okay good morning everyone all right we will call this meeting of the August
Coastal Commission meeting to order thank you very much for being here and
we'll begin with a roll call please. Commissioner O'Malley? Present. Commissioner Hart?
Present. Commissioner Jackson? Present. Commissioner Kelly? Present. Commissioner
Lopez commissioner Kalmyk present Commissioner not off present
Commissioner Presiado present Commissioner Wilson and to count it for
Commissioner Almanzada present Commissioner Williams here and then I
think on zoom we have Commissioner Brownfield yeah here
Chair Harmon here and we have a quorum great thank you very much and we will
now go to the virtual meeting procedures please good morning this Coastal
Commission meeting is occurring both in person and through zoom this meeting is
also being webcast and can be viewed online at Cal-SPAN.org if you have
internet access and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak
on an item we recommend you use the Cal dash span website.
Those who wish to address the commission today can do so in person through the Zoom platform
or by phone.
The speaker request forms may be found on the commission's webpage.
Paper forms and a scanable QR code for paperless submittal are available on the commission
staff table just outside the meeting room.
For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the Commission's agenda
webpage which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking during general public comment may be given up to two minutes
to speak at the discretion of the Chair.
Requests to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted after
9 a.m. on each day of the meeting.
In order to provide the opportunity for the broadest range of public participation, you
may speak on a specific topic one time only each month.
Those speaking on an agenda item
that is not general public comment
are typically allowed two to three minutes
to speak at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept requests to speak on a regular agenda item
up until the chair opens the hearing
on that particular item.
If you have internet access,
please go to the commission's webpage
and click on the link to fill out a speaker request.
If you do not have internet access
or prefer to testify by phone,
please call the commission staff at 562-477-9089.
Again, that number is 562-477-9089.
Staff will provide you with a telephone call
and number and instructions for how to participate
and provide testimony by phone.
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting
through a meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address the Commission,
the organizer will invite you to turn on your video
and microphone or provide instructions
on how to unmute the phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedures.
Great, thank you very much.
Okay, and now I will go to you Mr. Carl
for agenda changes please.
Yes, thank you Chair Harmon
and welcome commissioners to Scotts Valley.
The posted agenda changes memo is still accurate.
They're all told there are 11 agenda changes for today
and there's all are being moved to consent.
So I'll walk through those.
Item 11A, the Noyo Harbor District CDP application
for pile replacements in Fort Bragg, moved to consent.
Item 11B, this is the Eureka Ready Mix CDP application
for seasonal aggregate extraction
on the Lower Eel River in Humboldt County.
That one's also moved to consent.
Item 11C, this is the Rock CDP application
for seasonal extraction of aggregate as well
on the lower Van Dusen River in Humboldt County,
that one's moved to consent.
Item 11D, this is the Mercer and Fraser Company
CDP application, also for seasonal extraction of aggregate
on the lower Eel River in Humboldt County.
Move to consent.
Item 11E, this is the Palmer Resources Company
CDP application also for seasonal extraction of aggregate
on the lower Eel River in Humboldt County.
Also move to consent.
Item 13A, this is the San Mateo County LCP Amendment
for its protected tree ordinance.
That's also moved to consent.
Item 14A, this is the McCoy CDP application
for a single-family residence in Marshall and Marin County.
That one's moved to consent.
Item 16A, this is the City of Capitola LCP Amendment
for some ADU and multifamily changes.
That's moved to consent.
Item 16 B also a city of Capitola LCP amendment. This one's related to their Capitola mall. That's moved to consent
item 17 be
This is the 1307 West Cliff Drive
application related to reduced scale armoring in Santa Cruz. Let's move to consent and
Item 17 C which is the winter CDP application for a 26 unit hotel in Cambria. That's also moved to consent
I'd also note while not listed on the agenda changes memo. There's no enforcement report today
So we'll skip over item 9 when we get to that one and that concludes the agenda changes for today
Great. Thank you very much. And with that I will turn it back to you Galen for public comment. Thank you
Thank you for members of the public
I will be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and invite you to speak when it is your turn
Each speaker will be allowed two minutes during general public comment at the discretion of the chair
In order to allow for a live video testimony on Zoom,
we will be bringing you in as panelists.
As we bring you in, your Zoom will reload.
This may take a moment.
To speed up this process,
we will bring several people in at a time.
But please remain muted and keep your video off
until we ask you to speak.
After your time is up, you will be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room,
I will call your names and the order that they appear
on our sign up list.
When you hear your name,
please line up behind the podium
and introduce yourself when you approach to speak.
There is a raise hand function
that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio,
you can raise your hand by dialing star nine.
If you are participating by Zoom,
you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item
and are able to do so,
please raise your hand now.
When it is your time to speak,
we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six.
First up, we have Jim Rurka in the room
followed by Charles Varney and Anis Azad on Zoom.
Jim.
Good morning, Madam Chair and commission members.
My name is Jim Rorke.
I reside in Carmel.
I am a community member of the Parkett Steering Committee, and I'm here to ask for your support
of their coastal development permit for Point Lobos.
I've been a Point Lobos docent for 12 years, and that experience informs my conviction
that this project will help provide safer,
and more equitable visitor access to Point Lobos.
Because what we have today is simply not safe
or equitable access.
The limited parking regularly fills up by the mid morning,
forcing hundreds of cars with disappointed occupants
onto the shoulder of Highway One.
This makeshift, chaotic parking zone
filled with jockeying cars means there's
no truly safe route for pedestrians
to the reserve entrance.
Every day, visitors suddenly, forced to become pedestrians,
must walk long distances, very near Highway 1 traffic,
just to reach the reserve entrance.
This issue of safe access is bad enough,
but what is not fully appreciated,
and it's something I see daily,
is the resulting decline in the quality
of the Point Lobos visitor experience
and the degradation of the reserves,
natural resources, and infrastructure.
We get tired visitors at the entrance,
surges of visitors during most popular periods,
overwhelming our interpretive resources,
crowding trails, making lines at the restrooms,
and doing more off-trail selfie-seeking behaviors.
It's still a very beautiful place, Point Lobos.
Don't get me wrong.
It's just not a longer serene.
A near-term improvement to both problems
is the park project, which includes a timed entry
reservation system, remote parking, and a shuttle service
that will connect visitors safely, directly to the coast.
I ask for your support.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Rucker.
Next up on Zoom we have Charles Varney,
Anis Azad and Sarah Stone Sihas.
Mr. Varney, go ahead when you can.
Mr. Varney, can you hear us?
Can you hear me now?
We can hear you now, please go ahead.
Thank you, sorry.
Charles Varney, chair of San Luis Obispo Surf Rider.
I've got three quick news items for you.
First is the Dune Alliance, which was formed in 2019
to support the phasing out of motor vehicles
from the beaches and dunes south of Oceano
is up and running again.
Our goals remain the same
with an enhanced attention to environmental justice.
Our organization includes
the Center for Biological Diversity,
the Surf Rider Foundation, Sierra Club,
Northern Chumash Tribal Council,
San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper,
Oceano Beach Community Association, and others.
and we're meeting monthly and developing strategies
to achieve our goal.
The South County Water Agency
is submitting a preliminary draft plan
for a desalination project
to the US Bureau of Reclamation.
I have provided, this is in the very early stages
and I provided relevant documents
to the Coastal Commission staff.
In the plan, five coastal areas are designated as finalists
with Oceano having the most favorable metrics.
The costs are estimated at 500 million construction,
44 million annual operation and maintenance
and an acre foot of produced water costing $10,000.
Third, just learned this a couple of weeks ago,
Phillips 66 has taken its closed Napomo refinery property
off of the real estate market.
Its current plan is to remain owners through the decommissioning and remediation process
and then review various options.
And this will include consultation with local groups and stakeholders.
Again, thank you, and Serp Rider and Oceano greatly appreciates the work
of the California Coastal Commission.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Varney.
Next up moving on to Anith Azad followed by Sarah Stone-Sihas and then Dan Stegek.
Mr. Azad, please go ahead.
Mr. Azad, can you hear us?
All right, we'll come back.
We're going to move on to Sarah Stone-Sihas, Miss Sihas, or pardon me, Miss Stone-Sihas.
Please go ahead.
Yes, good morning.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Yes, I'm a resident of Carmoth Islands.
Good morning.
I want to begin by saying something very clearly.
I strongly support universal public access to Point Lobos.
I love going there myself,
and I want everyone to have the opportunity
to experience this extraordinary place.
But I believe we are asking the wrong question
when we frame this as access versus safety.
Public safety must be consistent with public,
public access must be consistent with public safety,
and access must be managed responsibly
based on the site's capacity and intensity of use.
At Point Lobos, they shared numbers with us
that 4,000 to 5,000 visitors arrive daily,
and Point Lobos currently has 150
designating parking spaces.
When those spaces fill up, often within minutes,
the overflow moves to Highway 1.
We see cars parking illegally, extending into traveling,
stopping abruptly, making dangerous U-turns,
causing unsafe pedestrian accidents
and frequent car accidents.
We see pedestrians forced to walk along Highway 1
almost within inches of moving traffic.
This is not meaningful public access.
It's unmanaged access and it's putting the public at risk.
We also need to remember that Highway 1 itself
is part of the public access system.
It serves the visitors, residents, cyclists, pedestrians
and especially more importantly, emergency responders.
Highway 1 Point Lobos corridor has become dangerous.
We haven't maximized coastal access, we've undermined it.
I'm not asking for less access.
I'm asking for safer, sustainable
and responsible managed access.
Because one person's access should never become
another person's safety hazard.
And then legal and illegal and unsafe parking
along Highway 1 should not be the mechanism
by which we provide public access to Point Lobos.
We have a better alternative,
allowing visitors to park safely away from Highway 1
and be transported to Point Lobos.
That is why I support Parkit program
and I am respectfully asking this commission
to support it as well.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We're gonna go back to Anise Azad, Mr. Azad,
if you can hear us, please go ahead.
Mr. Azad will you see you as a participant?
Okay, we'll come back.
Gonna move on to Dan Steging.
Dan, please go ahead.
Thank you.
Can you hear me?
We can, please go ahead.
Excellent, thank you commissioners.
I wanted to speak for a couple minutes about the disaster
of the city's management of Lindemar Beach,
which is Pacifica State Beach.
There was a group of unhoused people that were there
for a large period of time and a couple of weeks ago,
and I was counting between 17 and 21 vehicles every morning
that had been somewhere else before.
The county was essentially sending them to this beach.
And when they shut that beach, they all moved.
There was no services, no clean water, no showers.
whenever a company came to do an event there,
with 30 people, they would add porta-potties,
but all those were gone
when you had this local homeless population,
and it was just a fourth world country at best there.
Well, they've all moved 500 feet across the street
into the county's leased SAM trans lot
that they leased from Caltrans.
Again, there's no services, no running water,
no showers or anything.
You've got just people living in absurd conditions.
They're lighting campfires in the parking lot,
running generators and compressors all night.
I do have some people that, people can't float in air.
They have to live somewhere, but wherever they are,
there has to be services for them.
The city and the county cannot simply ignore them
and put them under neighbors or neighborhood
and offer no humanitarian services at all.
No running water, no lights, no power.
It's wherever they are where they're on the beach
or in the same trans lot,
they have to do some services for these people.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Stigink.
We're gonna try Mr. Azad again.
Looks like you should be able to unmute and go ahead.
Mr. Azad, please go ahead and unmute on Zoom.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you now.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
I'll start.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Can you hear me?
Yes, sir.
Okay, sorry about that.
In the 1980s, there was a 100-bed motel
that was proposing land next to our development.
This proposal failed on grounds that the water scarcity
for the whole area is reliant on underground water.
The current vacation rental volume has completely reversed
the judicial application of the law.
According to the Mendocino LCP,
this area is noted as a water critical area.
of the 40 properties, 20 of the properties
are now vacation rentals.
Each sit conspicuously with a 1200 gallon water tank,
which were non-existent prior to this rental tsunami.
These are commercial operations with housekeeping
and other service professionals visiting after each stay.
They pay TOT and they operate as permitted hotels, okay?
And then on the 4th of July, the house in front of us,
rental had 18 cars averaging four-page passengers per car.
When I filed complaint when the county,
they said they could not address the water issues because these are
single-family homes and not commercial operations as evidenced by usage.
To which I say if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck.
This is a dilemma for us.
I'm requesting the Coastal Commission to initiate a process
where the rentals are limited.
Can you help me with that?
Thank you.
Thank you.
We're gonna move on to Chaylee Hilkema,
followed by George Hilkema, and then Mr. Gwynn DeAmaral.
Chaylee, please go ahead.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Chaylee Hilkema,
and I'm a Newport mooring permit holder.
The city of Newport Beach has unfairly mismanaged
the tight lands for decades.
Mooring permit holders haven't enjoyed
the financial favoritism that the city gives
to those users with well-connected advocates.
Instead, we've been overcharged, highly regulated,
and strictly monitored.
The city's divisiveness has put us on the defensive.
Its mooring policy processes haven't been transparent,
related policies have been changed erratically,
and consequential decisions were made
without adequate stakeholder notice or input.
Our concerns greatly intensified when we learned
that the city wants to raise only our fees,
three to 500% and only our permit transferability
and take our mooring permits without compensating us.
The lack of policy continuity has caused members
of our user group to feel a sense of instability
about their place in the Harbor.
Less than two months after our Harbor Master assured us
that our mooring permits would remain transferable,
our harbor code was altered to end the transfer permits
that were purchased after July 13th, 2023.
Regulation 17.60.040E was a stealth offensive action
in more ways than one that essentially sunk our ability
to recoup in good faith some of what we paid
for our permits and mooring tackle maintenance.
It also threatens our ability to sell our boats
because if boaters don't have affordable space
to store their boats, harbor access will end
for those of moderate means.
Recreational boating is a protected use
under the public trust and the Coastal Act calls
for protection of recreational boating harbor space.
We're asking this commission to protect harbor access for us,
but more importantly, for generations of boaters to come.
Please support fair policy
for all Newport Harbor recreational tide lands permit holders.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Hilkema.
And Mr. Hilkema, your next up, if you'd like to go ahead.
My name is George Hilkema.
I'm a mooring permit holder, and I've
had my sailboat on a mooring in Newport Harbor for 40 years.
I've been a board member of the Newport Mooring Association
for 35 years, and frankly, it's getting
harder to find new ways to describe the city's unfair
tired lands management.
It appears to me that the city's threat
to end mooring transferability is being touted
as a way to right a perceived wrong.
A comment made in the State Lands Commission staff report,
105, that the transfer of mooring permits, quote,
may violate, unquote, state law has been taken as fact.
But it suggests to me that transferability
may not violate state law.
Other like users in the harbor haven't been subjected
to the same end of permit transferability threat.
And I know that voters in other parts of California,
like those in nearby Catalina, transfer mooring permits.
If the city's intention is to protect public interest,
why would it continue to allow
residential peer permit transfers,
which generates far more private value
than mooring permit transfers?
And on a side note,
why would it continue to allow those
with residential beer permits to rent dock space
for their financial gain,
which can amount to many thousands of dollars
of private property per year.
Is the city really concerned
about private monetization of tight lands?
The city's policies are unfair and biased
against mooring permit holders.
Its policy choices have burdened our user group for decades
and the harbor has become further gentrified.
It is by hope that this commission recognizes
that the city's recent efforts
to change long established harbor policy
by arbitrarily ending only mooring permit transferability
is not only indefensible, it is discriminatory.
Thank you for your good work.
We wish we were talking about more important things.
Thank you both.
Next up, we're gonna move on to Mr. Gwen DeEmaral.
Then we have Meredith Entsminger,
followed by Julia M. Raposa.
Mr. Gwen DeAmeral, please go ahead.
Good morning.
You can hear me correct?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you.
My name is Gwen DeAmeral
and my great grandfather was actually a whaler
at Point Lobos, said this place
holds a very special place in my life.
However, the access and the need and safety responsibility
is now at a standstill.
Personally, as the park's popularity has risen,
I've seen parking lots close more and more in Point Lobos,
but when that happens,
it isn't the park that absorbs the chaos
of these excess cars.
It's the Highway 1 corridor that experiences it,
day after day, encroaching into Carmel Highlands.
This affects everyone, tourists driving through
and the residents who live south of Point Lobos.
The overflow is no longer a minor inconvenience.
When the park lots close,
hundreds of cars now on both sides of Highway 1.
Most recently, this overflow has extended
into the Highlands itself and even onto our private roads,
with vehicles parking along the community's roads,
creating greater intensification on the Highway 1
and safety hazards for visitors walking in and out
of the shoulder of the road.
This creates a serious fire risk as well,
as many of these cars are parking in the dry brush
along the eastern side of Highway 1 towards Gibson Creek.
A single spark from a hot exhaust system
or Cadillac converter in the brush during our dry season
could ignite a fire with devastating consequences.
I would ask the Coastal Commission to support also
the installation of electric dynamic messaging signage
along the Highway 1 near Point Lobos
activated during weekends and peak holidays
to alert drivers in real time
when Point Lobos lot has reached capacity
and to warrant of the fines for illegal parking.
This would serve as both practical traffic management tool
and reducing the number of vehicles searching for spaces.
While I recognize this signage may not fall directly
under the Coast Commission's purview,
I would like the Commission's support
to encourage those agencies involved
to work collaboratively to have it resolved soon
so we can get this signage on Highway 1,
especially on weekends and holidays.
For this reason, I also respect you
to support the parking initiative
that will be sentenced for your service.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We're going to move on to Meredith Insminger,
followed by Julia M. Rapoza and then Steve Scheiblauer.
Ms. Insminger.
Wait, can you hear me okay?
Yes, we can.
Please go ahead.
Perfect.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Meredith Insminger.
I'm a fifth generation Californian,
and my family's called Dana Point Home
for the past 39 years.
I care deeply about the community
and the future of the Dana Point Harbor.
I'm here today because the Dana Point Harbor
is public trust property in 1961 the state of California granted these tied and submerged
lands to Orange County in trust to be administered for public purposes that include navigation
recreation and public access that is especially important today because Orange County and the
harbor developers are discussing new lease arrangement that could shape the harbor for
decades we have an opportunity right now to protect recreational boating access
for those term before those terms are finalized voters understand that rebuilding and maintaining
harbor costs money we are not asking for slip fees to be frozen we understand reasonable
increases are necessary what we're asking for is meaningful slip fee stabilization in the new lease
a fair predictable method for determining rates reasonable limits on increases transparency
transparency, adequate notice, and protection against excessive increases. I would also like
to ask the commission in Orange County to look at comparable public trust harbors as well.
A private operator may manage Dana Point Harbor, but the underlying land remains public trust lands.
Delegating operation does not eliminate the county's public trust responsibilities.
If slip fees simply rise to whatever the market will bear,
ordinary recreational boaters can gradually be priced out of the public harbor.
So my request is simple. Please encourage Orange County to include meaningful slip
fee stabilization and transparency protections in the new long-term lease and consider compare
the data point must remain financially stable but also it remains accessible to the public.
it was entrusted to serve. Thank you. Thank you. Next up we have Julia M. Raposa and then Steve
Shieblauer. Ms. Raposa, please go ahead. Hi, are you able to forward my slideshow so that it'll
play in the background while I speak? Yes, it sure will. Just guard it.
Okay, my name is Julia Raposa and I'm representing the newly formed San Mateo County
Homeless Union and Pacifica Branch. I'm here to talk about the emergency at Lindemar Beach and call attention to the fact that there's very important things that
Can you I noticed that the slides not advancing can you advance and advance one more?
one more
Okay, I'm here to talk about
The crimes that are happening at Lindemar Beach
What it's very important and notable that they've just been listed as crimes rather than crimes against the homeless
Please forward the slide
Please forward the slide as you can see this vehicle's been tagged with catch-up
please forward the slide
forward the slide
forward the slide and
Then please forward that slide and keep just kind of keep going every couple of seconds the
RV dwellers have been subjected to repeated vandalism, and the vandalism has escalated
to throwing, even items, they've been shot with paintballs, BB guns, and even in one
instance a vehicle, an RV dweller was shot in the back with BB guns. They found the youth
that did this, the juveniles, and the vehicle dweller was so compassionate he didn't want
to ruin a young person's life as long as they didn't do it again and did not press charges.
But as you can see, this has been going on for three or four years. If you think the RVs are an
eyesore, it doesn't help that they are permitted to be continually vandalized. An RV dweller called
the police to make a report about eggs being thrown in their vehicle and paint saying,
gay pride painted on their windows and having traffic cones thrown at him and the police
instead returned and gave him a ticket for an out-of-state license plate.
Retaliation has to stop and we need it recognized for what it is, hate crimes.
Most of the vehicle dwellers that are being targeted are people of color.
Thank you.
We're going to move on to Steve Scheiblauer please go ahead.
Thank you.
Chair Harmon and commissioners, my name is Steve Scheiblauer and I am the board chair
of the Monterey Bay Fisheries Trust.
We are a nonprofit organization which supports commercial fisheries working to ensure that
locally-caused seafood goes to local tables, including providing seafood to regional food
banks.
The Trust supports the Commission in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, which protects fisheries
and fisheries infrastructure.
We have written to NOAA, supporting the Commission's work and expressing deep concern about the
timing and nature of NOAA's review of California's Coastal Consistency Program.
A copy of the trust letter to NOAA has been provided to the Commission.
I also want to inform you that the Trust, with grant support, has commissioned a report
for the fishing industry, which lays out the issue that fishermen have confronted from
oil and gas development, and now the new threat from deep sea mining.
The report provides information about how the industry concerns can be directed to be
most effective.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have two speakers that we haven't been able to find, so if you can hear me, please
go ahead and raise your hand.
We have John, no last name.
And we have Pamela Alejandra Galas Valdez.
So if either of you can hear me, please raise your hand.
Seeing no one, there are no more speakers.
Madam Chair.
Great, thank you very much.
Okay, thanks to the public for your testimony.
I'll return to the commission,
see if there are any comments or questions.
Commissioner Nada.
I just want to thank the public for their comments and just flag that I appreciate the ongoing concern about the public use at Point Lobos.
Those of you who've been on the commission for a while have heard me talk about my concern there for public safety and how do we balance that with access.
So I appreciate the public's concern about that,
and it's not in front of us right now,
but we'll be looking at it carefully when it is.
All right, great, Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, I would just echo the comments
of Commissioner Nodoff and Cher
that I look forward to the day
when a proposal comes forward,
just that actually brings us a solution,
and I know that Parkit is very close.
And so I'm looking forward to them actually submitting
and getting us something that we can dig our teeth into,
and I know we'll go back and forth
and negotiate something that works for everybody.
But I'm looking forward to that happening,
both at the county level,
but especially here at the commission
so that we can truly solve this problem.
Thank you.
And if I could just add to that is that I think,
I know that commission staff has been looking
at this for quite a while.
And I think that we need to look
at a comprehensive solution.
This is one piece, can be one piece of it,
but there's a lot more that we can do
in terms of providing access to folks.
There's a lot of state land there
that is currently underutilized
that we could hopefully make available to the public.
And so I look forward to looking at this
as a comprehensive issue.
Thank you, Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the speakers.
Question for staff about the moorings.
You've heard we continue to hear about what's going on
in Newport.
Do we have an update at all that we can provide?
I don't have a specific update.
I can say that I did have the opportunity to meet
with the executive officer
of the state lands commission recently.
This was on our agenda.
So we're remaining coordinated on that effort.
My understanding is that there are no changes being made
currently or yet they're the city's working on a proposal.
They're working with state lands on that proposal.
But again, my understanding is that that won't be coming
forward until likely next year.
So currently the existing status quo will remain the same
until we hear something else.
And we will remain very focused and coordinated
with state lands to see how that goes.
And when we have a sense of if and when we will be weighing
in, I'll let you know.
Thank you, doctor.
Great, thank you.
Okay, with that, we will move to item six,
director. Yes, thank you. Good morning. Madam chair and
commissioners. As always, my published DD report can be found
on the commission's website, but I'll spend a little time going
through several of the items. So first up, I would like to
provide an update on the federal review of California's coastal
management program. There's been a lot going on. I'm sure you've
seen press and a number of other items over the last several
weeks. Yesterday, or actually Monday, I traveled to Santa Monica to participate
in a public hearing put on by NOAA to collect feedback on how the Coastal
Commission Coastal Conservancy and Bay Conservation Development Commission have
implemented California's coastal management program over the last several
years. I was joined in providing public comment by our esteemed chair Megan
Harmon, commissioners Jamie Lee and Ray Jackson, legislative director Sarah
Christie, all from the Commission, in addition to the several, addition to the
Executive Directors and Chairs or Vice Chairs at the Conservancy and BCDC, and
Secretary Crowfoot from CNRA. Sarah Omensata, Commissioner Omensata, was there as well.
It was, we had a lot of, a lot of state folks and a lot of support for the
Commission. So we were, in addition to the folks from the state, we are joined
by over 100 speakers representing coastal and environmental
NGOs, coastal business owners, community members, parents,
surfers, real estate agents, marine animal lovers,
and of course, the fearless grandmothers.
Public comment took the entire allotted four and a half hours
and every comment was supportive of our implementation
of California's coastal management program
under the CCMA.
It was quite a day.
Yesterday, NOAA held one of two virtual meetings
from 2 to 5 p.m. yesterday,
and there were roughly 75 members of the public
who spoke during yesterday's virtual meeting,
and nearly all of them were there
to voice strong support of our work.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone
who has participated in the hearings on Monday and Tuesday.
The support for our program is an important message
to the federal government
about how deeply Californians value our coastline
and how critical it is that our communities have a say
and what happens off our coast.
For members of the public who are still looking
for an opportunity to weigh in,
there are two remaining options.
The first is the last virtual meeting,
which will take place today from 2 to 5 p.m.
In addition, written public comments
are being accepted through August 22nd.
Please see my published report for details
on how to register for the virtual meeting
or on how to submit a written comment.
On a related note, UC Santa Barbara's Ocean
Coastal Policy Center recently released a policy briefing
recognizing California Coastal Management Program as one of the most
successful examples of integrated coastal management.
The brief highlighted the following program successes,
protecting nationally significant coastal habitats and landscapes,
building one of the country's strongest state and local coastal planning systems,
positioning California as a national leader in climate adaptation,
and demonstrating that environmental stewardship and economic prosperity can
go hand in hand. So please check out the full brief. The link is on my published report.
Next, I wanted to share some of the results from a recent polling regarding California's views on
the environment by the Public Policy Institute of California. The PPIC is a highly respected
non-profit, non-partisan think tank based in San Francisco and Sacramento. It conducts
rigorous, reputable surveys on all matters of public policy, including an annual poll that has
has been tracking public opinion on environmental issues
since 1998.
Because this is the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act
and the 20th anniversary of the Global Warming Solutions Act,
which was authored by former Coastal Commissioner turned
state senator Fran Pavley, this year's poll focused exclusively
on current attitudes about climate change
and the health of our coast and ocean,
including a question specifically
about the Coastal Commission's job performance.
The poll found that 82% of adults
think that California Coastal Commission,
the California Coastal Commission
has been good for California.
Outside of the questions related to the upcoming election,
this question got the single highest positive response
of any of the polls, 55 questions about the environment.
This is an astonishingly high approval rating
that reveals the deep connection
between Californians and their coast.
This poll also found large majorities continue to oppose more offshore oil drilling and favor
offshore wind power and wave energy projects.
Six in 10 think marine protected areas are very important.
Majorities see plastics and marine debris and declining marine life are big problems
on the coast that is nearest to them.
And a combined total of 93% say that the condition of our ocean and beaches are very or somewhat
important to the economy, and the quality of life
for the state's future.
It's a good reminder that 50 years after the passage
of the Coastal Act, the public supports and values
the accomplishments of this agency
by a higher margin than the original vote to enact Prop 20.
You can read the whole survey at the link in my published report.
So next up, SWIM California.
Catherine Breed is president of Sea Dreamers
nonprofit organization, whose goal
is to empower women and girls to engage with the ocean
through free, inclusive, community-led events
focused on connection and conservation.
Through her love of the coast and dedication
to protect the coast for all,
Katherine has set out to be the first person
to swim the entire length of California,
a four-month adventure covering 900 miles.
Katherine has now completed over 300 miles
and has just arrived in San Francisco Bay.
At various points along the way,
Katherine holds land-based events
meet with local community groups and interested individuals who wish to participate in various
fun and educational discussions. When she was recently in Fort Bragg, Mendocino County,
she held an event at the Noyo Center Marine Field Station. For details on other upcoming land-based
events, including the one scheduled in Monterey for September 3rd, which I think I will be attending,
and the Coastal Commission is a partner, check SWIM California's website, which you can find the
link again in my published report. Next I would like to report that on Monday, July 6th, the
Department of Transportation completed its transfer of the Blues Beach property in northern Mendocino
county to the tribal non-profit Kaipoma. As you may recall, in April 2025, the Commission approved
a CDP application by Caltrans to divide three state-owned parcels for the purpose of transferring
136 acres of coastal land to Kaipoma, which is a tribally chartered non-profit organization
jointly governed by members of the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, the Round Valley Indian
tribes, and the Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians. With the transfer now complete, we are
so pleased to see this spectacular piece of coastal land returned to Native American stewardship.
Coastal Commission staff and Caltrans staff will continue coordinating with
Kaipoma's representatives to support their management of the property,
which will be focused on maintaining public access for pedestrians and protecting
sensitive natural and cost and cultural resources this month staff from the statewide planning
ecology and executive units attended the board of forestry field tour for the empire grade and
czu lighting complex fire projects staff engaged with a diverse group of practitioners to understand
and discuss implementation of forest health treatments defensible space lessons learned and
post wildfire fuels treatment biomass removal with the goal of increasing fire resilience and
in enhancing forest health. In addition, staff participated in the first interagency field
inspection to understand how critical fuels projects approved under the governor's emergency
proclamation are being implemented. Next step, I have a few announcements from
the public education program. We are proud to announce that the 42nd annual California
Coastal Cleanup Day will take place on Saturday, September 19th. For a second year in a row,
All 58 California counties will be represented in the cleanup reminding us that we are all
connected to the coast no matter where we live.
A map of cleanup locations is online and will be updated frequently as we approach September
19th, helping volunteers find one of the more than 750 cleanup sites expected to take place
over this year's event.
Please visit CoastalCleanupDay.org for all of this year's information, download and print
your own event posters in both English and Spanish.
Purchase this year's T-shirts.
You can check out my published report
for a preview of this year's amazing designs
for Coastal Cleanup Day.
I also want to highlight a recently completed
2025 Whaletail grant supporting the California Indian Museum
and Cultural Center.
Through hands-on ecological stewardship,
cultural arts activities and field trips,
Native youth explored black bear coastal habitats
and movements through riparian zones,
as well as the intersection of first foods and bear foods
as part of the program titled Tribal Youth Ambassador,
Being with Bears.
The youth painted bear-themed artwork,
cooked a meal inspired by bear diets
using traditional indigenous foods,
and learned oral traditions and cosmology
around bears and tribal culture.
During a wildlife monitoring field trip,
you discovered a recent cougar kill
and examined the deer remains.
They also kayaked and practiced Miwok cultural activities,
such as making tule cordage during a camping trip
to Marshall Beach and Felix Cove.
These experiences connected youth to the land,
their ancestors, one another, and themselves.
As one participant wrote in her journal,
in their journal, excuse me,
it reminds me to be proud that I am POMO.
Finally, the Boating Clean and Green program
implemented by the Coastal Commission
and California State Parks has released the summer issue
of the Changing Tide newsletter
in partnership with the Bay Foundation.
and you can check that out at the link
in my published report.
So finally, I will conclude with highlighting a few items
related to the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act.
First, a reminder that we are asking the public
to share some of the 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.
They can be brief or more involved,
and pictures or even short videos
will help paint a more vivid picture.
and memories can be submitted anonymously.
Please visit our 50th anniversary webpage
to upload your story and help us understand
how the Coastal Act has impacted you.
For this month's Act to Action,
the first 50 years of coastal protection,
we have a few highlights to share with you today.
As part of our monthly Act to Action segment,
this month's program spotlight
highlights the Commission's public education program.
So I will now turn it over to Annie Frankel
and Evan Schwartz for that report.
Thank you Kate.
Good morning chair and commissioners.
This month's Act to Action presentation is the Coastal Commission's Public Education Program.
I'm Annie Kohut Frankel. I'm the Public Education Program Manager.
And I'm here with Evan Schwartz, the Statewide Outreach Manager.
We're going to start with a short video first.
We want every single person in California to recognize that the coast is a precious resource that belongs to every single one of us.
And we all have a role to play in protecting that every single day of the year.
Thank you so now we have slides coming up.
Okay, next slide please.
So as you know, in 1976, the Coastal Act was signed.
In 1991, Senate Bill 154 amended Section 30012 of the Coastal Act to require the Commission
to carry out a public education program.
The amended code empowered us to seek additional funding to carry out that work and made it
clear in the law that public education is a fundamental and necessary component of promoting
coastal stewardship.
The Coastal Act is one of very few environmental laws that specifically include public education
as a mandate.
Across all our programs, we have sought to build an educated constituency that cares
deeply about the long-term protection of the coast.
Over the decades, the Coastal Commission's public education program has done a lot of
work to help Californians learn about, experience, and care for the California coast.
Our goal is to serve all Californians, no matter who you are, we've got something for
you.
Next slide, please.
For example, are you a teacher?
Over the years, we've published four books of curriculum and multiple stand-alone units
and lessons to help educators teach about our coast and ocean and how to protect it.
To date, staff has presented 129 professional development workshops for teachers across
the state of California.
It looks like it is not advancing.
Next slide.
Next slide, please.
So teachers can lead service learning through our school yard cleanup program, which brings
home that we're all part of the watershed and that cleaning up in our community also
keeps the ocean clean. More than 31,000 students have participated since we launched this program
in 2014. Teachers with their schools and school districts can apply for a whale tail grant
from the Coastal Commission to pay for field trips and projects with deeper learning. And
since 1998, whale tail grants have helped teachers at elementary schools in several
California regions participate with their students in the annual Kids Ocean
Day event which includes classroom learning and a field trip to play at the
beach, do a beach cleanup and create aerial artwork sending a message of
coastal stewardship to the world. Next slide please. Are you someone who wants
to visit the beach? Since the earliest years of the whale tail grant program
the Coastal Commission has been helping local governments and nonprofits
purchase beach wheelchairs which make it possible for those with mobility
disabilities to travel on the sand and enjoy our beaches. We've made grants for
64 of these chairs over the years. In 2011 the public education program
launched a website to help people learn where and how to borrow beach wheelchairs
for free on the California coast. The website lists about 120 beach
locations that offer chairs and this information has been integrated into the
your coast to be accessed map. The beach wheelchair page is one of the most
visited pages of the Coastal Commission's website frequented by both
California residents and visitors from outside the state. Next slide please.
Throughout our history the public education program has worked to educate
the public about their right to access the coast. Through direct outreach and
through digital communication the message has been clear and consistent
that the coast is for all.
Most recently, public ed staff have partnered
with Coastal Access and communication staff and interns
to create and promote Coastal Access spotlight videos
throughout this 50th anniversary year.
Next slide please.
Are you creative?
The Coastal Commission hosts three annual contests
to engage people in coastal issues through creativity.
Our Coastal Art and Poetry Contest
for students in kindergarten through 12th grade
started in 2002, evolving from an annual poster contest that
was held from 1998 to 2001.
The Ocean and Coastal Amateur Photography Contest
is for photographers of any age.
This year is the 27th year of that contest.
And the Climate Storytelling Contest
for middle and high school students
is our newest contest at only six years old.
To date, we've received over 66,000 entries
across all three contests.
The artwork and photography is exhibited
throughout the state and used in countless publications
and digital products by the commission
as well as by the Greater California
Natural Resources Agency.
Next slide please.
Are you in Angler?
In partnership with California State Parks,
the public education program coordinates
a massive fishing line recycling program.
Since 2012, 4,100 pounds of fishing line
have been collected and recycled.
The program manages 550 stations and growing
across California's coast and inland waterways.
Look for the periscope-shaped recycling station
the next time you're on a pier or boat launch ramp.
Next slide, please.
Are you a boater or a boating facility operator?
The Boating Clean and Green Program
was founded by the Coastal Commission's
public education program staff in 1998 in partnership with the Department of
Boating Waterways, which later became part of State Parks. This is a unique
partnership between our two agencies resulting in multiple benefits for
California. One effort involves emergency flares, which are required for ocean
going boats. Their safe disposal is an ongoing challenge. The program has
organized 25 marine flare collection events since 2019, collecting almost 29,000 explosive
toxic expired flares. Since 2022, California boaters and others can enjoy and learn from
the Dockside podcast, with interviews ranging from Olympic sailors to wildlife rescuers.
More than 40 episodes have been released to date. Another opportunity for boaters and
boating facility operators is to attend educational workshops on topics such as preventing aquatic
invasive species and responding to oil spills.
50 educational workshops have been held to date.
Next slide, please.
Are you a volunteer?
The public education program has developed a variety of simple ways for people to take
their first steps into coastal stewardship.
For example, the California King Tides Project invites people to document the highest tides
of the year, a preview of what a normal high tide will look like as sea level continues
to rise.
The project has been underway since 2010 and with 8,900 photos mapped on our website, it
has become an invaluable resource for scientists, planners, and the public.
Next slide.
California Coastal Cleanup Day invites volunteers to spend a little more time at the beach or
their favorite inland waterway each September. This annual cleanup event
started in 1985 and has now grown to be the country's largest annual volunteer
event. In fact in 1993 the Guinness Book of World Records recognized Coastal
Cleanup Day as the largest garbage collection ever organized. More than 1.7
million volunteers have removed over 26 million pounds of trash during this one
event which now takes place in every one of California's 58 counties. For those
that can't get enough beach cleaning, Coastal Cleanup Day can count as part of
their commitment to the year-round Adopt a Beach program. Adopt a Beach asks
groups and volunteers to commit to cleaning their beach three times a year,
although many go well beyond that basic commitment. Each year over 30,000
volunteers participate in Adopt a Beach cleanup events. Next slide. Finally, the
The Dockwalker program invites community members to become trained docents, teaching boaters
about clean and safe boating.
Since 2000, 1500 participants have distributed over 200,000 boater kits, giving boaters the
tools to be environmentally responsible on the water.
Next slide.
Are you an organization that wants to connect your community to the coast?
Public education cleanup programs, especially Coastal Cleanup Day and Adopt a Beach, offer
amazing opportunities to lead volunteers in a fun and meaningful activity.
Cleanup events become a chance for you to activate your community and beyond, give back
to the places that give so much to us all throughout the year.
Next slide.
The public education program also works to provide resources that organizations might
not otherwise have access to.
For example, as part of a long-running partnership engaging volunteers in ecological restoration
in Upper Newport Bay. In 2008, the Public Education Program published Digging In, a
guide to community-based habitat restoration. And over the following years, several years
held trainings to help community groups begin or expand their work in that field.
Since 1998, 1,134 whale tail grants have been distributed to 521 different non-profits,
tribes, schools, and local governments, totaling $28 million. These grants fund
projects that connect people of all ages across the state to the California
coast and its watersheds through education, stewardship, and outdoor
experiences. We especially aim to support communities who face barriers accessing
coastal opportunities and organizations that are a part of and rooted in the
communities they engage. Next slide. Are you someone who just wants to help? The
work of the Public Education Unit is made possible by the people of
California. Our programs are funded in a number of ways but primarily from
revenue from the sales of the Whaletail license plate. The plate was approved for
sale in 1997 as part of a team effort of our nonprofit partners and literally all
all of the Coastal Commission staff at the time.
Because of the plate, public education staff positions
were created and we established our grants program.
Without the plate, what we shared with you today
would not have been possible.
Next slide.
In 2013, the grants gained an additional source of funding
from the Protect Our Coaches and Oceans Fund,
allowing people to donate on their California tax form.
You can donate $1 or $50,000 or more if you have it.
We've been active on social media platforms since 2008 and that's another way you can
help by sharing and interacting with us there.
Tell us what you care about and share the love of our California coast.
Next slide.
No matter where you are in California, no matter who you are, the public education program
is here to help connect you to your California coast just like the Coastal Act.
slide. Thank you for 50 years of coastal protection. Thank you Annie and Ebon. So
for this month's access spotlight, excuse me, we wanted to highlight
the Cannery Row area located in the city of Monterey. Six coastal development
permits approved over time together all provide public access along this famous
and very scenic stretch of the coast. And I'll turn it over to Linda to talk
this project. Thank you Kate. Before we get into the spotlight for today I just
wanted to take a moment to step back to the meeting we had in April in Gonzales
where there was a video presentation by our legislative director Sarah Christie
that showed featured the Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail and this trail
runs parallel to and just inland of Cannery Row. In that video Sarah Christie
discuss the history of the trail, how the railroad owned the rail trail, rail corridor,
and in the 1970s, late 1970s, the railroad decided to terminate that rail use, tear up
the tracks, and prepare plans for construction of private luxury condominiums.
When the Coastal Commission learned of this impending rail track removal, the Commission
informed the railroad that this removal was development and that it was subject to CCC,
I'm sorry, California Coastal Commission review
under the provisions of the CZMA,
which gives states certain rights
in regards to federal projects.
The railroad disagreed, we went to court,
and this Coastal Commission prevailed.
So the reason I bring all this up
is I wanted to let you know that the video that's coming up
will show a sliver of the Monterey Bay Recreation
Coastal Trail, and you'll also see it on the map.
And this lawsuit that I just described from 1970
was shown, was the first test case of the state's rights
under CZMA.
So take you back to history and bring you forward now
to the spotlight for today.
So by the way, hello to the commission and the members
of the public.
I forgot that part.
This week's spotlight video features
Cannery Row in the city of Monterey. This vibrant tourist destination features
shopping, overnight stays, restaurants, ocean viewing, beach walks, along with
renowned Monterey Bay Aquarium. However, not so long ago this seven block long
stretch of the coast was one of the largest hubs in the world for their
sardine fishing and canning industry. The character of Cannery Row evolved from a
a Chinese fishing village established around 1850
to a flourishing industrial waterfront
lasting from 1900 to 1940.
During this, over this period,
over 20 sardine canneries and warehouses lined
the scenic coastline.
These cannery buildings hung out over Monterey Bay
to facilitate the delivery of tons of sardines
that were processed in this canneries
located along the street.
By the early 1970s, the sardines had disappeared
and one by one the cannery closed.
Left behind where derelict remains including remnants
of foundations, oil takes, and pilings,
many located in or over state tide lands.
When the cannery buildings began to be repurposed
for visitors serving uses, such as three hotels
that now provide 450 rooms, the Coastal Commission
required each developer to provide public access
to and along the cannery row shoreline.
These individual trail segments, which are mitigation for allowing the new commercial
buildings approved over 20 years, 20 year time span per six coastal development permits
to use these public trust lands, these individual segments have been strung together to create
a unique 20 minute adventure.
This walk takes many forms, including short strips of beach that go under a former cannery
building to passageways along the Coast Side decks, and along Cannery Row Streetfront.
Here's a fun fact for you.
John Steinbeck, the renowned Nobel Prize winner for literature, romanticized this area in
his 1945 novel titled Cannery Row.
This book featured a character named Doc, modeled after the accomplished marine biologist
Ed Ricketts.
As you walk along Canary Row, public access ways, you can view the historical, rickets-specific
biological laboratory.
You just need to know where to look.
Last I would like, before we scroll the videos, what I'd like to do is acknowledge the number
of commission staff members that we need in order to make these videos happen.
You'll be surprised with the number of people.
So you know Rosie Raylee, who is our climate equity and sea level rise intern, unfortunately
not here today, but she'll be back.
From the public education unit, we have Luna Taylor, Andy Frankel, and Vivian Matuke.
Spanish translators include Javier Padilla, Shahar Amate, and Jose Hernandez.
Our mapping unit, Cam Denny.
And overall project management comes from Joshua Smith, Sarah Christie, and myself.
So now we can get onto the video, thank you.
Explore Bayfront beaches, promenades, and overlooks accessible from Cannery Row, a historic
waterfront district in Monterey.
Take a roughly 20-minute stroll down this former sardine canning capital turned charming
tourist destination.
Your journey stretches between the Monterey Plaza Hotel and Spa and the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
Amid the bustling seafood restaurants and gift shops, you'll find public beach paths
and other access ways leading to panoramic ocean views.
You can find free street parking on the inland residential streets about a 10-minute walk
away.
Otherwise, visitors can use a paid parking lot at the south end of Canary Row or feed
the meters near the Monterey Plaza Hotel and Spa.
You can also arrive by biking the Monterey Bay Coastal Trail, which runs parallel to
the bustling street.
Alternatively, there's a bus stop near the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
Released south of the Monterey Plaza Hotel, you'll find a green garden with steps down
to Aeneas Beach, named for our former sardine packing company.
Follow the coastal access signs down the concrete steps to the sand.
Continuing down Canary Row, you'll discover an enclosed staircase next to the Vista Blue
Spa that leads to a public bench, fantastic views of the bay, and a secluded fishing spot.
Further north is the Spin Drift Inn.
On either side of the building are stairs providing access to McAfee Beach, where visitors
frequently launch kayaks.
Walk along the beach to find a staircase leading up to Steinbeck Plaza, which features a bike
rack and mounted binoculars to look out over the water.
Make your way to the Monterey Canning Company Shopping Center, where you'll find public
restrooms and a boardwalk that spans the length of the Bubba Gump Shrimp Company.
Finally, enjoy one more scenic spot by entering the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Hovden Way.
To your right, you will see public restrooms.
Walk straight ahead to find plenty of seating and take in the ocean view, often teeming
with seals, otters, and other wildlife.
Thanks to the California Coastal Act and the California Coastal Commission, all of this
access to the water is publicly available and free.
Enjoy the shoreline along Canary Row next time you're in Monterey.
I think we're going to bring up the Spanish version as well.
Explore the place in the middle of the front of the bay that is in the corner of the second area of the road, a historic street in the coast of Monterey.
For the day, come in at the end of the 20th minute to the center of the park, in the sardines, with a touristic destination.
The record is extended to Monterey Plaza, the park, and the area of Monterey.
Enter the restaurants in the Mariscos and the restaurants in the recorders,
in contrast to the public public and other accesses that have been visited by Noramica de los Hernos.
We are going to be taking a look at the residential area of the community.
We are going to be taking a look at the extra space we have here, or we are going to be looking at the area of the hotel.
There are options for visiting the hotel for the coast, mountain, bay, and coastal trails.
What do we do? We go to the hotel.
We are going to be taking a look at the area of the hotel area.
Just as for the bottle, you can find a hard-earned bottle with the ones that you can buy.
The one you need is a bottle. You can buy it for a company that is in the back of your bag.
If you want to access the products, you can contact us with the link in the description.
Continue to the right to discover a small bottle of the Blue Spa, which is a bank of public.
Excellent vistas of the bag and you can go to the store for free.
but in the north, there is the Spin Drift Inn, where the city is connected to the place of Maccabee, where the visitors are in the area.
Coming up for the place, there is a place called the Stambic Plaza, which is a port of the city and a place where you can visit.
If you are in the central commercial, you can find the public's space in the area, which is all around the restaurant.
Finale mente de spruca utro punto de Senico entrando al jovden way de la pário.
A tu derecha, veras bannos publicos.
Caminada derecho para encontre a muchas arias de descanso y contemplar de la vista de los anos.
A menudo replta de focus, nutrias y otra especes marinas.
Gracias a la lecos de la california, y a la comiciancos de la california, todos de accesso
amar es publico y gratuito.
Fruita la Costa, alo largo de Canada de Rho, la próxima vez que estes en Monterey.
Thanks to the whole team for putting those together.
Finally, last time on my report, just a reminder, there will be a beach party
celebrating 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act on October 10th at Juna Pero Beach in Long Beach.
The event will be free of charge and open to the public for an afternoon of music,
entertainment, speakers, and activities to celebrate 50 years of coastal protection. So mark your calendars now.
Plan your public transit routes and stay tuned for updates.
Madam Chair, that concludes my executive director's report.
And as always, I'm happy to answer any questions you
or any other commissioners may have.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, everyone.
We'll start by asking if there are any public comments.
There are two people in the room who
like to speak, Trent Hodges and Jennifer Savage.
Thank you, commissioners, for your time.
And I appreciate the Kenry Roe video.
I didn't know about a lot of those access points.
It's really nice to see, so thank you.
My name is Trent Hodges.
I'm the senior programs manager for Save the Waves Coalition.
And I just wanted to express how much our organization
appreciates the important work of the Coastal Commission
and the incredible legacy of the last 50 years
in protecting our coastal resources.
In light of the recent attacks from the federal administration
on the important work of the Coastal Commission,
I feel it's incredibly important for Californians
to speak up about how much we value an agency that
protects public resources, and access,
and ensures that our California coastline's
biological, cultural, and surfing resources are protected.
We are encouraging our members that save the waves
and all of our community members
and supporters throughout California
to submit written public comment to NOAA
before the August 22nd deadline,
defending the state's implementation
of the California Coastal Management Plan.
And we will continue to fight back against federal efforts
Harma Coast so very appreciative of the Coast Commission and thank you for your
time. Thank you and then is a Jennifer Savage or she come in the mic back on
thank you I'm new to this yeah good morning to our Harman commissioners
Jennifer Savage California policy associate director for the Surfrider
Foundation along with Hilda Bay and many other partners Surfrider helped organize
a press conference at Monday's hearing in Santa Monica hopefully you've seen
and some of the great coverage that has come out of that.
We also brought many people out to speak
at the virtual hearings,
which I thought would be extraordinarily difficult
on a Monday afternoon in downtown Santa Monica,
but we had more than 100 people in total show up.
Every single speaker having something positive to say
about the Coastal Commission
and the work that is being done.
You should feel sorry for me though,
because I had to follow Commissioner Jackson,
which as you know, is not an easy task.
We also had many of our coastal supporters speaking
at yesterday's virtual hearing,
as well as we expect to have many more today.
So there is a huge groundswell of support,
and we will continue to call on people
to submit written comments.
It's one of our organizational priorities,
and we are working at the highest levels
to prepare for whatever next steps may come.
Surfrider and our partners in this work
will not allow California's coast to be sacrificed.
We greatly appreciate all the work that you and your staff
do and our shared dedication to natural resources
and public access.
Finally, I just encourage each and every one of you
to leverage your own connections in your own communities
to make sure that people know about this threat
so that as many people as possible
have the chance to defend their beloved
and economically vital coast.
Thank you.
There are no more speakers.
Okay, great.
Thank you very much.
So with that, I will return to the commission.
I'm sure there are a lot of,
a lot of us who want to make comments.
I'll begin with Commissioner Umensada.
Do you want to start?
Yes, thank you.
I just wanted to reiterate
on behalf of the California Natural Resources Agency,
we are vehemently opposed
to the federal administration's review
of California's coastal management program.
Governor Newsom and Secretary Crawford
have issued strong statements
underscoring Californians' right
to speak out on behalf of their coast
and we really encourage everybody
to keep making their voices heard
through August 22nd.
Thanks so much.
Thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
Yeah, I wanted to just comment on the united front
that I believe this unwarranted review
is facing from the state of California.
And when I was in my 20s, when the offshore oil drilling
was first proposed in California,
one of the first things that I did
was drive up and down the coast in my Volkswagen Beetle
with posters that I would knock on the doors and windows
of businesses along the California coast
and ask them to put up a poster with no offshore oil.
And so I was very, so it's always been the business
and the economic interests all very much that are depend
on a clean coast that has been so important
in protecting our coast.
And so I was very heartened to see the strong statement
from Dee Dee Myers who's had a go biz
in the governor's office
and from business organizations up and down the state
to really make the clear connection
between California coastal protection
and our economy.
And I wanted to thank the governor and his office
and the AG Bonta for their strong leadership
in bringing everyone together in California.
You know, we don't always agree on everything,
but we all agree that the California Coastal Program
has worked and is working and does not deserve this
made up review that we're, right now, we're facing.
So I wanted to just emphasize that united front
that is very heartening to see.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Every few years, when we talk about
the beach cleanup program,
I just have to, hometown point of pride.
So it was in 1979 that two citizens,
Arcada, Joe Abbott and Anne Morrissey,
launched a beach beautification project.
And it was supported by the North Coast Environmental
Center in Arcata.
And Tim McKay and Sid Dominance both passed on.
Titans in the environmental movement
supported that and got the grants
to do a 110-mile shoreline cleanup with 34,000 pounds
cleaned up.
In 1981, the NEC and the Arcata Recycling Center,
led by Wes Chesbro, a scraggly hippie from Arcata
who became a state legislator of renowned,
did the first, California's first, adopt a beach program.
And then that inspired what, a few years later,
the Coastal Commission led, which
was the first California Coastal Commission day in 1985.
So it starts small, but here we are.
And I want to thank the commission and everybody
through all these many years of doing all these beach cleanups,
because it's had a huge impact.
and it's become worldwide.
So thank you guys.
And thanks to the North Coast for the inspiration.
All right, well, seeing no other comments,
I'll just briefly wanna acknowledge the work
of our public education program team.
I just love seeing that and especially the materials
that you produce for educators,
just thinking about the next generation of coastal warriors
and that work is immensely valued, I think, by everyone,
by me in particular, so to call that out. Okay, with that we will move on to item E, the 2027
meeting schedule. Actually, I think we have a leg report first. Oh, I'm so sorry, Mr. Drake.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners. This is the legislative report for August.
Staff isn't bringing any bills to you today for positions, so we have just a brief update on the
legislative session and a couple of the commission's priority bills. The legislature reconvened from
it's summer recess on August 3rd which was last Monday. Over the past week most
bills have been receiving hearings in the appropriations committees and then
moving either to the committee's suspense files for additional review or
out of committee and onto the floor of their second house. A list of bills that
are on suspense in the appropriations committees can be found in staff's written
report. A couple of the Commission's priority bills were amended in the last
month. First AB 1448 by Assemblymember Greg Hart, which deals with offshore oil
and gas leases in state waters, was amended on the Senate floor last week.
Previously the bill would have prohibited the state lands commission
from entering into new offshore oil and gas leases in the California coastal
sanctuary. Last week's amendments reframed the bill to instead prohibit
the state lands commission from entering into new offshore oil and gas leases in
in state marine protected areas
and in designated national marine sanctuaries.
The amendments also added language
requiring the state lands commission
when it's determining whether to approve the assignment
of an existing oil and gas lease
to consider whether the proposed assignee
has any history of oil and gas related accidents,
among other things.
That bill is currently on the assembly floor.
Another priority bill, AB2410 by assembly member Ellis
was also recently amended.
Previously, that bill would have exempted wildfire mitigation projects, including most
vegetation removal projects from the Coastal Act and from CEQA.
It also would have required the Commission to submit a report to the legislature on the
past six years of approvals of wildfire mitigation projects in the coastal zone.
The bill was amended in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee last month to
remove the proposed Coastal Act exemptions and the reporting requirement.
So with those amendments, the bill no longer impacts the commission.
It is currently on the suspense file of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Finally, SB 963 by Senator John Laird, which the commission took a support position on
earlier this year, was signed by the governor at the end of July.
That's the bill that establishes timelines for the commission to process de novo appeals
of local CDPs, and it also codifies some basic requirements for how to properly file an appeal.
Now that it's been signed, it'll take effect on January 1st.
Later this year, staff will provide a presentation on all signed pieces of coastal legislation
from this session, including this one, and at that time will describe steps the Commission
is taking to implement all new legislation.
So more to come on that one later this year.
Just to wrap up, looking ahead, tomorrow the Appropriations Committees are holding their
final round of suspense hearings, where they'll announce which bills made it out of committee
And we'll be going to the floors of their second house
After that the legislature will have until August 31st to pass built to pass bills
So over the next few weeks staff will be watching closely for any new or amended bill language affecting the Coastal Act or the Commission
Next month we'll provide a rundown of which bills made it to the governor's desk
And with that chair Haran that concludes the legislative report and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you any public comments
There are not any questions comments my colleagues
Hey, thank you very much. Um, and before we move on to the grants
We are going to take a brief break if everyone could please be back in 15 minutes. I would appreciate it
Okay, thank you everyone
We will continue on with our agenda. We are now at item 60
Thank you
So item six D is the whale tail targeted grants report and I would like to introduce
Public Education's grant coordinator Jessica Lee to make the presentation
Hi, good morning chair and commissioners
The staff report from the public education program is for this year's targeted whale tail grants
As you heard about in the act to action presentation today
The slides show photos from some of this past year's projects, particularly Kids Ocean Day and Adopted Beach programs. Next slide, please.
This year's targeted grants would be funded by revenue from voluntary donations to the Protect Our Coast and Oceans fund on the California State tax return
and revenue from whale tail license plate sales and renewal fees.
Targeted grants are non-competitive grants based on staff recommendations for high-priority projects that are linked to the Commission's existing programs and goals.
Because of the later-than-usual calendar for the previous competitive whale tail grant cycle, there will be no additional competitive grants issued during fiscal year 2026-27.
We expect to come before you next summer for your approval of the grant recipients from our next competitive grant round.
Today, there are five projects being recommended for funding.
The first is the Kids' Ocean Day Adopt a Beach School Program, which is divided into five
different grants serving thousands of children from all around the state.
This annual program engages children in learning about marine life, their own connection to
the ocean, and how to prevent ocean pollution.
The project includes classroom presentations and a field trip to play at the beach, participate
in a beach cleanup or restoration activity
and create an aerial art display
to spell out an ocean conservation message.
The 2026 theme was Coast For All
in celebration of the Coastal Act's 50th anniversary
and the ongoing mission of the Coastal Commission.
Next, our grants for the Adopt-A-Beach programs
of Heal the Bay, I Love a Clean San Diego,
and Save Our Shores.
Adopt-A-Beach is one of the foundations
of our public education program
and it's specifically mentioned in the Coastal Act.
These three projects have large numbers of participants
and innovative components.
We're also recommending funding
for the California Association for Outdoor
and Environmental Education's
Environmental Educator Certification Program
for supporting incorporation of marine
and watershed learning, as well as scholarships
for those facing barriers in the field.
Their work includes connecting environmental educators
to resources for educating on critical issues,
including the California Coastal Act and Coastal Access,
watershed science, and climate change communication.
Besides those five projects,
we are also requesting that the commissioners approve
setting aside a $50,000 reserve as we do every year.
If staff identifies a need for that money
later in this fiscal year,
we'll return to the commission for approval.
If that doesn't happen, it will revert to the fund
be available for future grants. Staff is also requesting that if any of these funds end up not
being needed by the designated grantees, the extra money can be added to the reserve or the
competitive grants budget to be allocated at a future meeting. Additionally, staff was requesting
that if any of these grants end up being slightly smaller than the grantees need, we have permission
to allocate some of the reserves so their projects can be completed successfully, as long as the
reserve funds are not otherwise needed. So in closing I'd like to encourage everyone to support
ongoing funding for our grants program by one purchasing a whale tail license plate which
provides the core of our public education programs funding and two donating to the Protect our Coast
and Oceans Fund on your California tax return. So these grants are only possible if Californians
continue to invest in them. So whether that's making a tax deductible donation at tax time
or displaying the super cool, well-told license plate on your vehicle.
It really makes a difference for coastal access, ocean education,
and stewardship opportunities like these.
Thank you very much.
The motion and resolution are on page two of the staff report.
Great, thank you very much.
Are there any public comments?
Yes, we have one speaker on Zoom, Genesee Ouyang.
Genesee, please go ahead.
Hi, thank you so much.
My name's Genesee Oyung.
I'm the education director at Orange County Coastkeeper.
We are one of the sites that the Whaletail Grant Program
funds through Kids Ocean Day.
And I wanted to say, please continue
to give all future generations the chance to experience,
protect, and love our coast by continuing
to fund and support the Whaletail Grant Program.
Coastkeeper has participated in Kids Ocean Day since 2008
and has given thousands of Orange County students
their first ever visit to the beach and tens of thousands of students a day
they'll never forget. The impact of this grant program is apparent through this
video. I wanted to thank you for your time and please start the video.
all right guys there are no more speakers great thank you very much hey
I'll return to the Commission comments thank you right your heart I just have
to say the public education grant program is so incredible and is such a
counterpoint to some of the incredibly negative news that we see and it just is
so uplifting and wonderful the video was incredible so I just want to appreciate
you for everything that we do on the staff level and all of the volunteers
and folks that work on these incredible programs they're just life-changing and
I think we're building a lot of future advocates for the coast. All right I
move the Commission approved the funding allocation set forth in the staff
recommendation I'm asking for a yes vote. Second. Thank you that's a motion by
Vice Chair Hart a second by Commissioner Kelly I think we're all here so are there any objections
to unanimous consent seeing none the motion carries congratulations and thank you very much
okay we'll continue on item e the 2027 meeting thank you the next item is consideration of the
proposed 2027 meeting schedule so I do have a power point for this one just for everybody to
take a quick look again this is this is our proposed schedule it's possible
there could be changes in in the future depending on scheduling challenges in
which case we'll bring it back to you but this is our proposed schedule as we
have for the the past several years we are proposing no meeting in January and
then of course meeting spread out through the state for the rest of the
year so we do need a motion and a vote to approve the schedule and I am here
for any questions yeah Commissioner Kelly please I'm happy to make the motion
but do we need public comment on this item are there any public comment
there's no speakers thank you I move to approve the proposed draft calendar
second and I just wanted to note that the coastal act specifically says we
meet within the coastal zone in a coastal county right thanks no no no
Sometimes we've met in Sacramento, which is Madam Chair, Coastal County
That's okay. So it isn't in the Coastal Act. That's kind of a question
The headquarters of the Commission need to be in a Coastal County. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner presiata. Oh
Did I?
There we go. I just needed clarity on the February meeting. It looks like it's in the first week and for those of us who are
Otherwise occupied in other meetings when you push us off track
It causes a lot of changes for us and I don't know if there's a reason why don't why we're not having it in the second
Week of February. It's not a big deal. I'm just trying to find out why yeah, the the reason is that the Commission needs to act on
Appeals of locally approved coastal development permits within 49 working days of when an appeal is filed
So because the commission is doesn't have a scheduled meeting in January the
distance between the December meeting and the February meeting needs to be short enough that
Appeals that are filed in mid to later December could be heard by the Commission without being deemed approved
Okay, I'll just say it's a little bit bittersweet to be voting on this. I won't I won't be at any of these meetings physically
Maybe I'll be on the other side of the mic who knows
Okay, I think we have a motion by vice chair, excuse me by Commissioner Kelly a second by Commissioner not off any objections to unanimous consent
Seeing none the motion carries. Thank you. All right. We'll continue on to the consent calendar. Mr. Karl
Yes, thank you chair Harmon. So there's nothing on item 7 the regular consent calendar, but on item 8
This is the items that have been moved to consent as I described earlier today. We have 11 items
Move to the consent calendar, and I'll quickly identify those for you item 11 a
Again, this is the Noyo Harbor District CD at CDP application for power replacements in Fort Bragg
11 be this is the Eureka ready mix
CDP application for seasonal at aggregate extraction on the lower eel River
Item 11 C. This is the rock CDP application also for seasonal extraction of aggregate this one on the lower van
Doosan River in Humboldt County. Item 11 D is the Mercer and Fraser Company
application also for seasonal extraction of aggregate on the Lower Eel River in
Humboldt. And item 11 E the last of the aggregate extraction projects is the
Palmer Resources Company CDP application for the Lower Eel River in
Humboldt County. Item 13 A this is the San Mateo County LCP amendment for its
protected tree ordinance
Item 14 a this is the McCoy
Application for a single family residents in Marshall and Marin County
Item 16 a this is the city of Capitola LCP amendment related to ADU and multifamily changes
Item 16 B. This is the city of Capitola LCP amendment related to their Capitola mall site
Item 17 B. This is the 1307 West Cliff Drive application related to a reduced scale armoring in the city of Santa Cruz and
Item 17 C. This is the winter CDP application for a 26 unit hotel in Canberra
So although we're in agreement with the applicants in each of the cases identified
We did receive correspondence in our objections to some of these cases. So I'll run through that
So first for item 13 a the San Mateo County LCP amendment for their updated tree protection ordinance
We received a few comments regarding replacement tree requirements
Including requests that any eucalyptus removed be replaced
So we'd like to clarify that for trees that are in or constitute Esha the ordinance
Specifically requires tree replacement that extends to eucalyptus trees under certain circumstances
Such as when they support raptor nesting or overwintering monarchs
For trees that are not in and don't constitute Esha, the LCP specifically requires replacement
of vegetative cover, including trees, when vegetation removal is allowed as part of a
development project.
The county generally requires that replacement trees offer comparable canopy cover or habitat
value to the trees being removed in these cases.
The county does not require exact replacement of trees by species, but rather provides a
list of species that applicants are encouraged to choose from. These species
are typically native and are well suited for the climate and habitat of the
planning locations. Finally at the request of the county would also like to
further clarify that the definition of rare tree, as referenced in our suggested
modifications, aligns with the same criteria and site specific context used
to determine rarity for Esha. This generally includes species that are
globally or state ranked federally listed as threatened or endangered,
California threatened or endangered species or species species with certain
California rare plant rankings. In any case we still recommend
approval on consent. For item 14a this is the McCoy residential project in
Marshall and Marin County. We received an objection where the objector doesn't
agree that a takings approval is warranted and believes that it will be
in said an inappropriate precedent for similar cases moving forward. We
responded in an addendum that was posted yesterday where we highlight the reasons
why we came to this conclusion including because the project and its impacts have
been reduced from a prior version where staff had recommended denial and its
benefits have been increased including through new offsetting habitat
mitigations and new public access commitments we also believe the facts of
this case are specific to the facts of this case and the perceived potential
for precedent by the commoner is based on a premise that isn't actually applied
to this application rather it's just identified in the staff report as
something that some of us to be applied in a larger scope in Marin County's
tomorrow's bay east shore for example through an LCP amendment all that to say
that we think we've come to the correct conclusion as it relates to takings and
continue to recommend approval on consent for items 16 a and B the two
city of Capitola LCP amendments we also received objections or 16 a the
Commenter opines that the proposed amendment doesn't meet the criteria for a diminished LCP determination including cuz
They in their opinion it would lead to adverse coastal resource impacts
However as discussed in the staff report the proposed amendment includes appropriate updates here in terms of ADUs and residential multifamily zoning
To help increase housing stock in the city and it doesn't modify any of the LCP's core coastal resource protection standards
That would continue to apply
So we continue to recommend to be approved as submitted through the de minimis processing route as
To item 16 be the commenter primarily objects to future redevelopment of the capital mall site
We would note that the capital mall site is located outside of the coastal zone and its specific
Development standards have already been approved at the local level where those standards are located outside of the LCP as well
So this item is less simple cleanup to clear up any confusion about LCP certified standards applying to this site
Given it is outside of the coastal zone
so we continue to recommend this appended this amendment be approved as submitted and
Finally on item 17 see the hotel project in Canberra
We had an objection suggesting that development the developments needs to be set back further from Santa Rosa Creek
to address potential flood concerns
We'd note that the county's flood maps show essentially all the development outside of the 100-year flood zone with the exception of a small
portion of the former restaurant restaurant building and
There aren't any significant LCP flood reasons that would suggest we need to change the staff recommendation for this item
So no other correspondents or objections were received for any of the consent calendar items less in each of the cases
The applicants are in agreement with the staff recommendation
We've described known objections and comments on these items and we've made changes
Via Denda or explained why they don't change the staff recommendations where applicable and thus we continue to recommend that the Commission approve these eleven
Items through the consent calendar that concludes my presentation. Great. Thank you very much
Are there any ex partes to report?
Okay, seeing none Kailin to you for public comment. All right, I'm gonna go down the list
So we have a lot of items move to or potentially move to consent today
I'm gonna start with items w11 a through e we have no speakers
For item 13 a we have two speakers
We'll start with Steve Monowitz in the room and then we'll go to Melinda McNaughton on zoom. So Steve
Good morning chair Harmon and commissioners. I'm Steve Monowitz. I'm the
director of the planning and building department for San Mateo County. I want
to thank staff for its work on our protected tree ordinance. I agree with
Mr. Carl's response to the comments received. I would just note that the
replacement requirements are not limited to when trees are in Esha. Anytime a
tree removal is going to result in loss of canopy. The replacement requirements
have to make up for that canopy loss. As Mr. Carl noted we have a list of
recommended trees for replacement. They're primarily native and drought
resistant trees appropriate to the climate. In an instance where eucalyptus
tree is removed in Esha it would go through a full coastal development
permit and appropriate mitigation would be required.
Planning manager Bharat Singh led this effort. He's on the line to answer any
questions if the Commission has them or if you'd like to hear more details I'll
be happy to pass the mic to him. That concludes my comments. Thanks for your
consideration. Thank you. Melinda McNaughton, you should be able to unmute.
Hi. Yes, we can hear you. Okay, thank you. So yes, I sent in some
comments and it was on behalf of several of the neighbors here on the coast that are concerned
about tree canopy loss. I really do appreciate the coastal commission is requiring permitting
in the Esha, the sensitive habitat areas. However, the tree ordinance does not seem to account
for removal of trees and replacement of those trees outside of those areas. So those are the
areas we are concerned about. And as the climate heats up, we do need to have our
tree canopy on the coast to protect us and the wildlife that exists here and the raptors do
require 40 feet plus trees to survive. And those are also very important to have wildlife on the
coast. And we feel that it doesn't protect our migratory birds either to have this oversight.
We feel it is an oversight and it's something that could be worked out and there could be
some sort of a compromise on. Maybe the trees that are exempt could still be required to be
replaced without permitting or a fee. There should be some sort of a way to work that in.
We're also concerned that the Monterey Cypress is not very protected and it has, I have presented
research that it has existed on the coast for billions or millions of years, maybe not now,
but it just seems irrelevant that we cannot have that as a replacement tree on the list.
Anyway, thank you for considering our concerns. Appreciate it. And we hope there's a way to
mitigate that oversight. Thank you. And now moving on for item 14A, there were no
speakers for item 16a no speakers for item 16b we have two speakers in person
we'll start with Mike Guth followed by Katie Hurley he this is item 16b
welcome back to Santa Cruz County Commissioners good morning Mike Guth
speaking for the Sierra Club so you have a minor LCP amendment that pears just a
reference and incorporate incorporate references to other code already passed
out of the coastal zone. Next slide please. Why is that impacting coastal
resources? Because it's the the work inside the outside the coastal zone is
CEQA exempt rezonings that are then going to have later projects that are
probably CEQA exempt. This is our last entry point to have this discussion. Next
slide please. So this area on the left this is a tip of pleasure point where
Lagoon is on the left. You can see in the picture on the right, that's the lagoon
that's hidden in the trees. This is just downstream from the huge mall property.
Next slide please. And on the left you can see the red rectangle in the left in
the middle is the mall property. Way down on the lower left is the lagoon. The
green boundary is a unique small tabletop watershed. And the lagoon is
on the lower left the red line going up is the creek the county keeps
daylighted then we get to the purple Capitola boundary and they like to go
underground and if you look on the right these properties have a creek under them
it's a functioning linked creek next slide please the county on the left you
can see promotes daylighting the creek and there's conservation easements and
even on the right in the county when it's encroached upon still above ground
next slide please on the left you can see what it looks like at high water and
And on the right you can see why piping is problematic.
Next slide, please.
So the mall property is an enormous amount of impervious area.
We wanted to make, I was going to say, damn sure, darn sure that they apply all the MPDS
to it.
But where are we going to have that opportunity to have the discussion?
We're having it here.
Next slide, please.
Moran is, down at the bottom, is home to 5 percent of the Western United States monarch
over wintering box
The last thing I'll say is we had discussion with Capitola through staff and we've resolved the issues
I don't have time to say how but we appreciate the discussion. You're our last place to have these discussions on some projects
Thank you
Thank you. Katie Hurley
Hi. Good morning chair and commissioners. My name is Katie Hurley
He I'm the community and economic development director for the city of Capitola, and it's a pleasure to be here today
I just want to appreciate Michael gooths comments and yes, it's everything is connected
And I just want to reassure you that through our stormwater
Regulations within chapter 13 point one six the Capitola Mall when redeveloped will be looking at
The area that is disturbed and it will likely be a tier 3 or tier 4 project which goes through a rigorous review
and
The correct deal they'll be required to have a detailed stormwater control plan
And it'll be much better in terms of infiltration
Compared to the situation it is today with lots and lots of pavement
So and with that I am available for questions and I also it's not every day that you're in our backyard
So I just wanted to thank your local staff
It's been a pleasure over the years working with rainy graven kiana Ford Kevin Kahn and Dan Carl and your very fortunate
to have them on as your staff. And thank you for all that you do. Thank you.
Thank you. And now for item 17B, we have one person indicated available for
questions. Erica Drew, but they're here in person. If you wish to speak, now is your
time. All right. We have no other speakers for that item. So 17C, we have one speaker.
Paul Beard on Zoom, so Paul Beard, if you can be moved in as a panelists, all
right there you go, and when you're able to please unmute and begin. Can you hear
me okay? Yes we can hear you. Hi Paul Beard on behalf of the Winters, I believe
that's item 17B that was moved to consent and I was made a request to
appear only if we went to public hearing on the matter and it was taken off
consent so I don't really have anything to say at this time unless it's being
moved all right thank you we have no other speakers for items moved to
consent great thank you very much I'll return to the commission commissioner
Wilson since there's so many items from my neck of the woods I'm gonna propose to
suggest that we pass this that's my motion second amazing motion proposed
to suggest motion by Commissioner Wilson to approve the consent calendar a
second by Commissioner Kelly any objections to unanimous consent see none
the motion carries the consent calendar is adopted thank you there's no
enforcement report today so we will continue on with item 10 from the deputy
director's report for the North Coast district Mr. Karl. I believe Shanna Gray
is on the zoom and she's gonna... Yes I know. There's Shanna. Good morning Chair
Harmon and commissioners. Item 10 is the deputy director's report for the North
Coast district. It includes two waivers and one immaterial amendment for
development in Humboldt and Mendocino counties. In addition I would like to
report two emergency permits today. First is an emergency permit authorizing the
city of Point Arena to replace two steel support pilings to protect the
floating dock and boarding ramp on the Point Arena public pier. These two
pilings require immediate replacement to avoid further damage to the pier and
ensure public safety. The second emergency permit follows up last month's
Emergency Authorization at the Eureka Slough Southbound Highway
101 Bridge.
The new authorization is for the larger repairs
to the damaged bridge piles, including, importantly,
the construction of a work trestle.
The work trestle itself is a substantial project,
running approximately 900 feet in length and 44 feet
in width across the slough.
It is necessary for the trestle to span
the entire length of the bridge to allow further investigation
of any bridge damage, and also to allow the necessary repairs to be made.
The central issue here is that constructing the trestle requires approximately 120 24-inch
diameter steel piles to be driven or vibrated into the underlying slough habitat.
Given the impacts and concerns regarding the sensitive biological resources at the project
site including marine mammals such as harbor seals. Commission staff including
our ecologist have been closely engaged with Caltrans to ensure that all measures
to avoid and minimize impacts have been incorporated as conditions of this
emergency permit. For example, isolation casings will be used to attenuate sound
during file installation and reduce hydro acoustic impacts. Additional
measures include the requirement to stop work if any marine mammals are observed
within 700 feet of the project. In addition there are requirements to
monitor known seal haulout areas as well as several other requirements including
hydro acoustic monitoring and protection and monitoring of sensitive
species, habitat, wetlands and water quality. So staff is not aware of any
opposition to the three items on the director's report today and we are
asking whether three or more commissioners object and we are
available for questions on any of these items and I believe Caltrans
representatives are also available if there are additional questions on the
emergency permit great thank you very much miss gray are there any ex partes
any public comments no speakers but I am confirming that we have the two trans
Caltrans people on Zoom available for questions. Great, thank you very much.
I'll return to the Commission. Comments, questions, or do three or more
Commissioners object to any item in the Deputy Director's report. Seeing no such
objections, the Commission concurs. Thank you very much. And now we are on to item
11F, please. Yes, item 11F is a consolidated permit for a Caltrans
project in Del Norte County. This will be presented by Abigail Strickland, a
transportation program analyst and the Commission statewide transportation
unit. Thank you Shanna. All right good morning Chair Harmon and
commissioners. Item W11F is an application by Caltrans for a coastal
development permit for a geotechnical investigation at Last Chance grade along
highway 101 in Del Norte County. Last Chance grade is an approximately four
mile segment of the highway and a vital and necessary connection for Crescent City and
nearby communities.
The Commission has been collaborating with Caltrans and numerous other entities on long-term
solutions for this troubled stretch of Highway 101.
The highway passes through areas of chronic geologic instability where active landslides
and slope failures continuously threaten the near and long-term viability of the roadway.
highway has been frequently closed or reduced to one-lane traffic and required multiple large
emergency repairs, each of which has various impacts to coastal resources. The project before
you today is a geotechnical investigation necessary to inform the final solution. Next slide, please.
The project is located approximately 10 miles south of Crescent City and this segment of the
the highway traverses steep heavily forested coastal terrain along the western slopes of
the coast range within and bordered by Redwood National and State Park System. The park system
here is designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site due to preserving the largest remaining
contiguous ancient coast redwood forests in the world. Next slide please. Here you can
see one of the costly repairs that Caltrans has undertaken in an attempt to stabilize
the existing highway. Caltrans recently completed its final environmental document for the last
chance grade permanent restoration project that will permanently address the instability and
potential roadway failure along this corridor. As shown in the bottom here, the preferred
alternative does involve the construction of a bypass tunnel set inland from the existing highway
and this proposed geotechnical investigation would provide subsurface data necessary for
the final design of the tunnel and portal structures. Next slide please.
Here you can see a map showing the proposed drilling locations with 29 borings at four
investigation areas. The four areas are the potential locations for the south portal,
the North Portal and Operations Maintenance Center and there are boring locations along the
existing highway right of way. The South Portal area is the most intensive component requiring
the construction of a 1,500 foot access road and all work is going to be completed between
September 16th and January 31st outside of the northern spotted owl and marbled
mer let nesting seasons. And those two federally listed bird species occur in old growth forests
that are highly sensitive to noise disturbance. Next slide, please. The primary Coastal Act issue
here is that the construction of the access road will necessarily occur in the forest and impact
environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Just under an acre, permanent impacts are anticipated
in three to three sensitive natural communities that qualifies Esha and specifically red alder
forests, salal berry brambles and old growth sitka scrooth forest understory. No old growth
trees will be directly impacted and to minimize impacts Caltrans has limited the width of the
access road to the minimum necessary to allow drill rig access. Because the proposed geotechnical
drilling activities are not a resource dependent use. The project is inconsistent with section
30240 and staff is recommending the use of the conflict resolution provisions of the
Coastal Act to approve the project. Staff believe that the project is essential to maintaining
coastal public access along the coast and on balanced project as conditioned will result
in the best overall protection of coastal resources. Next slide please.
mitigation for these ESHA impacts Caltrans has worked closely with Redwood National and State Parks
to identify a suitable mitigation site within the Redwood or within the parks Redwood Rising program
and the Redwood Rising program is a landscape scale collaborative project of Save the Redwoods League,
California State Parks and the National Park Service and they have a goal of restoring over
70,000 acres of mostly second-growth redwood forest damaged by historical logging within
the Redwood National and State Parks. As you can see here, there's an example of a before and after
view. Redwoods rising broadly restores forested areas impacted by historical logging, including
through the removal of logging roads, restorations of streams, and forest enhancement efforts,
primarily through the thinning of overstocked forests, which allows remaining trees to progress
more quickly towards late cereal conditions in terms of structure and function. Next slide, please.
Commissioned staff, Redwood National and State Parks, and Caltrans have been working
collaboratively to identify a specific mitigation site of primarily second growth
Sitka Spruce Forest, which was once logged and is now represented by tree stands approximately
60 years in age. The forest on this parcel is many decades away from the late successional stage,
making it a good candidate for redwoods rising forest and enhancement activities.
Caltrans would fund 40 of the 69 acres of redwood rising activities and while the mitigation site is
outside of the coastal zone, it is adjacent and the mitigation activities would support the
ecological integrity of the landscape overall. Thus the proposed mitigation site maintains a
strong nexus within with the coastal zone, remains within the Redwood National and State Park
boundaries, and includes the same six forest communities that are being impacted by the project.
Lastly, mitigation in this area is immensely complicated given the rare and unique ecosystem
of old-growth redwood forests or old-growth forests in general. Mitigation at the amounts
in the type accepted for this geodetect project may or may not be appropriate for the long-term
project. Staff have been wrestling with exactly how one can mitigate for these impacts to irreplaceable
coastal resources in balance with a project that is vitally needed for this segment of the North
coast. So special condition eight of this permit requires Caltrans to work with parks and the
commission to develop a memorandum of understanding that would establish a mutual framework for
habitat mitigation for the anticipated impacts of the last chance grade permanent restoration
project including details on how appropriate mitigation requirements monitoring and adaptive
management might work at the site. Thus staff recommends approval of the CDP application with
conditions. I will note that an addendum was completed to revise the language of
special condition 8 and also to replace exhibit 3 and exhibit 5 with revised project description
and layout plan documents. The motion is on page 5 of the staff report and staff is available for
any questions great thank you thank you very much are there any ex partes okay
we'll go to public comment we only had three people and they're available for
questions so no no speakers all right great we'll return to the commission and
I will begin with vice-chair Hart please thanks so much I wanted to appreciate
the presentation mr. Strickland thank you very much and obviously this is a
project for all those folks like myself that live on the north coast in our
familiar with this area, as you mentioned, it's a very difficult situation when you're
looking at a UNESCO World Heritage site and at the same time you're looking at the only
access road for folks to get north.
So that's why I think the focus has to be on mitigation, which of course you describe
quite a bit.
So I just want to confirm the mitigation that you're talking about and also I am a former
board member and councilor who saved the redwoods league.
So I'm very familiar with redwoods rising.
So I'm just wondering if the redwood rising proposal, just to confirm, that's the mitigation
for the boring project only.
Is that correct?
Yes.
So the mitigation that is proposed currently is for the geotech work only.
And yeah, that's correct.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
That's correct.
Okay.
I'm curious how how uh so will there be sort of ongoing monitoring to determine over time
that the success of the redwood rising work um and the forest management work is resulting in
what you want to see? I mean will that be an ongoing feedback loop back to the commission
and other interested parties? Our special condition does require that we receive
annual monitoring ports and at this point in time that's for a minimum of
five years. And then with regard to the MOU that you described on the
permanent mitigation, is that something that's going to come back to the
Commission or what is the timeline for discussion of the permanent
mitigation plan? At this point in time they have one year to enter into the MOU
and I am not quite sure if the MOU will come back before the Commission perhaps.
No, my understanding is that the MOU won't come back before the Commission. They have a year to
to conclude that and that will be and then there's there you know there's gonna we're gonna be
working with these two you know with State Parks and Caltrans for quite a long time. This is just
again the geotech borings and there's more project to be coming forward so we're trying to get that
partnership kind of cemented in this the larger project will definitely be
coming for you before you but not for several years I see so when the larger
project comes back the mitigation will also come back before the Commission the
mitigation for the larger project larger absolutely yeah this is just for the
geotech boring's and and only that there you know there is somewhat of a
framework in place to be considering mitigation for the future but that is
not what you're thinking what you're considering today right well for what
it's worth I likely won't be on the commission at that time and I just from
my perspective anything that can be done to mitigate by preserving and
protecting remaining old-growth redwoods that whether or not they're within this
redwood state national park whether they're in Del Norte whether they're in
other areas I think the goal really should be to make sure that we protect
anything that is possible that is a like-to-like protection of old-growth
Redwoods. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Williams. Yeah just a couple of quick
things just you know there has been a lot of coordination and collaboration on
this particular project both with Coastal staff and Caltrans staff as well
as other partners which were mentioned by Abby and so I just want to thank
everybody for that and looking forward to continued partnerships and
collaboration and just, you know, dedication to getting this, you know, really complex
project, keep it moving forward into the future and address that, you know, the continued
and often road closures in the wintertime. Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
I'm prepared to make a motion. That's all right. This is also the location of Endor.
Just want to be really clear very important very important if you're a Star Wars fan
This is the forest moon. We have the forest moon festival. So I've just put it out there if you guys all come up
It's early in the it's late in the spring. So every year come on up
For the forest moon festival and you can visit this location
With that I move that the Commission approved the coastal development permit
application number one dash two six dash zero three
Seven-seven pursuant to the staff recommendation. I recommend a yes vote second
The motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none the motion carries. Thank you. Hey, I'm on to item 12
I'm 12, right?
Okay. Thank you
Yes, thank you. Chair Harmon item 12 is in the North is the North Central Coast District Directors report and this month
we're reporting two waivers one for roof improvements at the bodega bay community center and another for public access improvements at Meredith pier both in the
Bodega Bay area of Sonoma County
We're also reporting an emergency coastal permit to allow for overnight parking restrictions at Pacifica State Beach
Emergency permit is simply being reported and doesn't require Commission concurrence as to the waivers
We're not aware of any objections or controversy regarding them
And so the question is whether three or more commissioners object either of the waivers and if not then the Commission will concur
Any ex partes any public comments no speakers one person available for questions
Okay, you three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors report
Seeing no objections that Commission concurs
Okay. Well, I know we just took a break, but the next item is quite a long one
So I'm going to suggest we take our lunch now so we can come back full energy and focus
to item 13B.
For commissioners, please be back promptly at 1250.
Is that sufficient, staff?
Okay, perfect.
At 1250, we will begin.
Thank you.
Thanks, everyone, for your patience.
Okay.
Wonderful.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for your patience.
We are going to continue on with our agenda.
brings us to item 13 be thank you yes thank you chair Harmon we are to item
13 B this is the short-term rental ordinance in Pacifica and Oceana we get
in our North Central office who's our supervisor in that office and the lead
on this project is going to give our staff presentation and we do have a
PowerPoint for this all right good afternoon commissioners item 13 B is a
proposed city of Pacifica LCP amendment that would modify LCP implementation
plan rules for short-term rentals also known as STRs in the city's coastal zone.
Before getting started I'd like to note that we distributed an addendum this
morning that responds to some of the comments that we received. The city is a
popular visitor destination from around the Bay Area as well as from further
inland where visitors are attracted to open spaces and trails like the ones you
can see on slide one from Maury Point as well as the beaches and surf spots that
that you can see in the distance.
Next slide please.
Slide two shows you the city's beach boulevard
and public pier area,
another area that's a prime visitor magnet.
The city has been regulating STR since 2018
through certified LCP provisions that require compliance,
primarily in relation to potential use issues
related to noise, safety, et cetera,
which are often called good neighbor provisions.
In 2024, the commission certified additional regulations,
one of which established a cap of 100 STR citywide,
including in the coastal zone,
which served to ensure that short-term rentals
would affect no more than about 1% of city housing stock.
This cap also roughly reflected the historical STR market
in the city up to that time.
The new proposed regulations would impose further limits
on STRs, including requiring an STR operator
to reside at the residence full-time
for more than six months of the year,
also known as a primary residency requirement,
requiring an STR operator to be a living human being,
also known as a natural person's requirement,
limiting operators to one STR within the city at a time,
restricting unhosted short-term rental stays
to 60 nights maximum per year,
prohibiting unhosted short-term rentals
and multifamily residential units,
Requiring at least a two-night minimum stay for unhosted rentals and lastly adding more good neighbor regulations such as limiting the number of visitors
Requiring a noise monitor added inspection requirements and modifying the operator and permitting procedures
Next slide, please
Slide 3 shows you Pacifica State Beach looking towards Pedro Point another popular visitor destination
For those visitors, STRs provide vital public access in Pacifica, including because the
city only has 330 hotel and motel rooms, and therefore STRs, even capped at 150, provide
an oversized portion of the overnight accommodation market, where they can be particularly popular
with families and larger groups of families, or visitors, excuse me.
The Commission's STR regulation approach historically has recognized these types of
STR benefits, but has also looked to balance them with STR restrictions designed to protect
coastal resources and or priority housing.
In all cases, the appropriate balance is driven by the community and LCP context, including
because an LCP's land use plan, or LUP, is typically the standard review for proposed
STR provisions.
That's the case here in Pacifica, and the LUP contains a series of provisions that prioritize,
and require maximization of public access opportunities
which echo the type of provisions found in the Coastal Act.
The LUP also identifies low and moderate income
affordable housing as an important coastal resource
and identifies provisions to address potential
public access overuse of any particular area.
Therefore, the primary LUP question is whether
the proposed STR provisions have been tailored
to address issues of overuse and or negative impacts
to affordable and workforce housing
in a manner that upholds LUP provisions
regarding protecting and maximizing
public access opportunities.
Next slide please.
Slide four shows you Rockaway Beach,
another visitor attraction due to the beach
and a walkable series of shops and other facilities.
Although the proposed SDR provisions
include a series of quite detailed operational provisions
that do not raise significant LUP issues,
the proposed changes would also add
fairly restrictive STR use limitations.
This is particularly true for unhosted rentals
and their implementation through the LCP
would likely significantly reduce visitor serving
and public access opportunities provided by STRs.
Specifically, the proposed primary residency requirement
has the potential to reduce unhosted STR rental nights
by 50% and the 60 night cap on unhosted rentals
would reduce that even further.
For example, if all 150 STRs under the cap were unhosted,
then the amount of potential unhosted rental nights
would be reduced by nearly 85%
as compared to the existing STR provisions.
It is also worth noting that the proposed changes
have already been implemented
in the non-coastal zone areas of the city,
where their implementation to date
has led to a roughly 50% drop in STRs,
which signals that the proposed changes
would be expected to lead to further market contraction
in the coastal zone if implemented.
In addition, the city's data does not illustrate
if or how the proposed STR restrictions
would create additional longer-term housing opportunities,
especially affordable housing,
which is the type of housing protected by the LUP.
However, reducing STRs would reduce
public recreational access opportunities,
and this will be felt even more acutely in Pacifica,
where there are only 330 hotel and motel rooms,
and STRs make up a good amount of the accommodation options.
Next slide, please.
For these reasons, the proposed primary residency requirement and 60 night unhosted STR limit
would actually reduce public access opportunities when the LUP requires them to be both protected
and maximized, which is inconsistent with the LUP.
In addition, the reduction in access opportunities would fall disproportionately on underserved
inland communities for whom access to the shoreline is already more difficult than it
is for those who live in Pacifica.
As such, these LUP inconsistencies are amplified when considered through an environmental justice lens.
However, other than the primary residency requirement and the 69 unhosted STR limit,
many of the other proposed provisions should not significantly reduce public access opportunities
and would benefit existing neighborhoods and would help limit over-commercialization.
Among these proposed and approvable provisions are a series of good neighbor regulations,
important safeguards against turning STRs into a form of a major business
operation, a prohibition of unhosted STRs and multifamily units, and a continued
prohibition of STRs in ADUs and JADUs. These retain the more affordable by
design units as potential housing resources. If the proposed amendment is
modified as suggested to remove the primary residency requirement and 60
night unhosted limit, the resulting proposal would provide an LUP
consistent version of the regulations and would represent an appropriate
balancing of competing visitor serving and housing objectives overall. Thus the
recommendation adds STR regulation refinement, but also continues to reflect
the 150 STR cap that the Commission found was an appropriate balance for
Pacifica in 2024. The suggested modifications would reduce the
likelihood of a substantial reduction in public access opportunities beyond that
out. Next slide, please. As the Commission has noted repeatedly over the years, SDR
regulation is not an all-or-nothing proposition in coastal areas. The key is
finding a balance that makes sense for both a community and its visitors while
remaining Coastal Act and LCP consistent. Staff believes that this
recommendation meets those requirements. The staff recommends that the Commission
approve the proposed amendment if modified as suggested. The two motions
necessary to do so can be found on page 6 of the staff report and this concludes
staff's presentation, thank you. Great, thank you very much. Okay, I will return
to the Commission, any ex partes? Commissioner Lopez. Yeah, I had a couple, let me open this
up real quick. The first that I'll share was I met with Susan McCabe and Blemker
and Jose Alvarado representing Airbnb. That was earlier last week, this one has
been submitted. I also met with, don't want to get the title wrong, council member
Greg Great from Pacifica via a phone call.
It was about a 15-minute phone call.
The first meeting content was mostly in support
of the ordinances written with the question
about grandfathering in existing properties
already being utilized.
And the second call, it was largely supportive
of the ordinances written with desire
that we focus on preserving the character of the community,
focusing on the livability of the community and focusing on the children
Needed to keep the school going as well. Thank you
Commissioner Presiata I didn't actually have expertise, but I received numerous communications to have
Expartes from the Pacifica community and from Airbnb
But I had I took none and had no correspondence or acknowledge the communications. I just wanted to make that clear
thank you very much okay with that please oh thank you Madam Chair I had a
discussion this afternoon with miss Mara O'Neill from better neighborhoods LA
they were not in support of the the modifications made and I want to
apologize to the numerous folks have reached out to discuss this issue and I
I wish I could have gotten back to all of you so thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Lopez.
I forgot I also had another one this morning, 815.
I got a call from my local representative Unite here.
And he had on the call a woman named Deja
representing Better Neighbors out of LA,
Better Neighbors LA and they shared again,
they were not supportive of some of the amendments.
There was multiple issues on that call
but this is the context under that particular issue
came up. It was less than two minutes on this issue. Thank you for reporting
this. Now we will turn to the city. I believe you've asked for 10 minutes for
the presentation with three minutes reserved for rebuttal. Thank you. Good
afternoon, Honorable Chair Harmon and Coastal Commissioners. My name is Sean
on the city manager in the city of Pacifica.
I'd like to begin by congratulating you
on your 50th anniversary.
The city of Pacifica is a strong supporter
of the Coastal Act and your work to protect our coast.
And so to stand with you during these times
to make sure that we continue for another 50 years.
Wanted to just turn it over, I'll give a few brief comments
and then turn it over to staff.
Our STR amendment represents
multi-year community-based process. In 2024 we were here before the Commission
to have the Commission certify our cap citywide. The amendment before you is the
result of years of collaboration and comprehensive community meetings
including public meetings, analysis, and robust dialogue. And this deliberate and
An inclusive process has led us to the right balance of STR's, public access and community
concerns about the character of their neighborhood and the negative impacts of the commodification
of our communities.
I'm here today to ask you to approve Pacifica's STR ordinance as it was submitted and to reject
the Coastal Commission recommended modifications.
amendment is submitted is critically important to the city of Pacifica. So we
had four of our City Council members here today. One had to leave due to
timing constraints and also another one is available online and they're here as
observers. Also there were many community members who submitted letters and
communications supporting the adoption of the ordinance as submitted and many
Many of them are here in the audience today.
We look forward to your continued leadership on this topic and your efforts to protect
the coast that we all cherish.
With that, I'll now turn it over to Samantha Updegrave, our Community Development Director.
Thank you, City Manager Charpentier, and good afternoon, Honorable Chair Harmon, Coastal
Commission.
I'm Samantha Updegrave, Pacifica's Community Development Director, and I'm really grateful
to be here today presenting on behalf of our community and city.
Oh, wait.
I need my presentation.
Can we pause for a second?
Next slide.
Thank you.
Pacifica has been wrestling with and studying and regulating STRs for the past eight years
with our first STR ordinance enacted in 2018.
The IP amendment before you today is the result of four years of focused, diligent work and
robust public participation.
We held 14 public meetings in that time and received
hundreds of public comments totaling over 1,000 pages.
In 2023, the city adopted a cap of
150 STR units citywide as a stop-gap measure.
That was to address trends in housing purchases for
the sole use of STRs and
the myriad of issues that was creating
and removing valuable housing from our community.
The cap was certified in 2024 by the Coastal Commission.
The city spent the next two years considering
comprehensive updates to make sure that we were
maintaining the balance between the benefits and
the demonstrated negative impacts that
STRs were having on our neighborhoods.
This amendment was originally scheduled to
come to the commission in February of this year,
and at that point, Coastal Commission staff
had recommended approval as submitted.
What was presented today were modifications to remove
two key provisions from the adopted ordinance. Next slide.
The city strongly opposes the staff recommended modifications
and ask the commission to approve the amendment as submitted.
Specifically, we're asking you to leave intact with
the primary residency requirement and
the 69th maximum for rental of unhosted STRs.
So I just want to read from the original staff report the analysis in Coastal Commission staff's
own words. There is no one-size-fits-all STR solution in Coastal California and each community
must find their own balance including how STRs and different types of STRs are appropriately part
of the overnight accommodation context in their area. The proposed provisions would not eliminate
STRs and the city would still retain what would appear to be a viable STR market for visitors
Particularly for hosted rentals. There is a high level of discretion and a wide range of what can be considered reasonable
To meet Coastal Act and LCP objectives
The city's proposal has been based on some eight years of local outreach and study and the Commission has typically given great weight
to that sort of process that leads to what might be considered a negotiated outcome.
Next slide.
Next slide.
We ask that the Commission retain the primary residence requirements.
This keeps housing in residential use, reduces the impact of commercialization and commodification
of our neighborhoods, and allows housing to be used for its primary purpose, housing,
while supporting STRs as alternative overnight accommodations.
The requirement does align with our housing element strategies
to preserve existing affordable housing
and protect residents from displacement.
Also identified in our LUP,
the majority of our older housing stock
is actually located in the coastal zone,
making it more naturally affordable
compared to newer construction.
The requirement does not violate
the dormant commerce clause.
Yes, operators must be a primary resident,
but they need not be the owner.
out-of-state owners are not prohibited,
and they are able to offer their property as STRs.
Next slide.
We also request that the Commission retain
the 69th maximum for unhosted STRs.
These are associated with well-documented,
adverse impacts on surrounding residential uses in Pacifica.
This includes excessive noise, parking impacts,
and lack of accountability by absentee operators.
Unlowing unlimited rental of hosted STRs,
but limiting the number of nights for unhosted,
strikes a reasonable balance with actually no impact
to the overall availability of rental nights.
Regardless of whether STRs are hosted or unhosted,
there are still 150 STRs permitted,
which could be rented 365 days a year.
So as it is under the current ordinance,
That's a total of 54,750 nights to be rented out as STRs.
And there's absolutely no decrease
in the number of availability.
Unlimited rental of hosted STRs ensures that.
I think it's misleading to characterize
this reasonable limitation on unhosted STRs
as any reduction to availability,
let alone to claim a 50 to 85% reduction, sorry.
Additionally, the city hosts seven hotels with over 300 rooms, six of which are in the
coastal zone, an RV park, and we currently have 107 new hotel rooms in the entitlement
process.
Next slide.
In conclusion, as evidenced by eight years of community work, including the last four
years of diligent 14 public meetings, this amendment is the right balance for Pacifica
That maintains access to STRs in the coast and addresses some of the demonstrated and verified neighborhood impacts
Particularly those related to sole purpose
unhosted STRs, so the city urges the Commission to reject the modifications and approve as
submitted next line
And with that I'll turn it over to mayor Christine Bowles for closing comments
Good afternoon, Tara our commissioners and staff
First, I want to say I really appreciate each of you and your service to our coast.
We stand with you to protect our environment and ensure public access for all.
We welcome climate refugees actually from the Central Valley often coming to cool off
in our coastal fog and waters.
Per our staff, our hotels are inexpensive.
You could rent three rooms for less than the average price of an un-hosted STR.
Besides the two new hotels in process, we recently received proposals for a new family-friendly
Hotel on city-owned oceanfront land. We are committed to building visitor-serving resources
and economy. Our STR ordinance was years of public input and debate, as you heard, as
well as coordination with your staff. When we came to you with our CAP in 2024, several
of you told us that you wanted a stronger ordinance to protect our coastal neighborhood's
character and access, and we did just that. What emerged from our process was a unanimous
Planning Commission and City Council did decision an ordinance that was a delicate compromise allowing limited nights of unhosted STR which were the ones creating problems in our neighborhoods that were difficult and expensive to enforce and which led to the commercialization of our existing housing stock by corporations and out of town investors at the same time our ordinance encourages hosted rentals to help residents pay their housing costs and allows visitors to travel inexpensively with greater choices.
Pacific is not your average beach town with wealthy elites. We've always been a working class town. Many of our homes are small, historically built as beach cottages.
Our housing remains much more affordable than other Bay Area cities and coastal cities around us.
The evictions of low-income seniors for STR conversions are what got me involved, and some of their heartbreaking stories are in your packet.
of this year we have the highest homeless count in our county. We are
actively working to build interim and affordable housing but it will take time
and right now we cannot afford to leave more homes. The changes to our ordinance
the staff proposes actually make our homes more valuable to investors looking
to make quick money with unlimited unhosted vacation rentals with no
oversight of a host and they would be concentrated in two neighborhoods of
Sharp Park and Pedro Point where we have more
single-family homes, so I encourage you to please
approve our ordinance as submitted, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, now, sorry.
Public comment.
Public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
We will move to public comment, thank you.
All right, we do have Mary Byer on Zoom,
and then after that we'll move to people in the room.
by or just declined we need you to accept being promoted to panelist I think she's indicated as
just listening oh just listening okay so we will move on to speakers in the room starting with
Russell Jones, Caitlin Quinn, Gary Furlong and Marge Davis. Russell Jones is first.
Good afternoon commissioners my name is Russell Jones as a resident of Pacifica and a former
short-term rental operator, I co-founded Pacifica for Responsible Tourism to prevent our city council
in coordination with a small group of citizens from privatizing coastal access. As they ignored
the needs of the many in favor of an elite few, I want to begin by saying that I acknowledge how
difficult the position you are in. Before you, there are two parties, each possessed of a lot
passion and insistence that their way forward is the only one. But there are a
couple of things that we know and I hope these certainties light your way. We know
that Pacifica does not have a viable replacement for when they eliminate
short-term rental capacity. 75 percent overnight lodging currently comes from
our short-term rentals. We know that communities visiting Pacifica are
are overwhelmingly choosing STRs as their preferred option
for reasons that we also already know.
We know from their booking preferences
that they do not want hosted properties.
Think of when you travel with your family.
You really want a stranger in the house with you?
Hosted properties are not a viable replacement.
I have provided evidence in my multiple letter submissions,
sorry, on the bad faith legislation of our council members who are all close
friends with the founding members of Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels which is
aligned with the Hotel Lobbyist Group which is for some reason involved in
Pacifica's ordinance. By the council members own admissions they came into
office to get rid of STRs and intentionally drafted this ordinance as
a poison pill to drive operators out. There are a lot of reasons for you to
follow the staff recommendation and vote no on this LCP. And those who ask you to
approve it will not present a single reason other than hyperbolic claims with
no evidence. We urge you to follow the staff recommendations. The 60-day cap and
primary residents requirement will be devastating to coastal access. Thank you.
Please protect our heritage of local serving accommodations and thank you for
protecting indoor as well. Thank you. Caitlin Quinn, Gary Furlong, Mars Davis.
Hello commissioners. So I had a whole speech prepared about how untenable life
is living next door to an unhosted SDR with 30 police incidents with four of
them being escalated to criminal investigations but I'm guessing nobody's
really going to care about that. I was also going to give you a bunch of stats
That's proving how unhosted SDRs do not provide low-cost visitor accommodations.
But I don't need to do that because you all have brains and you can do simple math.
Last night I read a letter in the meeting packet in which a self-proclaimed housing
advocate actually requests that you vote to keep apartments out of the hands of families
needing affordable housing so that corporations and investors can twist them into bogus hotel
rooms.
And that's when I realized just how distorted and sinister this entire situation is.
What a travesty of honesty and integrity and justice that's taking place here, all in the
name of greed.
We're all here today because Airbnb wants to scapegoat Pacifica, because they weren't
paying attention when Half Moon Bay had its hearing with you.
And we're all here today also because corporate investors who have taken housing away from
the community want to monetize their third, fourth, fifth, tenth, maybe twentieth home.
Are you going to let them do that?
You're all thinking, feeling people.
And you know what the truth is and that the right decision is to pass this ordinance without
amendment.
I know this because I have a thing called a memory.
And I remember six months ago, your staff report suggested just that and you were all
poised to do it before a big tech corporation started rattling its savers.
We can be better than greed, can't we?
And we can still stand up to bullies, can't we?
I hope so.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Gary Furlong, Marge Davis, and then Margo Myman.
Gary Furlong.
Chair Herman and commissioners.
My name is Gary Furlong and I've lived in Pacifica for 26 years, and I have three points
for your consideration.
First, on page 14 of the report, the staff clearly says they do not know if STRs are
more or less affordable for lower-income families.
Yet, then the report goes on to say, in effect, that since STRs are more affordable, they
want to gut this ordinance.
Examples of this are on pages 15 and 19.
So first they plainly say, we don't know about affordability, and then they make recommendations
based on STRs being more affordable. Does that make sense? Secondly, we're in a housing
crisis in California. That means that our teachers, our firefighters, our police officers,
our retail workers are having more and more trouble finding a home. Every house bought
by an investor seeking the high profits of an unhosted STR, that home will then remain
vacant more than 60% of the time while our retail people and our police officers and
and so forth, go hunting for homes and not finding them.
Choosing profits over desperately needed housing,
I ask you, does that make sense?
In the February staff report, page four,
the staff endorsed this ordinance and wrote,
and to be clear, there is a high level of discretion
and a wide range of what can be considered reasonable
to meet Coastal Act and LCP objectives.
The city's proposal has been based on some eight years of local outreach and study and
the commission has typically given great weight to that sort of process.
And now six months later, they're asking you to gut that same ordinance.
Note again the words, high level of discretion, a wide range, typically given great weight
to that sort of process, all of that language has disappeared from the current report.
that make sense I'm asking you to approve the STR ordinance of Pacifica
thank you thank you Marge Davis Margo Maimon and then Cindy Abbott Marge
Davis good afternoon commissioners my name is Marge Davis I'm a resident of
Pacifica and also a planning commissioner I'm speaking for myself as
an individual today I have pivoted a bit with my comments the beach Boulevard
area mentioned in the staff report as a visitor draw, Beach Boulevard, the pier, and the seawall
are critically at risk infrastructure at this time. There are areas that are cordoned off
and are unsafe. Do we want to encourage visitors to visit that area through the continued unrestricted
operation of STRs? There are many places for people to stay on the coast without staying
in STRs, houses that have become commercial units in residential neighborhoods, residential
neighborhoods where people purchase homes expecting to have neighbors, not a revolving
door of commercial customers and clients. Neighboring Half Moon Bay has a 60-day limit
and primary residency requirement. San Francisco, the same. Many surrounding cities have the
same requirements. After all the hard work, it is dismaying and disappointing to see that
the community, commission, and city staff and council work be undone by the recommendations
of Coastal Commission staff that are contrary to their previous input.
The 60-day limit and the primary residency requirements are part of making this ordinance
manageable for the residents that are impacted in Pacifica.
Please reject the staff's recommended modifications and approve the LCP Short-Term Rental Amendment
as written by the City of Pacifica.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
Margo Maimon, Cindy Abbott, Lila Raniero.
afternoon council members my name is Margot Myman I'm a 21 year resident of
Pacifica in the coastal zone. I'm here to urge the Commission to adopt Pacifica's
2025 short-term rental ordinance in the coastal zone so that the full ordinance
applies to the whole of Pacifica. Between 2010 and 2018 the property across the
street from where we live was operated as a short-term rental. I won't spend time
here relaying the stories of the nuisance that that property became for us
and other neighbors. I will say that the police were called countless times over
those eight years and ultimately there were three lawsuits between the owner
and the adjacent property owner. Happily the home was sold in 2018 and now a
three-generation family resides across the street. So short-term rental
properties can and do return to the community for housing in regards to the
69 cap for 69 night cap for unhosted rentals our three neighboring coastal
cities half Moon Bay daily city and San Francisco all have limits on unhosted
rental nights it makes no sense that Pacifica would be the exception to that
president removing this cap and the primary resident requirement will leave
our city's coastal neighborhoods with zero protection against rampant commercialization.
Homes will become hotels and the proliferation of nuisance properties will be inevitable.
I urge the committee to reject your commission staff's recommendation and instead adopt
Pacifica's 2025 STR ordinance in the coastal zone so that the full ordinance applies to
the whole of Pacifica.
Thank you.
thank you next Cindy Abbott Lila Renaro and then Brian Renaro Cindy Abbott we
have your presentation as well I'm Cindy Abbott of Pacifica good afternoon
chair Harmon and coastal commissioners in 2022 I began to raise concerns
regarding the loss of my neighbors short-term rentals initially intended to
help visitors and homeowners connect began to be taken over by investors
undermining the network of community. Next slide. Pacifica's ordinance was
designed to achieve coastal access objectives while protecting residential
neighborhoods from being commoditized through the conversion of single-family
homes and critically important affordable apartments into transient
lodging. Balance is at the heart of it with the unlimited hosted
stays and limiting hosteds rentals to 60 nights to preserve existing housing.
next slide after more than ten robust local public meetings unanimous approval
was given by the Planning Commission and City Council next slide primary
residency is not novel its requirement from San Francisco to Half Moon Bay as
well as adjacent cities on the peninsula where some STRs are even banned it is
operation by primary resident that ensures good neighbor policies are not
just words on a rental platform. Unhosted STR impacts are not limited to the
nuisances of parties, parking, and trash. It is a loss of caring and responsibility
of neighbors when a home becomes a revolving door of commercial use. Next
slide. My West Shore Park home was built in 1930 as a primary residence. As folks
visit or walk by or visit the nonprofit art center where I work, I share about
whales at the end of the street, the current migration of city shear waters,
cool businesses hiking and more. It is the laid-back California Beachtown vibe
of Pacifica that includes people who live and work here that's also at stake.
We've worked long and hard to find the balance. Please approve this ordinance as
submitted. Thank you Lila Renaro, Brian Renaro,
Gregor Blackburn. Greetings Chair Harmon and Honorable Commission members. My name
is Lila Renero, a longtime Pacifica resident living in the coastal zone. I
know what a privilege it is to live in this community. I've already submitted
four letters that are in your communication packets, letters that have
been measured in tone and detailed and explaining the negative effects of STRs
in our community. Today I'm here as an angry and passionate mom advocating for
the safety and well-being of my three children, all girls. They do not feel safe
in their own home. When there are loud parties at the STR across the street,
they worry about what could happen.
Strangers have parked in our driveway
and tried to enter our property
because their GPS tells them
they've arrived at their destination.
I'm afraid to let my girls run freely in our own yard
because I don't know who the strangers across the street are.
That SDR even provides a telescope as a guest park.
Think about what that means when a telescope
can be pointed toward neighboring homes
into children's bedrooms.
I have to tell my children
to keep the blinds closed in their bedroom all the time.
They should be getting sunlight and fresh air.
Instead, they deal with darkness,
cigarette and marijuana smoke,
loud parties and the constant uncertainty
of who might be staying across the street.
We've had guests throw debris and cause damage to our home.
It's a shitty way to live, I'm sorry.
I don't know how else to say it.
And the hardest part is the constant feeling
that something worse could happen.
So yes, even a 60-day cap is already a compromise for me.
As a parent, my preference would be zero unhosted SDRs.
I also don't believe corporations, investors,
or people who don't live in our community
profit from our neighborhoods while families bear the consequences. With all
due respect I believe staff got the two key recommendations wrong. Please adopt
the Pacifica STR ordinance as submitted. I'm afraid to talk openly about what my
family has experienced because I don't want to make my children more afraid. How
messed up is that? People should be able to feel safe in their own homes. My
children deserve that and so does every other family in Pacifica. Thank you. Thank
Thank you.
Brian Renero, Gregor Blackburn and then Cynthia Gomez.
Good afternoon, Honorable Chair Harmon and Commissioners.
I ask the Commission to please reject the modifications recommended by the Coastal staff
and adopt the Pacifica STR ordinance as submitted.
It is a balanced response to the very real harms caused by the unchecked growth of unhosted
short-term rentals.
It is the result of a multi-year effort of hundreds of Pacificans who acted with patience,
Diligence and a deep respect for the civic process
The community devoted thousands of volunteer hours and goal-setting meetings city council meeting study sessions and all the way through a city council election
The ordinance has been subject to frequent and open debate by leaders residents and STR operators from both inside
Pacifica and outside the ordinance is also crafted directly from the June
2024 feedback from the Coastal Commission itself. I
I've processed all the public comments through a large language model and I've found that
comments in support of our ordinance outgrew the comments against at a 9 to 1 ratio.
Pacifica has long been one of the most affordable communities in the Bay Area.
Pacifica's mean home price is 9.4% lower than Daly City and 4.4% lower than South San Francisco.
We are not an enclave of the wealthy.
What we are is a small town watching our public schools like Ocean Shore Elementary close
due to declining enrollment.
64% of the unhosted STRs in Pacifica are two-bedroom homes or larger.
If half the unhosted STRs in Pacifica were home to just one child, our schools would
not have lost $1.5 million year over year.
Pacifica's homeownership rate has declined since 2019 is now 21.4% lower than neighboring
and Langtara. Pacifica has more SD unhosted STRs than Half Moon Bay, Belmont,
Atherton, Woodside, Brisbane, Hillsborough, Colma, and Portola Valley combined. 60%
of unhosted STRs are operated by corporate entities with property project players
numbering in the thousands of homes. Please support our STR ordinance as
submitted. Thank you. Thank you. Gregor Blackburn, Cynthia Gomez, and Chris Redfield.
I think this is on. Madam Chair and Commission members, thank you very much for the opportunity
to address regarding Pacifica short-term rental ordinance. I urge the Commission to override
the staff's recommendation that the primary residency requirement be removed from Pacifica's
land use plan. Staff concern is the primary residence language may be in violation of
the dormant commerce clause, the U.S. Constitution, citing a Ninth Circuit ruling. The intent
of Pacifica's residency requirement is property owners who reside in Pacifica for at least
six months a year could operate a short-term rental. In public meetings, Pacificans express
deeply held and strong concerns that residential properties available for purchase and STR
rentals go to living persons and not corporate entities. A reading of the ordinance language
allows people who reside outside of Pacifica the ability to buy or own property and rent
as an STR, however, a person doing the day-to-day operation would need to meet
the residency requirements. The operator is the person responsible to ensure that
all city laws are followed. This provision is strongly linked to the
series of good neighbor operational standards which the staff report
acknowledges. To wit, no loud after-hour parties or noise, no disruptive behaviors
that would disturb the peace, no illegal parking, etc. etc. I believe it's
important that the person responsible for the operation of the STR property
Have a strong local connection. I feel also a person with local knowledge and interests would also enhance the SDR visitors experience. I
appreciate the staff taking into consideration our city's unique character and
Recognizing that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to find a balance between competing interests. I
Trust that defining the owner and or the operator of an STR as a person who must meet a residency requirement
Would be sufficient to address the concerns of the Commission. I
Ask for you to approve Pacifica's ordinance as submitted. Thank you for your consideration
Thank you, Cynthia Gomez Chris Redfield and then tiger jazz big stick
Cynthia Gomez
Good afternoon commissioners Cynthia Gomez research analyst unit here local to San Francisco and San Mateo counties. We represent hotel and hospitality workers
The Coastal Commission should reject the recommendation of the staff and pass the Pacifica's LCPA without amendments
hosted STRs prevent displacement. They maintain neighborhood stability and
they provide affordable overnight accommodations. Removing the cap on
unhosted STRs or eliminating the primary residence requirement would do the
opposite. The approach recommended by staff does not expand meaningful coastal
access. It expands luxury accommodations for the wealthy at the expense of both
residents and lower-income visitors. Couple points. Unhosted STRs are not
lower-cost overnight accommodations. The Coastal Act does not require the
Commission to privilege luxury STRs at the expense of coastal communities nor
to weaken a local program that expands genuinely affordable access through
hosted STRs. There is a documented negative impact that unhosted STRs have
on coastal communities. There's a significant body of research to show
that STR activity increases housing costs by reducing long-term supply of
housing units and increasing speculator demand. Removing the primary residency
requirement, removing the cap on unhosted SDRs from Pacifica's LCP threatens to
expose Pacifica to exactly those pressures. There's also a clear impact on
workforce housing. When STR driven housing costs increased, who are the
first people usually pushed out? The very workers who make coastal access possible.
Hospitality workers, restaurant staff, life cards. I can think of two long-term
allies in my city, both of whom were pushed out of their rent controlled apartments in
San Francisco, only to later find their own homes, later listed on an STR platform.
One of those allies was never able to return to the city.
Passing the original LCPA unamended program would prioritize more affordable visitor accommodations
while minimizing negative impacts on the community.
We ask that you reject the recent staff recommendation and approve the LCPA unamended.
Thank you.
Thank you, thank you Chris Redfield Tiger jazz big stick and then Jose Alvarado Chris Redfield
Good afternoon chair commissioners and staff Chris Redfield, excuse me Pacifica Planning Commission
The update to our STR ordinance was not created in a vacuum
our public staff planning Commission and City Council have spent countless hours of debate and
Compromise crafting what's before you?
As I'm sure you're aware Pacific is not flush with cash
We stand to lose significant to tease with new rules
this speaks to the importance of the regulation of our neighborhoods and
What our communities demand with a reasonable ordinance as presented
The ordinance as proposed does not limit coastal access to anyone in any way shape or form
We arrived here through a democratic process
Excuse me to move otherwise would be undemocratic
We respectfully request approving the ordinance as presented
Thank you tiger jazz big stick Jose Alvarado, and then Brian. Oh Flynn
Good morning honorable chair Harmon
Commission staff I'm tiger jazz trolls big stick
former mayor and council member in Pacifica
43-year lifelong resident in
In 2023, then chair Donna Brownsey was gracious enough
to allow me to show her around Pacifica
and discuss Pacifica's issues.
She relayed to me at the time that she had felt hesitancy
in voting for Half Moon Bay's short-term rental ordinance,
similar to what's before you,
because of their lack of hotel rooms.
Of course, my response is that Pacifica has a hotel district
in the Rockaway neighborhood with three distinct hotels,
one of which Pacifica is actively working with
to encourage renovations.
We have another hotel in the coastal zone a little further north and we have another
hotel to the south in Lindemar.
Right outside the coastal zone, there's the beach, there's the highway, there's the hotel.
And that's in addition with the three hotels in process previously mentioned both inside
and out of the coastal zone.
So when it comes to visitors serving lodging, we're looking to hotel spaces to fulfill that
need and enough competition that prices are adequate for all visitors.
Unlike short-term rentals in our area, which a cursory glance will demonstrate, have prices
that do not accommodate low and moderate income households.
Meanwhile, what the ordinance before you, as submitted does, is to implement Airbnb's
original concept.
If you have an extra room in your house that you want to rent to people from abroad if
you're there and there's an empty room, do so to your heart's content. If you're
fortunate enough that you can take up to two months away from your home for
vacation time, please use that space to generate additional income. What this
ordinance does not allow is taking decades worth of city planning to
cultivate community by designating spaces for families and ignoring that
work by shoehorning in commercial businesses where residential living
should exist.
As a former planning commissioner and council person, I truly don't understand at the point
of the work I was engaged with, with other commissioners, council people, and the entire
community, if ultimately all that work in zoning is undermined by a loophole that informs
greed far more than appropriate visitor accommodation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Jose Alvarado and Brian O'Flynn.
Those are our last two in-person speakers, and then we'll move to Zoom.
We have 30 Zoom speakers and we'll start with Tor Neelands, Rebecca Smith Coggins, and
Maura O'Neil.
Jose Alvarado.
Thank you.
Chair Harmon, honorable commissioners.
My name is Jose Alvarado and I'm here on behalf of Airbnb and our host in the city
of Pacifica.
I'm here to respectfully request that the commission certify staff recommended changes
by removing the city's primary residency requirement and the 69 cap restrictions from the LCP.
Additionally, we also asked that the commission not penalize responsible host and
grandfather in existing short-term rentals in multifamily units,
protecting those hosts who have invested in good faith and
complied with all local regulations which were just amended and approved by this commission in 2024.
As drafted and submitted,
the city's LCP would prohibit the vast majority of short-term rentals in the coastal zone,
impacting 95 percent of all the short-term rental night stays from previous calendar year.
And while we appreciate staff's recommended removal
of the primary residency requirement in 69 cap,
prohibiting hosting multifamily units
would still impact coastal accommodations.
By the city's own count,
this change would affect 37 current listings,
29 of those in the coastal zone.
While the vast majority of our hosts
are responsible residents who care about their community,
Airbnb remains committed to working with the city of Pacifica
to address nuisance concerns.
Over the past few years, we have repeatedly asked the city
to identify specific problem listings.
And so far, we have only been sent one,
which we probably took down from the website.
In that time, the city has refused to engage with us,
but we remain committed
to addressing these nuisance concerns.
Our hosts in Pacifica provide affordable coastal access
to visitors who are not fortunate enough
to live already in the coastal zone.
The Commission's core mission
of keeping California's coastline open and accessible
to all, is dependent on rejecting the original CPS
submitted and adopting these changes.
We respectfully urge the commission
not to undermine the mission.
In closing, we want to thank Coastal Commission staff
for their work on the CELCP over the last eight months
and respectfully urge the commission
to accept the proposed staff changes
grandfathering existing short-term rentals
and multifamily units.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Brian O'Flynn, and then on Zoom Tor Neelands,
Rebecca Smith Coggins and Moro O'Neill.
Brian O'Flynn.
Good afternoon commissioners, my name is Brian O'Flynn.
I've had a lifelong close connection with both Pacifica
and the beaches along Pacifica.
In 1972, I founded what is now
California's oldest youth centered surf club,
a club that remains active today after more than 50 years
and our favorite beaches, Lindemar.
So Pacifica's historical heritage
was built on being a visitor-serving destination,
and today it remains the most directly accessible stretch
of coast for nearly 10 million residents
across the San Francisco Bay Area,
a sacrament in the Central Valley and the Foothills,
direct coastal ocean exposure, coastal air, et cetera,
near the water provides profound health and wellness benefits
for the public.
However, Pacifica is severely underserved
by traditional accommodations, offering only
about 330 hotel rooms, and recent damage to the popular Pacifica Pier makes his visitor
accommodations even more critical.
Several years ago, the Pacifica established a balanced cap of 150 short-term mental permits.
In November 2024, local voters overwhelmingly reaffirmed their support for local lodging
via STRs when Proposition M passed with nearly 78 percent approval, generating essential
tax revenue needed to help cover the city's $2 million budget deficit.
The recent proposed changes to SCR's proposed by the City Council simply do not reflect
the wishes of a large majority of Pacifica voters who have consistently recognized that
visitor-serving economy of the coastal zone and support its revitalization.
I strongly urge the Commission to support the 150 short-term rental units without any
additional restrictions because it has been working well for several years.
regulations are in place to ensure there are good hosts and permits are not
renewed if or revoked if there's any violations. If there is a
restriction on the number of total rentable visitor nights which is
what the metric which the Coastal Commission is looking at, then there would be a drastic off fall in the
number of affordable accommodations to the public as referenced like an 85%
drop it. Thank you, sir. Thank you. The Commission must keep its mandate for public access to the
coast as primary as limited. Thank you. Your time's up, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Now moving on to our Zoom speakers, I just want to give a reminder to Zoom speakers
that we are moving you in as panelists to speak. Your Zoom reloads and takes a moment,
so we move three in at a time, but please keep your video and microphone off until it is your
turn to speak. So, we are starting with Tor Neelans, followed by Rebecca Smith-Coggins
and Maura O'Neill. Tor Neelans, go ahead.
Okay, can you hear me okay?
Yes, we can hear you.
Great, fantastic. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for hearing our public
comments. My name is Tor Neelans and my wife and I have lived on Grand Avenue in Pacifica's
Pedro Point neighborhood for 19 years. We start from a fairly simple land use principle,
residential neighborhoods or zoned residential for a reason.
We generally oppose commercial uses that bring substantially increased traffic noise and
turnover strangers into residential streets.
Left entirely to us, we therefore would not permit whole house short term rentals in residential
neighborhoods at all.
That's why Pacifica's ordinance represents a genuine compromise for us.
We support unlimited hosted short term rentals, true home sharing and even accept allowing
those homes to operate unhosted for 60 nights each year.
remain welcome. What we oppose is converting residential homes into
essentially full-time absentee-operated lodging businesses. Our concern comes
from experience. Guests said unhosted STRs on our street have trespassed through
our property trying to reach the Pedro Pointe Headlands, generate substantial
traffic and noise, and in one particularly alarming incident, began preparing to set
off illegal fireworks immediately next to our home and adjacent to extremely
dry coastal vegetation around the 4th of July. I happened to be at home and was
able to stop them before they ignited the fireworks. There was no host there to do so.
Pacifica spent eight years developing this compromise. Please preserve its two essential
elements, the primary residence requirement and the 69th limit on unhosted rentals.
Please approve Pacifica's ordinance as our city adopted it. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Next Rebecca Smith-Coggins, Mora O'Neill, and then Noah Suarez-Sykes,
Rebecca Smith Coggins. Thank you very much. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you.
Okay. I am Rebecca Smith Coggins. I have been a resident of Coastal Pacifica. My husband and I
decided I want to speak strongly to oppose the staff recommendations. I think both
the 60-night unhosted cap and the primary residence requirement are key for our communities.
I want to share with you all, and it's a story about me and my husband. We decided to retire to
Pacifica and moved there in 2017 into a long-term rental and worked with a neighbor of ours,
Angela Howitt who is a real estate agent and finally in 2020 found a home that we wanted to bid on.
She showed it to us before it came on the market and next to it was a
short-term rental property owned by out-of-town investors. Those investors were clients of hers
and had she had sold them multiple homes and saw them all turn into short-term
rentals, and they had told her that they would, no matter what the offer was on the house we were
going to bid on, they would offer $100,000 more. Well, she showed it to us before it came on the
market. We made our offer, we were able to move in, and she did the right thing for the fabric of
community in Pacifica, because she knew from living near us that we would be good citizens
and be helpful in our community. And she could have accepted more money, but she was an
upstanding citizen and watching out for the fabric of the community. Incidentally, the
short-term rental next to us has gone to long-term rental and there's a lovely family there
and I am very worried that as soon as or if you guys don't reject the recommendation
and go back to weekend parties. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. Next, Maura O'Neill,
Noah Suarez-Sikes, and then Geraldo Dalton. Maura O'Neill. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Maura O'Neill, and I'm a policy analyst for Better Neighbors LA. We're a coalition focused on housing
and regulating short-term rentals. We strongly urge the Commission to reject the staff recommendation
and instead pass Pacifica's LCPA unamended. In 2024, the Coastal Commission tasked the City of
Pacifica with strengthening and rewriting their ordinance into something with teeth.
And that's what the City did and what's before you. And they did this with a lot of community
consultation. So we're asking the Commission to pass this LCPA unamended because it adequately
balances the competing interests of coastal visitor access and community need. The provisions
of this ordinance, including the primary residency requirement and cap on unhosted rental nights
have precedent in Half Moon Bay just a few miles down the coast. Passing the staff recommended
version of Pacifica's ordinance privileges pricey unhosted STRs at the expense of coastal housing.
This contradicts the Commission's obligation to prioritize lower-cost accommodations
and fails to adequately balance scarce coastal resources as required by the Coastal Act.
To best expand lower-cost visitor access and protect sensitive coastal resources,
we urge the Commission to reject the staff recommendation and approve Pacifica's LCPA
unamended. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Noah Suarez Sykes, Geraldo Dalton and then Samuel Casillas,
Noah Suarez Sykes. All right, can you all hear me? Yes. Great, fantastic. Give me one second.
All right. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Noah Suarez Sykes. I'm the lead organizer at
Better Neighbors LA, a housing coalition focused on regulating short-term rentals. BNLA urges the
Coastal Commission to reject the staff recommendation and pass the LCPA unamended to ensure the proper
balance of coastal priorities in Pacifica. This ordinance, as you've heard, is the result of eight
years of extensive community input and study sessions by the Pacifica City Council, including
multiple sessions of public comment that lasted until one in the morning. The ordinance they came
up with is one of the best balances between maximizing coastal access and protecting coastal
housing. The ordinance allows hosted STRs to operate virtually unlimited, recognizing that hosted STRs
with primary residents do not remove housing from the community, but it also continues to allow
unhosted with common sense regulations. The staff recommendation significantly
weakens the ordinance on the basis that unhosted STRs are lower cost coastal accommodations
and therefore the coastal commission has to allow them to operate undistricted. No evidence is
provided to support this assertion because in fact the average unhosted STR in the coastal zone
rents for roughly $568 a night and the average hosted STR is $245 a night. Unhosted STRs are
largely expensive accommodations and the Coastal Commission shouldn't encourage their operation
and should instead approve regulations that favor hosted STR as the lower-cost option.
Pacifica is in the middle of a significant housing crisis struggling to meet their RINA allocations
and the city has embarked on an extensive good faith attempt to meet its obligations to both
provide coastal access and serve its citizens. Exactly as this commission asked it to in 2024,
please pass this LCPA unamended and help the City of Pacifica fulfill its obligations to its visitors
and its people. Thank you. Thank you. Geraldo Dalton, Samuel Quesillas and then Patricia Kephart.
Geraldo Dalton. Hi, thank you commissioners for the opportunity to speak here today.
I live in Pacifica with my wife, two kids, ages nine and three. Probably oppose the staff's
recommendation to remove primary residence requirements in the 60-day cap on unhosted STRs.
Why? Because there's one unhosted STR in front of my house that converted the garage into a bedroom
to receive large groups of people, and there's another STR three houses down. This makes me worry
for the safety of my kids playing outside due to the high turnover of gas and gas driving the
wrong way on the one-way street. Regarding the affordability argument of STRs versus hotels,
it is only valid if STRs are hosting large groups of people increasing even more the problems that
I have described. STR operators are motivated by profits. Residents are motivated by quality of
life and safety in a residential neighborhood. I welcome visitors in Pacifica to stay at our
hotels like before the existence of these platforms and I urge the Coastal Commission to keep
primary residence requirement in a 60-day care. Now one last little note here. In Sharp Park
there's a hotel maybe like five blocks from my house and I see the hotel with the parking lot
almost empty a lot of the days during the week and two cars during weekends.
planning rooms on the hotels. We need to have residential neighborhoods to be residential
properties. We need commercial properties to be on the commercial areas. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Samuel Casillas, Patricia Kephart, and then Stephanie Robbins. Samuel Casillas.
Hi, my name is Sam Casillas, and I have been a resident of the Pacific over 23 years. In 2003,
I was fortunate to buy my first home here, a two bedroom place, a little place. When I got married
over the next 10 years, we saved and found a new place in our same neighborhood. When we were
moving to a new place, dozens of STR operators offered to buy our old place, all cash, and at
a premium that would leave everyday families unable to buy or rent the place. We also asked
the surrounding neighbors how would they feel about an Airbnb going next door. They all agreed.
It would destroy the closed community on their street,
and they wouldn't be very happy with me.
And I understand as I have to live here.
We told the potential buyer that we would not be selling
and that in our old age, we were returning to this place.
So in the meantime, we would rent it to someone
who needed a place to live because Pacifica
is a very hard place to find safe, affordable housing.
One STR owner asked, why wouldn't I just Airbnb it
and make more than double what I can rent?
Some of these places offer nightly rates of $2,500.
So let's stop the nonsense that these places
are adding more access to the coast
for regular and disadvantaged families.
And also the fallacy that reducing unhosted STRs
could be made up with hosted STRs.
These STRs are tearing our neighborhoods apart.
They hire fancy lawyers to meet with the Kohl's commission
and have you now say our ordinance is legally flawed.
Yeah, just down the road in Half Moon Bay,
They have pretty much the same horn that's in place,
but Pacifica is not good enough for that.
Kind of sounds like you guys are punching down,
but the bigger issue reveals these STRs
have directly attributed to population decline
and loss of families and children in our school system.
The big lie of how they supposedly bring revenue
to our city and what is really happening with these STRs,
they're taking homes away from prospective families
who just want to live in a good, safe community here.
They know their neighbors here where they know their neighbors.
By taking these homes out of our housing stock,
STRs have created a school crisis in Pacifica.
Last year, Pacifica closed an elementary school
and middle school because the state cut our school funding
due to the-
It's directly tied to the number of those STRs.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Patricia Kephart, Stephanie Robbins, and Anna Tong.
Patricia Kephart.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Great.
I would like to rebut four points from the claims made
in the document dump that caused the delay
for this decision for your wonderful commission.
First, there's no cronyism observed.
I went to many of these meetings
and there was robust council discussion
after everyone had their turn at the mic.
Two, it's disingenuous to think that unhosted homes that
rent for thousands of dollars a night
serve the needs of the less affluent Californians.
I had the experience with the house across the street from me
that rented for thousands of dollars a night.
Three, a friend of mine who is a Vietnam vet
watches in his neighborhood the license plates of the people that are renting.
It's from Washington, Oregon, and Nevada. We're not just here for the Californians from Modesto.
And finally, as I said, the house across from me is not in the coastal zone and it has sold
last week, the ordinance change can return our stock to families and I think the yimbies should
side with our families over the corporations. So thank you very much and I just so appreciate
the commission and glad to hear about all the education things that you're doing. Thank you
for supporting Pacifica and voting for rejecting your staff's recommendations. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Stephanie Robbins, Anna Tong, and then Alex Vardicostas. Stephanie Robbins.
Hi, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Stephanie Robbins,
and I've been a resident of West Sharp Park for 20 years in Pacifica for more than 26 years.
I'm speaking today to ask you to reject staff's suggested modifications and approve Pacifica's
short-term rental ordinance as submitted by our City Council. First, staff's sudden reversal is
deeply troubling. As recently as January 15th, staff supported this ordinance in its entirety,
recognizing that primary residency requirements and a 60-night cap on unhosted rentals protect
housing while maintaining visitor access. Reversing this position creates an unjustifiable
double standard, especially when our neighbor, Half Moon Bay, operates under a Coastal Commission
certified ordinance of these exact same rules. Second, staffs claim that removing unhosted
limits protects, quote, affordable access contradicts market reality. Unhosted whole
home rentals are actually higher, as you've been hearing all afternoon. A simple hotel room in
Pacifica runs between $150 and $220 per night. For a family needing two rooms, booking two
hotel rooms costs about $300 to $440 a night. But once cleaning and service fees are added to a
with two bedroom unhosted STR.
The cost is gonna jump to 365 or over 450
on average per room per night.
So that's comparing room for room,
not just room for a whole house, right?
So really looking at the actual true affordability
and the STRs are not offering that affordability.
Unhosted STRs do not provide low cost access.
So that's the goal of the commission.
They're not doing that.
Taking away homes from local families is what they're doing.
Hosted STRs which remain completely uncapped,
preserve real housing while offering
authentic budget-friendly home sharing.
Pacifica already offered broad coastal access
and free parking.
So please support what Pacifica City Council has sent
without staff's recommendation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anna Tong, Alex Farikostas,
and then William Leo Leon.
Anna Tong.
Hi, my name is Anna.
Thank you so much for listening to us all here.
I am an unhosted short-term rental host in Pacifica.
And I'm here to ask you to not approve the STR ordinance.
So I know you're hearing from a ton of people
who live in Pacifica that are in favor of the ordinance,
but what you aren't hearing from are the visitors
who book STRs.
So I wanted to provide a voice for that.
So two summers ago, a multi-generational family
from central California booked the apartment
that we offer as an unhosted STR.
And they wrote, hello, visiting
because it's my daughter's sixth birthday.
We live in central California
and want to escape the 115 degree heat wave.
So as a multi-generational family,
it was four adults, grandparents and parents,
two kids and one infant, so a total of seven people.
And for that, we were paid $238
and they paid our cleaning team $100.
And when they checked out, they messaged us,
hey, we're out of the valley heat.
It had a great time without breaking the bank.
Thank you for making it possible.
So as we all know, the heat waves are worsening
and escaping to the coast is becoming a health necessity.
And if this ordinance passed,
I would not be able to offer this place
as a short-term rental.
We're already experiencing the decline in drop-in rooms
of 50% nights available
in the non-coastal zones of Pacifica.
So I know that a lot of the advocates
for the Pacifica's ordinance are saying,
hey, it specifies unlimited hosted rentals,
But the reality is families don't want to book hosted SDRs
because they need privacy and they need space.
I mean, if you were traveling with seven of your family
members, would you want to be staying with a person
that you don't know in your home?
I think the answer is no for most people.
And then unhosted rentals that would stay
with the 60 day cap would essentially just get much,
much more expensive than I've been able to offer my guests
just due to the laws of supply and demand.
And so the core mandate of the Coastal Act
is to protect lower cost to visitor access.
Pacifica really is one of the last places on the coast
that's affordable to visit.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you.
Next is Alex Vardicostas,
followed by William Leo Leon and Ricardo da Alba.
Alex Vardicostas.
Thank you so much.
My wife and I are STR hosts who live about 20 minutes away.
We're in Pacifica constantly.
We're close to our neighbors.
In fact, I was just texting with them yesterday
and they've even counted on us to host people
who work for their nonprofit at our unhosted STR.
We've never had an issue or noise violation,
let alone one of these like wild police interactions
that the opposition seems to talk about.
In fact, we've actually asked for these reports
to try to understand that they've never received them.
And the crazy thing is like all of these supposed violations
are actually under already prohibited
by the existing STR regulations
that the city could simply enforce.
Um, and so the implication that suddenly switching to hosted is going to like
make every guest, um, you know, a dream guests or whatever kind of people
are talking about doesn't seem to make sense.
Ultimately, STRs are 1% of cities homes, it provides 77% of accommodations
to visitors of the coast.
The city council ignored literally every bit of input from a
large organization of STR hosts.
And most importantly, what a lot of climate refugees want and said, and so
I'm actually going to, I'm here to represent the ladder who are not
invited to this process. I want to read off from what our guests
have told us. We are so excited to get out of Fresno and visit
my brother in Pacifica. It'll be the first time my kids get to
meet their baby cousin. We love the space because it
accommodates my three kids with the older two being able to
share a room with separate beds. Another one we live way up in
the foothills of the Sierra and yet never get to see the ocean
anymore. Another one this will be my Mother's Day treat and
watching the sunset over the ocean living in Fremont we don't
get there often enough. Another one visiting with wife kids and
brother-in-law. We just wanted to have a weekend away since my wife and I are
always working. We like how it's close to the beach and it's affordable.
Affordable, excuse me. This is just, it was not represented at all in what the city
council is proposing and so we we really urged the the Coast Commission to to not
make visiting the coast illegal. If this happens we're gonna shut down. We won't
get to host these families anymore, something we love to do so yes we
We encourage you to keep going with what you proposed thus far.
Thank you.
Excuse me.
Thank you.
William Leo Leon followed by Ricardo de Alba and then Pam Raymond.
William Leo Leon.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Oh, thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
My wife is with me.
She's Chris.
We respectfully disagree with staff regarding issues
and conclusions raised in the staff recommendation,
specifically of no annual cap on stays
for unhosted short-term rentals
versus the 60-day cap that was submitted.
Staff has opined and given examples
of potential reductions under primary residence
by stating that if all 150 STRs under the cap
were unhosted, then the nice would be reduced by 85%.
This calculation negatively skews the potential impact
of that into an extreme scenario.
It should not be used or considered as fact.
The staff report addressed the issue of allowing SDR versus using a home for longer term housing
and as in no way assures property owners will sell their properties that they can't pursue
and would housing be affordable anyway?
Well we point to the mechanism.
It's simple.
The economic need for a non-resident owner is either profit from rent or else sell the
in the city of Toronto.
Regarding housing availability,
we know former STRs, and you've
heard some today, that were
converted to long-term rentals.
Some of those are a block away
from us here on Pedro Point in
the coastal zone.
There is data to support
increased availability of
housing.
Moreover, staff says there's no
substantive basis for
concluding that proposed STR
regulations will improve
Once again, I disagree. We submitted data in our package showing Pacifica as the most
affordable place to live on the San Mateo County coast. Average rent to income ratio
known as cost burden in Pacifica is 30.3%. At Moon Bay, 33 to 38% and unincorporated
San Mateo County, 35%. Because of its affordability, it follows that any housing available in Pacifica
offers low and moderate income buyers the best opportunity for buying a renter.
So please adopt the ordinance that we submitted. Thank you very much Leo and Chris.
Thank you. Next Ricardo da Alba followed by Pam Raymond and then Tom Marin. Ricardo da
Alba. Ricardo, you're in as panelists, you should be able to unmute.
There we go. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
All right, thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Rick D'Alba. I am a Pacifica
resident and homeowner. My wife and I have lived in our home and this community for more than 25
years. We strongly oppose the Coastal Commission staff's recommendation. Please listen to the
residents who actually live in these neighborhoods and who have experienced firsthand the negative
and destabilizing consequences of unhosted short-term rentals. It affects us and our neighborhood
stability, safety, security and quality of life. We are homeowners here and have personally
experienced impact of living next door to numerous unhosted short-term rental. What a disaster and
nightmare to us in our quiet neighborhood. Our residential neighborhoods are not meant for
commercial business transients. Yes. Homes, not hotels. Please. Bottom line is, these
Airbnbs have created big disruptive problems in our neighborhood. We respectfully request
your help to fix this problem and do what is appropriate for our neighbors and citizens.
Thank you for your courtesy and assistance. Good day to all.
Thank you. Next, Pam Raymond followed by Tom Marin and then tell me Alvarez, Pam Raymond.
Hello. I don't think I have camera. Oh, here it is. Sorry. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear and see. Yes. Okay. Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Thank you for hearing our comments today. My name is Pam Raymond. I am grateful to have
city of Pacifica. The city of
in the coastal zone for 37
years. I'm requesting that you
approve the city of Pacifica as
written and submitted in January
of 2026. This proposed ordinance
was not a rush process. The
community came to many meetings
and workshops to have their
development plan. The
nightly price of a whole house
S. T. R. Ocean front often
exceeds $2000. This limits
coastal access to a wealthy
elite. That's not a
portability. The primary
resident and 60 day unhosted
limit requirements will bring
the price of S. T. R. S. Down
to arrange accessible to far
more people. It will preserve
neighborhoods and communities
prevent corporations from
the city of Toronto. The city
recently Del Mar, and please adopt the ordinance as it was submitted in January of 2026.
Thank you for your consideration and thank you for your commitment to the coast of California.
Thank you. Next is Tom Maron. Tell me Alvarez and then Jim Holtz. Tom Maron.
Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Good afternoon, commissioners. Tom Maron, attorney at Schwartz, Steins up here, Dorman
and Summers representing better neighbors. We urge you to vote no on motions one and
and to make a substitute motion to accept the City of Pacifica's LCPA
without modification. A decision to support the staff recommendation would
constitute an abuse of discretion for two reasons. First, the staff report fails
to engage in the balancing analysis required by section 30,000 7.5 of the
Coastal Act. Second, more concerningly, the findings and declarations misstate
the city's significant coastal resources, ignore substantial evidence, and use the
absence of facts as evidence instead of the record before it. Our firm has
submitted a letter that is in this record and I encourage you to review it.
The city of Pacifica's LUP has designated existing housing for persons
of low to moderate income as a sensitive coastal resource. Not deed restricted
affordable housing, not future housing, but existing housing. The staff report
ignores the use of the word existing in the LUP. The report also ignores
substantial evidence about the city's housing shortage and that converting
housing into unhosted STRs necessarily removes housing units from the city's
stock. The LUP also designates recreational opportunities for persons of low to moderate
income as a sensitive coastal resource. The city provided the commission with substantial evidence
that STRs cost significantly more than hotels. Cost is objectively the best and only way to
evaluate affordability. The findings provide no additional data or evidence about affordability,
but instead rely only on anecdotal and unsupported assertions that STRs might be more affordable
to hypothetical groups of people renting hypothetically large houses.
This is not evidence because it is not supported by actual data.
The Commission's findings must be based on substantial evidence.
Moreover, section 30,007.5 requires the Commission to balance two conflicting
provisions in favor of the most significant coastal resource.
Here, there's no evidence that warrants balancing the loss of a sensitive resource
like existing housing for persons of low to moderate income
in favor of STRs affordable only to high-income earners.
respectfully we request the commission to vote no on the staff recommendation thank you.
Thank you Nexus tell me Alvarez and Jim Holtz and then Karen Baker tell me Alvarez.
Can you hear me? Yes we can hear you. Okay hello good morning good afternoon now um chair
commissioners thank you for the opportunity to speak today my name is Telme Alvarez on behalf
of Better Neighbors LA Pacifica's ordinance reflects a thoughtful balance that many coastal
communities have struggled to achieve protecting and expanding visitor access while protecting
the people who actually live in these neighborhoods. As someone who has worked directly with families
facing displacement and environmental burdens over the past 20 years I want to underscore
why the city's approach is not only reasonable but necessary. Pacifica's hosted STR framework
preserves and expands low-cost equitable coastal access. Hosted STRs are consistently the most
affordable STR option and they allow visitors to stay in real homes and real neighborhoods
without displacing the residents who make those neighborhoods possible.
In Pacifica, the average hosted STR is less than half the cost of the average unhosted whole home
STR. That is meaningful access, not just access for those who can afford luxury whole home rentals.
What's more, Pacifica's ordinance does allow whole home unhosted rentals within reasonable limits
to further balance visitor unique preferences and budgets while enjoying access to the California
coast. Unhosted STRs function as commercial visitor accommodations. They accelerate housing
loss, destabilize neighborhoods, and raise prices far beyond what lower income visitors can afford.
In my work, I see the downstream impacts of that conversion. Fewer long-term rentals,
more speculative buying, and more pressure on families already struggling to remain housed.
Pacifica's ordinance directly circumvents those harms. The city's approach also aligns with the
commission's own long-standing recognition that STRs can support visitor access and harm housing
and community stability if not carefully regulated. Pacifica has done the hard work of designing a
framework that protects both and it deserves credit for that. Staff's recommendation would shift the
balance away from hosted lower cost community compatible STRs and toward hosted high priced
units that contribute to displacement pressures and nuisance issues. That shift would not expand
meaningful coastal access. It would expand commercial activity in residential neighborhoods
and reduce affordability for the very visitors the coastal act aims to protect. Finally, I want to
address the environmental justice framing. The EJ communities I've worked with in the last decade
across California, renters, working families, people living in here, the burdens, are not
accessing luxury and hosted STRs. They benefit from stable housing, safe neighborhoods, and
a genuinely affordable ways to visit the coast. Pacifica's ordinance supports all three. For
these reasons, I urge you to approve Pacifica's SD ordinance as submitted. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Next is Jim Holtz, followed by Karen Baker, Christina Santiago. Karen Baker,
please accept being promoted as the panelist. Jim Holtz.
Hi. Before I start, my wife and I are speaking on one statement, two minutes each, so she'll
be on right here with me right after me. So I'm starting now. Good afternoon. Under the Coastal
Act, you as Commissioner has only one job, carry out said Coastal Act. For this vote, that means
providing maximum coastal access and recreational opportunities for all people. Three provisions in
in the Pacifica LCPA do the exact opposite by design.
I believe these provisions you vote for today
act as a de facto ban.
First, hosted only rentals.
Imagine you taking your children to Pacifica on a budget.
You need bedrooms, kitchen, laundry,
and a room to stay together.
If whole home rentals disappear under the hosted only rule
that you might approve today,
The Pacifica's only two coastal zones, hotel rooms with kitchenettes are booked.
The only remaining choice is to stay together under one roof in a stranger's occupied hosted home.
Would you want a 65-year-old man like me sleeping in the next room from your children sharing your living space?
Likely not.
Then you must decide to split the hotel rooms or stay outside of the Pacifica coastal zone.
does that maximize coastal access? Second, the 60 night cap. Imagine you use the second home for
a few weekends a year and rent it otherwise. After 60 nights, what would you do with it? You can't
place a long-term tenant there and still use it for your own weekends. The practical choice is
to leave it empty for most of the year. This is why Saff calculates the potential unhosted nights
for fall more than 85% with little evidence the last combinations will become long-term or
affordable housing. Is this a reasonable limit or another de facto ban? Third, the ban on unhosted
rentals in multifamily properties. Imagine your family wants a smaller affordable home rental.
why would your your only choice be a detached home that may be a smaller home and a shared
business may be the right size thank you thank you Jim fans and hosted rentals in all of them
regarding regardless of management or compliance history nothing requires a discontinued SCR to
becomes a affordable housing. Why eliminate the lodging most likely to fit your budget while
leaving larger, more expensive detached homes eligible. Pacifica claims to be in the room
because all 150 permits would theoretically become hosted rentals $3.65 a year. Karen
Baker followed by Christina Santiago and then Juan Munoz. Then Karen Baker, give us a second.
you should be able to unmute and turn on your camera.
Karen Baker.
All right, can you hear me?
Yes.
Well, good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Karen Baker,
and I am asking you to reject
Pacifica's proposed short-term rental regulations
as written and accept the staff recommendation.
I want to emphasize something that goes beyond Pacifica.
I live in Hermosa Beach,
and I am deeply concerned about the president.
this Commission could establish today.
Hermosa has just gone through a legal fight
over short term rentals in the coastal zone.
Following that decision,
short term rentals are now permitted
in the Hermosa's coastal zone.
If the Commission approves Pacifica's
highly restrictive framework today,
what prevents Hermosa Beach or other coastal cities
from pointing to this decision
and saying the Coastal Commission
approved this approach in Pacifica
the city of Toronto. We have a
lot of people who are not so
we should do the same. This
proposal isn't simply about
reasonable protection for
neighbors. It combines a
primary resident requirement, a
69 annual limit on unhosted
rentals, expensive inspections,
documentation, parking
requirements, annual fees and
renewal. Severe penalties in
numerous additional operating
the city of Davis. The city of
Davis has been trying to turn
coastal lodging so difficult.
That they effectively eliminate a meaningful category of visitor.
Commodations the cost of commission should be protecting coastal access,
not creating a regulatory model. That coastal cities can use to
progressively restrict. Access to overnight accommodations.
I support these mobile rules that address legitimate problems,
I also would just like to comment since I have a few more seconds.
Based on what the prior speaker was saying, I actually have a second home in Hermosa and
it was sitting empty most of the year.
We would use it with our family and friends several times a year, but the rest of the
time it was empty.
Well, thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Christina Santiago, Juan Munoz, and then Angela Descot.
Kristina Santiago.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Kristina Santiago and I am a member of United Year Local 11 and a resident of
Santa Monica.
I'm asking today that you reject the staff recommendation on item 13B and instead approve
the Pacifica LCPA without amendments.
As a resident of Acosta community myself, I know firsthand the tenants and residents
bear the cost when short term rentals go unchecked.
Our ability to actually live on the coast is on the line.
Pacifica residents have spent years studying and debating
this policy.
I would encourage you to respect the local democracy
and adopt the ordinance as written.
The unamended Pacifica LCPA meets the bar
that this commission itself said when it asked Pacifica
to come back with that stronger ordinance.
Waking it now will break the precedent
and introduce real confusion into the regulatory landscape.
But more importantly, it will weaken
every coastal community ability
to confront the housing crisis.
As someone living in Santa Monica,
I can tell you firsthand how hard it is
to find coastal housing you can even dream of affording.
Short-term rentals make that worse
and they bring a host of other problems.
The ordinance Pacifica has brought back
is one of the strongest balances between coastal accommodation
and coastal housing needs that this commission has seen.
It was developing consultation
with both Pacifica community and neighborhood coastal
municipalities that have implemented similar regulations.
And the city took care to align it with this commission
on past decisions on short-term rentals.
If the staff recommendation is adopted instead,
it sends an unmistakable signal
to every coastal city watching.
This commission has a chance right now to set the standards
it wants the cities to build on
or to invite the same fight every coastal community
that tries to protect its housing.
I urge you to give cities the tool they need
to protect both coastal housing and coastal accommodations
by passing this ordinance unamended.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Juan Munoz, Angela D Scott,
and then Fong Buoy, Juan Munoz.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Commissioners.
My name is Juan Munoz here on behalf of Unite Here Local 11.
We urge you to reject the staff recommendation
and approve Pacifica's LCPA as submitted without amendments.
Unhosted STRs will not create low cost coastal accommodations.
Instead, they'll damage our housing supply
and undermine compromises Pacifica's ordinance
already struck.
Let's look at the numbers.
Unhosted STRs are not low cost accommodations.
Inside Airbnb data from June shows whole home STRs
in the coastal zone average $568 a night.
The statewide benchmark for low cost accommodations
$147. These are luxury rentals, not affordable rooms, and protecting them shouldn't come at
the expense of coastal workers and residents. There's also a real housing impact. When homes
convert from long-term housing into full-time STRs, that shrinks supply and drives up costs.
Folks like our members are on the front lines of this problem, struggling to live near the
coast that they serve. Pacifica's ordinance strikes a reasonable balance allowing hosted
STRs and visitor access while limiting unhosted STRs to protect neighborhood stability and
long-term housing. This isn't unprecedented. The Commission has approved similar protections
elsewhere, including primary residency requirements and unhosted STR limits in Half Moon Bay in
Trinidad, approving Pacifica's LCPA as written is consistent with your own precedent. Pacifica
spent years developing this policy in direct response to this Commission's own direction
to strengthen its STR program. Please don't weaken those protections now to preserve luxury
rentals that do little for genuine low-cost coastal access. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Next is Angela Descott followed by Fong Bui and then I'll start calling names
that we weren't able to find on Zoom. Angela Descott.
Good afternoon. Can you all hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, perfect. Hi. Good afternoon, honorable chair, commissioners. My name is Angela Descott
and I too am a resident here in Santa Monica and I'm speaking in support of the recommendations
submitted by Pacifica as they stand.
I urge you to approve these.
The Pacifica's LTPA as submitted without amendments.
Our coastal communities should remain places
where working families, renters, seniors,
and local workers can actually afford to live,
not increasingly become investment opportunities
for unlimited short-term rentals.
We are already seeing the consequences
of housing shortages here in Santa Monica,
where an ongoing and severe housing shortage
has made it increasingly difficult
for essential workers and long-term residents
to remain in their communities.
So when cities like us struggle to preserve
even our existing housing stock,
I'm deeply concerned at how this would impact Pacifica.
This type of decision underscores how critical it is
that we strengthen protections elsewhere along the coast.
Decisions made here set a precedent
that can either help stabilize housing supplies
or further erode it.
I stand with Pacifica and with labor
in protecting our existing housing supply
at a time when California is facing
a severe housing affordability crisis.
Maintaining reasonable limits on short-term rentals
help prevent the conversion of desperately needed
long-term housing into visitor accommodations
and preserve options for residents.
We can support responsible tourism and coastal access
without sacrificing housing.
Thank you, and I urge you to please consider
the recommendations of Pacifica.
Thank you.
Fong Bui.
Hi, my name is Fong Bui, and I'm speaking on behalf
of the California Short-Term Rental Association.
You've heard already a lot today,
so I'll try and keep my testimony short.
We support coastal staff's recommendation
to remove the primary residence requirement
and the 69 cap.
However, under this proposal 29 existing operators
in the coastal zone would lose their ability to host.
We believe that dedicated STRs represent just 0.25
of Pacifica's housing stock.
So banning them will not actually solve
any local affordability issue,
especially when 2.3% of local homes sit vacant
and the median home prices is $1.3 million.
And I think it's misleading to hear some
the commenters discuss the $500 per night charge
of unhosted homes because unhosted homes often
offer multiple bedrooms to accommodate larger groups
and do provide affordable coastal accommodations.
We also believe that operators should host responsibly.
That includes educating and reminding guests
of mindful etiquette and safety measures.
And under this proposal,
we're moving some of the listings,
simply punishes host families who invested in good faith
and comply with the local rules.
So please accept staff's recommendation
and go one step further to grandfather in existing
and compliant multi-family short-term rentals
to protect affordable coastal access for all visitors.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now I'm going to call names
that we weren't able to find on Zoom.
We have a list of nine people that we weren't able to find.
If you hear your name, please raise your hands
so we can find you.
I do see some names that are like generic Zoom user,
so it might be them.
I'll call out your name if you hear it, raise your hand.
Shawna Hannibal, Tara Knotts, Hobbs Khan, Anna Mendez,
Stephen Leonard, Nancy Tierney, Jay, Peter Garinani,
and Arlene Zhao.
Again, that's Shawna Hannibal, Tara Knotts, Hobbs Khan,
Ana Mendez, Stephen Leonard, Nancy Tierney,
Jay Peter Garanani, and Arlene Zhao.
Okay, I see a bunch of people raising their hands.
Zoom user, one of them.
Please unmute.
I have allowed one of you to unmute.
Please say your name.
Hello.
Hi.
Hi.
Hi, this is Tara Knotts.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
I have been in Pacifica about 20 years.
I just wanted to point out a couple of things
that haven't yet been mentioned.
When we're talking about coastal access,
there is beaches right north and right south of us.
So even if someone were not to stay at Pacifica,
there is gobs of beaches just north and south of us
10 minutes away.
There is also 50 hotels within 10 minutes
of the boundary of Pacifica.
So this whole notion that people won't get to see
beach if they don't get to stay right where we live is crazy. I also think we're in a very
unique situation. We have a school district that is literally falling apart. We cannot keep up with
the loss of children. They can't lay off people fast enough and close schools fast enough. We also
are in a place where we are being told we have to build a whole bunch of housing and a lot of us
are excited to build housing so that we can have more people because it will make Pacifica do better
but if you could extend us a little time together to get out of the crazy loss of children,
and don't have us lose more houses to short-term rentals, and give us some time to build up this
housing, and then reassess if we need to change our plan. But I recommend that you approve it as
specific around, recommended it for now, perhaps leaving a clause in there that it could be
re-looked at later when things are more stable. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker under the name
Zoom user you should be able to unmute. Okay I saw you briefly unmute. Okay good
afternoon my name is Alex, and I have a problem with your local 11 and I ask you to reach out for recommendations.
There can be, for the Pacifica, LCPA without a man. I live in England, a city that knows
that that most wouldn't be a fair reason for how.
We've got, like stadium or the end of the zone,
all next to each other.
And LAX and the South Bay coastal cities
right out our other doorsteps.
Every big event and every beach weekend
adds pressure to turn another apartment
into a short-term rental listing instead of a home.
So when I tell you short-term rentals
are squeezing residents out of their own neighborhoods,
I'm not speculating.
I'm describing my own city.
That's exactly what's at stake in the Pacifica.
Unhosted short-term rentals
are spreading up and down this post.
And every time they do, they raise costs
and make it harder for long-term residents to stay.
Pacifica has spent years working on a careful balance
between visitors and residents.
And that balance that serves your respect.
This commission's job is to steward all coastal resources,
the city of Davis. So the the
like a LCPA as submitted without amendments.
Workers and residents along those posts
are counting on you to get this right.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
And now checking the last hand raised
under the name Zoom user.
There you go.
Hello?
Can I say your name?
Yes. Hi, this is Arlene Zhang.
Go ahead.
Yes. Hi, good afternoon chair.
I'm the commissioner's.
My name is Arlene Zhang
and I hold a city short-term rental permit
and operate here in Pacifica.
I urge the Coastal Commission to reject the city
of Pacifica's new ordinance.
My concern is the one that you are charging with protecting,
keeping the coast open and affordable to ordinary peoples,
families who want to more than a hotel room,
they want a home with a kitchen and a living room
so that they can cook their own meals, get together,
and afford a few days by the ocean.
And most of the STR operators are good operators.
By the city's own data presented at a council meeting,
short-term rental was tied to just 0.2 of police call
in 2023, with nearly all complaints coming
from only four properties out of 150.
That is a compliance rate of about 97%.
This isn't a field of bad actors.
The fix is enforcement against those field,
not the restriction that fall on everyone.
Your own staff has recognized this
and recommending against the 69th cap
under the primary resident rule
because they reduce cost of access.
I support this recommendation.
Also, to protect the operator who have followed the rules,
grandfathering tied to the good standing,
non-transferable on sale and lost if the permit left.
This rewards good behaviors and it keeps the family
who rely on those homes from being cut off overnight.
Yeah, I hope the city will,
the commission will consider of this.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Arlene.
We have one other hand raised, Yumi Holtz.
And Yumi, you should be able to unmute.
Go ahead.
I have one question.
I have one question.
I don't know if it's the portion of the table.
So I don't know if it's the question.
Yumi, we can barely hear you.
It seems like you might have multiple devices playing as well, because I hear echoing now.
You may try again.
We can barely hear you.
Imagine if you're thinking about a smaller than more affordable commercial, why should we do it?
It's only because it's practical that it makes you too high and too expensive for your employees.
If you're more able to prepare a building in the right size and the right size,
yet, what do you have planned on both different forms of the government's support for private people?
Nothing is why their opinions are to become affordable housing.
Why is it the right issue to the apartment while it is the latter of expensive tax-fund cases?
Actually, they are working long, long. What? Because for 150,000, the majority of the total rate of 365,000 is that of course, every 100,000 becomes a year around 100,000 and the total rate of 100,000 is that of course, from logging to use them. They cannot.
This LTA uses the hard bus to remove the record night and entire local type. Then comes the original hoping capacity as though nothing was wrong.
Some people like getting the primary medicine, wireless, and the 16-night cup.
Prince also gave me the multi-facetone, the old-school tric-tac.
More than I get, because the L.P.K. is higher.
It's used to classify issues.
Thank you, you me. We have no more speakers.
Great. Thank you very much and thank you so much to the public for your testimony. All right, I'll now return to the city they've reserved three minutes for rebuttal.
Thank you.
Thank you again honorable chair Harmon coastal commissioners Samantha up to grave Pacifica's community development director
Thank you for the opportunity for rebuttal. I did just want to
Share a couple of things. We heard that
75% of Pacifica's overnight accommodations are in STR s which is
Not true. We have
330 hotel and motel rooms
130 RV spaces and up to 150 STRs that are allowed in the city
We currently have around 87
STRs with permits so between 87 that we currently have and 150 cap
That would represent 16 to 25 percent of Pacifica's overnight accommodations
We heard a lot about
unhosted STRs providing low-cost
Overnight accommodations and again within Pacifica over two years the average hotel room was one hundred and seventy eight dollars per night
And the average STR was six hundred and eighty seven dollars per night. This information was provided in our application
That is a striking
difference I
Know that Airbnb had stated that they offered to work with the city
I just
They worked with us when we were going through producing the ordinance and as soon as the ordinance adopted
They stopped responding to our emails so we'd be happy to work with them again in the future
And I also wanted to share that our coastal zone is 48 percent open space
We do have land use policies that direct
Residential development to sites that are not critical for open space and habitat preservation
This was included in the February staff report, however, omitted from the one in August.
So retaining our residential, our existing residential neighborhoods, not only for the
housing that's there now, but also for future redevelopment is absolutely critical given
the large amount of open space in our coastal zone and our environmental constraints.
And finally, just in closing, I just wanted to say that reiterate that our STR ordinance
is really the result of years of community work with 14 public meetings just held in
the last four years.
The city found and adopted that our ordinance presents solutions that strike the right balance
for our community.
They do provide for STRs and support STRs, as well as protect our communities from some
of these negative impacts that we've been experiencing for years.
So again, we urge the Commission to reject the staff modifications and approve our ordinance
as submitted.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
With that, I will return to our staff.
Mr. Karl, to you.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
first we want to thank everybody for the comments that they gave today you know
clearly this this is heartfelt on all sides and we heard that come through and
I think we should all recognize how difficult and challenging this particular
subject matter is you guys hear it probably more than anybody else but it
is challenging and we're trying to get to the bottom of it in a way that's
consistent with the coastal act in here the LUP I think one thing that was
challenging you know people's lived experience with bad actor short-term
rentals that comes up repeatedly and I think that's one of the reasons why we
support the city went to great pains to identify really stringent good neighbor
provisions and really stringent enforcement provisions that probably go
further than any other community in the coastal zone some of those include you
know requiring on-site parking requiring host contact info so people can register
Complaints and I get a hold of hosts 24 7
Strict limits on the numbers of users and visitors
Strict limits on noise, especially during the quiet hours at 10 p.m. To 7 a.m. There's no outdoor hot tub spa pool use
There's no outdoor speakers allowed
the city also requires noise monitors on the outside of houses who are
Operating short-term rentals, which is really interesting because it allows it takes a recording as we understand it of the noise
It's coming from the short-term rental and if it's exceeding what's allowed
That's a strike against you
and the way it works in the city's
Proposal is if you have student two strikes you can revoke that that short-term rental license
Not to say that's only about noise, but we support all of this including stringent enforcement to you know
Eliminate the bad actors the bad apples. We think that's super important
We also support the the natural living person requirement and the requirement to only have you know
One short-term rental per such person in the city
We think that along with the kind of stringent good neighbor provisions, you know together
These are the kinds of things that protect community character and special visitor access areas like Pacifica is
but also we stick stick by our
Evaluation that the ordinance is going to reduce access opportunities and just to be clear on that
it doesn't matter what type of opportunities those are under the LUP it
doesn't specify whether those are lower cost higher cost free or something in
between it and the recommendation is not based as you you heard that it was it is
not based on a determination that short-term rentals are lower cost
reality is the Commission has a pretty established methodology for identifying
lower-cost hotel rooms we've used it countless times we do not have a
a methodology for short-term rentals.
Although both sides in this particular debate
have offered up their own methodologies,
we think it's really difficult to compare,
particularly because short-term rentals aren't homogenous.
They have different numbers of rooms, different common spaces,
kitchens, all those kinds of things
that make it really difficult to do what we've
done on the hotel front.
So we've not characterized them at slower cost
in this particular application.
And we haven't applied any of the lower cost LUP provisions
into our conclusion
What the what the excuse me what our recommendation is based on is that the lup requires access access opportunities to be maximized
And that's the legal standard of review here
Here, you know, we already have what we consider to be a pretty stringent
short-term rental ordinance
It limits short-term rentals to 1%
Roughly 1% of the housing stock in the city
It doesn't distinguish between
Unhosted and hosted rentals, which is a bit unusual in lcp planning usually those those limits are based on unhosted rentals
So this is both so by design. It's actually less one would think
In terms of the percentage in terms of unhosted rentals
And then you add in the the restrictions the kinds of things that I just talked about
That we think are appropriate. It's quite a restrictive ordinance in that respect. And we just don't think that the primary residency
Requirement or the 60 night limit can be found LUP consistent
Rather I think what we feel that we've come up with an ordinance that strikes the balance that the Commission has historically sought
And to be clear
It's not just a balance of what the community might want but it's that and it's the visitor balance and super important in this particular case
It's lc lup consistency, and so that's what we think our recommendation stands for
We're available for questions
Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate it. I'm going to return to the Commission and
To my colleagues. I'm going to try something a little bit different today
I would like us to do a round of questions first before we move to comments
Make sense that there's questions, so we're going to go through and just do questions first
And then once we've exhausted those questions, we'll go through comments. So I'll begin Commissioner presciado for your questions. Thank you
Yes, I don't know if city staff or our own staff can comment on this, but it seems that
There's an annual review or a permit review and that during that permit review
Any instance of shall we say challenging?
STRs are able to be removed from the STR process.
So like if you have bad tenants or continually bad tenants,
you're able to remove.
And I think staff just indicated that there's a noise.
So if you reach certain decibel levels,
I assume that that can cause you to lose.
And if you have two violations, you can lose.
So there is a way to harmonize this process with community.
the sense that it is not an entitlement to a permit it is a permit with
conditions and responsibilities is that correct yes Commissioner Pressiata I
would say that that is correct there is a yearly you know review essentially
permit re-uping and as I indicated the way it's structured is that there is a
two-strike provision meaning if you not necessarily just noise there may be
other things you might violate and there's other reasons that you can have
Strike including not providing the information to the city or fraudulently providing information for example
So that's the opportunity for the city to revoke that particular permit and that operator would not be allowed to continue operating
Does the city have anything to add to that?
Yes, thank you Samantha up to grave City of Pacifica. I think that it's more nuanced than that the two strike provisions
Requires that the city has issued a violation
Like a notice of violation or an administrative citation. So simply having a
Noise monitor that exceeds the decibel limit doesn't necessarily
equate to a notice of violation or an administrative citation
So there is a formal pro there is formal due process in all of that
And that would allow the city, you know, if we have
on the third
violation or citation that's issued the city can revoke a permit but it's not
simply you know they've exceeded the noise or or broken a rule there's also
due process that has to go along with that I would expect so it doesn't seem
that your fees de minimis is there a reason why violations are not tracked or
proceeded upon it looks like your fees over $1,400 is that correct the fee for
permit? The annual fee, yes. The annual fee was determined by a study some years ago
and then is just adjusted annually and then we have an inspection fee. Or are
you talking about violation fees? Yeah, so like I try to capture the fee structure
so what is your fee? If you could comment then. I don't have it off the top of my
head but I'd be happy to look up what the fee is. I thank you and I just have
One more question, clarifying question.
So staff already characterized and commented on the idea,
and so it just, I was looking at Airbnb for Pacifica,
and I saw a property for five-ninths.
It's $3,700 for five-ninths,
but it has eight, it appears to have accommodations for eight.
So I divide it, and that looks like $90 per person.
What methodology, in the absence of a methodology,
Is that a good way of characterizing room cost, if it's sleep state and it's divided
by eight or something like that?
Well, I think you're raising one of the challenges we have.
That's one component, how many people does a particular STR sleep, but then there's also
amenities and kitchens and things of that nature.
So we haven't figured out how to accommodate or account for, I guess, that component on
affordability analysis. So it just there's a lot of challenges here but you raise one
of the main ones and that you can't just look at the price necessarily of an SDR versus
a hotel room. There's a lot in there you've got to dig into.
Madam Chair, the only remaining comment is or question actually is about the grandfathering
I heard from the public about grandfathering and I don't understand why they would need
grandfathering if they have 150 unit cap and only 80 permits are issued so I'm
that needs to be clarified thank you madam chair I can clarify that I think
that the request for the grandfathering was for this particular ordinance
restricts unhosted rentals and multifamily settings and there are
short-term rentals in multifamily settings those are the ones that you
heard a couple of comments suggesting those should be grandfathered. That's
not what we're staff's not supporting that but that is what the comments refer
to. Okay thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Wilson questions. Thanks, no
particular order. I have a one on the on the on the enforcement part that just to
start this off if you have those three violations and you remove the the
Permit is that permanent or until the next owner or is there something or is that property allowed to reapply for a permit?
There's a provision in the ordinance that says that after it's revoked you can't apply for at least one more year
Just why I don't know if there's further than that maybe the city can speak on that
But at least you have a full year where you're allowed to reapply
For whatever reference, I mean if you really want people to be motivated to I would say permanent removal because it really removes the
the I
Would say the the motivation in terms of the investment, right? So it's like you're really at risk of losing this
investment because we do know that
Properties that have that entitlement have more value. And so I just feel like that is something that should be considered in that
When the current
Ordinance was put into place there was in the staff report. There was a talk about how there was a reduction in
STRs and was there any
Analysis about what happened to we heard I heard a couple people say like hey some people moved in across the street and it's not
NSTR anymore and it's a nice family or whatever that is, you know
So I'm just kind of wanting to do is there any analysis in terms of those of those changes that we looked at
We've heard some anecdotal observations and I think you have heard that in the in the testimony
but we don't have anything specific, you know evidence-based to
Characterize those and is there any indication that even though you know when we change ordinances in our communities are
Or regulations in general sometimes there are shifts in businesses that occur. That's weird, but then also
Many times they grow back like they they okay. Well, there's an adjustment to that and so there's more so folks that are
More willing to be hosted I guess could just fill in that gap
And so we're making an assumption on a at least I feel like the report does that on this one incident in time
It sort of we're analyzing that is if it's like a permanent change versus one that could
Increase over time that that we could get those back again under the new paradigm is I suppose that's possible
I think we're observing that this is what happened
And so there's certain inferences you can draw from that
But I also think you're right
There's also particularly with a market like this where you have an in and outside the coastal zone
the market is probably looking for some greater certainty including with respect to what the Commission might do with the coastal zone piece of this and
You would expect I think we would expect some sort of equilibrium to be reached after that
If that's what you're referring to yeah a bit and right because we're not going to be impacting the inland part of this
So the losses that occurred in the inland part of this which has already occurred right then and there's not an expectation that that's going to change
immediately that if there's growth in the inland part that that will happen
Whether or not we do what we're doing unless there's more pressure true. Yep, okay
Okay, I appreciate that so that kind of goes to the part of this which is I'm having a bit of an issue which is in
and in and
This is maybe a bit of a I'm gonna say a critique of where we're at in with the city's
Process in that is that the our standard of review is the land use plan
and that doesn't really have a separation between the coastal and the in the
Upland part I guess I don't what we call it. So
You see I'm saying so that there's and even in the ordinance. It doesn't have a separation necessarily and so I'm kind of wondering
Would would that be have made this an easier process in terms of how we would analyze this?
I think it would be a couple of things that in the cap applying in and out of the coastal zone and the cap applying both
Unhosted and hosted makes it much more complicated to be able to answer the questions that come up about this
So to the extent that that weren't the case
I think it would be easier to characterize some of the issues and impacts and
But that's I mean, that's not what we have and right that's what we're kind of stuck with right
So in some cases we're getting caps that are inside the coastal zone and then outside the coastal zone and and by particular
Areas very specific areas. That's what where LCP planning has been going is really specific areas with different sorts of caps and restrictions
That's more the norm these days
Okay
Yeah, is there I guess what I'm also looking for. Are there are ways that we might
strike a balance between what we've done and what the city is interested in in terms of
In terms of what we're looking at because I I understand that the pressure
that we're under in terms of the in terms of the it was the interpretations that we're trying to deal with on
We're trying to get to here
and
If we say for instance if they
What would what would happen if you kept the Reese?
Residency requirement but increased the cap you see I'm saying or there are there or
for instance like what if you reduced like what if you actually had a cap an actual cap on unhosted versus
You know splitting that which we see in other places. How how would that address some of these issues?
It's hard to say how that would
Play out because again, we don't have that particular circumstance nor that data, you know framed in that sort of way
I mean, but I think I may be seeing where you're going with this, but sometimes it's
You know a little challenging. Yeah, sorry, you know me. That's how I work challenging
And challenged. Yeah
But I do think it would be it would be it would be easier
If we were to have inverse out of the coastal zone and we were to have caps that were applicable to
Specific areas and as the city indicated there are specific areas where they find a predominance of these sorts of uses
and that the
Proposal was driven towards those specific facts
As it is now it's just generic it applies citywide and again it because it applies citywide and both two short-term
Or excuse me unhosted and hosted
It's difficult to know like we were not specifying how many unhosted versions hosted it could they could all turn into hosted rentals
They could all turn into unhosted rentals
and so there's no
Specificity related to those two things just the cap
And again, I mean what as I indicated earlier
It's a that 1% is the low end of the cap up and down the state in the coastal zone. I mean we see
Wild variations in caps these days with respect to you know, these specific area caps some go up to 50% some are 100%
But 1% has been and when I say 1% 1% of available housing stock for unhosted rentals
That's the low end of what we've been seeing LCP planning to I mean
so what if what if there was just a split on this today what if it was just like
This we said half of the cap was unhosted and half was hosted
What would happen what would happen to this I guess the problem is we don't have a split between the coastal and not coastal
Well, I think part of the challenge is we don't have a lot of data to base that split on it would feel arbitrary
I think in other places where we have seen a split. It's because we do have data to base
You know, they look they do it
There's been studies that look at historical both STR use and housing and so it gives us a little bit more of a basis
And we just don't have the benefit of that data here
Well, we don't have a lot of data on any of this even once being proposed in this moment
I mean, just saying other than when they switched to unhost or hosted and got rid of unhosted,
there was a change.
That's the only piece of data I really can see in here and it's like a point in time.
We didn't even know its direction.
It could go from there.
Other than that, I don't really know what it is.
And it hasn't been applied to the coastal zone yet, right?
Correct.
So we don't even know what that and how many units do, how many unhosted units do we have
in the coastal zone right now as of let's see in the city might have more
current data but I have the data from February of this year there are
yeah there are in the non coastal zone areas 34 and in coastal properties 41
SDRs okay, and how many of those?
That's on in the coastal zone 29 unhosted in the coastal zone
I believe that's the correct number and how many of those are are the multifamily units. I don't know
We don't have that data. You don't know. Okay, because because we're we're still proposing to lose some
Multifamily units under what we're talking about anyway, right?
I mean this kind of goes to what you were talking about because of the way the ordinance is structured and
way you would want to see data organized, it's not conducive to that right now.
Okay. And we don't have certain tidbits of information like that. Okay. And then
what about the 60-day that the city has proposed the 60-day limit on that's
hosted? Is that what we're saying? Unhosted. Unhosted. A 60-day limit. So what if that
was to be increased? What if that was instead of 60 days was 90 days or 120
days? Would that help mitigate the potential loss of what we're talking
about in terms of the resource? I think the challenge with respect to that
line of reasoning is that the land use plan stands for maximizing public access
opportunities. And so each of these things, whether it's 60 days, 90 days, 120
days would all be different reductions from 365 days.
And so that makes it challenging in terms
of that sort of LCP provision, which
is the legal standard of review, to conclude
that you're maximizing access when you're actually
reducing it.
I get that.
But maximizing access still is in balance
with all the other resource issues
that we have to deal with.
I mean, if you had a neighborhood of 150 houses
sort of clustered together here in Pacifica,
and you said, we're going to turn that
a hotel of 150 units, we would have a very different discussion, right, that
today it would be, and the way we'd approach that would be very differently.
And so that, that is, and, and trust me like the state housing authority would
be, look at probably that very differently too, you know, it would
impact arena numbers and all these other things, but we're just like doing it
piecemeal all over the place, and I know we're not supposed to be talking about
about housing specifically,
but it is attached to, again,
the character of a coastal community
and the authenticity of the community.
It's like, I always say, it's like the character
of the coastal communities really depends on the characters,
like the human beings that, you know,
that walk to the beach with their surfboards
or, you know, work in the store and all the other things,
like that is, that's relevant to how it is.
And even how the housing looks or what it is,
it's authenticity as a coastal community,
it has a boat in the yard or this, that, or the other.
Just that zone, especially in a working class neighborhood,
that's what people wanna see
and a visitor wants to see when they come.
And so these discussions or these changes
can have real impacts on that.
And I've seen it in my own community.
So I've just seen people being replaced
by short-term rentals that were both students and workers
and just in my neighborhood, on my block.
And it changes that character, and what people experience
when they come to visit.
So I'll end my questions with that.
Yeah.
Good question.
Wow.
Thank you.
OK.
That's hard to do, you know.
I'm just keeping you on your toes.
Commissioner Kalmick, questions.
Thank you.
I wanted to kind of circle back on a couple of the questions.
we know how many permitted STR, sorry.
Do we know how any unpermitted, illegal?
Do we have a vibe for that at all?
I don't know.
Let me give you a word.
Is it rampant?
Is it next full?
Samantha, do you have a sense of that?
Thank you, Commissioner and Mr. Karl.
I can pull those numbers.
There are a handful that we're currently working
through enforcement on the unpermitted.
While you're here I guess to my next question is how are you guys handling enforcement for illegal STRs?
Is it code enforcement you have to get the city attorney's office in and I would say is it cumbersome at this point?
We are working through code enforcement
again, you know
We're bound by due process
So it is certainly a process right everyone on helicopters windbreakers. Yes to go through so it's not an immediate
Fix it does involve a lot of steps. It does involve code enforcement and the city attorney and would your number one complaint for
STR is other than noise be folks saying they're hosted and actually being unhosted
Is there a different category for that or the permits slightly different or does it really matter?
that is information that
Requires us to do some analysis in terms of
And we work with an outside a third-party company to help monitor those listings and permits
I mean, you just say yes means it's probably not top of mind it right because it would be I've seen cities where hey
We only allow unhosted and they're spending
Weeks at a time chasing people saying we have certainly heard those complaints
Yeah outside of the coastal zone where the new regulations are applicable. Okay, and those went into effect
those went into effect in
September of 2025.
But it is worth noting that we did see an overall decline in STRs.
It was not limited to the non-coastal zone.
There was also a drop within the coastal zone.
And we also had STRs that had code violations and couldn't operate as STRs.
And that was something that we had never had those mandatory life safety inspections and
code enforcement inspections on.
So again, there's just more nuance in those numbers representing things like market changes,
code enforcement and life safety.
Good afternoon.
Sean Chirpinter, City Manager, just in response to the question about the unhosted, it is
a bit of an unknown, and it depends on the complaints we get and those that can be verified,
but as of September 2025, there were about 240 listed on Insider Airbnb. So we know they're
out there. They're often complaint- our code enforcement process is complaint driven. So
it is a matter of just looking at what's in the code enforcement pipeline is not an accurate
representation of the unhosted ones.
So you have 240 total un-hosted according to?
Not un-hosted, I'm sorry, 240 Airbnb listed.
Total vacation, short term vacation rentals in the city.
Just on Airbnb?
That's what Airbnb Insider reported.
So I'm using that as evidence of a much higher number
than what we see going through our code enforcement process.
Okay, so you only have 87 permitted,
but allegedly just on the Airbnb platform,
not discounting anything else.
do you have another 160 or so?
Using those two data points.
OK, that's interesting.
All right, thank you so much on that.
There's, because we're being asked
to change a local municipal ordinance coming forward
for us, there was a lot of discussion
of the dormant commerce clause.
I'm not a constitutional scholar.
And in the appendix, there was some more discussion from staff
on two different cases applying to that.
staff could kind of clarify a little bit more on what the exposure is and who
has the exposure with regard to the person having to be you know present or
or whatnot. Yeah for those of you who are lawyers the Dorman Commerce Clause
maybe takes you back to law school and but it's first the second question the
Exposure would be on both parties the city I would suppose more but it's a way that if we
Were to lose the litigation, you know, the LCP would have to come back to us too. So it's a two-part
Exposure, but it's more so on the city
I mean it was up we were not it wasn't the primary reason why we're removing the
primary residents that was more so because it's impossible to
Have a primary residence of you know live in a house for six months and still have a cap higher than that
I'm not sure I said that right, but
That wasn't the primary reason that was more of an aside about the legal vulnerability of the
Dormant Commerce Clause
Okay, and because the code also calls for you can only own one
Right, and if you don't live there even if you live out of state
You could only own one within the city of Pacifica and it has to be under your name and not some sort of
Complicated corporate structure, correct? There's a there's a natural person requirement of the operator of the operator
so and so this would this gets it gets very complicated about
who you know who the operator would be you would you would basically have to an owner an outside owner would have to
Rent to a long-term owner, which would be the operator and then the operator could then do a short-term rental and
So my PE company could buy 12
Single family residents and lease it to a person to Joe Schmoe
Person, you know sole proprietorship who is then the operator of these 12 or he could only
Operate one I would ask the city about that. Okay, the operating structure so it doesn't
Thank You Commissioner and
An operator can only have one STR permit within their primary residency
So an out-of-state owner could own
12 units
Have a primary resident an end of you know, an individual in each one
And operate an STR. Yeah, but that would then be a hosted STR, right since multifamily is not allowed
well, it could it would be um, I
Mean well within a multifamily unit. Yes, it would have to be
Hosted but you know, I think in this example if you had 12 single-family houses that were all owned by the same person
They could each have their own operator who was a primary residence
Primary resident, but if we remove the primary resident requirement, it would just be 12 different operators who happened to also
Be individuals, right so you could contract with 12 different people to run it that way. That's correct. Okay. All right
Okay, that's mildly complicated
And then again the fact that this stretches between the coastal zone and non coastal zone
I think it gets slightly because there's I'm guessing at 1% there's 15,000 units in Pacifica
or less
Give or take. Yeah, give or take. Okay. All right. That's all I have for now. Thank you
Thank you very much vice chair heart. Okay. I have an actual question
Just kidding just kidding this for the city I
Was just making a statement that I have a question
I'm sorry. It's getting late. No, it's really not that late
Moving right along. Okay. I have a question regarding the
Complaints issue so this is back to you for the city or the city manager
Whichever of you can answer so in the comment letters
It was mentioned and then I was it was mentioned here again
that there's no documentation.
We heard from several people today
about the police were called,
they have a horrible situation,
people were very upset that we heard from today.
But yet, at least, I haven't seen any documentation of that.
So could you describe why that is?
Yes, thank you, Commissioner.
So up until a few days before the staff report came out,
We were unaware that the recommendation was changing.
We were never asked to provide that information.
So I know that it was mentioned in the addendum that
was posted today.
It did not have the ability while I was driving here
to pull that information.
But I do know that you heard from members of the community
who have spoken to police complaints,
trespassing, vandalism, noise,
garbage being carried across the street
and left in front of a public trash can,
those types of things.
So we don't have that documentation with us today
but we weren't aware that it was necessary.
Thanks, I just have a follow up.
So in the documentation that we received
including the
Correspondence there's an indication that
Airbnb asked the city to identify
Party houses or I think that's referring to the complaints and the city sent back a single listing with substantiated reports
Airbnb immediately removed the listing and
Did not receive any other
offending properties out of the hundred and fifty in stock is that just an
incorrect or
Statement because it sounds like you were requested, right? I don't know that it's a fully accurate statement
I know that there was a lot of conversation and
with the city attorney and assistant city manager
While we are going through the process of developing the ordinance
And that further outreach to Aaron be Airbnb resulted in no response
Thank you. Could I ask the representative Airbnb to respond to that?
Sure, I'd be happy to restate the question. I'm just simply reading from
correspondence that was part of our packet that's publicly available and
It says that proponents argue that because SDR guests change every few days traditional enforcement is ineffective by the time a complaint is filed
And police officer arrives guests may have already departed and it goes on to say
That and of course we heard several folks here today and online talk about
Bad things that happened to them as neighbors of Airbnb of vacation rentals. So
I'm asking and then you heard do I need to restate all this? No, I heard I was in the back of the room
But just again when a state that that's incorrect. We have emails. We're happy to share with the reach out of the city
We continue to reach out of the city and they just wouldn't get back to us
So we were the ones doing the outreach not the other way around so did you ask specifically for the city to identify specific?
Airbnb
Homes that had received complaints. Did you request that any public news since he had any problem listening?
So we do it. Did you remove them immediately from as an Airbnb?
The one we received yes, and then did you request further information if there were any others?
We did my colleague who works with the city in recent fear region
We start a number of times and we never heard back from the city any of documentation. Yeah, we're happy. Sure. Thank you
Thank you
Commissioner Kelly
Question for staff from either the commissioner city. So when we're talking about
Multi-family does that include duplexes as well?
Yeah, the multifamily definition includes any sort of duplex or attached, you know building like that with two units
Okay, and then I'm still struggling with the definitions
and
the by the way, the information that that the planning director from the city just provided regarding the
communication timeline and their knowledge of when
the Commission staff's
recommendation of
Not approving it as in form is that accurate I'm looking at Commission staff that we were not they were not being
notified within this process that that ultimately
The staff report was not was going to be recommending something inconsistent with with what they've proposed
I think staff was doing our best to evaluate the
Proposal in light of the land use plan invite of all the comments that we got and you heard about this
change in recommendation and it's largely driven by
Being taken to task essentially by comments
In February that we went back and looked at it really, you know focused on the standard of review
And it took a while for us to work through that
including with respect to
some of these questions around
constitutional issues
And where this that where this lies in terms of LUP consistency
And so that took a fair bit of time internally for us to conclude and as soon as we did conclude
We let the city know
And when did you let the city know? I?
Yeah, I don't know off the top of my head, but it was it was just before the staff report was going to be released
Maybe a week. I don't I'm not sure okay. I see
Members of the City Council and the mayor saying they received information two days ago
two days before the staff report, okay
thanks, and it's I
just wanted to confirm kind of the the overall communication timeline because I do think it's
Important just you know
We work very closely with a lot of local jurisdictions and as a member of a City Council myself from a small local
jurisdiction in Northern California in this region
I I do understand the work that has gone on and and what you've been doing over the course of
Nearly a decade to then have two days in advance of of the staff report being published
I can imagine that presented a very challenging timeline yet. You guys are all here. So, thank you
So in terms of the question for Commission staff, I'm struggling with the
primary residents
issue and specifically around
Who's allowed to be an operator and I think to Commissioner Calnick's point
There it seems like we are trying to regulate an issue that then could create a dish
You know, which will allow loopholes to continue to exist
So if if we're trying if the spirit of the ordinance is that we want
Human beings to be responsible for these commercial entities within a neighborhood
Who are those those individuals that we can turn to to say we need you to?
Make a change this isn't working or we need to have people be accountable as opposed to you know faceless LLCs
And so I think the issue that I see us, you know pushing back from our recommendations saying we're eliminating
the primary residence requirement and and the definitions around who an operator can be
I guess the primary resident, let's start with primary residence requirement, I need
a little bit more information of why this is not this suggestion.
It sounds like it's going to be the requirement for the non-coastal zone portion of the local
ordinance, correct?
So if we were to adopt what staff is presenting today, we would have a primary residence requirement,
which means someone, the person has to reside in the unit
more than six months out of the year
for the inland or upland.
And then for the coastal, that would be removed,
which means that the person does,
the operator doesn't have to have it
be their primary residence.
Can you tell me, I think operationally,
that'll be challenging for the community to enforce,
but also why is that a particular issue
That we are pushing back on from under under how we're regulating
I think just first thing there's nothing we can do about the fact that it bisects the coastal zone and it's in and out
Right. That's currently structured. That was the conversation a little bit with Commissioner Wilson
But our analysis was that for the coastal zone if you were to implement a primary residency requirement
It would mean specific to unhosted rentals who are now currently allowed 365 days a year
They would be allowed half that time
So, that's a reduction in the amount of time that are known of nights or whatever you want
to call it, that could be operated and that goes to the question of whether or not that's
adequate to maximize public access opportunities, which is the, like I said, the legal standard
of review that we're grappling with here.
Sorry.
And so, that was our estimation.
It was separate from the dormant commerce clause kind of questions and corporations
and that sort of thing.
Okay.
So, I don't think you answered the question I'm asking, so let me try to state it differently.
say I am a renter in this community and it is my primary residence and I am
moving abroad for a year so it's you know or moving abroad for seven months
it is my primary residence I live there but I'm going to be vacating it and
therefore I'm going to be offering it as an unhosted rental but it is my primary
residence what and no matter if it's allowed for 60 days or 160 days pending
you know, the outcome of this, the decision, what is the difference in our mind if it is
a primary residence versus I have a bunch of units, I don't actually live there, I live
somewhere else, I live in Modesto, this is not my primary residence, what does that matter
to us in terms of how we're interpreting it under the.
I think the hypothetical that you threw out there
is not what is intended here.
I think they establish whether it's your primary residence
based on the check off you have to do for tax exemptions
or whatever.
So you are supposed to only have one primary residence.
So it eliminates the possibility of you
living abroad for a significant period of time
and calling it your primary residence.
You have to live there 180 days
to be your primary residence.
I think overall the challenge that we have here
is that it just, it reduces the opportunities
for these particular types of rentals
to be available, period.
I mean the more you restrict it,
the less it's an attractive thing for people to do
and so the less visitor serving combinations
we have of this type.
So I think that, I mean if you think of it that way,
There's probably a million different scenarios
we could come up with, and it's,
but overall, we felt that the primary residency requirement
and the cap together, when put in context
with the 150 existing stringent cap,
just made it, likely there'd be a decrease,
because it's just not as an attractive thing
for people to provide that type of service
for the public.
Okay, Commissioner Kelly, would you like to hear
from the city?
I would, thank you so much.
Thank you, Commissioner.
I did just also want to frame it that short-term rentals
are for 30 days or less.
So there is actually nothing that
would prevent someone who was going abroad for a year,
seven months, whatever, to rent or sublet
those accommodations for residential use for 30 days
or more.
And I think that's a really important distinction, again,
because that unit would still be in residential use.
Thank you.
Absolutely.
And I think in terms of the primary residence component,
I understand staff's comment
and really trying to figure out
how do we have a system of accountability
because we're talking about neighborhoods
where people, real individuals,
as majority of this community has described,
obviously there's a lot of folks,
This is their full-time residence.
It is a working class community.
It is not a second homeowner enclave
like we see in other kind of vacation destinations.
This is very much a real city
with real individuals and real issues.
Not that we don't have other cities with the same,
but I just wanted to comment that this,
I think the reason why this is such an important issue
for Pacifica is because they are,
it is the canary in the coal mine of cities
in other parts of California that have,
that it has become a hollowed out community
Without the characters that make up the character of the city per my commissioner Wilson's point
And so I think that's there's so much nuance in this particular ordinance because I think folks see the value of having those short-term
Rentals available, but how do you make it a?
livable workable solution for a community of a small community of this size with the number of of units that exist and
You know that it straddles coastal zone and inland and and hosted and unhosted
So I appreciate, there is a lot of minutia of detail here,
but I think all of those pieces added up
is what we're trying to evaluate,
both from how do we ensure that the access remains,
but also that the community's character can remain,
and the balance.
And I know we're still on questions, not comments.
So with that.
We've been moderately successful at best
at this new experiment.
So I think the question I have
about the operator and individuals,
I wanna just go back to commission staff
and saying that I understand what you're aiming towards,
but I also think that there are mechanisms
to achieve what we are aiming for
in terms of not overly limiting it
with still requiring individuals to reside in these units.
And I ask staff on a permanent basis
that these are homes where people should reside,
and that the vacation rental or the short-term rental
is an ancillary or a subservient use
to them being residential
for longer-term permanent residents?
Does that make sense?
That's what I'm aiming to see
if there is a policy opportunity
for us to thread the needle between those two things.
Well, they can answer the policy, I'm the lawyer.
But the operator is their proposal.
And it was their structure of this operator.
And I think it was a legal mechanism
to get through the dormant commerce clause.
There was a case in the addendum you can look about.
If you require the actual owner to be the only person that
can run an STR, that that runs a foul of the dormant commerce
clause.
And then there's this other option
of having this operator system you
might be able to avoid a dormant commerce clause violation.
So the whole confusion about who's the natural person
and who actually owns the STR and who runs it
is because of that.
The operator, though, is a natural person.
So when these two legal issues mix together,
that's where you end up with this big confusing structure.
So that's the answer to why the operator exists.
And that's why the operator is a natural person.
Is there the one who's going to run the STR?
And that remains.
The staff didn't ask to remove the natural person requirement.
Understood.
And I appreciate the operator component
of this, because I think that is how you have individual.
I live next door to an LLC owned by a bunch of people.
And it's a mess.
and there's no accountability because it's like a shadow
corporation with a bunch of overseas investors
in a neighborhood.
Imagine that.
And so it's really challenging when
you don't have an individual that you can point to
to say who is responsible here.
So I appreciate that the operator structure exists.
I think, for me, if we were really
looking at this as a short-term rental
as opposed to a commercial entity
in a residential neighborhood that is empty.
No one lives there, except for the visitors
who are coming occasionally.
I think that's what the residency requirement
was trying to get to, that it is a residential unit that
has a person that is living there the majority of the time,
that is a full-time resident, more than six months of the year.
So is there any way to have a solution that
allows for the short term rentals in the short term.
But in the longer term, as in six months or more,
an actual individual is residing in this residential unit.
So I guess I think the way that I would answer that question
is just to say, what we presented in the staff rec
is what we thought was an appropriate balance,
but you all are the decision makers.
And so if you think there's a different balance with the LUP
policies that we have and the facts that you've heard
and have considered today, that is something for you all
to consider.
And we can help in that effort.
Thank you.
Thank you.
OK, I'm going to turn to Commissioner Jackson,
and I'm just going to unleash you all to please go forth
and give your opinion on Commissioner Jackson's questions.
And then feel free to opine if you so choose.
Otherwise, we can come back to you.
Well, I actually have questions.
Should have gone to you first.
and then might suggest a quick recess maybe before,
but I will table that for now.
Quick question, with regard to the city,
the city mentioned that they are following the lead
of what other cities have done
with regard to the residency requirement.
How do we address that?
I think it's true that there are some local governments
that have primary residency requirements within their LCPs,
including as was mentioned in Half Moon Bay.
I'm not so clear about the other LCP cases that they identified, but what we've come
up against here is a question not whether or not there should be a primary residency
requirement, but what's the effect of that in an LUP sense?
And so we did that evaluation and we see that it would reduce access and again going back
to legal standard of review, that's not something that the LUP would support.
So that's based on more reflection and I think that's indicative of a lot of these questions
And you guys, again, have seen a lot of this with this arc about short-term rentals.
These are just getting more complicated.
We're getting more legal challenges.
We're getting more into the weeds of these questions, whereas before maybe we hadn't,
but now it's before us, and so we have to deal with it.
Oh, and I appreciate that.
And I think that's the value of these discussions,
so we can flush out some of these issues and the challenges that we are all dealing with.
I had another question that was prompted by our short-term rental consultant.
There was an issue with regard to compliance and I think the gentleman from the short-term
rental organization mentioned that you sent an email.
There was a question about who was, was there cooperation and coordination, were you guys
talking to each other and you know I like to flush that out and then flush
that out with regard to how much cooperation coordination was done
throughout this process. Have they provided you numbers of plot of you
mentioned the number of short-term rentals that appear to be unpermitted
that are being marketed and listed? Have they provided any information with
regard to those? Are they ensuring TOT has been remitted for any of those? I'm
I'm just trying to figure out the extent of this cooperation
that was alluded to earlier.
Commissioner Jackson, before you begin, sir,
are you hoping to hear from the representative from Airbnb
or the city?
It can be a combination of the two, ma'am.
OK.
Thank you.
We'll start with a city manager and then go from there.
Thank you, John Sharp and to your city manager,
Airbnb stopped communicating with us in July of 2025.
We have emails showing this, and we'd
be happy to share them with the commission and staff.
All right.
answer my question thank you you're not obligated to respond oh happy to put
this all together for you mr. Jackson and share after the meeting but we did
communicate they just stopped responding and eventually the ordinance was
submitted but the same time we know that we're communicating with better
neighbors of light it while they were ignoring our emails we're happy to put
that together in package for you was there any while you're up here if I
it could. Was there any, there was a mention from the city about the total
number of STRs that appear to be on these rental platforms that are not
permitted. Have you had any discussions with the city about those that are
unpermitted? Was there any coordination? Is there TOT remittance? How do you handle
those? Sure, so any city in the state who wants a VCA, we collect and remit, you just
have to ask so I would they have to ask but what if they don't know if if I have
an Airbnb that's illegally permitted no way we pay our dues but you're asking
for a VC a we who pays what dues I guess I don't understand a TOT correct for
listing so does and you represent Airbnb yes so does Airbnb regardless of the
property that's listed whether it's permitted or unpermitted do they collect
the TOT for those properties? So we have different various agreements or various
ordinances throughout the state usually it's the host paying TOT or us depending
on the ordinance so it depend on the city and Danny Baldocchi who works
directly with the city of Pacifica so I could confirm and get back to you on
that. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I'm ready to go a few. All right. Oh,
sorry. All right. I'll kick it off. Again, thank you for the
discussion. It's very germane. It's relevant. It's real. And
it's sewing. We're gonna have more of these. Certainly. For
those who don't know, I'm an elected of a coastal city
myself. I happen to live in the coastal zone. I've seen first
hand the challenges of short-term rentals from a resident perspective as
well as a governing perspective. It's impossible to enforce and it's a lot of
work. I mean you could just just based on the questions. Cities particularly
small ones just don't have the bandwidth. Especially when we're dealing with all
the challenges of just trying to keep the lights on and keeping the roads
paved. The consequences of short-term rentals are real. There are several
speakers who talked about declining school enrollment that is real.
Communities throughout California are struggling because fewer people can
afford to live where they work or they would like to raise their children.
Removing homes from the housing supply only compounds the problem. You know my
colleague talked about Sacramento and HCD and you know we're continuously told
that we as cities are failing to build enough housing and the irony is we're
told to build build build while Sacramento supports these policies that
facilitate the removal of existing housing inventory. I think Pacifica's
primary residency requirement and the 60-day annual limit strikes a
reasonable balance. It preserves visitor accommodations and genuine home sharing
by allowing as many as 150 residential properties
to become mini hotels.
Their safeguards, I think, discourage corporate operators
and help keep homes available to residents
in the long-term rental market.
I'm not persuaded that Pacifico having only 300-plus hotel
and motel rooms by itself is a reasonable justification
for allowing homes to become, for more homes to operate
short-term rental vacations for more nights each year. I strongly support
coastal access for all, as well as efforts to maximize reasonable and
affordable visitor accommodation in coastal communities. I live in one. But
coastal access does not and cannot require every city to provide unfettered
or enough overnight lodging to satisfy every possible level of visitor demand.
not every community can or should be expected to be all things to all people.
That argument I think tends to serve those who are looking to profit by
converting housing into commercial accommodations while leaving local
communities to absorb the consequences. California's many coastal
communities differ in size, differ in infrastructure, housing need, and capacity.
I'm a firm believer that Pacifica is entitled to determine that protecting its limited housing
supply and residential neighborhoods outweighs maximizing the number of homes that could
possibly be available for overnight visitors.
Lodging is also available through the broader region.
Pacifica should not be required to convert more homes into commercial accommodations
to satisfy unlimited demand.
The major rental platforms have not been constructive partners in developing balanced local regulations.
It's more than just about complaints. It's about these platforms profiting from
unpermitted properties and not really caring about local rules in TOT. I'm not
aware of these platforms convening any meaningful discussions with
municipalities about how they can help protect housing and residential
neighborhoods. They want, want, want, but offer zero in return. Meanwhile, the
considerable inference in Sacramento has to often produce state policies that
favor platform interest over the needs and local control of individual
communities.
The civil Pacific a listen to its residents considers considered its
housing needs and adopted what I think is a measured ordinance that permits
genuine home sharing without sacrificing more homes to full time
commercial use. The city is not closing its door to visitors. I believe is
establishing reasonable limits based on capacity and community priorities. This
is a reasonable local this is responsible reasonable local governance
and I believe that Pacific is carefully considered ordinance deserves our
support and I'm prepared to move accordingly at the right time thank you
mr. Lopez thank you no question it's just an opinion and I respect my
colleague and I'm kind of on the other side of this one I want to respect the
work that staff has done to try to balance what they brought forward to us
today as a recommendation given the experiences that we've had in Monterey County as a local
observer of those realities both in the courts and beyond.
I think what you've done is try to strike that balance if a 1% cap is the cap and that
property is going to be removed maximizing its ability to host people as one of those
people whose roots come as a refugee from a different country and now knowing that hearing
it repeatedly referred to as refugees seeking outlets
from the weather that we experience inland,
which this week it's well over 100 degrees every single day
at my home, yet getting out to Monterey is a challenge
because of car week where you can imagine an Airbnb
this week probably doesn't go for less than 2500 bucks a night.
And so these challenges are real for families
and working families from throughout California.
And I really hung my hat on a comment that was made early
the public comments and it was this is a democratic process and the Coastal Act
was a democratic process put forward in front of California's voters 50 years
ago and it was to guarantee access for all Californians and that is what we're
here discussing is one percent the right balance I think that that is the right
amount and we're not talking about that being one way or another in terms of how
that one percent is used but now we're taking that one percent and degrading
its access by a percentage if we go with the recommendation and I'm struggling
with degrading that amount of access from the 1% even further given the need
for folks to access our coast and so for those reasons I'm supportive of staff's
recommendation I won't be leaguer it more than that I know this will likely
be a split vote and I've heard a lot of a lot of different great opinions today
and with that I'll leave my comments thank you madam chair thank you
Commissioner. Commissioner Wilson question. The environmental justice part of this that you guys brought up. How do you apply that without data. Do you see I'm saying because we were talking about affordable access, especially when we talk about we analyze hotel development. Right. We have a way to mitigate for the for the affordable access. Right. And I'm just wondering like in this situation. There's no mitigation.
for affordable access for this stock of rooms or accommodations, where do we go with this?
It's interesting you bring that up because this has come up before the question about
– and we talked about it earlier – about lower cost versus higher cost short-term rentals
and if you were to come up with some sort of methodology about what's a higher cost
versus a lower cost short-term rental, you could come up with some sort of methodology
that said X number of these have to be lower cost which is akin to the methodology we apply
to hotels but we have as Kate indicated earlier we just struggled with that and so I think
to the extent we got to that point on a methodology we would have something similar to the hotel
and we would be applying that within the context of these ordinances where there would be a
requirement that some percentage of them like with the hotels we got the 25% that we typically
relied on would have to be lower cost whatever we were you know whatever the
methodology did and so we honestly we've just that's a question we've just
struggled with because I think that it speaks to the idea of I think we heard
from several folks that no one wants to be in an in a hosted accommodation I
don't believe that to be true I mean oftentimes when we talk about as
elected folks in land use and we say that we need to hire densities to to to
get folks housing and we will hear from developers all the time like no one
wants to live in an apartment they need you know all the stuff and really
they're just for for whatever that is most developers don't live in
apartments so they don't really you know I'm just and and and from that
perspective, at least where I live, and and so what I'm getting at is we regulate
all kinds of things that we imagine, that the market is pushing somewhere
different, but we aggregate our needs as a community to to to get something
better. And and so from from my perspective like having hosted as a
as a requirement to that effect,
I don't feel like is limiting in that regard
because a community can then offer something
that some other place doesn't have necessarily,
which is lower cost accommodation.
Because if you're saying that it's less desirable,
then it probably costs less, right?
And so if we're actually trying to move,
which I think is a point that some folks have made,
like these are the lower cost accommodations
and thus would address the environmental justice
or the, and what I mean by that is actually
the part about this we were talking about
is a means perspective, like folks that have
the less ability to spend money to visit the coast
need more places that are affordable.
And so that part to me is interesting.
And I also want to say that there are things that are not short-term rentals that are not
also year leases.
And we have those in our community all the time.
Traveling nurses, for instance, and other professionals that come to your community,
they need places to be as well.
And so you can fill in that space really easily in terms of like, in terms of that.
And then I just want to have, we've said, we've gotten in this a little bit before,
But in our community when and I want to speak to what Commissioner Jackson is talking about
in terms of like the platforms and the and the and the responsibility to the jurisdictions
in terms of the that the money part about this.
So you have a to t and the platform will say like well we we charge that and then we'd
give it to you.
I want to be at least for us.
There's no audit.
We have no idea if we're getting what people are paying.
And that's part of the problem of having those platforms to...
They don't really know whether they're offering this platform to someone who is legal or not
legal in that and that's very difficult for us.
So it's almost like you get a bag of money and they're just like, here's your bag of
money and as a jurisdiction, like thanks for the bag of money.
But we don't really know whether it's...
We don't know.
We just have to absolutely trust in that.
And it comes it's a it's a it's a it's an issue and it speaks to the this type of thing
as a resource right in terms of in terms of its own mitigation because we have our TOT
we charge for this because we need to mitigate for the impacts of the folks coming in.
We have to you know because they're using our roads and they're using our public safety
and all those things and I'm just saying we're not we don't know whether we're
getting what we're supposed to get getting out of that where it's for
instance a hotel it's very regulated they you know it's auditable and all
those things so I just want to say that that that's those those are issues for
me I'm struggling with this because I actually I do think that this would be a
a lot cleaner if the land use plan had separated these things out and enumerated very clearly
that the housing or the neighborhood needs were equal to the accommodation or the access
part of this.
So that's the part that I think you guys are, that we are struggling with honestly.
It's like what you guys call the standard of review.
I got that.
I'm learning.
Eight years into this I'll get it.
So that's the struggle I have.
I mean I really, yeah, and I'm hoping that's why I was trying to think about like how do
we get to a place where is there a compromise between what you guys have proposed and what
city has proposed that we can get to a place that that works and I'm I would
love to be able to propose something like that but not in this moment if
there's someone else who wants to talk thanks okay Commissioner O'Malley you
sorry Commissioner Pressiata thank you madam chair I move to deny the IP
amendment as submitted we're taking comments now oh you're still team
comments I thought you had released us I'd release you to make comments okay
well come back but I'm ready to move as it when you get to that point thank you
Commissioner Kelly I want to align myself with the comments of Commissioner
Wilson and Commissioner Jackson and I just want to thank the city for being
here today and for all of the members of the public who participated both today
But in what sounds like a very long and arduous process in the community. I do want to just
You know share I?
believe that that what is being proposed by the city is a
measured and balanced approach and I want to just reiterate the comments of Commissioner Wilson that
hosted rentals
Tend to be less expensive than unhosted when you're looking at a side-by-side comparison
Every short-term rental is different. Every amenity is different, but they tend to be less desirable for whatever reason
And so I do think that without having
Specific data to refute that the converse could also be true, but we are not that we don't have that information
You know in hand I do think that that information does exist with the platforms. I think that they are very
domesticated in terms of what data they collect and compile and now that that these short-term rental platforms exist globally, they certainly
could
Work in partnership with the Commission or other jurisdictions and providing some of that financial information so that we could have a more
You know better data sets to evaluate to actually make the determination around low-cost accommodation and
Differentiating between hosted and unhosted rentals. I do want to also call out the fact that
Whether it's a host if it's unhosted and that is not possible based on the limitations of what the city is proposing a
Hosted rental is still a visitor serving accommodation
It is still something that is desirable and still a place for visitors to have find accommodation and visit the coast
That that just because there is a limitation on the hosted rentals doesn't mean that all of a sudden this unit
Seizes to exist and to Commissioner Wilson's point
There are many needs in the community including traveling nurses traveling professors otherwise
That can live in a short-term basis in these furnished units. That's actually really beneficial to a community
So we're we and communities need those folks to survive
So all that to be said, I think when we're legislating kind of in a vacuum
It's like is this hosted rental or unhosted rental if it's not allowed it like disappears
But the reality is is that it's housing in the first and foremost if it's not used as a short-term rental
Or it's one of these other, you know uses hopefully it's not being left vacant
But of course, that's the right of the property owner
but if you're limiting the
Benefit of of certain things that I think it could yield better results in other categories that we actually want to see
Made available and so I think to Commissioner Wilson's point
there are these these valuable resources will continue to exist whether it's a hosted or unhosted and I think it just shifts the
consumer demand to a different category that there still will be demand and people will still be visiting the coast because
That's the resource like that's the valuable thing is access to the coast and we know that
You know if if short-term rentals didn't exist then those visitors would be shifting to a different mode
and I think also in knowing the context of the geography of Pacifica and where it sits in relationship to the
Unincorporated area, but then also other neighboring cities and what accommodations are available both from hotels and
Short-term rentals in neighboring communities. You you can't just look at it in like isolation because there really are a number of other
Opportunities for coastal accommodation in neighboring communities. And so I think that's the the
Nuance that each of us brings to the Commission and that we kind of understand the local
Geographical context of each particular jurisdiction that we're working with and and you can't it's it's apples and oranges to compare
San Diego to Pacifica to Humboldt County and so that's why it's such a benefit that we have broad
geographical representation on this Commission to kind of have a better
Better visibility into some of those those local
components. So with that when it moves forward I do plan to support the city's recommendation
and to not vote in support of staff's recommendation today. Thank you.
Thank you. Vice Chair Hart. Thanks so much. It's a very difficult issue.
I want to start by saying I'm going to align myself with the comments that were made by
Commissioner Lopez. First of all, what is the role of the Coastal
Commission. We're not the Housing Commission, we're the Coastal Commission.
Our job is to protect the natural resources and public access to the coast.
So that's the starting point. There's a lot of things I can talk about here, but
let me just talk for a second about this idea of hosted rentals. You know, I think
that, I was thinking about this a lot, and you know, I think that the idea of a
family coming from the Central Valley and feeling comfortable staying in a
hosted rental. I just wonder how that feels to them. I just don't think that a
hosted rental qualifies as really providing legitimate access to the coast
for a lot of people. Here you have 1% of the housing stock. It just seems, you know, very
reasonable. We're not going, I mean, it sounds, some of my fellow commissioners make it sound
like they would prefer to have no short-term rentals, but that's not what's before us.
really minor changes that the staff report is proposing the the two things
are the 60-day limit and the primary residence requirement both of which have
been shown when they are enacted to significantly reduce the supply of the
short-term rentals well as the supply we know from basic economics when the
supply goes down the demand goes up and the cost goes up and the cost is going
to go up so much that access will be denied for a lot of people. I know so
many people that they go to want to go to the coast to families or large
families or multi-generational families but they just there is no way they can
afford multiple hotel rooms. It's just not possible. And this is their only way
to access the coast. And another thing is Pacifica is such a wonderful community.
and people feel really comfortable there and I want to congratulate you for your
incredible community but I don't think that given all of the protections you
have here noise camera what you called it damn but noise control all of the
requirements that are put on to these short-term rentals including the very
small amount of them I just feel so strongly that if we if we continue to
cut this back it'll just mean that people people that you know really need
to get to the coast because of heat because of lack of air conditioning
because of their so many things they're just never going to be able to so for
that reason I'm going to be supporting the staff recommendation thank you
Commissioner Kalmyk. Thank you. I uh when I got elected to the Huntington Beach
City Council some years ago, I had the great idea to try to regulate short-term
vacation rentals for the first time. So I especially in the coastal and
somehow we managed to actually not put it in our land use and ended up putting
it in the business code of all places. So we didn't have to come here for some
weird reason. I don't know, wasn't my idea. So I remember going through all of these
meetings trying to balance housing stock obviously Huntington Beach has a
problem with housing regulations and trying to understand what the residents
were and Huntington Beach had a long history of short-term vacation rentals long long
term long history that similar to Newport Beach we had meetings with Newport
Beach had meetings up and down a lot of different people evaluated what other
cities in the coastal zone had done the Coastal Commission at the time was still
kind of feeling around for what that looked like, and so hearing what Pacifica has gone
through brings back a lot of memories, a lot of the same arguments, and they've crafted
something that is unique to them, but now having to take a different standard of review
of some of the other commissioners have spoken about I think understanding the coastal access
component becomes I think really critical for me and the fact that this
150 units leaves the coastal zone as well I think is salient I think in this
argument and that the supply and demand argument also becomes I think very
relevant and I think one of the pieces that was brought up I think was a bit of
a misnomer I guess a misclassification but when you take a hotel room is double
occupancy and you take a short-term vacation rental could be quadruple
to a couple occupancy, so trying to find a number
to compare apples to apples of price per person effectively,
I think becomes a good metric for understanding
the affordability that is a short-term vacation rental.
I think that what staff has come up with,
I think is a prudent kind of balance here
because it extends outside the coastal zone as well.
And if we have, again, the corporatization of housing,
the corporatization of some of these areas,
becomes a problem but we are looking to balance a coastal access issue and I
think that enforcement is difficult on these things but if we over regulate
prices will go up and you'll end up with a bunch of illegal short-term vacation
rentals that staff is gonna have to end up trying to track down and I know in
our experience before I moved out of Huntington Beach was staff was spending
an enormous amount of time going after the illegal ones so trying to make a
policy that could develop the folks that are the vast majority of people that
that wanna do the right thing and provide for their housing.
One note that I think was being brought up
of how do you get to the affordability component.
It may actually be putting the multifamily units back in
and requiring that the other units
that aren't short-term vacation rentals be affordable units.
And that could be something
that when if his future regulation moves forward
that if you're looking to get that EJ component in there
would be to, you've got a unit,
you're not stripping property rights.
but I think I'll be supporting staff's recommendation here
primarily because it works on striking
that solid balance there.
I think the 60-day limit, I think,
does hamper going forward,
and I think the occupancy piece gets a little bit confusing,
I think, as we've seen,
and obviously trying to keep this out of the courts
is gonna be the best option for everyone,
but I definitely do like to try to give as much deference
local community but I think our goal here is to try to put a little bit of a
pushback on if it does happen to limit coastal access so I'll listen to the
rest of the comments but thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Nada. Thank you. I feel
the tension here is you know we're celebrating the 50th anniversary of the
Coastal Act but these new disruptor technologies whether it's housing or
transportation or we're dealing in real time with unintended consequences of
these disruptive businesses.
And I think in the absence of, we
look at all of these short-term rental things up and down
the coast without an overarching structure
through the Coastal Act at this point.
And I would use this opportunity to request
that we really think about having
a workshop on short-term rentals that we look at statewide
to help us sort through these.
I have been, as we've looked at these
very short term rental proposals,
I've been really respectful of the ones
that have gone through lengthy and detailed review
at the local level,
understanding that there are unique circumstances
in each place.
But I think here, I've heard there might be
some appetite on the commission
to see if there's a way that we could meet in the middle here.
I'll just put out there and see if there's,
I think that I agree with staff that given that there's already
a limit on the number of nights you can have a cap on that,
that adding on 60 days,
that might be unduly restrictive.
But I think it's, I like the effort to get at reducing
the commercialization of short-term rentals
through the primary residence requirement.
I think that it's important, and that is one of the,
I think, really unintended consequences
that we have seen in the short-term rental market
is the, you know, the capitalization of these communities.
So I would see if there's any appetite on the commission
with my fellow commissioners to see
if there would be interest in supporting one
of the modifications that the staff is recommending, which
is to get rid of the 60-day limit,
but not accepting the primary resident's change.
And I don't know, should I make a motion on that
and see where we get?
I think we still have a couple more comments,
and then we'll see where we are.
See if we have any nodding or.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, I want to offer a couple of ideas
on what we might think about.
First, I want to say I don't think,
And I don't believe that there is a reduction
in coastal access from the provisions being
provided by the city.
So I just want to be really clear on that.
And I do believe just because you have a bump in the change
of the market does not mean you don't have a recovery in that.
That's really clear so that while it may be temporary,
the number of units doesn't change that's being proposed.
So I want to be clear about that,
but I do want to say like we could have some mitigation
that accommodates for that potential change
and one of those would be if we're gonna have the unhosted,
I would say 180 days in that space
would be reasonable from my perspective.
And also, I would say that another way to mitigate for,
to make that less of a change would be to have all of the existing STRs remain.
They keep their licenses.
So in terms of whether they're in the multi-units or wherever,
so that they don't get that drop.
So you do have that existing, so that that does not change.
And so that, in that way, the growth from the existing
condition, there will be only growth.
It will not go down.
And so you're just basically altering the opportunity
for growth and not necessarily changing the existing
condition.
And so that's how I feel like we could adapt to this.
And so that's a proposal I would put on the table.
Because again, I don't think that what the city is putting
forward is a reduction in access to the coast.
And I want to be really clear.
I would not be able to make that finding.
So if there are other ideas, we could talk about that too.
And if the commission wants to look at a modification
like these, I would advise us to take a five to 10 minute
break to go to the bathroom while staff talks about it.
I'll leave it to the chair to deliberate
on if that's a possibility.
I missed the last part that you left to me.
Sorry.
Whether we should deliver, OK.
Yeah, and whether we should take a break.
Well, if there are enough commissioners
that are willing to consider a modification to get us there,
then I would offer that probably we shouldn't do it.
On the dais.
On the dais.
And we should let staff take it.
And if there are other ideas,
this will be the moment to throw them out there.
Okay, so here's what I'm gonna suggest.
Thank you.
I'm gonna make my comments very briefly
and then if it's okay with our council,
I'd like to take a straw poll
about whether those amendments would be of interest
to commissioners before we take a break.
Is that something I can do, Ms. Warren?
Yes, but why would you then to take a break
to see if we had time?
Yes, I don't wanna take the break
and ask you all to do the work if there's not
the will of the commission to do that.
OK, so just very, very briefly, I
want to start by first appreciating
how much work our staff has done to try
to thread the needle on this.
Clearly, this is such an incredibly challenging
and complex area of law and policy to be working,
in no small part because the answer to almost every question
is we don't have the data on that.
And I can only imagine, and in fact I know this
from my own experience in the city of Santa Barbara,
trying to put together thoughtful policy that balances
all of the various different things we need to consider.
And even from just simply purely the Coastal Act perspective
in the absence, I mean, just the utter absence
of real tangible information is so challenging.
With that in mind, I do align myself with the comments
of Commissioner Jackson, Kelly, and Wilson on this.
And I've come down that way in large part
because the city of Pacifica has invested so much
in this process over so many years.
And I know that as a city, they share the interest
in maximizing coastal access.
That is good for the community of Pacifica.
And I believe that finding that balance
in the absence of hard data
is exactly what they've put before us.
And that said, I appreciate the work of trying to figure out
how to calibrate this.
is it's going to be an ongoing conversation?
I certainly would support some alternative proposal.
I think Commissioner Wilson, the 180 days,
and I think you mentioned the grandfathering.
We'd need some clarification on that.
I'd support that.
So I'd like us to go ahead and do a straw poll to...
Chair Herman, it would be preferable
if we at least get a motion on the floor.
No one needs to act on it,
but then understanding what an amendment would look like.
Commissioner Wilson, I'll turn to you.
Sure.
I'll just make an, and again, this motion is,
we can pull it back later and amend that motion,
but you want to get something that we can give you
some direction.
I would prefer for you to make the motion that's
in the staff recommendation, if some of the commissioners
would like to approve as submitted by, so the only thing
that changes is whether you're recommending a yes or no vote.
If you are interested in any kind of suggested
Modifications, then it would be a recommendation of a yes vote on the motion. Okay, I don't want to step on
Commissioner press yada's toes on this because he did kind of jump
Because he did he did jump out on this one
So I want to I don't want to be presumptuous here as you know, I can be
Where hold on I want to bring this one back up again
Commissioner press yada. Yeah, go ahead. Would you like to make the motion?
I'm half a step behind I'm kind of feeling interested in Mr. Wilson's work but I did
want to make a couple comments that kind of deepened my, because I only asked questions.
I didn't color my commentary.
So a couple of things that I think are very valuable as I continue to understand the coast
I've only been in this process journey with you all for about a year and a couple months.
I realized that as much as it is the community of Pacifica that is managing or understanding
how to thrive as they see fit in the coastal zone, the coast belongs to the state of California.
And I think that it's important for us to value how important it is that the coastal
zone be valued in a broader context for some purposes.
Secondly, I do not deny that a colleague like Mr. Jackson will experience different challenges
in his city.
I don't live in a, I don't live in the coastal zone in my city, but I certainly spend a lot
of time in the coastal zone in my city, and I think in that context I can say that balanced
approaches help everyone's interest.
They don't get everybody what they want, but a balanced approach will help.
The other thing is, I do hope we have a workshop because I think we need to have a better
discourse about affordable housing, accessible housing, particularly when you need about
$500,000 as a family to be able to buy a home in a community. And that's what I've been
googling through AI. I've been trying to figure out what the mean cost of a home in
Pacifica is and to be able to buy. And just think about if the document will tell you
that 85% of the people who live in San Mateo could not afford to buy a home in Pacifica.
And so but the vice chair reminded us that we're not a housing organization, we are a
coastal zone organization.
And so with that, I think I would love it if we just had an up or down vote and lost
and then a friendly, you know, change would go in the other direction.
But I think I'm going to follow the wisdom that Commissioner Wilson is bringing, we're
where he's finding a middle ground around this middle ground.
And I'll just admonish us as we identify corporations out there,
we need to remember that these corporations
have their sensibilities and so let's not demonize them.
can tell you that there are members and residents in my district that use Airbnb
as part of their family income household and they don't see Airbnb as a bad thing.
I can also tell you that there I have constituents that have corporations
that own housing, have LLCs that own housing, and when I go visit them I don't
see them as absent landlords or anything like that. I see them as people who work
with their tenants. So I'm just inviting us to do some of that reflection as we find the middle
ground in the middle ground of what could have been just two slight changes as Vice Chair Hart
indicated about the natural people. That's a new one. I hadn't heard that term of art.
And then secondly, the number of days. So in deference to a wiser person on this commission
then I, Mr. Wilson, I'm not going to make any motion,
but I invite you to make the motion and take it on.
Well, really, I'm giving deference to our legal staff.
Let's start with the main motion, please.
The wisest of all.
So you want me to just give the motion one
and start with that?
OK, well, I move that the commission reject LCP
implementation amendment number, LCP-2-PAC-25-0079-2,
As submitted by the city of Pacifica and I recommend
Yes vote if you want
Changes if I want changes and I recommend a yes vote. Okay. There you go. Do you need a second before that happens?
So yeah, okay, so can we take a break now?
So we can't take a break because this is an LCP amendment the Commission could vote on this main motion
And the commission would then know whether commissioners are interested in making any kind of suggested modifications or not
if the motion carries
Then we would put the main motion on the floor for the modifications and then could amend what the suggested modifications are
so I do think that we should probably vote on this because there are some commissioners who would like to
Approve as submitted by the city in which case they should be voting no
this is one of those no means yes moments and yes means rejected as
submitted. Does that make sense? Yes means rejected as submitted. Okay. Yes
means you're open to amending. Yes means that you're open to, yes,
making suggested modifications to the city and not approving it submitted, but
it doesn't mean that you are agreeing to the suggested modifications that the
staff has recommended. Okay. At this point, if you would like staff's
recommended modifications please vote no on right no no yes if so if you would
like to to make modifications to what was submitted by the city then voting
yes on this motion will allow the Commission to make modifications they do
not necessarily need to be the modifications that staff is recommending
they could be different modifications a no vote means you want to approve as
submitted by the city okay great thank you so it's a motion by Commissioner
Wilson a second by Commissioner Jackson they are asking for a yes Wilson is
asking for a yes vote I'm not sure that the seconder is is the seconder asking
for a yes vote okay thank you madam chair so I think let's do a roll call
vote yes Commissioner O'Malley yes O'Malley yes Commissioner Hart just clarify yes
means that you're adopting the staff recommendation right yes means you're
Rejecting is submitted okay, and then we would move on to the second location. Okay. Yes
Heart yes, Commissioner Jackson. Yes
Jackson yes, Commissioner Kelly. Yes, Kelly. Yes, Commissioner Lopez. Yes, Lopez. Yes, Commissioner Kalmick
Yes, Kalmick. Yes, Commissioner not off. Yes, not off. Yes, Commissioner Presiado. Yes
Presiado, yes, Commissioner Wilson
Yes, and I just want to say that when we get back from you guys doing your thing
We're gonna ask the city for there
I will be or someone known fuss is gonna ask the city for their opinions about whatever it is you come up with after you
Describe it. So thanks
We'll see yeah, just see if the other motion carries and then just go ahead. Well, I just to be clear
I think, you know, we're taking direction.
This is going to be an amending motion from one of you, I would imagine.
So I think we I have a couple of questions for my staff for a moment.
So I would appreciate a break because we may have some advice on the best way to move forward.
But just to be clear, you know, if one of you will need to make an amending motion,
if you would like to make additional changes beyond what we did in the staff recommendation.
Does that make sense?
Thank you.
Yes.
Let's continue in the vote.
vote chair Harmon yes Harmon yes the vote is 10 yes 0 no thank you clear as
much vice chair Hart okay so I'm gonna go on and make the second motion if
that's okay Commissioner Wilson so I move the Commission certified LCP
implementation amendment number LCP dash 2 dash PAC dash 2 5 dash 0079 dash 2 as
submitted by the city of Pacifica if it is modified as suggested in this staff
report and I recommend a yes vote. I'll second. Okay that is a motion by Vice
Chair Hart, a second by Commissioner O'Malley to certify the LCPS modified by
staff. Can I make a button? Yeah we'll leave it at that. That's fine.
Okay so Vice Chair Hart. Just to be clear this means we would be taking staff
recommendation. And we would not be amending. Correct. If you vote yes.
as we voted 10-0 to do. No, we vote. Everybody turn your mics off please. If you would like staff's
modifications please vote yes on this motion. We won't be voting on this motion just yet.
We'd like to take a break. Well because it sounds like there is some will among the commission to
not necessarily adopt per adopt the staff suggested recommendations suggested modifications. So now
Now is the opportunity for our staff based on the feedback we have received from commissioners
to date to try to figure out what options are for the commission if they want to adopt
modifications other than what staff has currently suggested.
Ms. Warren I'm hearing up here that there's a thought that that work may not be necessary
and there's a suggestion that we see where this vote.
If you go ahead and vote then you will be voting per staff.
if that if that fails we still have the opportunity to do the amendment is that
true no you see that's the problem at that point yeah I'm gonna take a break
let's take a 10-minute break I got my gavel all right thank you everybody so
appreciate your time and I will turn I think to our staff to see where we are
I think it is back to the Commission you have a
I think a potential for an amending motion. It sounds like
So back to you. Okay, Commissioner. I assume Wilson
Great. I have two
Amendments that I'd like to propose I can do them one at a time and this this goes back to staff
I can say what they are
Up front because I want to hear maybe what the city wants to say about them before we do votes on them
Is that okay? That's correct. They just have to be voted on one. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. Okay, so there's two amendments
And these are amendments. These are modifications to the staff recommendation. The first one has to do
and this is this retains the language from the city's submittal that
Imposes a cap on the number of rental nights, but increases that cap to 180
That's one
The second one is and I really hate this term grandfathering. We really have to figure out another term for this
But it's basically what we're talking about is
legacy sure sure
We're really talking about legally non-conforming. We're creating a legally non-conforming
Use so this would be allow any existing legally licensed STR in the coastal zone
To be eligible to apply for an annual license until such license is revoked by do with due process
so that doesn't mean that that that they get to keep it if they're a bad actor or
The property is sold. So if there's a transfer of property that that goes away. So those are the two
modifications I am proposing to staff recommendation and if the city wants to
Respond to that this is the time to do that. This is I want to give them the courtesy of of
Of that and I know it's very sudden. I know you just heard it out of my mouth in this moment
But so this is what you get we'll give them one second to gather their thoughts
I would like to ask our staff a couple of procedural questions, and then we'll invite the city up and
Miss Warren are these two amendments will they be two separate motions? They will okay?
So theoretically we could vote to accept one and not the other absolutely and what happens if we vote to accept neither
amendment then the main motion will still be on the floor which is to
Adopt per the staff suggested modifications. Haven't we have we already voted on voted on that?
That motion was made by
Vice-chair Hart and seconded by Commissioner Wilson. Yes
Vice-chair Hart
Thank You council. So just to clarify
Would the staff report then be adopted with the addition of these or with these changes?
For example, it would now be the 180 days instead of no limit
But with what would happen to the primary residence requirement that would continue that wouldn't be eliminated
There's been no motion to make okay, so that would be eliminated
So that would be consistent with the staff recommendation. Okay. Thank you
Oh, Molly. Yeah, thank you. And maybe this is a question for Commissioner Wilson or perhaps staff
But as far as the legacy STRs are they in the same form as they are now meaning hosted versus unhosted?
I mean is there any change to to that and so maybe you can speak to that
What what's your will? I?
would say that they would remain as they are and
Because what I'm trying to adapt to is no
You know just a no change in the current condition
That's what I'm trying to get to it. All right. Thank you. Yep
Commissioner Jackson, okay, just to make sure I'm clear again, Florida education
No change in current condition meaning those that are legally licensed now regardless of whether they're multi-family
single-family
That's correct. That's his intent and this is only in the coastal zone. I want to remind folks
This is we have one that's that this is the only place where this would occur
No, I get I get that mm-hmm, and I'm open to see if you if the if there's
Modifications that you want to see this is the moment to me and those
Whatever that number is is there a number?
Can I ask that question? Madam chair? What is that number of currently legally permitted within the coastal zone any idea?
that a multifamily
Boy, I think I was like ballpark
Okay, well that's that's a significant number and then
So then that number whatever it is counts towards the 150 cap
Yes, yes, this all counts towards the 150 cap. Yes, okay
I'll table my comment to laughter the questions commissioner comic. Okay, so then
looking at the current code section
Right after we talk about unhosted short-term rentals should be operated more than 60 days
item
Three under that says unhosted short-term rentals are prohibited in multi-family development units
so we would holistically talk about that and then staff would clean up the
Lee or we have to
Strike that as well. So in these situations
In a best-case scenario, we actually do the strike through an underline
But in this instance, we under I think the intent of the motion is clear enough
Okay that we would as staff afterwards do the strike through an underline and bring this back probably for revised findings
Okay, so we don't so there's something consistency
It's just gonna come back no matter if it moves forward in the way. It seems to be moving forward ish
It wouldn't come back for a new decision revised finding simply means, you know
You take a vote then if we need to change the you know
The actual findings associated with that vote because it's different than the staff recommendation
We bring that back and you you look at it and decide if we
Followed through with what you wanted us to do. It's just in a report somewhere. It's not a big hearing
Right. It's it because all people basically all you could say is did we do the strike through an underline the way that the commission?
Had intended it to be done. And then the second issue is are we potentially putting them above the cap?
We're well under that so if we let everybody in whose legacy even if they're multifamily all of that
We're still gonna be well under 150
Okay.
Okay.
That was my other question.
Okay.
Thank you.
Is the city ready to, please?
Thank you, sir.
I know it's a lot to process.
I'd like to respond to the amendments.
I think.
So, yeah.
City Manager Jean Trappentier here with Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director.
As I understand it, the amendments are to increase the cap on unhosted to 180 days.
80 days and i'm just i'm repeating for understanding it only in the coastal zone
and that would be and then the second one was to grandfather in legacy in
and that would be for ones that are existing in the coastal zone hosted and unhosted
that is correct. At the process level a big part of our argument, well let me back up, we were here
in 2024 and we asked you for a cap and we received it and we were advised on what we should come back
with and we've just spent years coming back with that and that is created and then to have that
recommendation come out in February and then be rescinded is unprecedented, just unprecedented
in my professional experience, 20 plus years in the public sector, 10 at the executive
level, never seen anything like it.
So there's a lot of process here and then as part of our argument today, what we've
made a very strong plank of that argument is we went through years of analysis with
all of our partners, people who supported this, people who opposed it, and the City
Council voted and decided, Planning Commission City Council.
And that was a very long legislative process.
And to be fair, to include additional amendments, we'd have to go back through that process.
To be fair to that process, I'm not authorized to negotiate on behalf of all of those meetings,
all of those thousands of hours of comments.
I don't hear their input here, so process wise, we would have to do that.
Then on the non-process side, the grandfathering in is a very technical—sorry, what term
did you prefer me to use?
I just learned it myself.
The legacy question would require a lot of analysis, as many of you are from local government.
You know what it's like to legacy something in after you change your zoning.
What do you do?
When do you do it?
Do they comply?
Do they comply with existing zoning?
Are there safety issues?
Are there licensing issues?
That would require all of that analysis.
And we don't have that right now.
Perhaps we could clarify.
Yeah, I want to clarify.
What I'm talking about is ones that are legally conforming now that would become unconforming
after what is being proposed here.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Samantha Updegrave.
I think one of the issues is that, you know,
none of our coastal STRs have had the basic life safety
and code enforcement inspections.
And so when we talk about, you know,
the technical analysis needed in order for us
to look at any kind of legacy or grandfathering,
we simply don't have it.
This is a new issue being raised today.
There are real concerns about allowing unhosted
and multifamily, which absolutely represents
our oldest and our most naturally affordable housing
that we have in the city.
So I think there are a lot of, there are just,
there are a lot of factors
that haven't been considered or studied.
Okay, I hear you.
I'm gonna take it back to staff for a second.
Can I, so I believe that the intent of the motion,
and I think even as it's written,
it says if the STR has a current license
as of the date of this hearing,
then they are eligible to apply for a license
in your annual licensing process.
So that would allow for the life safety.
Like, you know, whatever you use to evaluate it.
But just the fact that it is non-conforming
after this action is not disqualifying,
but it would have to meet the other requirements.
Is that accurate as to what Commissioner Wilson had?
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at.
So it's like, no one's losing their license
because of our action specifically.
they could lose their license due to code enforcement
or whatever the other issues are,
so that under equal process.
Well, I think commissioner,
we would need some very specifics
about what parts of our ordinance would apply
and what parts wouldn't.
And so the current, the old ordinance from 2024
that currently applies in the coastal zone,
For example, it doesn't require life safety inspections.
Doesn't require noise monitors, all
of these good neighbor policies.
And so I just think there's a lack of specificity
that makes it very challenging.
And again, we haven't done the analysis.
Help the city manager implement staff recommendation.
Yeah.
Let's pause.
We'll turn it to Commissioner Kelly,
but I would like to call the question on these amendments,
Commissioner Kelly.
So it's my understanding we're gonna take
the two suggested amendments by Commissioner Wilson
one by one, and so I'd like to just specifically
talk about what the legacy slash grandfathering item
to put that up for a vote at this time.
So I...
We don't have a second yet for either, sorry.
I'm sorry.
We don't have a motion, do we?
Oh, she's making the motion.
I apologize for that.
Please make the motion, Commissioner Kelly.
So do you have a preference on which one I do first?
So the legacy item first.
So this would be the motion that Commissioner Wilson referenced,
which would allow for current permitted short term rentals
to continue to be allowed within the program,
moving forward as long as they follow through
with the future regulations
that was described by staff, period.
Okay, that's.
I think staff understands that.
Let's just.
You, I think I had heard you say earlier
or the property is sold.
Yep.
Right, and expires if the property is sold.
Thank you.
Doesn't run with the land.
Thank you.
motion by Commissioner Kelly and a second by Vice Chair Hart for the motion
for the amendment as described by Commissioner Kelly. May we have a roll
call vote please? Yes. Commissioner Hart? No. Hart no. Commissioner Jackson? No.
Jackson no. Commissioner Kelly? No. Kelly no. Commissioner Lopez? No. Lopez no.
Commissioner Kalmick? No. Kalmick no. Commissioner Nodhoff? No. Nodhoff no.
No. Commissioner Presiado?
No.
Presiado, no. Commissioner Wilson?
Yes.
Wilson, yes. Commissioner O'Malley?
No.
O'Malley, no.
Chair Harmon?
No.
Harmon, no. The vote is one, yes, nine, no.
Thank you very much. Appreciate it. That amendment fails.
We have one more amendment to consider.
Sure, I'll make it, and we'll just go from there.
And I just want to go on the on the on the grandfathering part if someone wanted to do this but didn't include the
the multi-family I would
Think we could do that too. But if not, that's fine
so with this would be retain the language from the city's submittal that imposes a cap of the number of
Rental nights, but increases that cap to 180 for unhosted
Does I have that right? All right, that's my motion. Is there a second?
I'll second
Thank you
That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Jackson on the amendment to change the cap to 180 per
He described we have a roll call vote, please Commissioner Jackson to the motion
Give me one second. Sorry. I got it
180 from the staff recommendation of unlimited check
The city had proposed a cap of 60 days for unhosted rentals.
Right.
The staff recommendation was to eliminate that.
The amending motion would be to keep that limit but change it to 180 days.
It would be helpful to clarify 180 days of potential rental per year.
That is correct.
In unhosted.
We have a motion and a second.
Yes
Commissioner Jackson all right Jackson. Yes, Commissioner Kelly. Yes, Kelly. Yes, Commissioner Lopez. No
Lopez, no, Commissioner. Kelmick
Yes
Kelmick. Yes, Commissioner not off. I
Not off. Yes, Commissioner presciado
No
Presciado. No, Commissioner Wilson
Yes, Wilson. Yes, Commissioner Malley. No
O'Malley, no commissioner Hart. No Hart. No chair Harmon
No
Sure, Harmon. No, the vote is five. Yes, five. No
the motion fails
Chair Harmon
Can I make a motion and to adopt the city's proposed?
Plan without the Commission staff's modifications
Yes, yes
So moved second
I'm looking at a recommendation from council. So that
Technically that motion has already failed and
You could try to adopt some
So you would have to do some other suggested modification
So a motion to
Rem I think it's too late to do it
Can I make a motion to reconsider the original motion? No, that action is complete. Thank you
Miss Warren, let me ask a question
The original motion would be to accept staff's recommendations. Is that what is remaining on the floor currently?
That is what's on the floor. Okay, I'm saying no up here and you are all nodding. Yes, so that is what is on the floor
What happens if that vote fails?
then it will just the
the submittal from the city will be rejected and none of the other aspects of
Its submittal will be adopted. So we will go back to the LCP the IP as it exists today
without any of the
Changes that the city has submitted. Okay. Well, I'd like to make another amending motion
and I would propose that we increase the cap of the nightly stays per Commissioner Wilson's
motion to
2020 days
Second
Got it. I think yes. Yes, I'm following. Sorry
Maybe we have a roll call vote, please
You give me a second. That was a motion by
Chair Harmon and a second by Commissioner Kelly. Okay. Thank you. Give me one second as I
rearrange the sheet
Point of parliamentary inquiry
So my interest in now is understanding so the main question before us is
voting on the staff recommended amendments
or voting on the whole proposal with the two staff recommended amendments related to the number of days and the
natural person situation again
the current motion on the floor is to vote on whether to amend to
Set the cap on the number of days at a hundred and twenty days
Right. I understand what the amendment is. But what is the pool?
What are we amending? Are we amending the city's submission or the city's submission with staff amendments the latter?
The city's amendment with the staff suggested modifications. Okay
Thank you. Okay. I'm ready now
It was
motion by Harmon seconded by Kelly
And to clarify I seconded a motion that was the Commission staff's recommended changes with the only
change to that being
From unlimited to 120 days
No
just the 120 day language is what we're discussing the only thing that is being voted on in this motion is whether to
Add the cap on unhosted rentals back in and increase it from 60 days to 120 days
So that is the only thing that the commission would be voting on right now
And that would be an amendment to the suggested modifications that staff has recommended
Thank you, mr. Kelly. Yes, Kelly. Yes, Commissioner Lopez. No Lopez. No
Commissioner Kalmick
Yes, Kalmick. Yes, mr. Not off. I
Not off. Yes, Commissioner. Press the auto
No, press the auto. No, Commissioner Wilson
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley?
No.
O'Malley, no.
Commissioner Hart?
No.
Hart, no.
Commissioner Jackson?
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Chair Harmon?
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is 6 yes, 4 no.
Thank you.
To the main motion, just because the city is, through the chair, just to clarify, the other
provision regarding for its primary residence requirement we're going with
the staff recommendation yes okay thank you so just to confirm now at this time
it should be motion number two so motion number two is already on the floor it
was made my vice-chair heart and seconded by Commissioner Wilson so all
the commission needs to do now is vote and what it will be voting on is
adopting the city submittal plus the staff recommended suggested
modifications with the chain that there be a cap on unhosted rentals in the
coastal zone of 120 days. Commissioner Wilson? I just want to speak to the to
the motion for just to clarify this passes I believe that it will not have
substantial issue substantial or significant impact to access to the coast
I want to be really clear about that I think public access is going to be just
fine and and and in this is in balance with what all the other needs that we've
been talking about in terms of impacts to not just the neighborhoods but also
also just to the coast in general.
And I want to be clear.
This is, that's, I'm willing to make that finding.
So there you go.
Thank you.
Okay, so we have a motion by Vice Chair Hart,
a second by Commissioner Wilson.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
May we have a roll call vote, please?
Commissioner Lopez.
No.
Lopez, no.
Commissioner Kelmick.
Yes.
Kelmick, yes.
Commissioner not off I not off. Yes, Commissioner presiado
Press the auto no Commissioner Wilson
Yes, Wilson. Yes, Commissioner. O'Malley. No
O'Malley. No Commissioner Hart
Hart no Commissioner Jackson Jackson. Yes, Commissioner Kelly
Hi Kelly. Yes chair Harmon. Yes
Harmon. Yes, the vote is six. Yes four. No
Okay, thank you very much that was messy, but this is how the policy gets made really appreciate it everyone
Okay, so we'll continue on if that works you guys ready. Okay. Thank you very much item 12, please
Let's see that brings us down to item number 15. This is the Central Coast district directors report this month
We're reporting one waiver one extension and one emergency coastal permit
We're not aware of any objections or controversy regarding these matters
And so the question is whether three or more commissioners object to the items in the report. If not, then the commission will concur
Thank you any expertise
Any public comments?
We have one individual available for questions only
Great. Thank you. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors report
Seeing no objection the commission concurs. Thank you, Madam chair
That'll take us all the way down to item number 17 a and this is the collections report
Report sorry resort project and San City and I'd like to ask Kevin Kahn
Who's our district manager for the Central Coast to give our staff presentation?
And there is a powerpoint for this
Right
good
evening chair Carmen and commissioners
Item 17 a is a proposal to construct a new hundred unit condo hotel a
25-unit lower-cost tent cabin campground, about 25 acres of Doonan Beach restoration,
and a series of public coastal access improvements, all on nearly 30 acres of shoreline property
in the city of Sand City. Slide 1 here shows a photo of the project site located north of
Tioga Avenue and seaward of Highway 1. Next slide. Slide 2 here zooms out to show the project's
location within the broader Monterey Peninsula. Sand City is right in the heart of the region,
adjacent to the cities of Seaside and Monterey and at the southern end of the mostly undeveloped
Monterey Dunes complex and Fort Ordoon State Park.
Slide 3 here zooms back in to show an aerial of the main roughly 30-acre project site outlined
here in yellow and located just north of Tioga Avenue and seaward of Highway 1.
The site extends about a third of a mile along the coast.
The applicant owns the 8 acres nearest Tioga Avenue and the City of Sands City owns the
rest of the property, about 22 acres, for which the city has entered into a development
agreement with the applicant.
Slide 4 gives you an aerial view of the site where the upper left photo, labeled number
1, is the most up-coast portion of the site and the site extends from there to photos
2, 3, and 4 in that order.
The main area is essentially the area seaward of highway 1 across photos 1, 2, and 3 with
the highway noted. In photos one and two, you can see what appears as a gray seawall
nearest the beach, which is an unpermitted hardened concrete slurry that extends across
most of the site, a remnant of past industrial activities here. And photo three shows the
unpermitted material storage and processing area nearest Tioga Avenue, as well as Tioga
Avenue itself, which you can see is popular for public beach parking. You can also make
out the remnant debris historically dumped on the beach fronting that
operation and the end of Taioga. On photo 4 the project in that area is
limited to the area nearest the beach where that same remnant debris as well
as old pavement from an abandoned road can be seen in the foreground in this
view. To give you an up-close visual of some of these hardened concrete and
debris areas, slide 5 here shows a photo of the hardened concrete
slurry wall and remnant debris from beach level. The wall in particular is quite a significant
feature extending about 800 feet along the shoreline and about 30 feet in height and the debris can
can block lateral access at certain tides especially near the end of Tioga Avenue.
Next slide. So all told the site is large highly visible and offers motorists traveling southbound
on Highway 1, some rather extraordinary views
of the Monterey Bay and Monterey Peninsula,
as shown here on slide six.
But its current state is a mix of dune and degraded debris
that's a legacy of its industrial past.
And as such, figuring out how to clean the site up
and what its appropriate uses should be
have been a saga for decades,
literally since Coastal Act enactment.
Next slide.
Development at this site has a long history,
extending back to shortly after Coastal Act passage.
In fact, there were a series of large resort proposals
in the 1980s, which were denied by the Commission
or abandoned by the then applicants,
and where much of that was the subject of litigation.
Most recently, the city approved a CDP
for the current applicant for construction
of a 340-unit resort and related facilities,
which is shown here, the site plan on slide seven.
The project was quite large and covered some roughly 12 acres and about 60% of its undeveloped dune space.
This project was appealed to the Commission, and the Commission found substantial issue
and took jurisdiction over the CDP application at that time.
Subsequently, on de Novo Review, staff had recommended denial of that application based
on numerous LCP conformance issues, including with respect to coastal hazards, public views,
protection and public coastal access. However, the hearing was postponed at the
request of the applicant in order to provide an opportunity to address these
concerns. Although staff began to work with the applicant at that time on a
project that would meet LCP criteria at this critical site, those
discussions ultimately tailed off or picked up in earnest earlier this year,
resulting in the current proposal, which thus represents the culmination of
of nearly 50 years of planning and permitting activity
at this site.
Next slide.
Specifically, we've worked with the applicant and the city
on a revised project that provides
for visitors serving overnight accommodations,
including lower cost ones, public access improvements,
including new trails and parking,
and substantial site cleanup and restoration,
including removal of all of the previously described debris
and former industrial remnants.
with habitat restoration outside of the developed areas, all to restore and enhance this significant
stretch of coast.
Slide 8 gives an overall site plan of the proposed project.
You can see the 100 unit resort area in gray, clustered near the corner of Tioga and Highway
1, and the 25 unit tent cabin campground located just up coast of that.
All of which is set back at least 400 feet from the shoreline to meet LCP hazards test,
including where shoreline armoring is prohibited.
And the area in purple shows where Tiogue Avenue will be pulled back from the shoreline
as both a proactive adaptation measure and an opportunity to better provide public beach
access.
All in all, the project limits its impacts by clustering development on only about 10%
the project site where coverage has decreased 80 percent compared to the original project proposal.
Importantly, essentially the rest of the site, nearly 90 percent of it, will be restored,
including that half mile of debris and hardened concrete removal at the shoreline,
shown here in yellow, and deed restricted for coastal resource protection,
shown here in brown crosshatch. In addition, the project includes substantial public access
improvements including closing a gap in the coastal trail with part of that connection shown in white
here as well as developing beach access ways, public restrooms, parking, boardwalks, and public
overlooks. In particular, the 25-unit lower cost cabin campground provides a rare opportunity for
lower cost ocean fronting overnight accommodations located adjacent to the proposed trail extension
to even help facilitate walk-in and bike-in stays.
Slide 9 zooms in to show the Doon restoration areas
in green, so you can get a better sense of the scale of that effort.
Of course, while I'm presenting you here with the overview, this project is quite
complex, with various components, timelines, and details.
And a project of this size and complexity is not without its concerns.
But staff has worked with the applicant, city, and other interested parties to
address all such concerns as much as possible, which are reflected in the
full suite of conditions as explained in the staff report. And while there's a lot
of detail in both the report and conditions, I'd also like to highlight
two particularly important issues here. The first is that the San City LCP is
unique in that the dune areas west of Highway 1 cannot be considered ESHA and
are to be considered developable, all of which has been confirmed and actually
required by the courts. As a result, this is an atypical situation as it relates to dune habitat.
But again, staff has worked with the applicant on a revised project that limits development to
a focused area that is less than two and a half acres and to restore and protect everything else,
again, totaling almost 25. And second, this site is shoreline fronting and will be subject to
coastal hazards over time. But we've also spent considerable time making sure that development
is sighted away from such risk 400 plus feet in this case and the conditions
also make clear that it is not ever going to be allowed shoreline armoring
and that if threatened by coastal hazards it will need to be removed or
and relocated where the conditions specify the triggers and expectations
around that scenario. So while this Commission and members of the public are
certainly warranted in some eyebrow-raising as to building new hotels
on ocean fronting dunes, staff believes that it has circumscribed a
project that responds to this site's complex constraints and on-the-ground
realities, as well as the uniqueness of this particular LCP's legalities as much
as possible. And we think we have a recommendation that makes sense in light
of that complicated history and context here and one that should be a positive
legacy along the Central Coast. In conclusion, staff believes the proposed
This project as condition represents an important opportunity to realize substantial coastal
resource benefits at this largely degraded beachfront property.
Staff notes that the applicant and the city are in agreement with the staff recommendation.
As such, staff recommends the commission approve a CDP for the project as conditioned.
Motion and resolution to do so are found on page six of the staff report, and this concludes
staff presentation.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you very much, Mr. Khan.
to my colleagues, are there any ex partes to report?
Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, just a couple, this morning I did meet
with the representatives from Unite Hears.
I shared earlier and this was one of the topics that came up.
All they shared with me was that they weren't taking
a formal position.
I had also traded calls with a representative
from the carpenters.
We were not able to connect, but they did leave a voicemail
letting me know that this is what they were wanting
to discuss, could not make that happen.
And that's all I've got.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
I have a couple to report.
On Thursday the 6th in the morning via phone,
I spoke to John King, the applicant, very briefly.
And he just expressed excitement and support
and remarked on what a long process this has been.
And just general happiness with where we were,
which I always love to get those expertise.
I also had a very brief call on Monday morning
with Mr. DJ Moore, representing Cal AM,
Who similarly just was sharing his engagement with this process and general excitement about
the mitigation package and just the sense that it was a really important and meaningful
set of mitigations.
Thank you.
All right.
With that, we will go to the applicant, please.
Sorry.
One more.
Apologies.
We've got one more.
One more on the ex parte.
I forgot to mention I did have one on July 6th with Mayor Carbone and City Manager Norguard.
It was very brief.
We actually primarily discussed another item and we ran out of time.
So at the end it was said, oh, and by the way, this project's on the list too.
So that was pretty much the extent of it.
So, yeah.
Mr. Carle, were you going to?
I was just going to say the city is here if you wanted to start with the city.
Oh, okay.
Great.
Well, then we'll do that, please.
Begin with the city.
Apologies.
Thank you, honorable chair and members
of the Coastal Commission.
We let me know how much time you'd like, sir.
Oh, I think five minutes is more than enough.
Thank you.
And especially thank you, staff, for all the great work
you've done on this project to this date.
I'm here with our mayor, Marianne Carbone.
And I'm also here with Michael Groves from EMC
and Andre Cray, our admin services manager.
And then we also have Vipika Norgard, our city manager,
joining us on on Zoom from Denmark anyway I just wanted to say brief
comments from us and we're here for questions and then if you we just want
to say that we support staffs recommendation and we're very excited so
that it I'll give you the mayor thank you and thank you honorable chair and
commissioners. I believe I submitted a public comment to you already, but I
would like to, while I'm here, express my strong support of the approval of this
project, and for decades Sand City has worked to transform the industrial
coastline into a space that welcomes the public, that is welcoming from policy
where we have outlawed or outlawed sand mining and also supported our local
city to the north against sand mining when they needed the support.
This here project has been bears scars of industrial use and approval of the
CDP will trigger extensive dune habitat restoration and it
it critically guarantees the removal of industrial slurry tailings from the dunes and beach area
actively healing a compromised coastal environment and returning it to a thriving native state.
I as an indigenous mayor, first in California, am a coastal steward. I have volunteered at every
Coastal Cleanup for over 30 years now, and it is a fabric of my soul that we get this
here beach cleaned up.
It hurts my heart to see it, and I'm happy to be here and happy to see that we may come
to compromise with the various partners here.
So thank you so much.
Thank you, Mayor, for that.
and honorable chair and commissioners,
my name is Michael Groves, I represent Sand City.
First, just really a big acknowledgement to staff,
particularly Kevin and Rachel, who spent a lot of time,
they actually pulled together multiple public agencies
and private entities and got them in the same room
and got everybody to agree, which is an amazing thing
when you think about it in terms of how long
this has been in process.
I just want to give you just a quick sense
These are two private properties, so there's two pieces of property here.
They're both privately held properties, okay, on the sense that one of them is under the city's successor agency,
but it's under a development agreement with the developer, and the other one is held privately.
Both of them run from, essentially, Highway 1 into the ocean, so the actual property goes beyond the Meen High water line.
so there's no legal access to the beach and I want to make that really clear and then one of the things that we're doing
Here is being able to really turn that around. Well, you have no legal access
You know how you have no dune habitat you have no restoration going on there
It's all industrial old sand mining operation on one of them
And it's a current construction yard on the other and that construction yard is basically cement and and then you have all these tailings
and back in the 60s they used to just take a dump truck,
essentially a cement truck,
and hoard the stuff over the edge.
And they protected that bluff there
so that they could have the sand mining operation.
So what the beauty of this is is it's an opportunity,
really once in a lifetime opportunity,
generational opportunity to actually change
the whole scenario for this area.
We're in the process now of going through and saying,
as a part of the staff report,
that we'll never have a seawall there again.
That's a big part.
The whole piece is to get rid of all the riprap
on the beach, restore the beach,
because the beach has actually got riprap on it
at this point in time,
and then essentially provide dune restoration
as a part of that,
and habitat restoration on top of those dunes,
so those dunes don't even exist.
It's just basically cement and tailings, et cetera.
So if you can restore the dunes,
then put habitat on those dunes,
and then put conservation easements.
Part of the staff report has conservation easements
over that whole area that Kevin showed you in green,
which is a fantastic thing
because then we know it's in perpetuity, right?
It's held in perpetuity.
So it's a really big thing.
And then, of course,
we have some affordable visitor serving stays,
public access.
The city of San City is currently building a coastal trail
from Tioga Avenue to the South.
So we're actually literally connecting
and we're working with the State Parks
and Coastal Conservancy on this.
And so we're actually connecting this area
that we're talking about these two parcels
with the area to the South
that also connects with Seaside and Monterey.
So I just wanted to ask for your support
as a part of this project, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, to the applicant.
Good evening.
Good evening commissioners, staff,
those in the audience,
those that have waited all day for this.
We appreciate the opportunity to be here.
My name is David Watts
and I'm here on behalf of the applicant.
I'm not gonna repeat everything that's been said
because we are here in support of the staff recommendation.
We want you to know that while this has been a long
and sometimes strange journey,
we have found an opportunity over the last dozen years
to pull together a project that you may never see again along the coast.
We have 25 to 30 acres of property out there that is damaged, destroyed, not producing
good habitat, and has marginal access at best.
We are very enthusiastic about the opportunity to work with you, to work with your staff,
and to work with an unrelenting city of San City to bring this vision to reality.
restoration of these properties, the creation of new public access, and the
long-range ability to maintain these areas as a result of the resorts
resources is something that I think we're all going to take a lot of pride
in. And so for those reasons, while Kevin might have said something about raised
eyebrows, our raised eyebrows are that we're going to make this a lot better
than it is right now and with that in mind I'm gonna yield back the rest of my
time and hope that the rest of the beating goes quicker. We appreciate
your support and you're here to answer any questions thank you. Thank you sir I
appreciate it. Okay now we will move to public comment, public comment, Galen.
All right looks like we have four people in the room, DJ Moore, Lauren Paul and
and Carl Sodorik, starting with DJ Moore.
Good evening, Chair Harmon and Commissioners.
DJ Moore, Paul Hastings.
I'm here today on behalf of California American Water.
CalAM is here today in support of the collections project,
and in particular the extraordinary
public benefits package that this project
is really gonna help bring to this region.
CalAM and the Monterey Salinas Transit Agency
are partnering with the collections team
to conduct removal of the existing concrete berm
at the McDonald site, and implement dune restoration
over a substantial portion of the site
to fulfill independent obligations in Calam and MST CDPs.
The commission approved a CDP for Calam in 2022
in connection with Calam's desalination facility,
and a CDP for MST in 2024 in connection
with the Surf Busway Project.
Many of you were part of both of those hearings.
Those CDPs involve dune creation requirements
to offset the two projects impacts to dune habitat
and require protection of previously unprotected lands
and restoration of natural dune processes
at the newly protected site.
And as part of those requirements,
Calam and MST intend to separately record
deed restrictions over a portion of this site.
Calam has worked closely with commission staff,
Sand City, and collections, and MST for several years
to evaluate the possibility of satisfying
those dune creation requirements right here
and helping to remove this concrete berm
that has prohibited lateral access in the beach
in this area since the 1970s.
We're very pleased to be here today.
This is an important milestone after years of work
by all parties to develop a comprehensive plan
that will be transformative for this part of the coast
and restore, as you've heard,
a degraded industrial site to natural conditions.
We wanna specifically acknowledge staff,
we appreciate their efforts in helping to develop
a cooperative solution that works for all parties
and allows CalAM the opportunity to satisfy
its requirements at this site.
I'll conclude, my colleague Lauren Paul
is gonna speak on some public benefits
of the project specifically,
but we thank you for your time.
We urge you to approve this project
and we're here to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up, Lauren Paul, followed by Carl Sodorick and then
Jennifer Savage.
Lauren Paul, please.
Good evening, Chair Harmon and honorable commissioners.
Lauren Paul with Paul Hastings on behalf
of California American Water.
As G.J. mentioned, we are here to speak in support
of the collections project and the Calam and MST partnership
that will support the removal of the existing concrete berm
and restoration of the McDonald's site.
The wall has been located on the McDonald's site
for over 50 years.
While there has been collective support for its removal,
finding a path for it to be removed
has been extremely challenging.
The cost to remove the berm is significant
and presents unknown risks given limited available information
of its contents and scope.
Given the significant cost and uncertainty,
it has stood in the way of development of the site
as the cost is too great for the development
of a 100-room hotel to bear.
Because of CALAM and MST's partnership, the collections project includes a suite of significant
coastal resource amenities that provide for mitigation associated with the CALAM and MST
projects, address impacts of the collections project, and resolve concerns regarding potential
coastal act violations.
The benefits provided are significant and far exceed what would be included in the collections
project without CALAM and MST's involvement.
The project would include debris removal
in an area far larger than the project site
and would include removals from Mar Vista Drive shoreline
south of Tioga all the way
to the regional park district's property
with the removal of debris in this area
including removal of the concrete berm.
A significant impediment to lateral access to the beach
would be eliminated.
In addition, benefits include significant dune restoration,
public access trails, an extension of trail systems,
overlooks, public parking and restrooms,
and a lower cost campground.
The benefits package is a unique opportunity
to transform this part of the coast
from a former industrial area to an area
with pristine dune habitat, public access, trails,
and visitors serving coastal uses.
If Helen and MSD were to adopt their dune mitigation
at alternative separate locations,
the cost, the coastal resource impacts,
improvements would be much less significant.
Thank you, and we're here for any questions.
Thank you.
Next up, we have Carl Sodorick and then Jennifer Savage.
Thank you, commissioners, chair, staff.
Carl Sodorick, CEO for the Monterey Salinas Transit
District, providing public transit operations
throughout Monterey County.
We're in support of the collections project
and support the staff's proposal.
I want to thank the staff for elegantly putting together
a very diverse collection of groups
here from federally funded public transit operator
to a private utility, to state commission,
to a hotel developer to put this mitigation package together.
This is consistent with prior actions taken
by your commission, most recently with regard
to the MST surf busway and BRT project in September of 2024.
There was a requirement for dune creation imposed
the Commission on MST. This sets the stage for that to take place. The special
conditions provide allowances for MST and CalM to conduct work on the site to
satisfy our separate dune mitigation requirements including recordation of a
permanent conservation easement over a portion of the site. This represents a
win-win-win-win-win for collections, Sand City, MST, CalM, and most importantly as
as a person who, not most importantly,
but equally importantly,
as someone who lives about a mile away from this site
and who rides their bike regularly,
among the 2,000 people who use the coastal trail every day,
have this permanent conservation easement created
and mitigated with native landscape
is a win for everyone who's going to be using this
in the future and both my family
and their families will benefit this for generations to come.
So with the benefits provided, the cumulative improvements
beyond what any single project could provide on its own,
we wholeheartedly support this and want to thank staff
for putting this all together.
Thank you so much.
That's on time for Fortman.
Thank you.
And Jennifer Savage.
Hi, Chair Harmon, Commissioners.
Jennifer Savage, Surfrider Foundation.
While Surfrider does not support
building a resort on the beach and coastal dunes,
we do believe that given the confines of private land
ownership and a land use plan certified in 1982,
your staff has assembled about as protective a package
as the circumstances allow.
We do therefore applaud the conditions
described in the report, in particular,
requiring Tioga Avenue to be pulled 200 feet back
from the ocean.
This is one of the largest managed retreat projects
the commission has overseen.
Permanently protecting about 25 acres for the public,
requiring roughly half a mile of concrete, rubble,
and broken pavement to come off this beach,
that debris has made it difficult for people to walk
and enjoy the shoreline for decades.
Removal will be a significant access improvement.
Saying no to armoring now and forever,
if the ocean reaches this resort,
the resort comes out and the trails in the beach access
move inland and keep serving the public.
The fact that if the resort is never built at all,
the public access and the cleanup still happen.
We do have one request as outlined in the letter
we submitted. The removal requirement is the foundation of this permits hazard package
and is therefore critical to ensure that the responsible parties have the financial capacity
to make good on it when those obligations are triggered. The units get sold to individual
owners. Decades from now someone will have to cover the cost when sea level rise requires
the structures to come out. So we ask that the condominium hotel plan identify a funded mechanism
for removal and restoration or that you direct staff to determine the best financial assurance
mechanism now and going forward thank you no more speakers madam chair okay
great wonderful thank you so much so I will return to our staff mr. Khan if you
have any sure I'll just echo that this is an exciting opportunity to get some
meaningful restoration and public access improvements on this pretty
extraordinary stretch of coast that's degraded but has an enormous ton of
potential. Every time I drive my kids down to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I pass by here and
I think someday we'll get it restored and I think we're getting there, not to be too sappy
or sentimental here. And I'll just also say that this is, you know, we're pooling multiple
resources and parties here to kind of get more bang for the buck, so to speak, to make sure that
we're getting both, you know, benefits beyond just the project site too. So that's where Cal AM and
other partners are really helping to come up to the plate too. So with that, we're available for
questions a lot of complexity here but we can you know help answer those
otherwise that's it from us great thank you very much okay with that I'll
return to the Commission and begin with Commissioner Lopez yeah I just want to
thank all the partners on this project having you here Carl and the
representatives from Calam and especially the city as well as the
developer here there's looking at this as a big picture always felt like it was
insurmountable task, but having all these partners together, somebody who
fishes that bay regularly and looks out on those tailings, I see this as a key
win for all the residents of Monterey County and the visitors from around the
world who come to enjoy the Monterey Bay. This is an opportunity to spread the
impact of tourism along this entire bay and that is critical. It helps lift all
boats to use a pun, but most importantly I just want to thank you guys for
thinking through all the unique circumstances of the property
and coming forward with a solution that works for everyone.
For me, there's one piece missing,
and I'm not gonna complicate this.
I'll just say that as you move forward,
that question of who builds this, right,
is important as well.
Those are, in Monterey County,
we're proud of the folks that build.
And so we're hoping that you find good local folks
to put this up because those become those key things
as families look back and point at these buildings
and say, we were part of that.
gives ownership, gives a pride.
And so I just hope that as you make those considerations
down the future, that you look for those opportunities.
With that at the appropriate time,
Madam Chair, I'm ready to make the motion.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks, I wanna start by just appreciating our staff,
Mr. Klon, everyone that has worked on this,
Mayor and the San City representatives,
and in this case, CalM and everyone participating.
It's a really an incredible moment to see this project come before us with this kind
of support, and I certainly among the very strong supporters of it.
I have just a couple questions just to clarify for myself with Mr. Klein.
So first of all, I might have been in the staff report, but I don't recall seeing it.
What about view impacts from the proposed structure?
From the highway?
Yeah.
actually quite specific about the permissible level of view impacts so in
a nutshell everything is going to be confined to about one-third of the
required view corridor so there will be some view impacts but development is
clustered into the southern and nearest Tioga and then the rest of the project
site will be open to the pretty unobstructed blue water views. Okay so
you feel comfortable that the impacts will not violate the coastal act or any
the provisions of the coastline. Correct, yes. Okay, I'm really excited about the
campground. I know it's super windy there. I guess that will be a challenge how
that gets built if it's somehow tucked in, but is it part of the 2.5
acres of development? Yes. Okay, so that's within that. So it could be shielded by
even the buildings or something. We're also envisioning kind of all-weather
tents to make sure that it's also, you know, cabins and something that is
is responsive to the winter and not just the winter,
but summer winds and breezes.
Well, I would say it's worth talking to our colleagues
at the Coastal Conservancy, given their ever-growing fund
of affordable housing money.
I don't know if that's an option here,
but if that could be contributed in some way,
I don't really know.
Is that even an option to look to that?
You know?
I think we could ask the Conservancy for expertise
on the types of structures that they think have been helpful
in the coastal context.
OK, but not the funds could not.
The developer is responsible for funding.
The developer is going to put in all the funding.
Correct.
OK, that's great.
All right, and then on the CalM contribution,
could you describe to me, so I know
CalM has mitigation requirements as they move forward
with their D-cell proposal, how much of that mitigation is,
I know that was going to go to state parks,
or has been going to state parks.
I'm unclear exactly where things stand on that.
Could you just describe that
and how much of that mitigation money
is going toward this project?
Is that where it's coming from?
Do you mean Calam or do you mean Semex?
No, I mean Calam.
I mean, I know because Calam's contributing
and you reference mitigation.
I assume it's from their D cell.
There are multiple mitigation projects for Calam.
So there is some offsite with state parks.
This is a portion of their requirements.
It's not the entirety.
Okay, I just was wanting to know about that. And then finally with regard to the savages comments
I mean that makes a lot of sense to sort of build into
this project this financial assurance for
Relocation so that's just my final question. And again, thank you so much for your work on this. It's a great project
Just in response on that we did think about
Sorry financial assurances and that sort of thing. We felt like the conditions were super strong and
And we're going to be adequate to account
for those sorts of circumstances.
It is something for this commission to think about.
We don't have a protocol to date for doing
those sorts of things.
And we would actually really have
to work that through what that would look like from the
commission side of things, and what it would mean at the other
end were the bond to be called, for example.
It is something, though, that we've been working on.
So not in this context specifically,
but just thinking through how we might,
and then under what circumstances,
and just how it would work to put in a bonding requirement
for a similar type of development.
I think that, as Dan said,
we didn't feel it was necessary here,
so we didn't, but we're still trying to figure out
how that would work.
Okay, so you all have analyzed the sea level rise risks,
and you don't feel that there's an immediate risk
that would, or any time in the near future,
that would require something like that?
Correct, okay.
Thank you.
Thank you very much commissioner Wilson.
I just want to say I'm very supportive for all the same reasons everyone says and also I just always encourage us to more hotel rooms and especially this condo style I just, you know, I want to say like, we want to reduce pressure on the short term rental market we have to create a place for people to go.
And I think this is a very good example of what we can do so all those other issues aside, I think this is where we need to go. I'm fully supportive.
Thank you, Commissioner Nada.
Just, this is an iconic location, the paragliders hang,
you know, that you see over the dunes
as you come around that corner to see the bays.
And it's, but what a tortured history.
It's really, you know, it makes my heart,
how tough that's been.
So I just wanted to, again, say how great,
how much I appreciate the creativity of the staff
for bringing all the partners together
and the willingness of the folks in Monterey County
to come together on this
and in support of the staff recommendation, thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner O'Malley.
Oh, I'll be brief, but thanks.
I wanna also appreciate staff for all your efforts.
I was looking, I realized that the original proposed
340 room structure was more than the entire population
of San City.
So each person could have had one and a few mother-in-laws.
So I think this is working in a good direction
and I'm really looking forward to the restoration.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Okay, well, before I turn to Commissioner Lopez,
I'll just make my comments.
I agree.
I really wanna acknowledge first the work of our staff
in putting this together, reading the report
and then just hearing today, I mean,
it is really remarkable and hearing from Mr. King
history of how long it's been even adds I think to the import of the
conversation and I also what stood out to me through public comment today and
and the testimony of the city it's just the success of the public-private
engagement and being a local government representative I know how immensely
challenging it is to bring those parties with disparate interest to the table in
this way and that the developer the applicant rather MST Cal AM everyone
appears to have really leaned in to make this overall package just a really significant
benefit to the public. And as the city said, I'm quoting here, it's a generational opportunity
and I totally agree. A project that solves multiple issues at once also, which seems
so rare, you know, including it provides mitigation for these other projects that are hard to
mitigate for and does it in a way that maximizes and meaningfully increases the public benefit
public access is just really is a win-win-win so and thank you for all
the commenters for providing me with the language for what I wanted to say.
With that I will turn to Commissioner Lopez for the motion. Thank you Madam Chair so
make this motion just want to acknowledge that many generations and
folks who've had the opportunity to sit in these seats did not have an
opportunity to vote on a project on this bay it is so important and so it's an
honor and a privilege to motion that the Commission approve coastal development
permit number a 3 snc 14 dash 0 0 0 1 pursuant to the staff recommendation I
recommend a yes vote second thank you that's a motion by Commissioner Lopez a
second by Commissioner Nada any objections to unanimous consent seeing
none the motion carries congratulations okay well we're not done so we'll keep
gone. Thank you. All right. That will take us down to item 17-D, the CDP application
for some improvements at the Oceano Airport. And I'll have Ryan Moroni, District Supervisor
of the Central Coast Office give the staff presentation. Thanks, Kevin. Tough to follow
that one, but here we go. There's a presentation. Item 17-D is an application for a series of
renovations at the Oceano Airport, which is located in the center of slide one, as viewed
from above.
Originally built in the 1950s, the airport is one of three airports serving the county,
with the Oceano Airport generally serving non-scheduled general aviation and cargo flights.
The airport's core infrastructure is comprised of a single asphalt runway that is 50 feet
wide and almost a half a mile long, with several asphalt taxiways and aprons to accommodate
aircraft circulation and a series of hangers and other support buildings and facilities.
Next slide, please.
Slide two shows the airport's regional context, located in south San Luis Obispo County.
The airport is shown in the image to the right and it occupies some 60 acres of land in Oceano.
neighboring development includes residential and park lands, a wastewater treatment plant,
and the Wetlands and Riparian corridors associated with the Meadow Creek, Arroyo Grande Creek
and Oceano Lagoon complexes, which can be seen in the darker green in the image. The
airport is about 1,000 feet inland from the shoreline. Next slide please. Slide three
shows the proposed project elements. Starting in the upper left corner, the applicant proposes
to rehabilitate the parking lot and replace the airport signage along Air Park Drive,
in light blue. They also proposed to renovate a multi-purpose room and a
public restroom noted in red near the parking lot improvements. They would also
replace the airport's main hangar, install a new electric vault, and relocate
navigational aids shown here in purple, orange, and green respectively. The
applicant is also requesting after-the-fact approval of a series of
improvements that have been undertaken over the years without the benefit of a
of the CDP, including slurry seal and fog sealant applications on the runway, replacement
of fuel tanks, new runway lighting, installation of automated weather observation systems and
a beacon tower.
Those items are all listed in the blue box to the right.
And finally, the applicant is also requesting pre-authorization for repair and maintenance
activities for the next ten years.
In general, the proposed development, including almost all of the proposed after-the-fact
development constitutes fairly straightforward improvements to an
existing airport facility that result in fairly limited coastal resource impacts.
For those impacts that occur can be addressed by best management practices
and other conditions typically applied by the Commission. Next slide please. That
said, the primary Coastal Act issue is that the site is low-lying area at the
confluence of two waterways that is the subject to coastal hazard concerns that
are expected to increase over time.
Slide four shows the airport location
within the LCP's mapped flood hazard area on the left
and within FEMA's high flood risk zone on the right.
Such siting calls into question
whether significant public infrastructure
such as this appropriately minimizes flood risks,
including without shoreline armoring.
Given this risk factor,
staff believes that it's important
to monitor such conditions
to take appropriate and proactive actions
when certain hazard triggers are met,
including to avoid a scenario where the airport
is threatened in such a way
as to necessitate armoring to remain functional.
A staff recommends a series of conditions
that are designed to monitor coastal hazard risks
and to develop non-armoring alternatives to address them
as they become more apparent and problematic over time.
Next slide, please.
Even though the coastal act issues associated
with the proposed project may be limited,
The airport has long been a controversy for some in the community who have questioned
the appropriateness and impact of an airport operating in the center of town.
Some suggest that the airport site could be put to better use for the community, such
as affordable housing, a town center, a public park, or even return to wetlands to help buffer
against flood risks.
Inherent in this reasoning is the fact that Oceano is an environmental justice community
where the population is nearly half Hispanic and Latino with roughly one-third non-English
speakers and is designated as a low-income community by AB 1550.
It is also a community that is already disproportionately impacted by surrounding land uses, such as
the regional wastewater plant, a primary vehicular entrance into the state vehicular recreation
area, a beach covered in vehicles, and air quality degradation from vehicular recreationalists,
all of which raise community environmental justice concerns.
Next slide, please.
Thus, the Coastal Act coastal hazard concerns with the project are only amplified when considered
through an environmental justice lens.
Staff believe that the appropriate manner in which such environmental justice concerns
can be addressed is through the CDP coastal hazards or conditions, including as the required
hazards planning can provide an important platform for the community, the county, the
airport, and interested members of the public to engage on the airport's future, evaluate
how, whether, and when to transition the airport to different uses in response to coastal hazard
threats, all within an environmental justice lens and without a specific predetermined
outcome.
I'd like to note that the addendum we published today makes these requirements even more explicit.
In addition, and as a baseline for this future visioning, it should be noted that the airport
has committed to maintaining its current function and service, and to forgo any future expansion.
The airport's future plans, including whether it sought to modify its operations to become
a more full-service aviation operation, has been a concern for some in the community,
as doing so could exacerbate the types of land-use incompatibilities already identified.
This issue too was raised by the Commission in December of 2023 during Commission debate
on the applicant's last CDP application, where at that time the applicant could not
commit to a specific future outcome.
In subsequent discussions since then, the applicant has committed to maintaining its
current functions and level of use intensity, and this CDP is conditioned to require that.
Last slide, please.
And some staff recommends approval with conditions that authorize the proposed project that overall
allows for relatively minor repairs and improvements to keep the airport safe and in a state of
good repair while also providing the appropriate side boards from a coastal act and coastal
resource perspective including in terms of coastal hazard planning.
The motion and resolution to effectuate this recommendation are found on page six of the
staff report and this concludes staff's presentation.
Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have a representative in the city? Who's county?
Excuse me, apologies. Thank you. And how much time do you need, man? Five minutes
should be okay. Thank you. Okay. Good evening at this point, Madam Chair and
commissioners. I am Courtney Johnson, Director of Airports for San Luis Obispo
County. I want to start out today thanking your coastal staff for their
time and collaboration on this we've been working on it for multiple years so
just really grateful for their time that they've put in. Next slide please. I want
to start with what exactly we're asking you to approve today. This is a focus
maintenance and repair application for existing infrastructure at the airport.
The project has been reviewed extensively with Coastal Commission
staff and includes conditions addressing coastal hazards and long-term planning.
next slide. Thank you. These are six improvements to facilities that already
are in existence. None of these improvements change the airport's
footprint or its fundamental use. This is really about taking existing
infrastructure and making sure it is safe, functional, and appropriately
maintained. Next slide please. So why now? We have three reasons. First, there was
storm damage. So the main hangars were significantly damaged during the storms
in 2023, and ultimately had to be demolished, so these are to replace the lost facility.
Second is safety and reliability.
Our systems are aging and need to be modernized to ensure a dependable airport operation.
Third, several of our public facing facilities are aging and original, and that infrastructure
needs to be brought up to current accessibility and operational standards.
Next slide, please.
It is important to understand Oceano Airport's role within the larger regional airport system.
Oceano provides a dedicated location for general aviation, recreational flying, flight training,
and education.
And unlike our commercial airport, Oceano offers something fairly unique with direct
access to a coastal community and opportunities for aviation-related education and recreation
in a smaller, safer location for our youth.
Next slide, please.
One of Oceano Airport's most important roles is public safety and emergency response.
The airport is available and has been used by multiple public safety and emergency service
organizations.
Its location gives emergency responders direct access to Oceano and South County.
Next slide please.
One of the things that we are most proud of is how our relationship with the Oceano community
at large has evolved since 2023.
We have been intentionally working to make the airport more accessible and relevant to
the community members who may never otherwise have a reason
to come to the airport.
A big part of that is youth and education
through our aviation career day, our girls and aviation day,
and our CTE pathway that we started with
Lucia Mar, Unified School District.
We are creating a more direct connection
between local students and future aerospace careers.
Next slide, please.
So some of these pictures are what our commitment
looks like in practice.
We have hosted a display day, a girls and aviation day,
and an aviation career day.
And over the last few years,
we've really been intentional about operating the airport
and opening it up to the community.
Next slide, please.
We are intentionally expanding our programming
and events like these allow the airport
to function as a community gathering place
and not just an aviation facility.
This is something we will continue to build
through the community event plan included in this permit.
Next slide, please.
One of the things that we are also excited about
is what we are building
with Lucía Marr Unified School District.
Aviation is broader than just becoming a pilot.
There are opportunities in aircraft maintenance,
engineering, airport operations, public safety technology
and other skilled trades.
And this partnership is about preparing students
for success and providing opportunities
within our own region.
Bless you.
Next slide please.
So I'm gonna close where we started.
We are asking for you to approve our CDP consistent
with staff recommendation today.
It gives us a responsible framework for the future
and formalizes something we deeply care about,
which is an ongoing partnership with the Oceano community.
So thank you, and I'm here if you have any questions.
Thank you very much.
Before we continue, I think that I failed
to ask for expertise.
Are there any expertise?
I will just say that I received a text message
from Supervisor Ortiz-Leg asking to speak on this item,
and I did not respond, and we did not speak.
Sorry, Dawn.
Okay, with that, we will move on to public comment.
Thank you.
So we do actually have Supervisor Ortiz-Lag
as the first speaker, followed by Supervisor Jimmy Pauling.
And it looks like we have about seven more public commenters.
Yes, good evening.
I'm happy to see everybody.
Thank you for your long day.
That was a tough conversation earlier.
Wanted to say, I just want to express support
for the oceana airport coastal development permit tonight and thank you coastal commission staff
for your efforts in bringing this item forward today. At its core this is about allowing the
county to perform necessary maintenance and repairs to an existing public facility while also
providing a responsible framework for its future. You know while past boards may have not this board
to supervisors has made the continue investment in Oceano and the South County community as a priority.
As stated in Supervisor Paulding's letter, we see the airport as part of that commitment not only
for its aviation and emergency response role, but for the opportunities it provides for education,
public access, and community events. And I am most excited about inspiring the children
of the education and the aviation opportunities that this airport provides.
These efforts are underway to create a stronger connection between the airport and the community,
and we recognize that there is way more work to be done.
So we look forward to continuing to listen, build relationships, and work alongside the
Oceana community as we move forward.
I appreciate the commission staff's partnership throughout this process, and I respectfully
ask for your support today.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up we have Supervisor Jimmy Paulding followed by Lucia Casa Linuevo, Charles Varney,
and Jeff Edwards.
Supervisor Paulding.
Thank you.
Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners.
I'm Jimmy Paulding, your 4th District County Supervisor for San Luis Obispo County, and
I'm here today in support of the Coastal Development Permit for the Oceano Airport.
First, thank you so much to the Commission staff and the Commission for reviewing and
considering my written comments that I submitted last week.
I really appreciate the thoughtful consideration
that you have given this project
and the community of Oceano.
I care deeply about Oceano.
As shared in my letter,
I volunteered to serve the community
after redistricting had left Oceano
without a supervisor in 2022.
And I was recently reelected
to continue representing this wonderful community
for another term.
Over the past several years,
I've worked closely with residents
to increase county investment in Oceano
and strengthen community engagement,
including through the Oceano Airport.
In 2024, I led board action to increase community engagement
at the airport through public events
and educational programs.
And we are beginning to see the airport become
a more accessible and community-oriented public asset.
But I want to emphasize that the project before you today
is fundamentally about repairing
and modernizing existing infrastructure.
The airport's main hangar was severely damaged
in the 2023 winter storms and had to be demolished.
This project replaces that facility,
rehabilitates the existing parking lot,
renovates the multi-purpose room and public restrooms
and upgrades aging electrical
and navigational infrastructure.
It also adds EV charging infrastructure
and improves public facing facilities
that can better serve the community.
These are needed repairs and improvements.
They are not an expansion of airport operations.
I recognize the important questions
that have been raised about environmental justice,
coastal hazards, and the airport's long-term future.
Those conversations should continue
with meaningful participation from the people of Oceano.
But those larger questions should not prevent us
from responsibly maintaining the public infrastructure
that exists today.
I respectfully ask you to approve
this cultural development permit
consistent with your staff's recommendation.
Thank you so much for all of your hard work today.
Thank you, Supervisor Paulding.
Next up, we have Luccio Castellanouevo.
Please go ahead.
Okay, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you.
staff recommendation. I represent the Oceano Beach Community Association. Please deny these
beautification applications and request an independent land use study to find out what
would really be the best way to use those 60 acres to the benefit of the Oceano community
and the environment.
Your staff is underestimating
the environmental injustice issue.
Dedicating 60 acres of prime coastal wetlands
to a limited use recreational airport
is doing a great injustice to Oceano.
There is a starve of general recreational opportunities
available to all, not just the rich.
How improving the aesthetics of the Oceano Airport parking lot
will benefit the community of Oceano.
And does the airport administration
think we are idiots in Oceano
to be appeased by a handful of fun days activities,
one of which last Christmas cost our county $160,000
to bring in a pile of ice for the kids to play on?
The airport administration said very plainly
and shamelessly that this airport is
and will continue to function
as a limited use recreational aviation facility.
The emergency and community benefits arguments
are mystifications, BS, to color this truth.
Big playground for the rich.
Stated so openly and freely sounds almost immoral
that any money should be spent on maintaining, repairing,
and improving a super elite recreational facility.
While ocean residents don't have a mile of safe beach,
don't have a bicycle or pedestrian safe route to the beach
and don't have a beach parking lot.
Please deny this application
and demand an independent land use study
to find the community and the environment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up we have Charles Varney followed by Jeff Edwards
and then Julie Tucker.
Mr. Varney, please go ahead.
Thank you.
Charles Varney from Oceano, 26 year resident.
And I'd just like to make a couple of points here.
Cal Poly did a land use preference survey in Oceano,
probably the most sociologically valid one ever.
And in that survey, 44% of local residents opposed
having the airport.
They felt there were better uses for that land.
22% of the residents supported having the airport
and a large proportion, 32%
didn't really have much of an opinion about it.
Over the years, the great promises have been made
about what the airport is going to evolve into.
The last time we went around this track,
it was like it was gonna be the center of great innovations
and so on and so forth.
And now it's kind of flip-flop back to really the fact,
which it's simply a recreational airport
for people who can afford to rent or purchase planes.
12 pilots have hangers there.
7,600 people in Oceano lack recreational area.
I think that it is clear that there are higher uses
for this land.
I believe in my heart that the airport's probably
gonna be here until it's covered up with seawater
or flood water.
And I understand the need to keep it maintained.
The promises of economic benefit to the community
are empty promises.
We don't need an airport to motivate kids
to go into technical fields.
And I appreciate the Coastal Commission.
I'll leave it at that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up we have Jeff Edwards, followed by Julie Tacker
and then April Dury.
Mr. Edwards, please go ahead.
Thank you.
Good evening, commissioners and Madam Chair.
My name is Jeff Edwards and I'm a 50 year county resident.
Likewise, I have been engaged with the Oceano Airport
also known as L52 since 2010.
Please postpone or continue the item
until the October meeting.
Just yesterday, County airports met with myself
and an Oceano resident for over an hour
and a postponement was discussed at that time.
And by the end of the day, I was told by the County that they were going to ask for continuance,
but this morning that had changed.
What is noteworthy for all commissioners, including those who were not present in December
of 2023, nothing has changed.
This is the same CDP that was heard then.
In 2023, the commission struggled with approving a CDP that had so many outstanding violations
an ex-post facto permitting.
Violations persist today and are not being corrected
by the CDP before you.
Your commission does not do that.
And exhibit A is the perimeter fence at L52.
The CDP has been characterized as a maintenance and rehab,
but make no mistake about it.
This is simply lipstick on a pig
and the proposed special conditions
are entirely misplaced.
staff has provided a well-written report, however, it misunderstands that staging
a handful of events or outreach annually will benefit
Oceania residents because it will not. Nothing tangible. L-52 is no community
asset. Please postpone this matter. Please remember that as a consolidated
CDP there have been no local hearings on point and in an EJ community that should
be considered an unacceptable. Please support a postponement so additional
discussions can occur between the public and airport staff. Thank you. Thank you.
Next up Julie Tacker followed by April Deary and then Bonnie Ernst. Miss Tacker
Please go ahead.
Good afternoon.
My name is Julie Tacker.
I'll first speak to the comments that the airport representative made in that the Oceano
airport is unique because it gives direct access to pilots.
The airport itself is an impediment to the disadvantaged community of Oceano and their
direct access to the beach.
Airports has been doing improvements for decades.
In 2023, on page 33 of the staff report at that time,
11 such projects were identified as unpermitted development.
Since then, since 2023, another handful
of unpermitted developments either were discovered
are being investigated or with your addendum today,
they're gonna be approved in after the fact,
the replacement of the grass at the campground
and sealing cracks in the runway.
There's a great emphasis on public outreach.
Had the airports gone through the process,
in each and every one of these projects,
that would have been outreach.
Every public hearing would have invited the community
to participate over and over and over again.
This after the fact, money thrown at a party or an event
doesn't fix the impediment to the beach.
The community is hampered in many ways by the development that is sitting there today
and taking up 60 acres of coastal real estate.
I ask you to deny this permit.
Don't award bad behavior with after-the-fact permitting.
Airports has not been a good neighbor and I cannot imagine that they will change.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
have April Dury followed by Bonnie Ernst and then Adam Verdon. April Dury
please go ahead. Thank you so much. I want to piggyback on the EJ disadvantaged
community issue. In 2023 the airport rolled up a community event plan and
listed 10 events. In 2026 they sent you another revised one with only six events.
After reviewing all the correspondence and documents from my audit on the
clear to cheer event that they hosted,
it's clear that the fundamental question is,
what does community mean?
Jimmy Paulding wrote in his letter to you
that he expects the airport to work with the community
that it works for.
The airport works for the tourist.
So is that what the scopus,
is that the community we're talking about?
I don't understand.
The Coastal Commission said work with the community.
That was the thing that the Coastal Commission said
that you guys said, but they're not doing it.
I am the community.
The community is talking to you.
The community is telling you this.
So I hope that whatever your decision is today,
that the future is about.
Be very clear what you mean by the community.
Is the community the airport denizens?
is the community, the greater geographic community.
It includes Oceano school district
versus the local school itself.
The locals are not getting help.
We are that community.
If that's the community you mean, please be more clear
because they're using it in every other way but Oceano.
In the end, you're not an airport commission
just like you're not a land youth housing commission.
You are a commission about access to the beach
and the best use of the beach and the beach being healthy.
We're the locals, this impedes access to us.
Please help us with that if that truly is your scope,
you're not in the airport business.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. E.
Up next, we have Bonnie Ernst and then Adam Verden.
Ms. Ernst, please go ahead.
Good evening, Chair Harmon, and Commissioners,
Bonnie Ernst Oceano Beach Community Association.
On a Facebook page, coffee and airplanes, I read this post.
Teach your kids the love of flying
and they'll never have money for drugs.
The top pilot replied, they won't have money for anything.
My town of Oceano is low income.
It's definitely not a community of plane owners.
Our major concerns for this CDP include,
Number one, the grant assurances lock-in.
Accepting FAA and enterprise funding
triggers strict grant assurances
that legally binds this land exclusively
to airport uses now and far, far into the future.
Second is the runway stranglehold.
The runway for recreation blocks options
for higher land uses such as wetlands,
community gardens, parks, safe beach access,
visitor services and much, much more.
Number three is no plan.
In 2023, this commission asked for a plan.
Nearly three years later,
the airport has presented no real plan.
This airport may not look be as pretty as they want,
but this airport right now is safe,
it's legal, it's operational.
The staff report has listed numerous conditions
for approval, our letter, which I hope you've read,
it has just two.
One is to prohibit funding
with long-term grant assurances.
And number two is to conduct a comprehensive
land use feasibility study
and transition plan for local control.
Avowing the site can start now,
and it begins by denying further development today.
Please take these grant assurances and can cuffs seriously.
I know this is a very unique and difficult issue
and I thank you for your time to speak.
Thank you.
We have Adam Verdon.
It looks like you're on the phone.
We're gonna go ahead and should be able to speak now.
Can you hear me?
We can hear you.
Go ahead.
Oh, wonderful.
Well, thank you all for taking the time for hearing this.
Oh, so my name is Adam Verdon.
I was born and raised right there in Oceano.
I learned to fly at the Oceano airport
over 30 years ago now.
I sold there on my 16th birthday
and became a commercial pilot, a flight instructor,
and I still live there in South County.
And I think that the airport presents
a very unique opportunity
to connect our young kids with aviation.
And I think you have political leadership in our county
that is unanimously supported those type of endeavors,
you have staff working towards that end.
And a basic thing you need to be able to do that
is to be able to support and maintain your infrastructure.
And so I very much support the staff recommendation
to approve this with conditions, you know,
and I think you have everyone working in the same direction
to make it a more expansive airport for our community.
As the last speaker said, it is legal
and it is going to be an airport there
for a very long time.
So the question is,
how do we make it the best possible airport?
Thank you for your time
and thank you for allowing me to speak.
Thank you.
We have one other person signed to speak,
Aline Villa, but she is not in the Zoom meeting.
No more speakers.
Madam chair. Okay. Thank you very much. I will return to our staff. See if they have
response, Mr. Con. Yes. Thank you. So, you know, this application was before the commission
or a similar one in December, 2023. And I think at that time, one of the large unanswered
questions that was, you know, what is the airport's longer term plans? What might it
change into what what might it morph into in the future? And how does that impact both
coastal resources but also land-use
compatibilities in the community. You
know, since then we've worked with the
airport, we've got them to commit to kind
of keeping the airport as is, not
expanding, not intensifying, and they have
that commitment and that's codified in
the special condition. So I think that's
an important piece here to know kind of
what it is that we're dealing with, what
it is that we're looking at, and
because of that we have conditions here
to address both kind of the shorter term you know repair and maintenance needs to streamline
and keep the airport in a state of good repair but also you know critically both from a coastal
hazards perspective but also from an environmental justice perspective you know this longer term
planning exercise that includes deep commitments to community engagement and visioning on
what can should this airport be again from hazards but also from a community perspective too
And yes, community means both people who clearly don't want this airport here, but also from
people who are aviation enthusiasts that do. I think those both of those voices are equally
important. We've heard from both of them in the correspondence packet. So all in all, I think we
have a good kind of sweet spot recommendation here to respond to the development at hand, which
as we wrote in the staff report is relatively of, you know, minor scope in terms of coastal resource
impact but it does commit to thinking through kind of again what should this
airport be starting with the community. With that we're available for questions.
Okay thank you very much. I'll return to the Commission. Comments, questions? Vice
Chair Hart? Yeah I was here during the 23 discussion and I had concerns then and I
still have concerns and I know that we're all struggling to figure it out
but this community, they really need help. They haven't been able to get
access to their beach, it remains an OHV park with significant pollution, as you
noted in the staff report, and I think you did an excellent job talking about
the environmental justice implications, but I think it would be wrong for us to
not comment or respond and let the public know that we hear what they're
saying and I just have to look to the staff report because frankly I think
it's exactly right when they're talking about that the community is looking to
us to take the opportunity of the CDP to eliminate the airport use but that's
just not appropriate given the fairly limited coastal resource impacts just
citing the staff report where the impacts that occur can be fairly readily
addressed by the conditions.
So I just want the people that spoke today and the broader community, oh, Chiano, no,
we are not ignoring them or we are not, it's not that we're not aware of what they're
dealing with, but as I guess it was you, Kevin, said in the report, you say the larger questions
regarding whether the airports your stay are going and what forms are simply
better addressed by the County Board of Supervisors the applicant and Oceano
residents and I have to say I agree with that at this time and I hope that they do
because this airport doesn't have a very bright future I mean we see level rise
so something's gonna have to be done at some point and you know as the letter
that was submitted the comment letter talked about how airports throughout the
state are being converted into parks and for public benefit particularly when
There's other airports around like there are here.
I really wish that those entities that I just named
would take a really hard look at that.
So thank you for your report.
And I feel bad about it.
But I don't think this is the moment.
Thank you.
I'm happy to make the motion.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah.
I concur with Commissioner Hart on all those points.
I just want to say, even in my community,
we have an airport that similar shape and size,
similar use pattern, probably actually a little bit more,
but sits somewhat below sea level.
It's basically there by the grace of the levies
that protect it, and at some point,
it will also have those challenges,
and we're starting to have those conversations.
And we have a few other airports
that similarly probably need to be discussed.
So I, yeah, I feel all those things,
and I do think, and I do encourage
that the board of supervisors and the community there
really think about that future.
And so, yeah, I'm there with you.
All right, Commissioner Pressiata.
Just very quickly, I've been scanning this,
and last year when we visited,
or we had the meeting in Pismo Beach,
I had an opportunity to spend some time in Oceano
and it's as challenging as it sounds
from the community's point of view.
I just think there are a lot of opportunities
with an asset that's there.
I note that the Saline, the,
and by the way, I'm on a wastewater committee in San Diego
and so I see that there's a wastewater facility
and that's another significant career area
for a lot of people, I'm an educator too, sorry.
So I just started seeing the community benefits
and while you're focused on the airport,
I just think you have an opportunity to re-imagine
how the whole community can think about its future.
There's a lot of trailer and mobile home,
I assume those are there because they can be moved.
should sea level rise impact this area.
But I'm just hopeful that as part
of a long-term planning process,
you can see how you can incorporate other uses
that may be more appealing
or more beneficial to the community.
And it's just to value.
I think I've heard one of the speakers
who's been sharing with us the difficulties
and challenges of being a neighbor to this airport.
And so I want to acknowledge that that is heard,
but it does seem that this proposal is balanced
and consistent with its current use.
So I hope I can support this,
but I see a lot more opportunity here
and I hope the supervisors engage,
the two supervisors that joined us
engaged in a broader conversation
about the future of this area.
So I think I just echoed the vice chair's comments.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, thank you for the staff report.
Thank you for the comments
and the applicant and my colleagues.
A couple of questions.
So my understanding, this is a 24 hour airport.
There's no, it's not closed.
Come and go, is that correct?
Yes, sir, so there is certain restrictions
if you have different type of aircraft,
but no, it's 24-7 operation, it's just untowered.
Okay, anybody can fly in and out?
Correct.
24 hours a day?
Yes, sir.
Okay, and how many jobs does this airport support?
And I may be outside my lane, but I'm just curious anyway.
I don't have an exact answer of that.
We do have some tenants that are there,
but when we're looking at community relations,
it's hard to quantify.
Wasn't expecting that question, to be honest.
But the hangers, specifically, that blew down,
host one of our drone operators,
and they're a business there,
so that is one that was on our airfield
that is no longer because they don't have a home, if you will.
So our goal is to continue to go down
these education pathways and more focus
on that youth and that education,
and then it is such a small footprint,
So there are really only 12 tenants that we can have,
but I would say half of them are businesses
and not private operations.
Thank you for that.
And what happened, you mentioned the 23 report
that was supposed to be published.
The commission had asked for a 23 report
on the future of this potential future.
Is that what I understand took place?
I know that Dr. Hart mentioned that.
There was a CDP application for the commission in 23.
And there were questions from the commission
about could the airport commit to a certain future
or not do certain things.
And at the time, airport staff weren't comfortable making
that determination.
So they withdrew the application then.
There was no decision by the commission then.
And there's still no decision that I'm gathering.
That's to be determined.
That was specific to expanding or turning the airport
into a more commercial operation, things of that nature.
So that is a charge.
And as of now, there are no commercial.
It's all private.
Correct.
And it will continue to not have any commercial operations.
OK.
Do you have any stats on emergency operations
that have originated?
not not off the top of my hand I could look at the actual organizations that
use the airport but as for actual operations we can pull that report but I
don't have that data here today. Okay and then the application is asking for a
10-year pre-authorization. Why 10 years? Why are we why are we considering 10-year
pre-authorization and not having them come back when there are no as of this
this report, no safety concerns.
This appears to be cosmetic.
And let me add to that.
Are these EV charges open to the entire community?
Are those just for the folks who have their planes parked
there or taking off?
So I'll answer a few of those, if you don't mind.
So the EV chargers specifically would be in the parking lot
that is accessible to our community.
So those would not be behind the fence line.
What was the other question?
Sorry.
The 10 years.
So we were kind of just looking at the useful life
of pavement and what it looks like.
And when we're programming with the FAA
and using our entitlements, it runs about every four years.
We have to kind of collect before we can afford
to do any pavement maintenance.
So the 10 years was to just have some general maintenance
upkeep, slurry sill, crack fill, striping,
stuff like that, so very low minimal maintenance.
And I know there was a question with regard.
There was unpermitted development.
how much of that was done after the application was withdrawn?
So, yes sir, there was crack fill and there was slurry that was done with an FAA grant
that had a timeline on it. So we did move forward with that one. A lot of the other
ones are historical and done in the 80s and 90s that are we're doing after the fact approvals
for. So after your withdrawal in 23, you had unpermitted
development. Okay. I if it's time for comments I I understand the county's
proactive nature of this. I'm you know I'm concerned for a variety of
reasons I think the environmental justice. I mean having been there when we
had our meeting up there seeing what that county is dealing with what the
residents are dealing with I don't see any I don't see any community benefit to
this at all. Particularly when you look at the demographics of the community
that's most impacted by this airport and you know they get another 10 years of
kicking the can at the expense of the men and women and the families that are
trying to raise their families and live a decent life when they're dealing with
already all that other stuff. There's a lot of stuff happening in that small
community and that it's the residents of that community that are dealing and
bearing the brunt of this and I would not be supporting this.
Further comments? Motion? Happy to make the motion Madam Chair. Thank you. So just want to
state that as a neighbor to San Luis Obispo County knowing the role that the
airports play in their desire to vision forward I've seen them look at their
airports is opportunity for spaceports looking at what comes in the future I
heard that in some of the comments made by the public and representing rural
communities with airports looking at the EV tools being generated in marina
through Jovi knowing that there's an opportunity in the future for electric
vehicle takeoff and landing these smaller airports could play a role but
my ask here is that as we move forward and I will make the motion today here
briefly we look at opportunities to grant to a community that we acknowledge
has had impact not just from this particular project but from others in
the vicinity. So knowing that our funds are limited through Wail Tail Grants and
others looking for those opportunities to help them vision what this area could
be for themselves in the future is something I would be hugely supportive of.
I don't even know if hugely is a word but I'm going to use it repeatedly. And so
at this point given that and having that statement on the record I would move
that the Commission approve Coastal Development permit number 3 2 5 0 8 6 5
Pursuing to the staff recommendation and I recommend a yes vote
Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner Lopez a second by Commissioner Preciado. They're asking for a yes vote
May we have a roll call vote, please?
All right, Commissioner Kalmick. Hi
Kalmick. Yes, Commissioner. Not off. I
Not off. Yes, Commissioner. Preciado. I
Preciado. Yes, Commissioner Wilson. Yes Wilson. Yes
Commissioner Malley? Yes. Malley? Yes. Commissioner Hart? Yes. Hart? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? No.
Jackson? No. Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Kelly? Yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Lopez? Yes.
Chair Harmon? Yes. Harmon? Yes. The vote is nine yes, one no.
Oh, just turn my mic off. Thank you very much. Thanks everyone for a great day. We'll see you
all tomorrow. We have the minutes. We have the minutes. We have another
minute for the minutes. Thank you. I move to approve the minutes item 18. 18.
Second. Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner Kelly, a second by
Commissioner Wilson. Any objections to unanimous consent? I'll abstain. Okay.
Motion carries. Okay, thanks. Now we're done. Thank you.