and we urge you and the public who have done
on such an amazing job and all the organizations
that are working to protect this commission
and the Coastal Act to do the same.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Jordan.
On Zoom, we have Jennifer Savage.
Ms. Savage, you should be able to unmute yourself
and go ahead.
Hi, thank you.
Good morning again, Chair and commissioners.
I am speaking actually on AB 2734,
but strongly echo the sentiments
and my colleague, Susan Jordan.
And regarding AB 2734, the Whale Tail License Plate Bill,
I just wanted to speak to this
because it's so important to what Surf Rider is doing.
And Californians believe when buying a whale tail plate
that they're funding coastal access and education programs.
But the reality is most of the money
they're spending does not.
So AB 2734, as you're aware,
would correct that bringing together
consumer intention and state follow through.
The Commission's Whale Tail Grants Program
and the Coastal Conservancy's Explore the Coast Grants
literally puts smiles on the faces of kids and adults
throughout the state by expanding
and promoting coastal enjoyment and stewardship
to all Californians.
This is especially meaningful when you consider
that 95% of grant engaged communities face real barriers
to coastal access.
This still means that work is funded at the level
that Californians already believe that it is.
And so that's why, in addition to fighting bad bills,
like AB 1740, that were happily gone neutral on,
given the changes that have been made.
But we're so happy to support good bills, too.
And we've made AB 2734 the centerpiece of this year's
Love Your Beach postcard campaign.
Our chapters are thrilled to advocate for it
up and down the state.
It's a modest overdue fix that would
have a profound impact by aligning this 30-year funding structure with its original purpose,
connecting people to the California coast. We look forward to celebrating a successful
passage with you. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Savage. There are no more speakers. Madam Chair?
Great. Thank you. I'll return to the commission. Vice Chair Hart.
Thank you. We share the concern expressed by the speakers regarding the potential budget
trailer language. And thank you very much, Ms. Jordan, for bringing that. And also to
you, Mr. Drake, for bringing that to the attention of the Commission.
We've been following the reporting on the topic, and we understand that the concept
would be to create a Coastal Act exemption for multifamily and mixed-use housing projects
in Santa Monica's coastal zone until the city's LCP gets certified. I can't emphasize enough
how problematic that would be, as it would create a perverse incentive for stakeholders
to try to delay or scuttle the effort to finish the Santa Monica LCP so they can take advantage
of exemptions for as long as possible.
So that sort of proposal would fundamentally undermine what AB 1740 is now trying to accomplish
and the effort currently underway by the Commission and the City of Santa Monica to complete the
city's LCP.
I'd ask that staff convey that message to leaders in Sacramento and stay vigilant over
the next few months for possibly more attempts to advance this sort of proposal.
As we've discussed earlier today, we are currently looking at a very strong action by the federal
government to decertify the coastal management program.
I think more than ever, all of us here in the state of California need to be aligned
to protect and support our coast, and particularly as we celebrate our 50th anniversary.
So thank you very much in advance.
I also want to appreciate all of the work on AB 1740
to get us to this point.
I wanted to acknowledge the participation and collaboration
with assembly members of Burr and his staff, obviously,
as well as our staff.
And I want to particularly call out our executive director
and wish that we could clone her because if we could
get her involved earlier, I think
it would accomplish a lot of the things
that Commissioner Jackson was talking about.
Things just seem to get going in Sacramento
and so much time and effort and frankly,
money goes into addressing these efforts.
It would just be so much more helpful
if we could engage early on to talk about
what the underlying concerns and issues are
so that things don't get to the point
that they did with 1740, but very glad to see
where we are right now and certainly all support
the recommendation, thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, 100% support all the efforts in relation to that.
And I do actually appreciate the process that was going through,
even though it was painful.
I think it helped elevate a lot of issues.
Just specifically on the part where
it gives the executive directors the authority review
and really streamlines these multimodal projects.
I just don't necessarily have a concern,
but what we do see when those projects are moving forward,
there are groups of folks that need their voice
in those processes, specifically those that are,
I don't know what the word these days are,
but differently abled in terms of site
and in terms of other issues within those complex projects.
And I just wanna make sure that those voices
to get into the mix and not lost
in any sort of expedited process.
Thank you.
Yes.
Through the Chair, if I might respond,
thanks for that comment,
Mr. Wilson, we're paying attention to that very same thing.
And I think that discretion in part gives us the ability,
when we need to have a public hearing and a permit,
we will do that.
There are projects occasionally where it really,
a streamlined process is really useful.
And so we are glad to have that flexibility moving forward.
And I just wanted to first off appreciate the comments
from the Commission too about staff's work
and specifically for me, but to make very clear
that I may sit in this chair, but this is a team effort.
I am, and I specifically wanted to call out Sean Drake
and the work that he did on 1740 and it was incredible.
We wouldn't be here without his work with, you know,
trying to come up with solutions that, you know,
that pulled in all the parties.
And so, thank you, Sean, and also our district staff,
who you don't see in front of you right now,
but they also played a very important role,
Steve and Amber, to try to work through
the city of Santa Monica, that MOU.
And so, again, this is always a team effort,
and I just wanna appreciate that.
And then, of course, Sarah Christie, who isn't here today,
but played an enormous role as part with Sean
in our, as part of our ledge unit to again, find solutions.
And I think I appreciated the comments about, you know,
I invite whether it's legislators or communities,
cities, counties to come and talk to us
when you have a problem because we really do try
to find solutions that are mutually beneficial
to all parties.
That's really our effort in how we approach problems.
And so I invite those conversations early.
And again, we have a good outcome here,
but it would be great if we didn't,
we could have started a little bit earlier
and worked through some of the challenges
we had directly with the city.
So just wanna again appreciate everybody on staff
that had a role in this and the public
because there was a lot of voices in Sacramento
but also in our hearings and in public
and it did make a difference.
It's important to have those voices in these spaces
and a special thanks to the, as I think Commissioner Jackson
mentioned, the community of Santa Monica.
We heard very loudly from several members of that community
and I think that mattered for us to understand
where they were coming from.
So with that, I'll close.
Thank you very much.
Just join with you, Director Hucklebridge and my colleagues
and say as they did, just a remarkable collaborative effort.
So thank you, Mr. Drake, thank you very much.
I'll turn to my colleagues for a motion.
Commissioner Lowenberg, staff recommendation.
So a motion by Commissioner Lowenberg,
a second by Commissioner Jackson.
For clarification, they are recommending a yes vote
to support AB 1740, and the other one as well.
Thank you, 1150.
We'll need to take a roll call vote
because we have a commissioner participating online.
Thank you.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante?
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Hart?
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson?
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly?
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lee?
Yes.
Lee, yes.
Commissioner Lopez?
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Lowenberg?
Yes.
Lowenberg, yes.
Commissioner Smith?
Yes.
Smith, yes.
Commissioner Preciado?
Yes.
Preciado, yes.
Commissioner Wilson?
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon, yes, the vote is unanimous.
Great.
Thank you very much.
OK, and now moving on to item 6D.
I think there's no action for us here,
but Director Hucklebridge, is there a report?
Yes, I'd like to turn it over to Claire Wilkins, who
will walk through this item.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Regarding item 6D, fee increases.
Every year, the Commission adjusts permit
and other application fees for inflation.
Regulation section 13055 contains the schedule of fees.
As the regulation describes,
fees are increased each year
according to the California Consumer Price Index.
This fiscal year, the year-to-year increase is about 3.6%.
The new fees are published in application forms
by July 1st when the fees take effect.
In the same rulemaking, the figure
for what defines a major public works project
or major energy facility is also adjusted for inflation.
That change takes effect on approval.
Staff submits the proposed amendments
to the Office of Administrative Law,
which for the past several years
has accepted these changes as non-substantive.
No commission action is required,
and I'm available for any questions.
Great, thank you.
Are there any public comments?
There are none.
Okay, thank you.
Any questions or comments from my colleagues?
All right, seeing none,
let's move on to the consent calendar, please.
Thank you, Chair Herman.
That brings us to item seven,
the Agendized Consent Calendar.
There are two items,
Agendized on the consent calendar today.
Item seven, A, which is a public hearing in action
on a notice of impending development
by UCSB for the construction of a bike path.
And item 7B, a CDP application for the demolition
of a duplex and construction of a new single family
residence with an attached ADU in Hermosa Beach.
We received public input on one of the items
and I believe our district director, Mr. Hudson,
has a brief response to provide.
So if we can just hold for a moment.
first.
Apologies.
Okay, thank you for waiting.
Just a quick note on item 7B, the Quark and Kim application.
We do have an addendum for this item, which responds to two objections that were received
from neighboring property owners just noting primarily objections based on visual impacts
related to the increased height of the project.
As explained in the addendum and in the staff report, staff has done an analysis and does
does not believe that the 30-foot high building,
which exceeds the city's typical 25-foot height limit,
in this case, is at a character with the area
and would not result in any potential adverse impacts
to public access or block views to the ocean.
So we continue to recommend that this item be approved
as part of the consent calendar.
And with that, I'll turn the mic back over
to Deputy Director Teufel.
Thank you staff is not aware of any other opposition to these items and the applicants are in agreement with the staff recommendations
So we therefore recommend the Commission vote and approve the consent calendar. Great. Thank you very much any ex partes
See none any public comments. There are none
Great. I'll return to the Commission comments questions the motion I'll move to approve
Some motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Lowenberg. May we have a roll call vote, please
Commissioner Escalante
Yes
Escalante yes, Commissioner Hart. Yes, Hart. Yes, Commissioner Jackson. I Jackson. Yes, Commissioner Kelly
Kelly Kelly. Yes, Commissioner Lee. Yes, Lee. Yes, Commissioner Lopez. Yes, Lopez. Yes, Commissioner Loenberg
Loenberg. Yes, Commissioner Smith
Yes, Smith. Yes, Commissioner Presiado
Yes, Presiado. Yes, Commissioner Wilson
Yes, Wilson, yes, Commissioner. O'Malley. Yes
O'Malley yes chair Harmon. Yes, Herman. Yes, the vote is unanimous
Thank you consent calendar is adopted and now to those items that have been removed from the regular calendar to consent, please mr
Joyful, thank you
There are three items that we're recommending be moved to the consent and those are item 10 be a permit application by the Ocean Protection
Council to install marine protected area signage
item 11 be a consistency determination by the US Navy for flood control infrastructure at Naval base Ventura County and
item 14 a a city of Redondo Beach LCP amendment
The applicants are in agreement with the staff recommendations on these items and we're not aware of any aware of any opposition
I believe we do have a couple speakers signed up on these items though. So following those
Staff would recommend that the Commission vote and approve this item. Thank you any ex partes
Any public comments
Yes for 10 B. We have three
Speakers Jennifer Savage, Anna Bissias and Anna Christensen
Jennifer Savage, you should be able to go ahead and speak, please
Hello chairman commissioners. This is Jennifer Savage from the surf rider foundation
I actually had an emergency dental appointment this morning and I'm doing all this testimony
around that situation, so I just wanted to apologize for my chaotic in and out.
Maybe it doesn't seem so chaotic on your end, but it's very chaotic on mine.
I just wanted to emphasize our strong support for the work that Ocean Protection Council
and the California Marine Sanctuary Foundation is doing in helping the public be more aware
of the importance of armoring protected areas, and ensuring that all people know the regulations
regulations, the Armor and Protected Area Network,
is a stellar example of the kind of incredible conservation
that can happen when science and communities and lawmakers all
work together.
And so the ongoing efforts to protect and educate
about that network are fighters and stock supportive.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Savage.
Next up, we have Anna Bassais, followed by Anna Christensen.
Ms. Besalles, please go ahead.
Good morning, commissioners.
As I mentioned, my name is Anna Basias
and I'm a legal and policy intern
with the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin.
We are based in Point Reyes with extensive programming
in coastal Marin County, including leading
Marin's Marine Protected Area Watch Program.
We're well aware of how important appropriate signage
is for people to visit and recreate responsibly.
We've also advocated for signage improvements
at Marin's Marine Protected Areas for years,
including actively coordinating with CMSF,
Marin County Parks, and the National Park Service.
We support this application,
which will hopefully improve education and outreach
and lead to better protected marine resources
and improved coastal experiences for visitors overall.
Clear and coordinated signage is crucial
to regulatory compliance and a positive visitor experience.
We look forward to continue collaboration.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bassias.
Next up, we have Anna Christiansen.
Ms. Christiansen, please go ahead.
Yes, I'm representing Sierra Club California's
Coastal Commission.
And we took a look at this agenda item
and we're of course very supportive of signage,
especially educational and public safety signage.
Our comments we believe were heard to a degree
in that you are now requiring more support
for tribal communication.
So we really appreciate that extra addition
of that consultation.
However, it is a concern that out of the over 100 tribes
that were impacted according
to Native American Heritage Commission,
which is not a complete list, I might add,
so few were able to be contacted and participate.
And we would just encourage,
and I know it's really challenging
and we're very supportive of the coastal mission,
but under the law,
the law about tribal consultation
and respect for tribal cultural resources,
especially focuses on forming relationships with tribes and relationships are more than just
contacting somebody when a project comes up. So we truly believe that tribal people do care
about these places, do care about their cultural resources, but are in the most part along the
coast really strapped for cash and personnel to respond. So we would just encourage you to do
whatever you can and reach out to non-profits or whoever you think can help you form these
relationships so we don't just have to deal with stuff after a project is
already planned and thank you very much for everything you do and we will see
you in August at the NOAA meetings. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Christensen. We have
for item 11B we have one speaker and one individual available for questions. We
have Jason Galumsky Jones available for questions and then we have Leslie Purcell
to speak. Miss Purcell, are you available? There we go. Good morning still, Leslie
Purcell. I just had a question about the Navy's proposal. I know that it's a very
wet area over there. There's a lagoon, there's wetlands, and they would be filling some
of the wetlands and removing water. It's a habitat area as well for a lot of birds.
I'm just wondering if there's a possibility of having more than a one-to-one mitigation
for the wetlands, because we've lost so much of our wetlands up and down the coast. It's
really something that we need to protect. So that was my question, whether they
might be able to do more than one-to-one mitigation and how how it's the
mitigation going to be monitored in the future as to its success. Thank you.
Thank you Ms. Purcell. No more speakers, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Okay, I
will turn to Mr. Twifo. Yeah, just to respond to quickly to the public
I appreciate Ms. Christiansen's comments there
and we're constantly refining our tribal consultation process
and glad to note that we have
a statewide tribal coordinator position that's been filled
and it's really in the several months
that she's been with us,
we've already seen some significant improvements
in terms of strengthening those relationships
and getting at that exact issue
trying to improve the lines of communication particularly for resource
limited tribes so we will continue to strive to do a better job in that space.
Regarding Ms. Purcell's concerns regarding wetland mitigation I'd like to
note that there is still some additional planning and refinement of the project
ongoing that may further minimize the wetland impacts that are expected. Once
Once those impacts are more finally determined, the Navy will be working additionally with
Army Corps of Engineers through its permitting process and implementing required mitigation
for the project.
This mitigation we've provided through a variety of restoration efforts, some of which would
occur on Naval Base Venture Accounting itself, as well as through a mitigation bank.
We're confident that the mitigation carried out through these processes will be at appropriate
Ratios and will be adequate to cover the impacts associated with the project that said the Navy is also committed to reporting back to Commission staff
As the project gets further refined and we have a more final number in terms of the the amount of wetland
Impacts and the specific mitigation that would be created to make sure that they align with what's described in its consistency determination
Thank you very much. Okay. I'll return to the Commission comments questions or a motion
Commissioner Lopez
Second the motion by Commissioner Lopez a second by Commissioner Wilson. May we have a roll call vote, please
Commissioner Hart. Yes heart. Yes, Commissioner Jackson Jackson. Yes, Commissioner. Kelly. Hi Kelly. Yes, Commissioner Lee
Yes, Lee. Yes, Commissioner Lopez. Yes Lopez. Yes, Commissioner Loenberg
Lowenberg yes, Commissioner Smith. Yes, Smith. Yes Commissioner presciado. Yes
Presiado. Yes, Commissioner Wilson. Yes, Wilson. Yes, Commissioner O'Malley. Yes, O'Malley. Yes, Commissioner Escalante
Yes
Escalante. Yes chair Harmon. Yes, Harmon. Yes. The vote is unanimous. Great. Thank you. The motion carries
Okay, we will continue on and now we are at the deputy directors report back to you. Mr. Toible
Thank you. That brings us to item 9 and the deputy director report for energy ocean resources and federal consistency division
We have four negative determination concurrences to report this month and two immaterial amendments
For the Commission's consideration one by hog Island oyster company for the installation and use of new aquaculture gear into mollus Bay and
One by the city of Fort Bragg for changes to its pilot desalination
Project that will allow to avoid the installation of a C4 plot C floor pipeline
Staff is not aware of any opposition to these items and are therefore asking whether three or more commissioners object to the immature amendments
Thank you. Any pop any expertise
any public comments
No public comments. Thank you. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors report
Seeing no such objections the Commission can curse. Okay, we will now continue on I believe 10a and 11a share a combined
Presentation that's that's correct. Madam chair. So with that I will turn the presentation over to
Mark Danielson who I believe is on zoom to provide this
Good morning chair and commissioners. This next item is w10a and w11a
In this project, AT&T Enterprises LLC is requesting a CDP amendment and concurrence with a Federal
Consistency Certification to remove portions of its Japan-U.S. fiber-optic cable array.
This array reached the end of its useful life and was taken out of service by AT&T back
in 2023.
Specifically, the project would remove the cables from their shore landings out to the
end of their burial depths, roughly 50 miles offshore.
The project would result in over 123 miles of out of service fiber optic cables being
removed from the seafloor off of San Luis Obispo and Mendocino counties.
This work would provide significant coastal resource benefits by reducing marine debris
and removing potential entanglement hazards for both wildlife and fisheries.
On this slide, you can see the view of Moro Bay from Montaña de Oro State Park, which
is part of the project area and the location of the shore landing for the fiber optic cable
segment that would be removed there. The remainder of the project activities would be taking place
offshore. Next slide please. AT&T installed the subject cables in 2000 and 2001 as a part of the
Japan-US cable network. These were some of the first trans-oceanic fiber optic cables installed
off of California and they were operated until 2023 when they reached the end of their service
life. There are now over 25 other trans-oceanic fiber optic cables approved by the Commission
with landings in California. And this is more than any other, almost any other coastal state
and helps serve the internet and communication needs of the entire country. These projects have
been duly approved under the Commission's Coastal Act and CZMA authority, and while the commission
has never objected to a fiber-aptic cable project, it has worked with the applicants to establish
and refine safeguards for coastal resources and uses such as fisheries, wildlife, and sensitive
marine habitats. For example, the Commission established requirements for these cables to
be removed at the end of their service life when no longer in use. And this allows for
the cable routes to return to use by fisheries, eliminates entanglement risks to wildlife,
and prevents the cables from degrading into marine debris. AT&T's original authorization
includes such requirements, and the current project is being proposed to satisfy them.
This project also complies with the 1999 agreement with California fishermen,
which identifies the seafloor depth of 6,000 feet as the limit of removal work and this depth was
selected because of the limited amount of bottom contact fishing that occurs beyond it. This slide
shows the proposed project area and cable corridors. The map at the bottom shows the cable
segment traveling offshore Montaña de Oro through a subterranean conduit out to the end of its burial
depth at 6,000 foot. This depth contour is the red line on the left approximately 52 miles offshore.
From here the cable bends north and comes back to shore in Mendocino County making landfall
through another subterranean conduit at Manchester State Beach shown in the upper map.
This is where the AT&T cable station is located and where the other cable segment travels
offshore across the Pacific Ocean to Japan.
Next slide please.
Proposed cable removal activities would begin offshore Montanier de Oro where remotely operated
equipment would descend to cut the cable roughly 50 miles offshore at a depth of 6000 feet.
Recovery rigging would then be attached and the cable would be slowly pulled up and collected
by a specialized vessel.
This vessel would pull the cable vertically from the seafloor, a method of removal which
minimizes the potential for seafloor scouring and marine wildlife entanglement.
Once the cable reaches shallow water, divers would be used to expose the buried cable segment,
and attached recovery rigging prior to the vertical removal. Cable removal
activities off of Manchester would be similar but carried out in reverse.
Divers would start the process in shallow waters and it would proceed
offshore until 6,000 feet. The end of the cable would be secured with a clump
weight and then the remainder of that cable would be abandoned in place. All
recovered cables would be transferred to a cable recycling facility at the end of
project. Proposed work onshore would be limited to a single site within an existing paved parking
lot at Montañera Oro State Park. The work would require limited personnel and be completed within
several days. AT&T would retain its cable landings and seafloor leases with the California State
Lands Commission for potential use in the future. Although AT&T is proposing to remove the vast
majority of its cable, uh sorry one more slide please. Although AT&T is proposing to remove the
vast majority of its cables offshore of California, one section would remain in place. This is because
the cable overlaps with two other operational fiber optic cables owned by other companies.
You can see here Bifrost and Global West are the operational cable segments that overlap
the cable segment proposed for removal. In order to ensure these cables are not damaged by removal
work international cable standards call for the area of overlap to be left undisturbed and as such
AT&T would cut its cable a safe distance away secure it to the seafloor with anchor weights
and then leave it in place pending future removal. Next slide please. To address potential risks to
coastal resources from the proposed removal work staff is recommending four special conditions.
Special condition 17 would memorialize and integrate the mitigation measures included
by the California State Lands Commission in its mitigated negative declaration. These include
protections for marine habitats and wildlife, fishing, invasive species, cultural resources,
and hazardous materials. The full list of mitigation measures is included in this report
as Exhibit 7. Special Condition 18 would require AT&T to conduct pre-project surveys to ensure
the avoidance of all sensitive seafloor habitats during vessel anchoring and cable lay down and to
submit an updated marine safety and anchoring plan for executive director review and approval.
Special condition 19 would ensure that project activities do not result in spills of hazardous
materials through the implementation of a critical operations and curtailment plan.
And then finally, special condition 20 would help ensure the cable segment left on the seafloor off
montana de Oro is removed in the future following the decommissioning and removal of those
overlapping active cables. Next slide, please. Staff recommends that the Commission approve
the Coastal Development Permit Amendment and conditionally concur with the consistency
certification subject to conditions set forth in the staff report and addendum.
The motion and resolution can be found on page 4 of the staff report. I also want to note that
a brief addendum to the staff report was posted online on Friday to provide a minor correction
to exhibit seven and to summarize the results of staff's tribal consultation work.
Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Any ex partes?
Okay.
Any public comments?
We have one individual available to answer questions from AT&T, Simon Polter, that's
it.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'll return to the commission.
Comments, questions, motion.
Motion we're getting it ready
I'll just make a quick comment while Commissioner Wilson's pulling it up
please I just when people ask about the work of the Coastal Commission and some of the things that we
oversee and some of the policy issues and then permitting issues that are before us I
Find items like this to be very illustrative of the broad spectrum of things that come before us and really fascinating and
as a commissioner from City Council that you know clearly does not have
jurisdiction on things that stretch to Japan
It is wild to know kind of the history of some of these these items that come before us and also
Just the reach of which the work that we do and the breadth and depth of it
So fascinating and and also be happy to support staffs recommendation when Commissioner Wilson pulls that up
I'm ready. I move that the Commission approve coastal development permit amendment number e dash
00-004-a3 pursuant to the staff recommendation. I recommend a yes vote
second
Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly. They're asking for a yes vote. Maybe we have a roll call, please
Commissioner Jackson
Jackson yes, Commissioner Kelly. Yes, Kelly. Yes, Commissioner Lee. Yes Lee. Yes, Commissioner Lopez
Yes, Lopez. Yes, Commissioner low Lowenberg
Lillanburg yes commissioner Smith. Yes, Smith. Yes, Commissioner Presiado
Yes, Presiado. Yes, Commissioner Wilson
Yes, Wilson. Yes, Commissioner O'Malley. Yes, O'Malley. Yes, Commissioner Escalante
Yes
Escalante yes, Commissioner Hart. Yes Hart. Yes
Chair Harmon. Yes, Harmon. Yes, the vote is unanimous. Thank you. Commissioner Wilson second motion, please
I move that the Commission conditionally concur with the consistency determination CC dash zero zero zero seven dash two four on
The grounds that if modified in accordance with special conditions in the staff report
The project described herein would be consistent with the enforceable policies of the California Coastal Management Program and I recommend a yes vote
second
Motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly. They're asking for a yes vote. We have another roll call. Please. Yes, Commissioner Kelly. Yes
Kelly yes, Commissioner Lee. Yes Lee. Yes Commissioner Lopez. Yes Lopez. Yes, Commissioner Loenberg
Loenberg. Yes, Commissioner Smith. Yes, Smith. Yes, Commissioner. Press the auto
Yes, press the auto. Yes, Commissioner Wilson. Yes, Wilson. Yes, Commissioner Malley. Yes, Malley. Yes, Commissioner Escalante
Escalante yes
Commissioner Hart yes heart. Yes, Commissioner Jackson, all right
Jackson yes chair Harman. Yes Harman. Yes, the vote is unanimous. Great. Thank you very much. The motion carries
Okay, I'll look at our staff and my colleagues. Are we able to get through the next item before lunch?
Yeah, I think so works for you guys. I'm not seeing any
Objections up here. So let's go item 11 see please. Thank you chair
That brings us to item 11 C a consistency determination by the US Forest Service for a wildlife risk reduction project in the Los
Padres National Forest I'd like to invite Annie Rosen to provide the presentation for this item
Good morning. Chair Harmon and commissioners. This item is a I'm sorry. We actually have a presentation
There we go
Good morning, chair Harmon and commissioners
This item is a consistency determination from the US Forest Service for a wildfire risk reduction project in portions of Los Padres
National Forest. Before I get into the presentation, I'd like to note that we
posted an addendum yesterday that responds to comment letters we received.
Next slide please. In the proposed project, the Forest Service is proposing
fuel reduction and wildfire resilience treatments across up to 33,000 acres of
the National Forest. Up to about 1,900 acres would be on land seaward of the
coastal zone boundary. The majority of these coastal treatment areas are in the
Big Sur region, but there are also two proposed coastal treatment areas in the
foothills near Carpentaria in Santa Barbara County. The proposed project area
has been refined and reduced over the past several years in response to
comments and concerns made by the public and Commission staff. It initially
exceeded 200,000 acres with roughly 21,000 acres in coastal areas but the
version before the Commission today reflects a 91% reduction in that coastal
acreage and 86% reduction overall. In addition to reducing the total proposed
treatment areas, the Forest Service has also refined the types of wildfire risk reduction
strategies it is proposing. Seaward of the coastal zone boundary, it is focusing primarily
on fuel reduction treatments along existing roads, trails, recreation areas, administrative
sites and other development. Three fuel breaks are also proposed within this region, two
of which coincide with existing roads. The third aligns with a historic fire break that
was found to be effective during a past wildfire, and this third fuel break was also changed
to its currently proposed position
in response to community feedback.
Next slide, please.
These maps depict proposed treatment areas.
The map at the top right shows the overall project.
On the bottom are maps of the coastal project areas
in Northern Monterey County on the right
and Southern Monterey
and Northern San Luis Obispo counties on the left.
At the top left are the two small coastal project areas
in Santa Barbara County.
When discussing and considering the configuration
and acreage of the proposed treatment areas,
it's important to note that the Forest Service's
CD represents the maximum potential area
that would be treated.
The Forest Service expects that the actual
treated area would be far less.
For example, a portion of the proposed areas
represent possible defensive zones
around non-forest service properties.
These zones include buffers representing
the maximum allowable incursion into forest service lands
for creating defensive space around structures
on non-forest service properties.
But these would only be pursued
if the neighboring property required treatment
of forest service land
to meet defensible space requirements.
For example, defensible space protocols
may recommend buffers around structures
that exceed the extent of the parcel.
In these cases, the Forest Service would authorize
treatments within Los Padres National Forests
to help adjacent property owners
satisfy fire safety recommendations.
Additionally, the proposed areas were mainly established
using desktop mapping tools and GIS-assisted planning.
Although efforts were made to accurately identify areas
for treatment, further refinement and reduction
in treatment areas would occur in response
to site assessments and on the ground surveys
by resource experts.
I also wanna note that the Forest Service
is proposing to implement the project
over approximately 20 years as funding becomes available.
7,500 acres are expected to be treated per year,
limiting the overall cumulative effect
of the project at any one time.
Next slide, please.
Within the proposed areas,
One or more treatment methods would be carried out,
including mechanical or hand thinning of shrubs and trees,
pile burning, chipping and grinding,
mastication by mechanized equipment,
mowing and weed whipping,
targeted grazing by livestock,
prescribed burns,
hand application of herbicides on invasive species,
and planting or seeding of native species.
The Forest Service expects these treatments
to slow the rate and intensity of wildfire spread,
facilitate safe and effective firefighter response,
and increase defensible space for evacuation routes,
essential facilities like fire stations
and communications infrastructure and homes.
Next slide, please.
Additionally, the maintenance of firebreaks
and defensible spaces is expected to reduce the need
for emergency dozer lines in the event of a wildfire.
On this slide, there's an example
of a strategic fuel break on the left
and an emergency dozer line on the right.
Emergency dozer lines are fire breaks
that are constructed during an ongoing wildfire
to prevent its spread.
They're typically created using a bulldozer
to rapidly clear wide areas of vegetation,
off and down to bare soil.
These dozer lines are created on an emergency need basis
and do not undergo the environmental review process
required of planned fuel breaks,
like those proposed in this project.
This current project would not include the construction
of any dozer lines and would not use bulldozers
as a treatment method.
Next slide, please.
The coastal resource concerns associated with the proposed project include wildfire erosion
and air quality hazards, biological resources, public access, scenic and visual resources,
water quality and tribal cultural resources.
Next slide, please.
The project is proposed within areas of elevated wildfire hazards and project activities have
the potential to contribute to erosion and air quality impacts that may spill over into
adjacent non-federal lands or into the ocean.
About three-quarters of Los Padres National Forest are designated as having high or very
high wildfire potential.
The Forest Service expects this project to reduce the severity and spread of wildfires
in these areas, limiting their potential movement into adjacent property and increasing their
ability to be managed.
For example, fuel breaks and defense zones would be maintained to prevent fuel buildup.
Steps would also be taken to ensure that treatments, like the use of prescribed burns, do not
accidentally add to wildfire risk.
Such steps include timing during appropriate seasons and weather conditions.
Some project activities also have the potential to cause erosion and increase mudslide risks.
To address this, the Forest Service has incorporated resource protection measures into the project,
including limiting treatment methods when soils are saturated, using erosion control
of ices and retaining some vegetative cover
during targeted grazing to prevent bare soil conditions.
A reduction in the severity and spread of wildfires
would also reduce erosion risks, as high intensity wildfires
have detrimental effects on soils
that can increase surface runoff and erosion after a fire.
Next slide, please.
Treatments within coastal areas are
proposed in multiple vegetation and habitat types,
including sensitive natural communities,
more common non-sensitive native plant communities,
and areas that are heavily invaded by non-native species.
Habitats include annual grassland, oak woodlands,
conifer forests, chaparral, and coastal scrub.
To limit adverse impacts from the project,
the Forest Service has proposed an implementation plan
in which resource conditions,
including the presence of sensitive habitats or rare plants,
would be evaluated and considered
prior to starting treatment work.
As part of implementation, the treatment boundaries,
methods, and resource protection measures
would also be tailored to the specific treatment area.
The implementation plan also includes
additional planning steps that would take place
prior to any treatments, including field assessments,
ground truthing, flagging to avoid sensitive habitats
and species, and identification of appropriate buffers
around sensitive species and riparian areas.
As part of its implementation, the Forest Service
has agreed to review the California Natural Diversity
Database, or state-listed and sensitive botanical species,
and to incorporate additional protections
for rare or state-protected plants to the extent practicable.
The implementation plan also includes
post-treatment activities to ensure that treatments
and resource protection measures are effective.
Treated areas would be evaluated
to determine whether restoration is needed
and to improve upon existing best management practices
and resource protection measures.
Reporting and documentation of treatments and outcomes
would also occur.
Next slide, please.
Because the Forest Service is proposing treatments
within and around popular visitor recreation areas,
temporary localized closures or reductions in services,
including roads and parking, may be necessary.
To minimize the impacts of this work on public access,
the Forest Service has agreed to maintain access
to recreational sites during treatment activities
when public safety allows,
particularly within coastal areas west of Highway 1,
such as Pfeiffer Beach.
This may be accomplished by avoiding work
during high-use seasons and times of day,
implementing temporary detours, and using partial,
rather than full closures of parking areas.
The Forest Service has also incorporated
resource protection measures to ensure
that the recreational value of these areas is preserved.
Treatments would be designed
to protect recreational amenities,
and any inadvertently damaged amenities
would be repaired or replaced
to at least their pretreatment condition.
Following treatments along trails,
slash and debris would be removed to prevent obstructions.
Most importantly, however,
The proposed project has been designed
to reduce the overall frequency and extent
of catastrophic wildfires
within Los Padres National Forest.
Minimizing fires in this way would benefit habitats
and wildlife within the forest and adjacent areas,
reduce damage and loss of recreational and access amenities
and protect water and air quality.
Next slide, please.
Therefore, with that expectation
and the Forest Service's resource protection measures
and commitments in place,
Staff recommends that the commission concur
with the Forest Service's consistency determination.
The motion and resolution are on page five
of the staff report.
That concludes my remarks
and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, commissioners.
Great, thank you very much.
Okay, any ex partes?
Any public comments?
We have one public commenter on site, Leslie Purcell,
if you'd like to go ahead.
Hi, Caitlin, I think we have one above that
With the park range uh for service members
My apologies them first
I'm, sorry. We have kyle
kimportz and seth michael
Good afternoon. Uh, thank you chair harman and commissioners for hearing me today
My name is kyle kimportz. I'm the lead, uh for this project and currently the acting district ranger for the san. Barbara ranger district
I'm joined today by seth michael
who is deputy forest fire management officer for the and fuels program manager for the forest.
I want to thank the Coastal Commission staff for their staff report and the work over the past
months to learn about and understand the proposal before you today.
The wildfire risk reduction project posed by Los Potters National Forest was born from the threat
severe wildfire poses to communities, infrastructure, and treasured natural and
cultural resources on Los Potters National Forest. These impacts are not only limited to the immediate
flames and actions taken to suppress them, but also post fire effects such as
flood, impacts to water quality and other impacts. Locally we are
observing more acres burned on average and larger more intense and
catastrophic wildfires. These wildfires can have profound impacts in our
communities, neighborhoods and homes, damage infrastructure such as roads
trails and campgrounds, and they threaten the plants, animals, and cultural
resources we cherish. Next slide please. We recognize that not all fires bad fire
and that our natural resources are adapted to fire. However, on Los
Padres natural forests, some of our fire return intervals are no longer aligned
with natural ranges. Our chaparilla ecosystems are experiencing too much
fire, placing them at risk of conversion to grasslands and non-native plant
infestations. This image shows how chaparilla stands with frequent burns,
especially those shorter than 30 years can be impacted. In our conifer forests,
particularly those amount of elevations do not experience enough low to moderate
fire resulting in increasing increasing density levels placing them at risk to
bark beetle infestations and high mortality from severe stand replacing
fire. It is for these reasons that we propose a wildfire risk reduction
project to address these threats. Next slide. The objectives of the project are
to increase community and infrastructure protection, improve wildfire containment
opportunities by establishing and maintaining fuel breaks and defense zones and improve
vegetation resiliency to environmental stressors and improve forest health.
The project includes two treatment categories, fuel breaks and defense zones and forest health
units.
There are no forest health units within or proximate to the coastal zone, only fuel breaks
and defense zones.
Defense zone types include roadsides, motorized trails, administrative sites, assistive recreation,
stations and offices, communication sites,
property lines, and strategic field breaks.
Next slide, please.
To show how these different defense zones are applied,
here is an example on the Big Sur coast highlighted in yellow.
The green is Forest Service property.
Included are three different types
of potential treatment blocks.
Administrative sites for the Plaskett Campground and Sand
Dollar Day Use Area, property line areas,
and roadsides along Highway 1.
Defense zones along roads extend a maximum
50 feet from the road edge on both sides. The objective is to improve evacuation routes and
facilitate wildfire management by creating a zone of reduced fuel loading on both sides of the road.
Vegetation brushing and removal will occur within approximately 10 feet of roads.
The actual distance may fluctuate in response to slopes, the type of vegetation, easement
parameters, pullouts, and other factors. Beyond the brushing zone, planting and seeding of less
ignitable of native species will occur where suitable and thinning and forested areas.
If these treatments are not suitable, then these areas will not receive treatment.
For the recreation sites, treatments would be allowed within each site in addition to
the defense zone buffer.
The defense zone around the recreation site is divided into two areas, a priority zone
from zero to 150 feet wide,
and a secondary zone 150 to 300 feet
for a total width of 300 feet.
Treatment of hazardous fuels to reduce wildfire risk
could occur within the priority zone
and gradually phased out in the secondary zone if needed.
I want to emphasize that if these areas
are already at or close to desired conditions,
then no treatments may be needed.
They are included in the project
to provide the opportunity
to complete defensible space treatments
if needed over the long term.
The objective of defense zones along property lines
is to reduce or limit the spread of fire
and undesirable fire effects
to adjacent properties and communities
within the wildland urban base
by creating a defensible space of reduced fuel loading.
These areas also provide opportunities
to treat boundary locations
on those pottery snowshoe forests
that complement or complete strategic treatments
on adjacent lands.
Treatments within property line defense zones
will generally rely on adjacent private property owners
or local agencies and organizations
to identify defensible space need
in coordination with Los Potteras National Forest.
The treatment blocks depicted identify opportunity
for defensible space where needed.
Actual treatments are anticipated to be smaller
than what is shown with some of these areas
receiving limited or no treatments.
The project area, as shown here,
represents the maximum allowable treatable area.
Actual treatments will be designed
within the spatial bounds of these treatment blocks
and will likely be smaller
when applying resource protection measures.
These include avoidance of aquatic and repairing habitats,
species and other habitats of concern,
designs to protect scenery and visuals to name a few.
Next slide please.
This is another example of a treatment block
within the Colso Zone boundary.
The copper and durea community and fire department
have expressed interest in proactively maintaining
this ridgeline as a strategic fuel break.
This area is also combined with property line defense zone,
giving it the shape that it has.
The objective of fuel breaks is to create strips of land
with reduced fuel loading to lower fire line intensities
and reduce a wildfire's ability to spread,
increase the ability of firefighters to effectively
and safely manage wildfire by ground and air,
and reduce the need for emergency dozer lines.
Fuel breaks and the associated fire suppression
opportunities they provide serve to protect chaperilla vegetation from too
frequent fire and reduce the opportunity for fire to negatively affect fire
suppressed forested ecosystems. Again the potential treatment area depicted here
is the maximum allowable and will likely be reduced in size when resource
protection measures are applied. Next slide. Built into the project are 193
resource protection measures. They provide protection for water quality,
minimize impact to recreation, minimize the potential for invasive plant
infestation and spread, reduce or avoid impacts to impaired wildlife and their
habitats, protect visuals and other benefits. The project implementation will
be guided by the implementation plan which provides a link between the EA
resource protection measures and authorized treatments. It consists of an
interdisciplinary team process to certify that one, treatments are
allowable under the EA. Two, the effects of the treatments are within the scope and the
effects documented in the EA. And three, all relevant resource protection measures are
incorporated into treatment design. Resource specialists will also ensure necessary surveys
are completed, avoidance area is identified, and monitoring requirements are met. The implementation
plan is a key component of the project and will be used in the preparation execution
of the specific treatments under the project. Next slide, please. For my remaining time,
I want to briefly touch on public involvement for the project. We have held two 60-day public
involvement phases, provided opportunities for review, comment and engagement. Public
meetings were held in addition to meetings with local agencies, organizations, tribes,
academics, fire departments, recreation groups, and others.
We have completed exhaustive review of thousands of comments,
completed extensive updates to the project
and environmental analysis, and developed responses
that will be available when the final EA is published
later this month.
Next slide.
Some of the feedback we've received from public comments
are shown here, including how we responded
with changes to the project.
I won't read them all.
However, some include removing treatment blocks
from the project, focusing treatment blocks
to previously disturbed areas,
adjusting resource protection measures and others.
In closing, I want to convey that a great deal
of careful planning, analysis, and thought
went into the design of this project,
informed by highly educated and experienced resource
professionals to strike the right balance
for environmental protection and wildfire risk reduction.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Kinports.
We also have Seth Mitchell available for questions.
Then we have one public speaker on site and then three available, pardon me,
two available on zoom, uh, Leslie Purcell, then Benjamin Piterli and then Anna Marie Weibel.
Ms.
Purcell, please go ahead.
Hi, I'm Leslie Purcell.
I'm also a Sierra Club California Coastal Committee
member, and they submitted a pretty extensive letter,
I think, that was raising some issues that I believe
were fairly well addressed in the agenda.
I'm also a member of the California Native Plant
Society.
And we did have one query about the seeding of natives
and hopefully presumably they would be locally sourced
and pertain to the particular watershed
and that these kinds of restoration activities,
it sounds like will be well monitored and taken care of.
So thank you, thanks for all the work
and scaling back the project so much,
it seems like it's much more finely tuned
and I appreciate that.
Thank you, Ms. Purcell.
On Zoom, we have Benjamin Piterli.
Please go ahead.
Good morning.
Oops, let me quick start.
I'm ready.
Yes, please go ahead, sir.
My name is Benjamin Piterli,
I'm speaking on behalf of Lis Potter's Forest Watch.
We've been tracking this project for several years.
This is a major project.
This review is especially important
because the Forest Service is proceeding
under a Trump administration emergency determination
that bypasses the normal objection processes
and limits the public's ability to review
and challenge the final project.
So for a project planned over years
and implemented over decades, that's deeply troubling.
So we very much appreciate the outreach
and engagement of Coastal Commission staff
as well as your own time.
We also greatly appreciate
that the Forest Service has reduced the project substantially
and incorporated various forms of feedback.
However, the question today is whether the project's
consistent with the Coastal Act,
without additional conditions,
and we don't currently believe it is.
The project still includes areas that could affect Esha.
The Forest Service's resource protection measures
still don't clearly protect state-recognized rare plants
and animals that qualify locations as Esha.
Reviewing plant databases during implementation,
which is one of the resource protection measures.
It is helpful, but it's not the same thing
as requiring Esha avoidance.
The project also allows for work during periods known
be critical for nesting birds. We urge the Commission to condition concurrence on removing
sensitive escha areas from treatment, extending protections to state recognized rare plants
and animals, and requiring nesting bird protections consistent with CDFW's February 1st to September
1st timeframe. These conditions would not stop wildfire safety work, but they do help
us ensure that this work reduces the expense to coastal resources. Wildfire mitigation
work. It does come with huge ecological tradeoffs that weren't necessarily
discussed here today. So we thank the Commission for its part in helping to
achieve that balance. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pitterly. We have one more
signed up on Zoom, Anna Marie Weibel. We're not seeing you as an attendee. If
you are hearing me in Zoom, please go ahead and raise your hand so we can find
you. All right. Seeing no one. There are no more speakers.
Madam chair. Great. Thank you very much. OK. With that. I will turn to the
commission and we will begin with Commissioner Lopez. Yeah. The appropriate
time I'm happy to make the motion Madam chair I'll just state that I appreciate
staff's approach on this issue seeing the reduction from the initial two
hundred thousand down to the very small footprint we're talking about at this
point while acknowledging the impacts, especially working with some of our local tribes.
I saw comments in the packet about the Selena Nation and some of the challenges that they
had with locations that were identified.
The fact that those were removed means a lot to me.
And I think the fact that we've been able to engage proactively, I've got a lot of great
relationships with folks at the LPNF Division that is based in my hometown in King City.
And I know that they've done work to make sure that what we're doing is truly protecting
community.
I remember so many of these fires personally impacting the communities that I represent
directly, including the 2016 Silver Honus Fire.
And that at the time was the most expensive wildfire ever fought in this nation.
Over $260 million spent in suppression and the intensity at which it burned impacted
hillsides along Big Sur that ended up leading to road closures that lasted years.
And so this work proactively maintains access to the coast in a way that we want to elevate
and prioritize.
And so I know that there's not a perfect solution, given the space that we need to work in.
But the way that this is set up, especially with the recent support under the Biden administration
that is carrying over with Good Neighbor Authority, which is – allows partnerships to happen
to create unique opportunities for community groups to participate and protect their own
Communities through these plans is really important and I see all those elements coming together to build a plan that at this point again
It's not perfect
But it's pretty darn good for what we need to do in order to continue to allow for coastal access
preservation and protection of our communities and I think this is going to be in the
Long term a great model towards the success. We want to see along the coast. Thank you
Thank you, Vice Chair Hart
Thank you. I have a couple questions. I wanted to follow up and ask if staff could respond. I guess it was Mr. Petteri.
I'm not sure if that's correct pronunciation.
The concerns he expressed regarding Esha,
nesting birds, state-listed species, and I might have missed something. And also I was wondering if staff could respond
given the
situation with the federal government
procedures that we've discussed earlier.
What kind of monitoring would be anticipated for this, if anything?
And I'm just wondering if you could address if anything would be different with regard
to this proposal, given what's going on with the CCMA threat.
I'll just kick it off while we switch chairs around up here a little bit by answering your
last question first and then turning it over to staff for some of the more detail. I mean
I think the answer is if we don't have Federal Consistency Authority we would not be reviewing
this project period. It wouldn't have a public hearing. There wouldn't be a chance for folks
to weigh in. And then and not just the public hearing but all of the work that goes in,
you know, the discussions and the fruitful discussions we've had with the Forest Service
about all these elements might not occur. But I'll turn it over to staff to answer some
But just one really quick follow-up, Dr. Huckelbridge.
So assuming that we approve this today,
I'd like to hear just the response to these things.
But assuming that we go forward, and I
agree with a lot of the comments that Commissioner Lopez has
made about the importance of this,
but going forward, what will happen?
What would change, given the current situation and review
of our authority?
Like would our authority over this be diminished in any way?
No, I mean, I think if the commission acts,
that action holds.
My understanding is if the rules change
around federal consistency, that would be moving forward.
Okay, that was my question.
And yes, and I completely agree with how important
it was for this current project that's before us.
Vice Chair Hart, if I can just add a little bit
on that point.
There is an important provision in the Federal Consistency Regulations that calls for continuing coordination between our federal agency partners and the state through our coastal management program.
And so there is a there's a genuine open question if you know that that were to unfold in the worst case scenario in our program were to be decertified and would that still be happening.
And I think in that situation, we'd rely on those relationships that we have
with these agencies to continue that coordination.
But it is something that we find troubling and are concerned about.
And with that, I'll turn it over to my staff to respond
to the specific questions you had about those other items.
Yes, so to speak to your questions about ESHA and state-listed species,
we did address this issue in the addendum.
And with the resource protection measures that are in place,
ECHA would be avoided.
Those protection measures include flagging
and avoiding rare species with buffers of 50 feet
in treatment areas.
Additionally, the Forest Service has committed
to using the California, oh goodness,
I'm forgetting the name, the acronym CNDDB,
which shows habitats for state-listed species.
They've also committed to using
more detailed vegetation mapping as that's available
to inform their on the ground surveys
so they can flag and avoid sensitive species.
So although there isn't a resource protection measure
with state listed species listed at the top of it,
those species are covered and they also are,
the other thing to mention is there are a number,
state listed species are also covered under a category
that the Forest Service is looking at on their own
called forest sensitive species.
So they're covered under a number of different categories,
they just don't have a neat label
at the top of a resource protection measure for them.
Could you address the nesting season?
That was something I was particularly concerned about.
Is that in the plan to avoid those periods
or how are they gonna deal with that, if at all?
Yes, there is a resource protection measure
in which the Forest Service describes
an elevation-dependent nesting season.
So there's three different elevation ranges,
each with their own season that's going to be avoided,
to the extent practicable.
Commissioner Lopez, for a motion.
I would move that the Commission concur with consistency
determination, CED0003-26.
And I'm asking for a yes vote.
Second.
Would you like to make a comment, Commissioner Smith?
No, that's fine.
I was just going to second.
Thank you.
OK, that is a motion by Commissioner Lopez,
the second by Commissioner Wilson.
You beat you to it.
I believe that we are all present in person at the moment.
That's correct.
Yeah, Commissioner Escalante had to step aside for a few minutes.
Thank you.
So are there any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Perfect.
Okay.
I think we're going to go to lunch now.
No, people are out.
After lunch.
Yeah, we'll move on.
If everyone could be back five minutes to two, we're going out for lunch today.
thank you. Okay, thank you everyone. Hope you all had a good lunch. We will now return
to session and we will continue with item 11D please. Thank you chair Harmon. That brings
us to item 11D, consideration of reopening and remedial action on a consistency certification
by Ocean Rainforest. Heather McNair is on Zoom to provide the staff presentation on
item. Thank you. Good afternoon Chair Harmon and commissioners. This next item 11D is for the
potential reopening of a 2021 consistency certification for the installation and temporary
operation of a pilot scale kelp farm off of Santa Barbara. If the commission approves reopening we
also have a recommended remedial action for its consideration. This item includes two components,
the recommendation to reopen a previously concurred with consistency certification,
and the requested approval of a proposed remedial action to resolve a condition compliance issue.
Next slide please. Provide some background. The commission conditionally concurred with a
consistency certification by Ocean Rainforest in 2021 to install and operate a limited term
pilot scale kelp aquaculture facility in the federal waters off of Santa Barbara.
The purpose of the project was to evaluate the feasibility of growing kelp in open ocean
waters and to inform the development of a future commercial scale effort at a different location.
The project was proposed to be in place for two years and then to be fully removed. The
Commission found that this full removal was necessary to protect marine wildlife, habitat,
and fisheries and memorialized ocean rainforest commitment to it through condition 11 of its
conditional concurrence. After operating the facility for roughly two years, ocean rainforest
began removing it in 2025. During decommissioning, all of the kelp grow lines, buoys, moorings,
and grow line anchors were successfully removed. However, during the recovery of the facility's
four corner marker buoys, two of their anchor sets, as seen in this image, were found to be
embedded more than expected, and were left behind when the lines being used to lift them up.
Ocean rainforest has made multiple efforts to recover these anchors from the seafloor,
as they will further describe in their presentation, but have not been successful.
The continued presence of the anchors on the seafloor poses a risk to bottom contact fishing
gear, such as that used in the halovit trawl fishery, and is inconsistent with both ocean
rainforest project and the requirement of condition 11 for the complete removal of
of the aquaculture facility, including all of its anchors.
Next slide, please.
Under the Coastal Zone Management Act's
federal consistency regulations,
state agencies are to monitor federally permitted activities
in order to make certain that such activities
continue to conform to state requirements.
We often refer to this as a re-opener provision.
It further establishes that the state may request
an applicant take remedial action
if the project was previously determined
be consistent with the state's management program, but is later being conducted or is having an
effect on any coastal use or resource substantially different than originally described, and as a
result is no longer consistent with the management program. Effectively, this establishes a two-part
test for the commission to proceed. The first of these tests is whether the project is being
conducted or is having an effect on any coastal use or resource substantially different than
originally described. The second test is, as a result of those substantial differences,
is the project no longer consistent with the management program?
Commission staff recommends that the Commission find that both of these tests have been met in
this current situation. Under the first test, Ocean Rainforest's failure to adhere to its
originally proposed project and comply with the conditions of the Commission's concurrence
by not fully removing its facility means that it is being conducted substantially different than
originally described. Next slide please. Under the second test the abandonment of
the anchor blocks on the seafloor means that the project is no longer consistent with a California
Coastal Management Program. Specifically those policies focused on protection of commercial
fisheries and fill of coastal waters. Commission staff has reviewed and received information
directly from commercial fishermen that the presence of the anchors will cause the project
area to continue to be unusable for certain types of bottom contact fisheries,
such as trawling, due to concerns about gear loss and damage. This adverse impact to fishing
was expected to be temporary under Ocean Rainforest's original project,
when it would now be permanent. Similarly, the Commission based its finding on the project's
consistency with the CCMP fill fault policy on Ocean Rainforest's commitment to fully remove
and the adherence with Condition 11. Next slide, please. To resolve these instant
sistencies with the CCMP, Ocean Rainforest worked with local fishing industry representatives
and commissioned staff to develop a fishermen-led marine debris removal program that could be
implemented as a remedial action. This remediation plan would fund local fishermen to attempt to
recover or, if recovery is not successful, relocate the anchors to an area already
avoided by the trawl fishing industry due to existing snag hazards. If both recovery and
relocation are unsuccessful, the plan provides for funds to be directed to the removal of other
marine debris and man-made fishing obstructions within the Santa Barbecue. Next slide please.
To help ensure these actions are taken, $14,000 of the surety funds required under condition 10
of the consistency certification would be retained until confirmation of successful
removal of the block anchors for an equivalent weight of other marine debris. The remainder
of the Shirdi funds, $105,000, would be returned to Ocean Rainforest upon execution of a final
agreement between Ocean Rainforest and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations.
Next slide, please. Staff recommend that the commission find the project is being conducted
and having effects substantially different than originally described,
and that as a result the project is inconsistent with the enforceable policies of the California
Coastal Management Board. Staff also recommend that the Commission authorize staff to request
Ocean Rainforest implement the remedial actions it has proposed to address the project's
inconsistencies and resolve its condition compliance issues. I would like to note that
an addendum was posted yesterday that incorporates findings on consistency with the coastal fill
policy. The motion is on page five of the staff report and this concludes the
staff presentation. Okay, thank you very much. Any ex partes? Okay, same none. We
will turn to the applicant. We have a Cara Wallace in person here. Good
afternoon commissioners and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today as
the applicant. My name is Cara Wallace. I'm the regulatory and engagement lead.
Excuse me, just one sec. How much time would you need? About six minutes I think.
Thank you. Thank you. I'm the regulatory and engagement lead with Ocean
Rainforest. I appreciate the time you've taken to review our proposal and I
appreciate the helpful engagement from Commissioned staff throughout this
process. Today I'll just do a very brief overview of the efforts that we've
undertaken to try and locate and remove these blocks, and I'll try to remain
brief to keep things moving along. Next slide please. So just again kind of a
recap this was an issue with two of our corner marker buoys they mark the extent
of the full permanent area they were not part of the actual cultivation
infrastructure you can see in that red circle that is one of the concrete
blocks they're about the dimensions of two feet by two feet by one foot and so
unfortunately two of those sets of blocks remain at the seafloor due to the
line snapping upon retrieval. These are the blocks that we are discussing today.
Next slide, please. And so our recovery efforts began with surface-based
dragging operations, so dragging a grappling hook over the area that the
blocks were presumed to be with the hope of intercepting any of the chain or
connection material associated with the pairs. If you click one more time, please.
and once more, thank you.
So the goal was to intercept any of that exposed gear
to hopefully pull the blocks to the surface.
You can see the graphs on the right show the GPS tracks
of the grappling hooks that we dragged
over the presumed location.
Unfortunately we did not intercept any of that gear
and were unable to pull it to the surface.
Next slide please.
So following that, we did a series of ROV surveys
to try and get a better visual on the blocks themselves
to see if we were surveying the right area.
We collaborated with Blue Robotics.
We did two types of seafloor surveys,
if you click twice please.
First was a 360 degree acoustic coverage,
so the ROV looks 360 degrees around it.
While in motion, the second OmniScan 450
provides forward motion acoustic imagery.
And both of those were done with blue robotics experts
in the ROV field, next slide please.
Unfortunately, either the Ping 360 or the OmniScan
did not locate anything that was consistent
with the blocks themselves, if you click once more please.
So unfortunately, those ROV scans
did not give us any more information
on whether the blocks were in that exact location
or how submerged they may or may not have been.
Next slide please.
So following that, we did another survey.
This was called a side scan sonar survey.
This was done with Dr. Nick Nitzico of UCSB,
just to try and better characterize
if they are in a different location,
where might that be, if you click once more.
During that survey, we did identify one potential target
that was about 50 meters away
from the original assumed location.
So following that, we did another grappling effort
where we dragged over the surface the grappling hooks
to try and intercept in that potential new location,
that was unfortunately unsuccessful as well.
Next slide.
And so this is just a summary of all of the individual
actions that we've taken to try to recover these blocks.
It includes, I think that's 13 individual days
of grappling for the gear along with three individual days
of the various ROV surveys that we've done at this point.
So that's just a summary of the recovery efforts
in the report itself.
there's more information on those efforts.
And I think with that, I will conclude the presentation.
I think I have one more slide.
Click, please.
Oh, there is one more slide information
about summary of outreach efforts.
If you click two more times, please.
We had a public webinar that was welcomed
to all participants to discuss how decommissioning went,
the results of the project,
and the status of those blocks that remain on the sea floor.
That was attended by over 130 attendees live
with over 200 views on YouTube.
We also had several discussions with the commercial fishermen
of Santa Barbara board at their meetings
back in February and May,
as well as distribution of one page summary
of the details of the blocks,
including location, size, other information,
to distribute to their larger networks
so that they're aware of the issue.
And click one more time, please.
Yep, and with that, I'll conclude my brief presentation.
I want to thank you again for the time to present.
Ocean Rainforest remains fully committed
to resolving this matter responsibly.
We recognize the importance
of addressing these remaining blocks
and we pursued every feasible recovery option possible.
And we collaborated with commission staff
in order to come up with this mitigation proposal.
We appreciate the staff's consideration
and the collaborative approach again
that the staff have taken with us throughout this process.
So thank you for your time
and myself and our Director of Operations, Doug Bush,
are happy to take questions if you have any.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, we will turn to you, Simone, for public comment.
Thank you much.
So we have four individuals on site who would like to speak.
We have Manuel Gorgita, Manny Gorgita, and Gary Burke.
First up, Manuel Gorgita.
Could you please press the button, sir?
Press the button.
There we are.
We're on.
Anyway, my name is Manuel Gorgita.
I'm here on behalf of the Southern California
Traulerman's Association, which I have been a proud member
for many, many, many years.
The whole problem with this thing is it's like we said before.
They brought stuff.
They put it in the bottom of the ocean.
They did not retrieve it all.
They didn't send us anything until after people started
talking, and they found out that we found out that they left blocks with chains and ropes,
just like we thought they were going to do. There's a thing called Eckelmar Muscle Farm.
It got left out there in the bottom of the ocean, too, and it's been out there for 40 years and
nobody's ever done anything because the gentleman that owned it died. I'm here to tell you that
They brought the fisherman's association in to talk about it.
But they never did bring a dragger's association in
to talk about any of this stuff.
This stuff is laying on the bottom of the ocean.
We get it.
They didn't bring in anybody that had any kind of experience
in retrieving any of this stuff off the bottom of the ocean.
They probably used a grappling hook about as big
as this little table right here in front of me.
They probably didn't put no chain.
They probably just used all rope.
It's a lot of variables if they would have somebody with experience that knows exactly what they were doing
They would have got it right off the bat. I
Lost the dragnet out on the bottom and I went back the next day. I got it right back
So anyway, this is the story and I'm totally against the rainforest thing because that's what's gonna happen
They're gonna leave junk on the bottom and we're catch it. Thank you. Have a wonderful day
Thank you. Mr. Gorgita next up. We have Manny Gorgita followed by Gary Burke and then Chris boss
My son doesn't want to talk, but I'm going to tell you.
Sorry, sir.
You've had your time.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to talk for my son.
He walked out.
Apologies.
We'll call him again when the rest of public commentaries.
Good afternoon, Commission.
My name's Gary Burke.
I've been a longtime fisherman in Santa Barbara.
And in my 55 years of commercial fishing,
I see one recurring theme, loss of area.
Through regulations from the fishing game,
legislation, through MPAs, and maybe wind farms are coming
now, and our latest assassin seems
to be aquaculture areas, which brings us to the rainforest.
Small little projects started out,
I think it's 80 acres, 86 acres.
good intentions.
But unfortunately, with that kind of deal,
there's a lot of ground tackle.
And it takes a lot of anchorage.
And ocean is a harsh environment.
And so what happens here, after two years,
they thought they cleaned it up.
Manny's son went through, for the first time,
with their drag nets.
And our nets are legally small.
Probably the width is about the size of your front row here.
He caught a grappling hook, surprisingly.
Maybe 100 feet of inch and a quarter line with a sunken buoy.
And he eventually caught the blocks, which luckily did not destroy his net.
These are heavy and dangerous.
Now those blocks are moved.
So you look at some of these things about mediation, that's good.
But it doesn't cover our loss of the ground.
We lose that area forever, and we've already lost so much area.
And now you're looking at ten times bigger space, possibly off Ventura.
These are problems that when you deal with that, it's going to happen.
And I don't know, we're just going to lose more area.
You're not going to be able to pull it up.
I'm surprised he caught those blocks.
If it was stuck in the mud, it would have stopped his boat.
But he got them up.
He got to see them and visualize them.
So please keep my thoughts and mind going forward.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Burke.
We have Chris Voss, Michael Nelson, and then we'll try Manny Gordita again.
Go ahead, sir.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
My name is Chris Voss and I'm president of the Commercial Fisherman of Santa Barbara.
And I just want to speak in a general way to the points Gary was making about how over
time we've consistently lost area.
When I first started fishing as a young man in Santa Barbara, there were over 20,000 commercial
fishermen in the state, and now there's less than five.
We are insanely well-regulated.
The Council and the Department of Fish and Wildlife do a phenomenal job.
We have the MLMA, and we are now being constrained by repeated efforts to industrialize the marine
environment.
And what will happen is there will be downstream bad effects.
And this loss of gear is just one example of the many things that if we industrialize
the marine environment will affect commercial fisheries long term.
So I'm asking this body and this staff has done a phenomenal job in trying to figure
out a constructive way through a bad situation that we're in right now.
And I praise your staff for the work that they do reaching out to fishermen and fishing
communities when these things arise. But moving forward, I just want to emphasize the need
to recognize that high-functioning commercial fisheries are indicative of a healthy marine
environment. And when we operate in a sustainable way, which we do, in a well-durably regulated
which we are, there's a need to protect our access to the grounds that remain.
And I appeal to this body to make an effort to do that.
And I just want to thank the decision-makers that recognize the need to think about impacts
to commercial and recreational fishers as we consistently pursue shrinking the area
that they have access to.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bass.
Next up we have Michael Nilsson.
Hiya Harburn, members of the Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Michael Nelson.
I serve as a Harbor Commissioner for the City of Santa Barbara, and I'm also an alternate fishing seat member on the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary,
even though I will be speaking today in my personal capacity regarding item 11D.
There are any number of federal and state coastal
and ocean-dependent initiatives that are being pursued
concurrently in the Channel Island Corridor,
if we'll call it that, call it that.
In most cases, they're worthwhile.
They're beneficial and well-intentioned.
But regrettably, it would appear
that they are being evaluated piecemeal, case by case,
in isolation without anyone calculating
the combined impact on our fishing fleet and community.
A federal court in Washington state recently struck down
aquaculture permits issued by the Corps of Engineers
for many of the same reasons that we're discussing today
with this particular enforcement action.
And the judge warned explicitly against a death
by a thousand cuts and the cumulative impacts.
That is exactly what is happening here today,
right now, in Santa Barbara Channel.
Overlapping federal and state initiatives
are simultaneously compressing our sustainable fisheries.
NOAA, Southern Aquaculture Opportunity Aries,
BOAM, Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing,
United States Force, Space Force,
Launch Cadence at Vandenberg,
and of course, the Fish and Game Commission's
Marine Protected Area expansion petitions.
Ocean rainforest appears to be the sixth in that line up.
Coincidentally, the site on which Ocean Rainforest sits today
with its demonstration project was identified
in that aquacultural opportunity area.
And that report basically ignored all of the information
that was provided by the commercial fishermen
of Santa Barbara and found that it was a low-conflict area.
Obviously, what we're talking about today is a conflict.
So please vote yes on the staff's recommendation
to reopen this certification.
But more importantly, use this moment to establish
that no further acre of this ocean will be industrialized
without a holistic cumulative impact assessment,
one that accounts for the combined interactive effects
of all concurrent initiatives on working fishing communities,
not just our individual footprints in isolation.
No single agency is doing that math today.
A commission can require it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Nelson.
It does not look like Manny Gorgita
has made it back into the room.
We do have one individual, Lisa Damrush,
available on Zoom representing Pacific Coast Federation
Fisherman's Association for Questions. No more speakers. Great. Thank you very much. Mr.
Toyful. Thank you, Chair. I turn it over to the manager of the Energy Ocean Resources
and Federal Consistency Program, Joe Street, who I believe is on Zoom to provide some response.
Yes, thank you, Cassidy. I just want to assure the commission that his staff were acutely
aware of this problem of conflict for space and for, you know, loss of fishing areas that
our commenters expressed to us so eloquently. And that's part of the reason that we've pursued
this block recovery with as much, you know, diligence as we did. And I'm going to let
Heather McNair tell you a little bit more about the remedial action that we're recommending.
But before that, I just want to acknowledge both the participation of the commercial fishermen
who you've been hearing it from today and the PCFFA and commercial fishermen of Santa
Barbara who we worked closely with on developing this remedial action.
But I also want to take some time to acknowledge Ocean Rainforest, who brought this issue to
our attention.
It would have been very easy for them to just let it go.
But they brought it to our attention and they've been working cooperatively with us
to try to come up with a solution that will hopefully resolve this space conflict issue.
So I can turn it over to Heather now to describe the remedial action.
Thank you, Joe.
And we'd like to echo that appreciation for the fishermen that we've heard from today.
particular many, Gorgita, who's helped try to figure out what the remedial action should
be for these blocks and how best to address it. To get a little bit more detailed on what
the remedial action includes, the first and priority action is to recover these blocks.
And there would be funds through the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
would go to the Santa Barbara Fisherman's Association to provide funds for local fishermen
to go and retrieve these block anchors. As Manny said, fishermen have this expertise of
working in these waters and using gear and are often able to recover this kind of debris
on the seafloor. So that's our first priority, that these funds that Ocean Rainforest is
providing will be used for the recovery. If that recovery is not possible, the second priority is
to try and snag the blocks and relocate them to a place that's already closed off to trawling
because of existing snag hazards. So like Manny is saying and Chris was saying the ocean is getting
smaller and smaller so if we can co-locate these blocks with somewhere that's already
avoided from the trawlers. That helps create the space again. The third option, if a re-location
is not possible, is to use the funds to recover other marine debris and fishing hazards in the
Santa Barbara channel. So this would likely include lobster pots and lost crab traps in the region
that also affects the trawlers within the Santa Barbara area. And if that is the case,
that third option, it is expected that the equivalent amount in weight of crab traps
or other marine debris would be recovered as these blocks and that would help mitigate
the impact of these blocks remaining on the seafloor. All right, thank you very much. With
That I will return to the Commission questions comments Commissioner Wilson. Yeah, I'm just looking for some clarification
This is about a project but then also about the removal of two blocks, is that what I'm understanding here so
We've had we're receiving comments in relation to a project
That will happen that will be done and no do I have this? Can you help me out? No, this is
This is part of decommissioning of a pilot project that has you you already weighed in on several years ago
The project went in it was decommissioned right as part of the decommissioning these two blocks were not okay
That's why I wanted so I have the clarifying. Okay, so then second clarification
I guess I'm not understanding from a technological perspective
How you're saying if you can't remove them you might be able to move them
Is that what I'm understanding?
Yeah, if I can take a shot at that. So as we heard from the the trawler that spoke
To you all a moment ago
The there's a perspective amongst the the fishermen that they would have a better ability to either remove these or
Relocate them. Well, that's something and indeed they're one of them as we heard the trawler trolled this area after decommissioning and
believes he snagged one of these anchors and
and was able to not recover it fully onto his vessel
because it was straining his equipment too much
and he was concerned about it being damaged.
So instead he left it in the water
and dragged it to another area with a known hazard
that isn't trawled and left it there.
Okay, so this is one of the two.
Correct.
So one of the two is in its original location.
The second one has been moved already to a location
that doesn't necessarily have an impact on trawlable areas.
That's our understanding based on how
that's been described to us by that fisherman.
And so the one that's left is,
they're having trouble finding it?
Is that what I'm understanding?
Or if it can be found,
then it would be either removed or moved.
And you're saying we don't know
whether it will be moved or removed.
It seems like if you can move it,
why couldn't you not remove it?
if you're, if that's your intention, right?
Yeah, I think it comes down to the equipment being used and if it's capable
of actually pulling it completely out of the water column, right.
As soon as it comes, hits the air, it gets a lot heavier, right?
So it's having the right equipment to winches and tackle that can handle
that full recovery and removal onto a vessel.
All right.
All right.
So basically the buoyancy of the water is removed, it gets much heavier.
Okay.
I got it.
Just so I was not, no, it's a little complicated.
Okay, okay, and there are are there other
Items I get in the walk in the water column or down near where that that also are having they're having issues with because
What I heard them say was well, we'll try and remove these things, but then there is these other
I there's this other debris in the water that is
From fishermen. We're not the same kind of fishermen necessarily
but still from a fishing industry that there, that also exists in, in that space
as well, and I guess, hasn't been mitigated for, hasn't been dealt with in
terms of any permitting or anything like that unregulated marine debris from
fishermen. And so part of the mitigation for this is to remove unmitigated
fishing debris. Is that, do I have that right?
Right, exactly. So that's kind of a tiered priority. First off, try to
remove this stuff. Try again. Ocean rainforest, as was described, has tried
extensive efforts to find and remove this stuff. They weren't unsuccessful.
The fishing community feels like it's they can take another shot at it and be
successful. So ocean rainforest is providing funding to allow them to do
that. If they're unsuccessful, if they hit the same challenges that ocean
rainforest did and they are not able to get it and it needs to be abandoned in
place than the fallback option would be removing other marine debris from the
Santa Barbara Channel that's also an impediment to trawling and poses a risk
to marine life to offset that. Because there's no program to remove that marine
debris. Correct. Okay so it would otherwise be left there and so ocean
rainforest is saying okay that's our fallback option we're gonna provide
funding to collect and remove that area with the hopes of opening up fishing
grounds again to use and there's no other natural impediments to trawling in
this area in this particular area no prior to ocean rainforest using it it
was soft substrate seafloor that was open to trolling okay so if it was a
rock we would still want to remove it or no no natural materials are avoided by
the trawlers they have the you know pretty extensive maps that of all those
types of hazards and avoid them and this is the the fact that this was
originally a fishing ground is, is part of the reason why the
commission required in its authorization of the consistency
certification included a condition requiring full removal
of everything when the project was over. So it would just go
back to how it was before.
And if it's not able to be removed, I assume it will be
mapped.
Correct. You've answered all my questions. I really appreciate
thank you so much. It was I read this over on the plane down here
And I was, thanks for filling that in, in, in language, I can understand.
Yeah, absolutely.
There's, there's a couple components to it.
One is the regulatory process.
It's, you know, admittedly a little unique.
We don't often apply these re-opener provisions for federal consistency to
address condition compliance issues like this.
Um, so there's that part of it, which is a little complex.
And then this remediation, um, proposal that we developed hand in hand with the
fish, both the fishermen and ocean rainforest is unique as well.
And I mean, I guess I'm just hoping beyond this that we seek and that the Fisherman's Association seek funding for mitigation for
The other debris that are also in the water that are causing these
Impediments, I think that's it seems to be
Focusing on one industry and not the other it seems like it should be equitable in terms of how we're removing stuff to
Preserve fishing grounds. So that's just editorial, but I'm ready to
Move forward with this and then thanks staff for all their work
I have a couple questions.
First of all, supposedly we know where the blocks, I mean, the coordinates for the blocks
were identified by the fishermen and that needs to be confirmed.
And it sounds to me like if it's determined that it's in an area where there's already
other marine debris, it would be left there, is that the idea?
Or what is the preference of the commission staff, that it be removed even if it's in
that area?
It's a little unclear from the report.
Yeah, so the the blocks itself as was shown on the slides it's a the block itself is a concrete
It's a concrete block right so it doesn't doesn't hit you correct, but they're concrete blocks
So so in and of itself it doesn't pose a risk to marine life
Entanglement or anything like the risk comes more from fishing gear snagging on it which then gets lost which then could snag wildlife
and so
By relocating it to an area of other known hazards that isn't fished with this gear
The hope is that that snag risk entanglement risk would would be resolved and you would be just be left with the loss of fishing
Grounds, which if it's placed in a location that already isn't fish, then you wouldn't have that issue where it may be currently. Correct. Okay, so
Two two follow-up questions question number one is can you talk or can you outline?
What the financial mitigation will be if it's determined which it doesn't seem like it should be too hard to determine that
The blocks are at the GPS coordinates that have been identified that step one is step two
Could you just identify what the future?
Looks like for ocean rainforest
Why in my mind I think it's very important to understand why this is so important to try to get this right at this time
Yeah, so on the financial side ocean rainforest has proposed ten thousand dollars
To support these efforts to remove relocate or offset through removal of other marine debris
If it's in this location and that's confirmed
How would it be confirmed if there's so there's one of them that we have heard anecdotally from the fishermen that is in this
location there's another one that's still at the project site and
So if one of them has indeed been relocated to another area of known hazards
Then the money would go to be focused on the other one that's still at the original site to attempt to remove or relocate that one
Okay, I mean, I just have to say I have another concern about these things being drug along the ocean floor
Wouldn't necessarily be so before as we understand it wasn't drug along the ocean floor
It was raised into the water column and then relocated and then released. Okay, so that's what happened
And then so but your second question about the kind of larger context
I do want to know it and I'm sure Ocean rainforest can speak to this in more detail if you'd like to hear from them
But they do have another proposal that was submitted to us that were actively working on and anticipate bringing forward to this commission in the coming
Months for a commercial scale kelp aquaculture operation and open ocean waters in the Santa Barbara Channel
So this project that we're talking about today was a pilot to see if this worked growing kelp in the open ocean worked if the techniques
worked, etc. It was always planned to be run for about two years and then fully
removed. The intent of that project was to inform the development of a
commercial scale operation, which they have gotten the data back that they were
hoping for and are now pursuing that actively. That would be a roughly 2,000
acre facility about four miles offshore of Oxnard. And that would go
through the federal consistency review process and you would all have an
opportunity to review that. Okay that's great. I mean to me the takeaway is one
of the big takeaways is that the relationship between ocean rainforest
and the fishermen needs to be smoothed out just based on what we witness here
today because I think that collaboration is critical if you're going to move
forward with your future project. It seems like that partnership is essential
that so I mean those are my concerns I'm supportive of staff recommendation on
this Thank You commissioner accurately thank you chair just one file a follow-up
question that might inform future decisions or project scoping either for
ocean rainforest or our staff I'm curious if they're like do we have any
lessons learned of how we might do things differently to not be in the
situation in the future would we change the structure or the mooring lines or
any any lessons learned that will inform us would be helpful. Yes, short answer is
absolutely. So I don't think I can speak for ocean rainforest. Nobody want none of
us want to be in this situation again and they have learned a tremendous amount
through this decommissioning process. I think they as I understand it we're not
expecting the anchors to have embedded into the seafloor to the extent they did and so
the lines that they were using to pull them up snapped and so in the future they'll use a much
more rigorous method to ensure full recovery. It may also inform the type of anchors they use in
the future to make sure that they're more easily removable but those are certainly some lessons
learned I'm sure there are lots of others as well and that was part of the purpose of this pilot
project frankly to if there were you know things mistakes were going to be
made let's make them on a much smaller scale and and use that knowledge to
inform the development of the larger project. Well yes before I turn to
Commissioner Wilson for a motion just briefly I really appreciate Mr. Toyful
where you ended because I think for me that's such an important point that is
why we do pilots and making mistakes on a smaller scale that's really resonated
with me so I appreciate that and I want to align myself with the comments of
Vice Chair Hart and specifically just acknowledge Mr. Voss and Mr. Nelson
obviously I know you from our work in Santa Barbara but you've been such a
great partner to us in Santa Barbara thinking about how the blue economy can
be central to our community and we haven't always agreed 100% we talked
about that earlier Mr. Voss but I do just want to lift up your comments that
the work that you are doing that your fishermen do is so critical to us here
in California and if the relationship can be smooth that's a really good way
to put it and that's very important to me moving forward not only in the
context of any future project here with Ocean Reef Forest but just in all the
work that we do as a Commission up and down the state of California so I wanted
to take the opportunity to recognize both of you and express my appreciation
And I will be supporting staff recommendation today and I'll turn it to Commissioner Wilson for a motion
Thanks and to read now
I understand what the project that fishermen were referring to was something I've not known about and so okay
I understand now what the the context for those comments were so that that makes a lot of sense and
Yeah, this was a pilot project. This is why you do pilot projects
they you you kind of work out the kinks and the mistakes and the things that you
need why you do it on a small scale because imagine if you've done it on a
large scale and we're unable to mitigate for this for this issue or this problem
so I see why that is and I want to echo chair Harmon's comments in relation to
how fishermen have such an extremely important role not just in providing
food for everybody, but also for monitoring these ecosystems,
for advocating in those spaces.
And they monitor in ways that science does its job
and what it does and is very good at that.
The regulatory bodies do what they do as well.
But the people who are really on the ocean day by day,
all the time, can see and feel things
that those systems have a hard time connecting with.
And so it's important that we hear those voices.
So I move that the commission concur
with consistency certification CC-0003-21
that the project described here
and is consistent with the enforceable policies
of the California Management Program.
Is that what, okay.
And I recommend a yes vote.
Excuse me, Commissioner Wilson.
I think that's a different motion for a different project.
Yeah, I'm sorry, Commissioner.
Withdraw that one. Yeah, which one are we so?
11 D
All right
I move that the Commission find that the project carried out under CC dash zero zero zero three dash two one
Which is the one I just mentioned here is being conducted and having effects on coastal uses and resources
Substantially different than the project originally described in CC zero zero zero three dash two one
And that as a result the project is inconsistent with the enforceable policies of the California coastal management program
I further move that the Commission authorized staff to seek the remedial actions
Described herein to address the inconsistencies, and I did that without my glasses
I'll second that that's a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by me. We're asking for a yes vote
I believe Commissioner Escalante is back with us. So may we have a roll call, please? Yes
Commissioner Lee
Yes, Lee. Yes Commissioner Lopez. Yes, Lopez. Yes, Commissioner Loewenberg. Yes, Loewenberg. Yes
Commissioner Smith. Yes, Smith. Yes, Commissioner Presiado
Presiado is out
Commissioner Wilson
Yes
Wilson. Yes, Commissioner O'Malley. Yes
O'Malley yes, Commissioner Escalante. Yes Escalante. Yes Commissioner Hart. Yes Hart. Yes, Commissioner Jackson. All right
Jackson. Yes, Commissioner Kelly
Yes
Kelly. Yes chair Harmon. Yes, Harmon. Yes, the vote is unanimous. Thank you. The motion carries. Thank you very much
Okay, we will continue on with item 12 the deputy directors report for the south central coast
Thank you, and item 12 is the deputy director's report for our South Central Coast District this month
It includes one permit waiver
One permit extension and one concurrence determination in regard to the certification review being reported today
It's for an LCP amendment by the city of Ventura to add a new ordinance regulating short-term visitor rentals
The city's amendment was previously approved by the Commission at our March meeting and the executive director has determined that the law
local government's subsequent action accepting all of the commission's suggested modifications,
pursuant to a resolution, is legally adequate and that this amendment will become certified
upon being reported to the commission today. This matter is being reported pursuant to
our regulations and it itself does not require any additional action by us today. Staff is
not aware of any opposition to any of the other items being reported and we're asking
Whether three or more commissioners object to any of the items for which action is needed today in the deputy director's report
I am available for questions. Thank you very much any ex partes
Any public comments? No public comment. Thank you to three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors report
Seeing no such objection, but Commission concurs. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And that brings us to item 13
Which is the deputy director's report for the South Coast district and this month that includes four permit waivers
three permit extensions and one immaterial amendment to a permit in
addition
We received objections from four members of the public in regard to one of the immaterial permit extensions being reported today
And that's for CDP application five dash nineteen dash zero nine eight four
That's the application by NXT to shutters prop Co LLC and that was for the one-year extension of the
authorization period for a mixed use
residential project in Santa Monica
Because the objections were received within our 10-day period for public comment after the deputy directors report was published
This item will be brought back at a future hearing
likely next month in August for action by the commission
with additional information to address the issues raised
in the objections.
Staff is not aware of any opposition
to any of the other items being reported,
and we're asking whether three or more commissioners object
to any of the items in the deputy director's report.
Staff is available for questions, thank you.
Thank you.
Any ex partes and any public comments?
There's one individual available for questions.
That's it.
Great.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Sorry, I was just reading along.
When you did the numbers, I think
you said 8-4 in shutters.
Is it 8-3 in shutters?
Or which one of these was, what are you talking about?
All right, thank you.
There are two related CDP applications.
And I would just note that you're probably
remembering that in previous years,
we've had opposition to both extensions
for both of the two numbers that you just mentioned.
This year the four objections are only for 5-19-0984.
No objections have been received for 0983 yet,
but the objection period does run through this Friday.
So we'll provide an update next month
on whether both extensions will come back
before the commission or for sure.
The 0984 application will come back before you next month.
Okay, which is beach.
Thank you, I appreciate the clarification.
With that, do three or more commissioners object
to any item in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Okay, so I think that that brings us
to approval of the minutes, I think.
All right, that does require a motion, if anyone.
Move to approve.
Thank you, that's a motion by Commissioner Kelly,
second by vice chair heart to approve the minutes from the
June in December December. Thank you June and December meetings. May we have a roll call vote, please Chris
Yes, Commissioner Lopez
Yes
Lopez. Yes, Commissioner
Lowenberg
Lowenberg. Yes, Commissioner Smith. Yes, Smith. Yes, Commissioner. Press the auto
Yes, press the auto. Yes, Commissioner Wilson
Yes, Wilson. Yes commissioner O'Malley. Yes O'Malley. Yes
commissioner Escalante
Yes
Escalante. Yes, Commissioner Hart. Yes
Hart. Yes, Commissioner Jackson. Hi Jackson. Yes, Commissioner Kelly. Yes, Kelly. Yes, Commissioner Lee. Yes
Yes, chair Harmon. Yes
Yes, Harmon. Yes, the vote is unanimous. Great. Thank you. The motion carries. Okay with that
we are done with the
public portion of today and let's all come back in five minutes or as much as we need for closed session. Thank you