Okay, good morning everyone as Commissioner Jackson says it's tip-off time
All right. We are so happy to be here in Eureka. I want to start by welcoming Commissioner Oglesby
We're so happy to have you wishing Commissioner not off a happy belated birthday
And I think that's all our initial announcements
So I will begin with a roll call, please
All right. Good morning
Commissioner O'Malley present Commissioner Escalante here
Vice Chair Hart
present
Commissioner Jackson here commissioner Kelly
She'll be on zoom later commissioner Lee
Not here yet Commissioner Oglesby here
Commissioner comic here
Commissioner not off here
Commissioner Moreno
present. Commissioner Wilson. Here. Commissioner Brownfield. Here. Commissioner
Eckerly. Here. Commissioner Williams. Here. And Chair Harmon. Here. We have a quorum.
Great, thank you very much. May we please move to the virtual meeting procedures.
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 CalSPAN website. Those who wish to address the commission
today can do so in person through the zoom platform or by phone. The speaker request
forms may be found on the Commission's webpage. Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless
submittal are available on the Commission staff table just outside the meeting room.
For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the Commission's agenda
page, which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone. Members of the public
speaking during general public comment may be given up to two minutes to speak at the
a discretion of the chair.
Requests to speak during
the general public comment period will not be
accepted after 9 AM on each day of the meeting.
In order to provide the opportunity for
the broadest range of public participation,
you may speak on a specific topic
one time only each month.
Those speaking on an agenda item that is
not general public comment are typically
allowed two to three minutes to
speak at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request to speak on
a regular agenda item up until
the chair opens the hearing on that particular item.
If you have Internet access,
please go to the commission's webpage and click
on the link to fill out a speaker request.
If you do not have Internet access or prefer to testify by phone,
please call the commission staff at 562-477-9089.
Again that number is 562-477-9089.
Staff will provide you with a telephone call in number and
instructions for how to
participate and provide testimony by phone.
We will manage speakers coming in and out of
the meeting through a meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address the commission,
the organizer will invite you to turn on your video and
microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone.
Madam chair that concludes the virtual hearing procedures. Great. Thank you so much Galen with that. We will move to agenda changes mr.
Twifle, thank you chair Harmon
We have seven changes to today's agenda all of which are noted on the agenda changes memo posted to the online agenda
First item 13a has been moved to consent
for a humble County LCP amendment on transitional housing
Next item 13 B has been moved to consent for a humble County LCP amendment on emergency housing
Next item 13 C has been moved to consent for a city of Fort Bragg LCP amendment for development permit updates
Next item 13 D has been moved to consent for a city of Fort Bragg LCP amendment on urban lot splits
Next item 13 E has been moved to consent for a city of Point Arena LCP amendment on code reorganization
Next item 16a has been moved to consent for a time extension for the Marin
wildlife, sorry, wildfire prevention authorities public works plan. And last
item 18b has been moved to consent for a City of Santa Cruz LC payment, LCP
amendment for sensitive habitat and vegetation maps. That concludes the
changes to today's agenda so that brings us to item 4 in general public comment.
Great, thank you.
Galen, I'll turn it to you for general public comment.
Thank you so much.
All right.
For members of the public, I will
be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers
and invite you to speak when it is your turn.
Each speaker will be allowed two minutes
during general public comment at the discretion of the chair.
In order to allow for live video testimony on Zoom,
we will be bringing you in as panelists.
As we bring you in, your Zoom will reload.
This may take a moment to speed up this process,
we will bring 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 in order that they
appear on our sign-up list.
When you hear your name, please line up behind the podium
and introduce yourself when you approach to speak.
There is a raise hand function
that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio,
you can raise your hand by dialing star 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 nine.
First up in person.
Just give us one second.
I'm, or we're having pretty bad wifi issues
and we weren't able to get the presentations over yet,
so we need to get those over first
before we start calling names.
So give us a second.
All right, everyone, we're gonna take a five-minute break.
Please be back at 9.20.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you, everyone.
Appreciate your patience.
We will now turn it back to Galen for public comment.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
All right, back to general public comment,
starting with the individuals that we have in the room.
We're gonna start with Tyler France,
followed by Martin Sweat,
and then Charis Josette Blackley.
So first up, we have Tyler France.
Do we have Tyler France?
All right.
Moving on.
Next up, we have Martin Sweat.
If you could just press the button on the microphone, sir.
Thank you.
Good morning.
My name is Martin Sweat and I'm from Trinidad, California.
I'd like to talk about stone lagoon today and an issue
that I feel needs some consideration.
Stone Lagoon sits within the Humboldt Lagoon State Park,
about 40 miles north of here.
The lagoon abuts the Pacific separated by only a mile long spit.
When winter rains arrive, the water level of the lagoon rises enough that hydrostatic
pressure combined with winter storms causes the lagoon to breach, pouring out at a high
volume of water within a few days.
I estimate it happens about three out of every four years and it's really cool to watch.
A few winters back I was taking a walk along the lagoon side of the spit and I noticed
a lot of small plastic pieces that I could best describe looking like small squids. They were
shotgun wads, the plastic casing around the shot that helps create a more narrow spray.
So I decided to spend most Saturday mornings during the hunting season walking this bit and
collecting as many as I could. On these walks, I saw the effects this plastic had on the sensitive
ecosystem. First, when the lagoon breached, the hundreds of wads that were in the water disappeared
within days, obviously going out to sea.
As I had mentioned, having them look like squids,
it is not unfathomable that some of these were ingested
by ocean animals.
What was also surprising was how the dynamics
of breaching created a second issue and that
of microplastics, maybe a larger issue.
When Stu and Lagoon breaches,
not all the shotgun wads leave the shore.
With the loss of shore water,
the remaining wads are left above the banks
where they remain on hot sand.
and since the lagoon will not see water levels this high for nearly a year the wads bake
and their pliability morphs to brittle.
When hikers and fishermen pass by it's like stepping on potato chips and the wads change
into microplastics that will remain at the state park forever.
For scale I picked up 5700 wads that winter and I had friends pick up another 1500.
If we got 3 out of every 4 wads that's 10,000 wads at one state park and I feel it's worthy
of further discussion. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. We see that Tyler France is now on Zoom, so we will get to you when we move
to the Zoom portion. Next up, we have Charis Josette Blatchley, followed by Caitlin Castellano.
Charis Josette Blatchley, not seeing anyone. Moving on to Caitlin Castellano.
Good morning, commissioners. I'm going to make this really short. My name is Kaitlin
Castellano. I'm the Deputy Director of Development Services Planning at the City of Eureka. I
have written many local coastal development permits. I've only had the opportunity to
be a part of a project that went on appeal to you guys probably a year ago. Never been
to one of these meetings in person. So we were just right down the street. So I brought
my team over this morning so we could watch the opening and the public comment and maybe
catch a little bit of the first item. I'd like them to stand up and wave. This is our
planning team and just the four of them coming. Our director wasn't able to make
it but just wanted to say hello and welcome to Eureka and hope you enjoy
your stay here. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next up in person we have Phyllis
Cox and then we'll be moving to Zoom with Ian grooms, Diane Wokey and then Anne
Kaufman. Is Phyllis Cox in the room? All right, seeing no one we're gonna move on
to Zoom. First up we have Ian Grooms. Ian Grooms, you should be able to unmute
yourself and go ahead please. Good morning members of the Commission. My
name is Ian Grooms and I live in San Diego's Claremont community. I hope that
the Coastal Commission will expeditiously review and approve the
Claremont Community Plan update. The vast majority of the Claremont community
falls outside the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission, so the plan update
will not substantially affect the coastline. According to Commission staff,
the area of Claremont within the coastal zone boundary is essentially a set of
railroad tracks. The community plan keeps the existing railroad tracks as is,
aligning with the Commission's goal to preserve our environment. The Claremont
Community Plan update helps to implement the vision of the Coastal Commission.
Therefore, I hope that the Commission will approve the Claremont Community Plan update
soon.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Grooms.
Moving on, we have Diane Wolkke, followed by Anna Kaufman, and then Andrew Thomas.
Diane Wolkke, you should be able to unmute yourself and go ahead.
I have slides, please.
Coming up now.
Good morning, Chair Commissioners.
Diane Wolkke, safe healthy planning fields beyond plastics affiliate.
On the heels of the NOAA meeting, and a preview of the super El Nino that had staff working
through the holiday and emergency permits for the coastal damage in Southern California,
and the imminent one foot rise in sea level, we have an emergency call to action.
California cannot have more offshore drilling that supports the plastics industries due
to the decrease in demand for oil and gas.
Plastics and microplastics have a bidirectional impact on climate change with manufacturing
of plastics alone creating four times the greenhouse gases when compared to the aviation
industry. Plastic pollution along our coast is not limited to parks and schools. Synthetic
turf is used on rooftops, balconies, docks, piers, at resorts, residential and commercial
buildings. Slide. You have eight opportunities this month to expand the plastic pollution
policy on synthetic turf beyond parks and schools. Eight opportunities to educate, to
condition permits to exclude synthetic turf and amended LCPs and reduce wildfire risk
by prohibiting the use of this compostable petrochemical plastic that would release numerous
cancer-causing chemicals to air, water, and soil just as it has in Pacific Palisades and
Altadena slide.
Plastic grass carpet is overheating our coast and causing extreme heat.
Heat islands and heat zones attract pollution.
It releases toxic runoff and microplastics.
These images were taken last week at a resort on Pacific Coast Highway just north of where
the houses were rent tagged on Capistrano Beach.
We would not go to the Mojave Desert to enjoy the beach.
Why are we bringing the desert to our coast?
Using a product that is hotter than the Mojave Desert.
Follow the science, heed the warnings, do not wait to see how badly our coast is battered
by a super El Nino. Slide. Take action now to stop the use of plastics on our beaches,
the coastal permit zone, and the local permit zone. Protect our natural resources. Thank
you.
Thank you. Moving on to Anna Kaufman followed by Andrew Thomas, and then Anastasia Camara
Bosk. Anna Kaufman, please go ahead.
Good morning. My name is Anna Kaufman. I'm a volunteer with SurFighter Foundation in
San Francisco. I have a slideshow if you have it available.
Coming up now.
Thank you. It's been two years since I spoke with the
Commission about shotgun wads, and I'm here today with an
update. These are the variety of shotgun wads that I've found up
and down California's coast, I've picked up 10s of 1000s
over the last decade. Next slide, please. In 2019, we
started a global initiative tracking shotgun wads in the
wild. Within the first three years we've tracked over or documented over 100,000 shotgun watts
globally. Next slide please. This is where they've been documented throughout the state of California.
Next slide. This is where we've picked them up throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, which is
where I'm from, and they basically come in and out the Golden Gate Bridge twice a day, every day,
especially in the winter months.
Next slide please.
This is Humboldt County, where you are today,
including the photo of Stone Lagoon
that I picked up those shotgun wads.
This is where Martin Sweat has picked up tens of thousands
or, you know, thousands.
Next slide please.
And there's finally some good news
in the industry for shotgun wads.
These are truly biodegradable backyard compostable
shotgun wads made by EcoShot. They are PHA plastic, which means they sink. And that means
that's good news for us. They won't be traveling throughout the water with the wind, the currents
and the tides. And Andrew Thomas is here to speak about that today. He's the founder of EcoShot,
and he's up next after me. Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you. As she said, next up, Andrew Thomas followed by Anastasia Camara-Vosk and then Lacey
Wetmore. Andrew Thomas, please go ahead. Thank you. I've got a PowerPoint presentation if you
could pull that up. One moment. My name is Andrew Thomas. I'm the founder of EcoShot. Let's see,
get that presentation. Thank you. First off, I want to thank the Commission for creating the
opportunity for public comment. It's an important part of this process and we all appreciate it.
I'm a lifelong waterfowl and upland hunter, and over the years I've become more aware
of the amount of trash I was leaving behind when I was out hunting and target shooting.
I wanted to find a solution, but didn't want to change too many aspects of how I was pursuing
my activities.
No real alternatives seemed to exist, so about four years ago I went down a rabbit hole of
studying biopolymers and ballistics and how the two interact.
After a massive amount of research and testing, I believe we have developed a solution.
Next slide, please.
EcoShot wads are made with PHA.
You might have to hit that twice.
Start a little video there.
This is a degradation video on a saltwater fish tank.
Fully degradable in any natural environment,
including marine environments.
And unlike many other bio products out there,
our wilds do not require special composting conditions
in order to degrade and do not like microplastics.
Our products sink if they land in water,
which removes them from the water column,
effectively eliminates migration
and significantly reduces potential interactions
with other wildlife.
Next slide, please.
We have options available in a variety of platforms
that support a wide range of payload types
suitable for hunting and target shooting.
At EcoShot, our primary goal is to create the ability
for hunters and recreational shooters
to have affordable access to,
and the ability to choose a product
that reduces the amount of plastic
introduced into the environment
without compromising performance or user preferences.
We're currently increasing production capabilities
and expanding our product offerings
with a cool that by the end of 2026,
we will have shotgun while available
for a majority of applications and end user scenarios.
Next slide, please.
Again, and thank you.
Thank you.
All right, moving on to Lacey Wetmore followed by Jim Holtz
and then we'll have Tyler France on Zoom.
Lacey Wetmore, you should be able to unmute yourself
and go ahead, please.
Go ahead, please.
Hi, good morning, everybody.
My name is Lacey Wetmore.
I am a Santa Monica resident and a member of Clue Justice.
And I'm speaking at the commission today
because there was an agenda item that I think got moved
to the next month's meeting.
But we are concerned about Airbnb's and the laws
that are on the books currently protect
Santa Monica residents and workers within our community.
And I know that Airbnb has been lobbying
to make more Airbnb's possible in the city of Santa Monica,
especially along the coastal range.
This is especially important for the upcoming Olympic games.
And so we want to support the Better Neighbors campaign
and we ask that the commission please make sure
that Airbnb's don't monopolize the majority of homes
that are available and that we offer those homes up
to be available for people
who actually would like to live in them.
And I think that covers everything that I have to say.
So I just wanted to say thank you again for your time.
Thank you very much.
Moving on to Jim Holtz followed by Tyler France
and then Connor Everts.
Jim Holtz, please go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, sorry about that.
Commissioners, what happened to the Coastal Commission of Old?
Last meeting, you failed protecting the access to the coast.
What happened to the commission that forced David Geffen
to open the access way at Carbon Beach
and fought billionaire Vidan Khosla
after he locked the gate to Martin's Beach?
that commission knew that telling the public
to go elsewhere was not protecting access for everyone.
Last month, staff repeatedly explained
that Pacific certified plan was required
access to be maximized.
When commissioners asked numerous times regarding night caps,
staff said any reduction from 365 days
is you cannot call that access maximized
while reducing it.
The majority answered with an opinion, not evidence.
Commissioner Kelly said,
a hosted rental is still a visitor serving a accommodation.
By that logic, even an outhouse with a cot
would be called visitor serving accommodation
that does not make it suitable for a family equivalent
to a whole home rental or evidence
that coastal access have been maximized.
And my favorite one from Commissioner Wilson.
We heard from several folks that no one wants to stay
at a hosted accommodation.
I do not believe that to be true.
Tell that to a family with small children
that a strange man they just met
would be sleeping in the next room.
Four commissioners applied the certified plan
to the evidence.
Six appeared to begin with the result they wanted
and worked backwards.
Then the Pacifica city manager paraded the commissioners
for not accepting the city plan and touch.
and the commissioners and the commission quickly retreated.
When council told them they could not go back
and approve the original plan,
Chair Harmon just simply doubled the cap
from 60 to 120 nights just to allow another votes.
There was no study or analysis that supported 120.
It looked like to me that the number was chosen on the spot
because it could get six votes and it did.
I just thought this was about SDRs,
not whether Pacifica was asking
to dump toxic waste into the ocean.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next up we have Tyler France,
followed by Connie Eberts,
and then it looks like we were able to find
Anastasia Camara-Vosk.
Tyler France, please go ahead.
Good morning.
I had a visual aid, please.
Oh, thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Tyler France,
and I'm speaking today on behalf of Humboldt Waterkeeper
to raise concerns about the disturbance
to local harbor seals caused by the explosive
used to stimulate bombs and gunfire
during the Rumble Over the Redwoods air show event.
This air show took place on the runway
at the Arcata Eureka Airport,
which is on the bluff just above the mouth of the Mad River.
The mouth serves as an important harbor seal haul out
where seals rest, breed, nerf their pups and molt.
A local wildlife biologist took videos of the seals
during the explosions.
As you watch this,
to note how the seals have become somewhat acclimated
to normal aircraft activity.
However, the explosives flush them into the water.
The explosions caused a direct and observable disruption
of the seal's behavior.
Forcing hauled out animals into the water
is an activity likely consistent with level B harassment
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
which is intended to protect marine mammals
from disturbances that disrupt behavior such as hauling out.
I believe that Rumble over the Redwoods
can continue bringing our community together
and honoring service members
without these unnecessary explosive effects.
We asked the commission to ensure that future events
at the California Redwood Coast Humboldt County Airport
exclude these explosions and include effective protections
for nearby marine mammals.
If the air show cannot operate without the explosive effects,
it should not return to this location.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, next up we have Connor Evertz
and then Anastasia Komarovausk.
Connor Evertz, please go ahead.
Thank you, Connor Evertz for the DSAIL Response Group
and I would like to be there in person,
especially with the climate that's already changed.
It feels like apocalypse in Southern California
with the heat in the community is being impacted
while a marine life is in a very warm ocean
will continue to be life's impact.
So I am actually talking about two issues
I thought I was done with with desalination as a solution,
which would be the very last thing you do
seems to come back.
We haven't resolved the problems with the side
and they're actually selling the water now inland
at a discounted price through the County Water Authority
San Diego. In addition to that Cambria, which for years I would drive up as I chased the Coastal
Commission around to stay with my aunt and uncle when they were there, the plant that was built was
a disaster. It was spewing brine over the campground. It didn't work as operated. It says that there
are changes being made, but in reality we need to do things that use less energy and improve the
the environment and we can do that with water supplies as well.
I was sorry we had a chance to speak on this issue because it
was called an emergency as we were having a weapon for,
as we will have a one again now.
Thank you much for the opportunity.
Thank you, Mr. Edwards.
For Anastasia Kamarav- excuse me, Kamaravaysk,
you need to accept the promotion to panelists for us to be able to allow you to speak.
there we go and when you can please go ahead and unmute your microphone and go
ahead there we go. Hello can you hear me? Yes we can please go ahead. Okay yes my
name is Ann Comoros Beverly Hills Malibu and so I just want to I just a couple
things one of them is you know the journalists here in Malibu having a hard
time getting cooperation from the Coastal Commission they were talking on
radio, KBBU 91.1 about some projects on Broad Beach and building seawalls and stuff. So we got that
issue and then we have the you know we have a big hole that happened yesterday. And then also one
thing is what is the Coastal Commission's opinion or how does the military get a permit to launch
harpoons off Point Lagu? That happened and now we're shipping that stuff to Taiwan to protect us
from China. So how do we get information on those permits that we allow to them to shoot
harpoons into the Pacific Ocean? Thank you. Thank you. And then one more call for two
individuals we weren't able to find in the room. We had Charles Josette Blatchley and
Phyllis Cox. Do we see Charles Josette Blatchley or Phyllis Cox? Seeing no one, there are no
No more speakers, Madam Chair.
Great, thank you very much.
And thank you to the public for your testimony.
I'll return to the Commission for any comments or questions.
Commissioner Escalante.
I'm back.
So of course, don't give me the mic.
Thanks to everybody for all their comments.
It's so wonderful to have the Commission gathered
here in the north coast.
It's such a beautiful place and day.
I hope everybody gets to enjoy themselves.
And a couple of questions about one of that shotgun.
Is that, I thought that we changed the law
to make those, what are those called?
WODS, less toxic.
Obviously, this solution is proving to be
just as problematic.
Can you just, is there anything that we can...
I'm not aware of a legislation,
that's just not something I've tracked specifically.
We can definitely look into that,
whether there was legislation or anything along those lines,
my guess is that is the right approach.
In other words, to convert, at least in my opinion,
to convert those to the eco versions of those
that don't have the same plastic pollution problem,
but I'm not sure of the status of that.
Agreed, and I guess, for the commission's perspective,
what can we do to try to minimize something like this
in case, you know, I don't, you know, this area said it wasn't
sure what parks these were, but what, what, what can we do?
So I think there's a couple of things we can and probably have
done in different spaces. One is to support any legislation
opportunities that do come up. And again, I'm not up to speed
on that. So I don't really know the exact status of that right
now. I mean, the others when we have, whether it's like a some
type of management program for a state park or something along
those lines we can look, or even a local government, we can potentially look at ways to help that
entity switch over to a less harmful or less impactful type shotgun one. But again, we're
talking about individuals. So it would even in that circumstance likely be a program of
some kind where they're, I don't know, like I could think of a couple of ideas, but they're
just, you know, like replacement programs or something along those lines. So we've, you
You know, I think in the marine debris space,
I know that this is one of the things that we,
it's like cigarette butts and all these other things
that we talk about that end up in our,
you know, that picture that the commenters showed
that with, you know, the huge,
I just, you know, I think it's over 10,000 shotgun wads,
you know, having those kinds of visuals is helpful
because it can then help get better policy in place.
I know that, again, through our marine debris program,
These are the kinds of conversations we have
with groups statewide, but also in Sacramento.
Absolutely.
I think it's worthwhile for the folks that are working
on this to talk to their legislator
and start the ball rolling.
I know that the organization California's Against Waste
has been leading the charge on plastic pollution
and co-joined with Surf Rider
and a lot of the other ocean groups.
So hopefully, this will come on the radar.
And maybe we can do some more comprehensive,
because if these things come up in parks,
I mean, if we don't hear about it,
if we don't know that this is happening,
then that may be something that we'll miss,
making sure that there's some sort of condition
on the permits.
But of course, you know, enforcement is hard,
so killing this from the root would be ideal,
and I think it would have to probably be legislation.
and that does take a lot of coalition work.
So good luck, but thank you for bringing this to us
and whenever there's such an issue in a park,
it's worthwhile coming around and reminding us
that this is happening so we can ensure
that our policies are tightened.
And the last thing, and maybe I'll look
at Commissioner Wilson, I don't know.
What's this show in the airport?
Does this happen every year?
And do we have something to do with permitting this?
Well, it happens at our county airport, sorry, this is very hot, thanks, so there is an air
show that's been permitted, I think, for two years or three years, and was this
the third year or the second year? So we're at the end of a third year process
or a third year of the permit for an air show at our local airport that you've,
well you didn't fly in on, but you coming from Crescent City, but you use it, and so
So it has some pyrotechnics associated with it which have been of some controversy both
within the neighborhood and externally, and so you saw one of the issues that people have
brought up about that.
So I don't know where we are in going into the future.
I haven't seen anything come to our board on that, but I'm sure these issues will come
back to us as part of that.
And that's really all I have on that.
Awesome staff. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner. I think that answers my question. But are you guys expecting this to come back at some point in time.
My understanding is it's in the county's jurisdiction so that if there it would be the county reviewing it. I think we did hear some we got some comments this year and I think we've been in touch and and I think we requested that we consult next before the next the shown if there's a show next year.
So again, we haven't been directly involved,
but we may just try to chat before the next show.
Yeah, it would be worthwhile having those conversations.
I have time so that we can mitigate for those things
and then we don't trip up and then end up
with no show or something.
No, thank you.
I can follow up too.
Commissioner Wilson.
And I also want to follow up a little bit on the wads.
Many people believe those are like shotgun shells,
but they're not, they're actually in the,
they're within the shell and they eject
when someone shoots the shotgun.
So they're not controllable in that way,
you can't just pick them up from when you shoot them,
they shoot out into the environment.
So I think that's a little different
than what people might imagine, so.
And yes, Mr. Sweat talked about one very small location,
stone lagoon, where thousands of them can't get found after a hunting season for sure.
But you can imagine the Central Valley and other places like that where they can collect
and they float.
Sorry about this.
But anyways, they're about the same volume or mass as like a plastic bag.
So that's really they're similar in that.
And I think an analogy would be you could say, if I was to pick up those wads off the
ground and was driving down the road and threw them out in my car, I would get a $1,000 fine.
But in this case, they're a functional part of that activity in its current context.
And so I think the conversation around how to mitigate or change that so that they're
biodegradable, which they used to be.
They weren't always plastic.
they were cardboard in the past.
And so being plastic makes them a lot more,
it allows the companies and the hunters
and the marksmen to be more accurate
and have a lot of variability in how the shot is delivered.
For sure, and in many cases probably safer for the users,
but it's something that I think there's an arc
to deal with that, and I know that there are several
European countries that have completely banned plastics
from their shotgun wad production
and converted to biodegradable.
So it's not impossible, but like everything,
there's a potential arc to that.
Thank you.
Okay, with that, we will close general public comment
and return to Director Huckelbridge.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, commissioners.
So next item is 6A, Executive Director's Report.
As always, my publish report can be found
on the commission's website,
but I'll spend a few minutes
going over several of the items.
First, I have a few hearings and gatherings to report on.
On August 12th, Peter Allen,
the Commission's statewide transportation,
access and mobility manager,
participated in an informational hearing held in Sacramento
by Senate Transportation Subcommittee
on the Low Sand Rail Corridor Resiliency Study.
Peter was part of a lineup of agency speakers
along with representatives
from the State Transportation Agency
and regional rail operators
that discussed the recent multi-agency report
to the legislature on enhancing coordination,
management, and performance of the Low Sand Rail Corridor.
As part of his presentation,
Peter highlighted several recommendations
for increasing reliability and resiliency along the corridor
and emphasized the importance
of protecting public coastal access along the rail corridor
and the urgent need for local transportation agencies
to make progress on realignment
of several vulnerable segments of the rail line.
On August 25th, commissioners Chris Lopez and Anne Nodoff,
along with coastal access program manager, Linda Loughlin,
spoke at an event to celebrate Catherine Breed,
who is currently swimming the length
of the California coast.
Catherine was hosted by Hopkins Marine Station
Pacific Grove with partnership from the Coastal Commission. Catherine spoke of
her determination to swim every day regardless of the ocean conditions. She
has crossed the halfway mark and expects to reach the Mexico border in late
October. You can check out my publish report for a fabulous picture of our
commissioners and staff at this event. I have several announcements from our
public education unit. First on Wednesday August 26th, public education staff
participated in a panel of speakers accompanying a showing of To Save Our Coast, the documentary
recounting the passage of Prop 20. Organized by the Watershed Project in Richmond, the
panel included commissioned staff, a community resilience organizer, and a community activist.
Speakers focused on the current challenges facing the coast and what members of the audience
can do to continue the legacy of students and activists that helped pass the Save the
Coast Initiative in 1972. Very appropriate for our 50th anniversary
year. Over this past month, public education staff have attended and spoken
at numerous organizing meetings and prep for the 42nd annual California Coastal
Cleanup Day. Community organizations and local government agencies are making
their final preparations for this event. We invite all of you to join tens of
thousands of other Californians on September 19th for the Commission's
signature volunteer event. Select your cleanup locations and find everything
you need to know at coastalcleanupday.org. There are cleanup sites located
across the entire state, every county, so no matter where you live, you can make a
difference for California's creeks, rivers, lakes, neighborhoods, and beaches, and
and protect our ocean.
We recently announced the winners and honorable mentions
of the 2026 climate storytelling contest.
The contest invited California middle
and high school students to answer the following prompt
through a narrative essay, podcast or photo essay.
What are your feelings about climate change
and how could those feelings lead to action?
You can view all of the winning entries on our website,
so please check it out.
And my publish report includes a short excerpt
from one of our submissions, which was a photo essay
by Jerry Chang titled When Healing
Depends on Power in a Changing Climate.
So please, please check it out.
Next up, we have a couple of items
from our environmental justice unit.
So back in 2024, stemming from our internal justice,
equity, diversity, and inclusion work,
a team of Coastal Commission staff
launched a voluntary mentorship program
to support new and early staff development,
provide a place for experienced staff and retirees
to share knowledge and career advice,
and build a stronger sense of community
between staff across the state.
Over the last three years, 63 mentors and 81 mentees
have participated in the program
with overwhelmingly positive feedback from participants.
Mentees appreciated learning about how other offices
and units within the Coastal Commission operate
and the opportunity to have dedicated time
to talk about challenges and achievements
outside the normally fast-paced commission staff environment.
Mentors found value in helping new staff navigate daunting
workloads, reflect on work-life balance,
and the opportunity to share 50 years of Coastal Commission
history.
It's been a remarkably successful program,
and we look forward to continue it into the future.
Second, the commission hosted Stanford University
undergraduate Brian Shaw as a summer intern.
His main project looked at how permittees are interpreting
implementing special conditions that require youth educational programming for
under-resourced communities. And I'm not, I think Brian was going to join us via
Zoom today. Is he on the Zoom? Is Brian Shaw on the Zoom? One moment. I think we
might have been having technical difficulties. Yes he is, one second. Okay, so I think Brian's going to present a couple of the key
findings from his research this morning.
He's rejoining as a panelist.
Brian, you should be able to unmute yourself and go ahead.
Great.
Slides.
Perfect.
Thank you, Kaitlyn.
All right.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Brian Schaub.
This past summer, I had the pleasure
of interning with the Commissioned Statewide
Planning Unit.
I'm about to head back to Stanford University,
where I'm finishing up an undergraduate degree in environmental engineering.
One of my projects this summer involved a look into youth programming,
which provide youth with experiential learning opportunities
along the California coast.
These programs aim to enhance coastal access and stewardship.
Next slide, please.
First, some background.
The Coastal Act requires the Commission to protect and maximize public access
to California's coastline.
Additionally, the adoption of the Environmental Justice Policy in 2019 encourages the Commission
and applicants to target educational programs that can provide access and lower-cost recreational
facilities for underserved communities through enforcement and permit action.
Underserved communities refers to those that have been historically excluded from accessing
the benefits of coastal opportunities and or disproportionately impacted by environmental
burdens.
The Commission began implementing these targeted youth and family programs over 5 years ago,
and some of the people in attendance today may have seen these come up in some projects
since then.
Today, I hope to offer a glimpse into the results of two such programs.
Next slide please.
One case study I looked at was Camp Land on the Bay, an enforcement settlement from 2021.
Located in the northern part of Mission Bay in San Diego, as marked by the blue pin on
the left, it has a public beach in front of it as shown in the photo on the right.
As part of a negotiated consent order to address public access violations, Campland agreed
to host a free camping program for not just underserved youth, but also their families
too, for five years.
Campland provided over $50,000 in value each year to give underserved youth and their families
the campsites, transportation and gear needed to experience the coast. More than half the participants
were children and teenagers, many of whom were from low-income families attended Title I schools
or face disabilities. In total, the program hosted about 450 participants each year.
The analysis included a look into the geographic distribution of participants, and we discovered
that the program also seemed to be effectively reaching those that need it most. CalEnviroScreen
on the right highlights some of the most polluted and vulnerable communities in the state. These
areas correlated to the most common zip codes of participants which are in the darkest blue zones
of the map on the left. Next slide, please. Next slide. Oh, sorry, it like reloaded. It's one back.
Sorry. Okay, great. The primary case study I looked at was Dana Point Harbor, a permit from 2020.
The harbor, which you can see marked by the blue pin on the left, wanted to do a large remodel,
which you can see a rendering of on the right. To mitigate impacts to access, the commission
worked with the applicant to create a permit condition for the harbor to provide recreation
and education programs for underserved youth. Next slide please. The harbor now hosts 30 to
40 events per year where youth can do events such as whale watching, swim lessons, kayaking,
sailing, and beach cleanups, all of which help them get comfortable with the ocean and provide
experiential learning opportunities about ocean related issues. The events involve over a thousand
and youth per year from community-serving nonprofit groups, Title I schools, and schools
for children with disabilities.
Next slide, please.
Through reviewing the feedback, this program had two important results.
The first is that it helps many of these children learn how to swim and be comfortable in the
ocean, which is essential for keeping them safe.
The second is that it provides a unique learning experience that otherwise may have been unattainable.
student participants saw a wild dolphin for the first time, which quote made them want to learn
more about the ocean and how to take care of it. This is one of the many quotes from countless
participants who emphasized the importance of this program. Next slide please. I want to give a huge
thanks to the Commission and especially the statewide planning team for allowing me to
contribute to this work. It has been inspiring to see the results of the Commission's effort
to get more youth excited about the coast. Thank you.
Thank you, Brian. Thanks for your presentation and all your work this
summer. Brian was not the only intern. We had
the pleasure of hosting at the Commission this
spring and summer. Over the last few months, the Coastal Commission bid
farewell to interns across many teams and units. Earlier this
year in the statewide planning unit, Celeste Hahn from the University of
California Davis evaluated how state housing laws
and interact with local coastal programs.
In the environmental justice unit,
Clarity Cooper from UC San Diego,
assisted in the tracking of programmatic work,
reviewing condition language
and supporting our 50th anniversary campaign
on social media.
In our technical services unit,
Hannah Pizaglia from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
and the CSU Coast Program,
worked with the commission's mapping and ecology units
to create a geospatial tool to support staff analysis
of authorized vegetation management work
intended to bolster wildfire resilience.
This product provides a foundation for understanding
where various treatments are occurring
and the ecosystems that these treatments may affect.
The commission's headquarters enforcement unit
in San Francisco was thrilled to have three law student
interns helping us on our cases this summer.
Chloe Bennett and Kat Lane from UC Law at San Francisco
and Sophia Kimball from Berkeley Law.
Finally, in the South Coast Enforcement Unit,
Daphne Crother from Southwestern Law School
cataloged extensive private encroachments
into a wetland in Newport Beach.
Research Tideland grant information for the area
and drafted correspondence to start
the process of removing the encroachments
and restoring wetland habitat and function.
So a huge thank you to all of our fabulous interns.
And we hope to see you back at the commission very soon.
Finally, I will conclude by a couple of highlights
for related to our 50th anniversary.
First, a reminder to everyone
that we are asking the public to share
some of their personal experiences with the coast
as a way to celebrate 50 years of public access
and illustrate the many connections
that we have to our coast.
This can be brief or more involved
and pictures and even short videos
will help paint a more vivid picture.
Memories can be submitted anonymously
and you can visit our website to upload your story
and help us understand how the Coastal Act has impacted you.
Here's one recently added coastal memory to share from Mitch.
I appreciate the Coastal Act every time I ride my bike
directly to my favorite beach in Carlsbad,
taking a public path that had previously been gated off
by a nearby property owner.
The commission required the gate to be opened,
making it possible for me and countless others
to easily access this beach.
So for this month's Act to Action,
the first 50 years of coastal protection,
And we have a few highlights to share with you today.
So first, on August 24, the City of Carpentaria
issued a proclamation to recognize
the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act
to celebrate five decades of coastal stewardship,
public access, environmental protection,
and community partnership.
South Central Coast District Supervisor Jackie Phelps
accepted the proclamation on behalf of the commission.
And you can check out my publish report for a great photo
from this occasion.
A huge thanks to the City of Carpinteria
for honoring the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act.
Next, as part of our, again,
as part of our monthly Act to Action,
this month's program spotlight
highlights the Commission's Transportation and Access
and Mobility Program,
and I will now turn it over to Peter Allen.
Thanks, Kate.
Good morning, commissioners.
As we celebrate our 50th anniversary
and successes over that time,
we are thankful to share these highlights
our Transportation Access and Mobility Program. There's a presentation too. There we go. You're
looking here at our new web page that released earlier this year as well as our new expanded
name. Overall, our program is grounded in the belief that the transportation is an integral
piece of fulfilling the Coastal Act's mandates because of its obvious connections to coastal
access. But we also believe that transportation development has to protect and even enhance
coastal resources and to be open to all, that is to say, all types of mobility users, including
those on bike or on foot, and all types of different socioeconomic groups from different
parts of the state.
And I also hope you'll see how our program, while working on transportation and in partnership
with Caltrans, has seen successes in other coastal resources areas, such as adaptation
of critical infrastructure to sea level rise, increasing habitat restoration, and expanding
coastal access generally.
Next slide, please.
So here's our current team at the Commission's Asilomar Conference back in May, and we now
have eight total with one staff person in each coastal district.
I'll mention Abby in North Coast, Melba in North Central, Devon in Central Coast, Marlene
in South Central South Coast, Melissa in San Diego, and we have two managers, Eric for
Southern California, who you'll hear from later today virtually, and Kate here for Northern
California next to me.
I also want to point out Ashley who serves as the deputy director
of our program as well as several others.
And I wish I had time to give you little bios
for all these amazing people, but unfortunately I do not.
But I'm just speaking for myself personally.
I'm immensely proud of all of them
and all the awesome work they do.
You're also going to notice here Linda Lachlan,
the manager of our commission's public access program
in the photo.
Our program, her program have such a long
and extensive partnership together.
We've worked together so much over the many years.
we've basically adopted Linda into our program,
unless it's the other way around.
Next slide, please.
Our program stems from an unusual
and highly successful collaboration with Caltrans.
Frustration on both sides of our agencies
over the permitting process and over Caltrans compliance
of the Coastal Act provided the motivation for the two agencies
to rethink our relationship many decades ago.
Starting in 2000, Caltrans and the commission entered
into a series of interagency agreements
to provide the commission additional resources
and to show more effective collaboration.
For the past 25 plus years, this arrangement
has fostered a better exchange of information,
improved the overall design of projects,
and resulted in better permitting outcomes.
And I can't give this presentation today
without acknowledging the legacy of our program founder,
Tammy Grove, who started this program.
And here you can see her at the top right
with frequent sidekick Linda and former ED Charles Lester.
And for over 20 years, Tammy guided this program,
often as the only staff person.
and even when I joined in 2018, there were only three of us.
But thanks mostly to Tammy, we've now expanded to that,
to the current eight you just saw.
And after her retirement in 2023, I was fortunate enough
to take over management of the program,
and also taking over the role as Linda's part-time sidekick,
as you can see in the left here as well.
Our last interagency agreement runs through 2030,
and under that, we've also added support
for two ecology positions at the commission.
And you can also see here that since 2012,
There's been a dedicated coastal program within Caltrans
under the direction of a certain Mr. Scott Williams.
And I want to highlight the great work
of Arneka McCarthy at Caltrans
as leader of that program and Brooklyn Kaipel on it.
And during this partnership,
we focused on improved coordination,
multiple staff trainings and partnership efforts
such as the integrating planning team,
which is focused collaboration around sea level rise
and multimodal transportation.
And throughout a constant theme is the earlier coordination
particularly in the planning phases
can better guide project development
consistent with coastal policies.
and thereby serve the goals of both agencies.
Next slide, please.
Some of our earliest and most significant successes
and projects helped to find that partnership.
The Devil's Slide Tunnel on Highway 1
in San Mateo County was a landmark project,
both because of the frustration that marked our work
on this large and controversial project,
but also because of the success
that we realized was possible
when we really collaborated together.
Here adapting a terorously dangerous stretch of highway
while enhancing coastal resources,
such as by turning the old highway alignment
to a part of the California Coastal Trail.
I'm also going to note as an early success,
the North Coast Corridor Project in San Diego
permitted through a public works plan,
which was one of the largest infrastructure projects
in the state and continues to this day
bring forward multimodal and habitat restoration projects.
And I'll mention Padres Balancas on the Big Sur coast
as an early model of managed retreat
with the old highway right away converted again
to trail and habitat while highway one was safe from erosion.
Next slide please.
So we're going to highlight a few key areas today.
They are listed here, as you can see,
and we're going to go through them all.
Transportation planning, projects, multimodal access,
sea level rise, and habitat mitigation and restoration.
I'm going to quickly highlight our planning work here.
That includes a heavy workload of collaboration
around various state plans, regional transportation plans,
multimodal plans, integrated planning team meetings,
sea level rise planning, and numerous other things
such as wildlife, wildfire response planning.
So this workload is something you rarely get to see in these commission meetings, but actually
it's a significant important part of our workload and maybe it's approaching even half of our
total workload now, acknowledging the value of long-term planning and the role it'll play
in the permits that will ultimately come before you down the road.
So speaking of those permits, I'm going to pass it on to our program manager for Northern
California, Kate Anderson, to cover that.
Next slide, please.
Thank you, Peter.
A key workload for us is reviewing Caltrans projects in the coastal zone.
This is our work that you are probably most familiar with, ranging from routine bridge
maintenance work to complex multi-year highway realignment projects.
On this slide you can see some of our current and recent major projects that span 6 commission
districts and 15 coastal counties.
I want to note here and express our deep thanks for the extensive support and collaboration
that we have with our commission district offices to get these projects over the finish
line.
Next slide please.
We mentioned how our program has grown over the last decade and that reflects an ever
increasing workload as you can see in this chart.
We've authorized over 617 transportation permits since 1993 and 2024 was our busiest
year ever with 49 permits and 2025 was just behind and the general trend line
is increasing. We also want to highlight the increasing size of the green bars
which reflect waivers and where early coordination supports consistency with
the Coastal Act and shows the continued maturation of our interagency
partnership as does the fact that we are moving more items to consent such as the
nine consent items in the past year many of which were large are items. Next slide
side please. Using our program to expand coastal access has always been a priority. The work
of our program on these issues really begins with a partnership around expanding the California
Coastal Trail including the 2007 legislation which added both Caltrans and state parks
as agencies responsible for completing the Coastal Trail. Over the decades our partnership
has resulted in many miles of new Coastal Trail and at a basic level our program has
brought before you over 150 projects with public access elements, including many segments
of new coastal trails such as the Navarro Bluff Trail in Mendocino County, new beach
access trails and stairs such as this one at Surfer's Beach, and numerous other access
improvements, all ensuring the public can safely reach and enjoy the coast.
Next slide, please.
Over the years, we've grown our work around the coastal trail to a broader effort to expand
and enhance multimodal access in the coastal zone, ensuring that all potential users, not
just vehicular drivers, have access to the coast.
In just the last five years, we've authorized over 52 miles of new bikeways in the coastal
zone and some 120 miles of complete street facilities, and we've seen a greater percentage
of new bike lanes on our coastal highways than what is occurring inland.
I also want to highlight an underrated but important access feature, which is pedestrian
walkways and bike improvements on coastal bridges.
Here in the lower right you can see Pudding Creek Bridge in Fort Bragg, the kind of complete
streets integration that we push for in every bridge project.
This is something that was a struggle early on for our two agencies and a point of disagreement,
but now Caltrans has embraced this mission and this is a standard feature on every bridge
that we bring to you resulting in important connections for access. And now I would like
to pass the presentation on to my Southern California counterpart, Eric Stevens, who
is presenting virtually. Next slide, please. Thank you, Kate. I'll briefly walk you through
our sea level rise and climate adaptation work. These photos from Huntington Beach and Orange
County taken in January 2023 show the kind of coastal erosion and storm damage that's becoming
more frequent and more severe. Sea level rise is not a future problem. It's a present reality
that's already affecting our coastal transportation. Next slide please. We consider ourselves
leaders in the agency for our work on sea level rise and climate change adaptation
for many projects with many projects underway. Here you can see Gleason's Beach in Sonoma County,
a legacy project for managed retreat and our recent efforts around coastal resiliency.
Built on eroding coastal bluffs, Caltrans spent decades and many millions of dollars on costly,
ongoing, and ultimately ineffective repairs and monitoring. Through a lot of intense collaboration,
Caltrans came up with a new approach to realign the highway inland and construct a new bridge,
all of which secured the resiliency of Highway 1 and allowed for restored natural processes and
habitat restoration. More projects like this are in the planning phases right now,
and our team sits on multiple tax related to sea level rise planning. The image on the right shows
the current sea level rise planning work at South Beach near Crescent City and you will see more of
our work later today with a presentation on the Eureka Arcada Highway 101 sea level rise planning
effort. I want to highlight our collaboration with the Commission statewide planning unit on these
efforts and of course our work with the Commission technical unit and its engineering and geology
staff. Next slide please. Another part of our climate change related work is the ongoing
increasing number of emergency projects to keep our coastal transportation networks open and safe.
The mud creek slide in Monterey County shown here on the left is just one dramatic example.
This massive landslide on highway one in Big Sur was triggered by extreme rain fall,
the kind of event that climate models tell us will become more common. We have many sections
of our coastal highways that are increasingly threatened by floods and rising waters.
Here you can see some examples in San Mateo and Monterey County.
These emergencies consume enormous resources and underscore why a proactive adaptation is so
critical. We've done a ton of work over the last decade to improve our collaboration on these
emergency repairs process, better ensuring consistency with the coast flag, and we continue
to use these emergencies as opportunities to push for longer-term projects that avoid recurring
exposure in the future. We don't just want to patch the same vulnerability, we want to rebuild
to create infrastructure more resilient than before. Next slide please. Next we would like to
highlight our work and successes around habitat restoration, which is a significant element of
our work stemming from Caltrans mitigation needs. As you can see from this chart, our partnership
has brought some 750 acres of habitat restoration since 2019, increasing coastal wetlands,
repairing habitats, lagoon, and salt marshes, among other habitats. At Gleason Beach alone,
as just one example, which we mentioned previously, the project includes 40 acres of restored
coastal terrace prairie, sentient species habitat, and salmon habitat restoration.
We are also partnering to help improve the mitigation process with mitigation banking,
which has many advantages, both through specific projects like the Mendocino Mitigation Bank
shown here on the right, and a state advanced mitigation program which the commission joined
in 2019.
And with that, I would like to pass it back to Peter to wrap up.
Thanks, Eric.
Before we leave this slide, I have to give a real thanks to the commission's ecology
unit who we're in nonstop collaboration with on these types of things and who
bring so much benefit to our work. Next slide please. Let me close a bit by
looking ahead a bit. The combination of climate urgency, increased support for
multimodal access, and statewide movements to set aside and restore
habitats that brings enormous potential for our work. Yet funding issues and
legacy procedures or mindsets hinder that growth. Our program itself is
expanding and growing. We're taking on more work related to vulnerable coastal
rail networks, such as sea level rise planning for the rail and Elkhorn Slough, shown here,
or at the Losan rail corridor.
Fish passage and wildlife connectivity are increasingly important components of our work,
and as we replace bridges and culverts, we work to ensure new designs, improve fish passage,
and maintain wildlife corridors.
We very much hope to bring you some amazing wildlife projects, like the Highway 101 Annenberg
Wildlife Crossing someday.
We are also building stronger partnerships with state parks, the coastal conservancy
and local land trust to support projects for new coastal access trails, such as this expansion
of the San Gregorio State Park you see on the bottom right, or the Pedro Point connection
from Pacifica to Devil's Slide.
Next slide please.
Our success over the past decade has shown how we can become more of a program that doesn't
just wait for a project application to come in, but how we can use our partnership to
more actively mold and even create great new projects.
We've had some success on this with sea level rise where we work with our Caltrans coastal
program partners to identify a suite of some 20 sea level rise priority projects resulting
in a climate adaptation resilience program within the Caltrans state shop which is their
main funding source and in 2020 for the, 23 for the first time ever the program put a
projected 1.6 billion dollars to coastal adaptation work that would prioritize solutions based
are on natural, nature-based shoreline solutions.
And our program has been deeply engaged
in shaping how those projects will get designed
and come before you.
And just one example here is the Scott Creek Project
in Santa Cruz County, where we're collaborating
on a plan to ensure Highway 1 is safe from sea level rise,
while dramatically improving habitat connections.
But we're also very interested in how we can move the needle
more on multimodal connections, ensuring safer coastal access
for all users, even kids on bikes.
Past successes include things like developing mapping
of the existing coastal, California coastal trail
to identify gaps and needs.
And we've been folding these mapping sources and other data
into projects, tools internal to Caltrans and others agencies.
But we're also thinking about how we can more actively advocate
for future priority projects and push for their funding.
Next slide, please.
And lastly, we're building, hoping to build on some success
in using habitat mitigation to support the transfer of properties
to public hands and expand habitat restoration and access.
Saunders Landing on the Minnesota Coast is such an example where Caltrans was able
to acquire a significant coastal property for habitat mitigation.
Somewhat similarly at the Astero Americana Preserve,
we use Caltrans habitat mitigation requirements as a lever
to ensure this amazing place is open to all of the public now.
And the Blues Beast Transfer shown on the right represents something similar.
Where in conjunction with our legislative team and our north coast district,
we saw the transfer of Caltrans coastal property at Kai Poma,
a tribal, chartered, non-profit corporation of three Native American tribes.
These are models we hope to replicate along the coast as our program continues to grow.
Next slide.
So to wrap up, our program has grown from a single staff person in a handful of permits
per year to a team of eight processing over 40 permits annually, and we've authorized
hundreds of transportation and access permits, saw miles of new bikeways and complete streets,
helped bring hundreds of acres of restored habitats, and saw numerous landmark projects
like to double slide tunnel in Gleason Beach and future on sites just that at
Scott Creek. We appreciate our strong partnership with Caltrans and the work
ahead is as important as anything we've done in the past 26 years and thank you
commissioners for supporting our work. Thank you. Thanks Peter, Kate and Eric.
And now for this month's access spotlight, we wanted to highlight a
forested trail to a secret beach north of Trinidad and Humboldt County. So if
you'll give us a minute to switch around.
I'm going to turn it over to Rosie and Linda
to provide that spotlight.
Good morning, commissioners and members of the public.
Today we present to you the coastal access spotlights
highlighting Martin Creek Trail and Secret Beach
in the Trinidad area.
I was fortunate enough to visit the site yesterday.
Never having been this far up north in California before,
I was pleased to have the chance to make it
my first outing up here.
The scene felt like something out of a postcard.
Dappled sunlight on bright green ferns
followed by deep blue water
that lapped at gorgeous rock formations.
It was a wonderful experience to be surrounded by woods
and yet steps away from the ocean.
In all honesty, even just reviewing the footage
of the area makes me feel relaxed.
I am happy to share these videos with you
and hope that you enjoy the beauty
that is made accessible by the Coastal Act,
the Coastal Commission, and the Trinidad Coastal Land Trust.
Thank you, Rosie.
Have you heard about Northern California?
Can we stop the video?
We're not quite ready.
I know everybody's anxious to see Secret Beach,
but not quite yet.
So before we get into the spotlight,
I wanted to just talk a little bit
about another aspect of our public access program
that we haven't been doing as part of these spotlights.
I think everybody knows by now that the Coastal Commission has
required over 2,500 public access easements
over our 50-year history through our permit program.
Most of these easements have been,
they need to be accepted in order
to be preserved in perpetuity.
And the vertical ones that take you to the coast need to,
most of them need to be developed.
So most of these easements have been accepted
by local governments.
And you've been seeing these in these videos
that we've been presenting each month to the commission.
A few of the ones we've shown were also
provided by, through the permit conditions,
through different hotels like the Ritz-Carlton.
We have 120 open vertical easements,
so you can look forward to lots of more
spotlights coming your way.
But I wanted to also today talk about
our nonprofit partners, which we haven't highlighted yet,
but today's the day.
And the spotlight that we're showing off,
Martin Creek Trail to the Secret Beach,
was accepted by the Trinidad Coastal Land Trust,
and they constructed and maintained this easement.
And they'll talk a little bit more,
the executive directors here today and after the video,
Dave Ferrer will talk about what the Land Trust
is doing in general and any other comments
that he wants to give us.
I wanted to inform you about the number of nonprofits
that the commission works with statewide.
They're located in six counties, Del Norte, Humboldt,
Mendocino, Marin, Santa Cruz, and San Diego.
Collectively, these nine nonprofits,
and there is one tribe, operate 170 easements.
Again, not all of these are ones
that are developed trails to the coast,
that they protect and provide access along the shore as well.
All very, very important for protecting coastal access
to and along the coast.
The Trinidad Coastal Land Trust
has accepted 13 public access easements
and has the honor, the great honor,
of being the first land trust
to accept one of our public access easements
that was way back in 1979.
So thank you, Trinidad Coastal Land Trust.
So, again, I'll give you the introduction to the video, then we'll watch the video
in Spanish and English, and then Dave Farrell will get up and talk about the Land Trust.
So the Martin Creek Trail is roughly 30-minute mile north of here, we are at the Adorny Center
here in Eureka.
The Coastal Commission approved a residential subdivision at Martin Creek in 2005 and required
an easement to protect the pre-existing trail for public use in perpetuity.
Before the Commission approved the subdivision project, the public had used the Martin Creek
Trail for decades.
The landowner complied with the condition to provide the trail by donating it to the
Trinidad Coastal Land Trust, as I said, the land trust which took their first easement
in 1979.
So I want to acknowledge and thank the land trust for stepping forward to accept this
responsibility, the non-profit has been operating and maintaining this trail for over 20 years
now, ensuring that countless visitors can continue to explore and enjoy Secret Beach.
If you get the chance this week, I'd encourage you all to hike along Martin Creek through
the lush forest to the Secret Beach.
The scenic overlook and secluded shoreline are a great example of the rugged beauty of
California's north coast. So thank you so we can roll the videos and again we'll
have Dave Farrell speaking after this. Thank you. Have you heard about northern
California's secret beach? Hidden among the coastal forests of Humboldt County,
this cobblestone shoreline features unique rock formations and sparkling
blue water. Some locals call it Martin Creek Beach, but it's often referred to
too simply as Secret Beach.
To get there, drive along Stagecoach Road, north of Trinidad.
Look for the sharp bend where you can park along the shoulder.
Here in the Eucalyptus Grove, you'll find Martin Creek Trail.
It's marked by a stone and bronze plaque tucked among dense ferns.
Look carefully because it's easy to miss.
The trail follows Martin Creek for about 5 minutes through a lush forest of Sitka Spruce
and Red Alder.
Once through the trees, the path drops steeply down to the beach.
This hike is best for summer days, as the area gets muddy and slippery when wet.
From the cobbles of Secret Beach, you will be treated to a dramatic ocean view, complete
with waves crashing against an arching rock formation.
If you're lucky, you might even see migrating whales.
Visit at low tide to explore tide pools full of sea life.
Public access such as this is made possible thanks to the California Coastal Act and the
California Coastal Commission. Make Martin Creek Trail and Secret Beach your next coastal
adventure in Humboldt County.
busca la kurva serrada donde puesa par carne el arsen, aí en un bosque de ocalyptos en contarás el cendero manquik cell,
ese cendero estás en el lizado con una placa de piedra y bronzé escondida en tredenso se lechos,
fica te bien porque es fasit pasarra por alto.
Cendero sigue el kurso de manquik durante uno cinco minuos atrávesto un frondo so bosque de abetos de sítca y a lizos rojos.
Una vesa trabesado el bosque, el camino de siente abruptamente hasta la playa,
This route is used for the Verano, and that the sun is going to be the sun and the sun will rise when we are in the sky.
This is the secret beach, where the streets are a very interesting place to visit the Cenon, with the Roman people with the name Rocosa, in the arco.
If you are a person who is included in this migration, visit the place of the Maria Baja to explore the area of Maria Genas de Fida Marina.
The public access is possible as well as the cost of California and the California Commission.
Hasta hacer de Romain Creek y te Secret Beach tu proxima ventura costera en un condado de
jampo.
Thank you for those two videos.
Now we have our speaker.
Okay, how's that?
I want to thank the coastal commissioners for providing this opportunity for me to speak
and I want to thank Linda and Rosie for a wonderful presentation about Secret Beach,
which is not so secret anymore.
I am so grateful to have the position directing things with the Trinidad Coastal Land Trust.
The community members that came together to form the Land Trust back in 1977 had a vision
of local people taking care of local beaches.
And I can say that today, that is true.
I work with a couple of people on my staff that were largely supported by local volunteers
and local dollars.
I've only been in my position for seven months, but in that seven months we've repaired two
vertical access points, one at Baker Beach and another at Huda Point, and we've also
been able to level the Moonstone parking lot and grade it as a regular maintenance.
Have you all been to Moonstone Beach lately?
Go check it out.
It's not like this anymore.
It's very smooth.
Our organization, Trinidad Coastal Land Trust, protects over 32 different vertical access
points, easements, and fee entitled properties.
Over 300 acres, apparently, were the second largest holder of non-profit coastal access
points on the North Coast.
So that's what we have been doing for the past 50 years.
It's exciting work.
As we move down the road in the future, some of our plans are to continue to protect those
access points and those properties and manage them for invasive species.
And also, in addition, increase access.
Access for all has become a really important point for us, and I'm going to tell you about
a few programs we have coming up.
In September, we have an event for its National Public Lands Day on Saturday, September 26th,
so we'll be collaborating with State Parks and Bureau of Land Management to do an event
called Pulling Together, where the whole community comes together to remove English ivy and other
invasive species, state park lands, BLM lands, and our lands, between our southernmost property
near Little River, all the way up towards Big Lagoon,
focusing primarily around the city of Trinidad,
which is a gateway community
for the Coastal National Monument area.
And we're a partner in that.
Moving down the road into October, I want to tell you
about a very special event that is the first time in Humboldt
that this will happen.
It's Humboldt's first festival of the sea.
And it takes place October 23rd, 24th, and 25th.
What's exciting about that is not just the great music that we'll have or the great food
we'll have, but on Saturday we'll have a whole day of educational events from intertidal
studies to crepuscular hikes.
One of the things that I feel is really exciting that we're bringing to the north coast for
the first time is an adaptive sea kayaking experience.
What is that?
We have teamed up with Environmental Traveling Companions from San Francisco and Cal Poly
Humboldt's Outdoor Adventures to bring experts together to take people out of wheelchairs
and put them in kayaks and safely explore the seashore for the first time in the north
coast.
We're developing that program, that's the pilot, on Saturday, October 24th, and that'll
take place between 9 a.m. and about 2.
There are about 12 seats available and we've already got our first signups for that.
We've had community support for that, but we are still raising funds.
So if you know a business owner that would like to contribute to that, we will receive
those donations.
That's where we're headed.
We also have other projects that are longer term.
We're working with, I mentioned earlier that we are grading the parking lot at Moonstone
Beach.
We just did that last month, but we have long-term plans for dealing with sea level rise.
So we're hoping to raise that parking lot 18 inches so we can have a parking lot in
50 years.
And we're also planning with the county who's here today to form a retreat path.
So there's public safety corridor going up Moonstone Drive that would be parking up higher
up on the terraces and we'll have parking as we move into the future.
So the work that we're doing today will be something that the next generations benefit
from.
the outcome of that, but we know that the work we're doing is important to them. So that's what
we do. Thank you for your time. If anyone has a question, I'm here to answer it. But otherwise,
thank you. Thank you. So finally, before I conclude, as I hope you're all aware,
there will be a beach party this fall in just, I guess, a little over a month to celebrate the
the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act.
It will be held in Long Beach on October 10th
at Juna Pero Beach.
The event will be free of charge and open to the public
for an afternoon of speakers, entertainment,
and activities to celebrate 50 years of coastal protection.
So more details to come, but please mark your calendars
and we hope to see you all there.
So that, Madam Chair, concludes my executive director's report
and I am happy to answer any questions.
Great, thank you.
Before we go to public comment,
I just wanna make a quick announcement.
I know there's a lot of folks here for item 14 today.
Just a heads up, we're not gonna get to that
until after lunch.
I can't give you the exact time,
but that will be 1 p.m. at the earliest.
Okay, thank you.
With that, I'll turn to Galen for public comment.
There are no speakers.
Thank you.
Returning to the commission, comments, questions?
Commissioner Wilson.
I appreciate the review, and I'm very,
I like the comment on our collaboration
with Caltrans as being intense.
So.
So.
And I want, what I do wanna acknowledge though
is that, you know, had we had these policies
in the past the way we are now,
we would probably have safer pedestrian
and bicycle access across the Samoa Bridge,
which I hear about often, and people are really concerned,
have been really concerned about that,
in terms of folks' ability to access
in a non-vehicular way the Samoa Peninsula.
If our last upgrade to that bridge had occurred
under this policy alignment,
this would have been probably quite different.
So I just wanna put that out there.
And then we talk a lot about managed retreat.
And I think in terms of sea level rise,
and I think we have to remember that the alternative
to manage to retreat is unmanaged to retreat.
And so there's a lot of churn in those policies
as we move forward.
They are in flux, just like so many other things,
because we are learning more and more,
not just about what sea level rise will bring.
And in terms of now we're having these potential impacts
from El Nino and other stuff like that,
but also the technologies that we use
and the policy responses are changing as well,
because it's complicated, it's over time.
And we have a lot of real capital investments
in the things that exist today.
And we can't deny our need to leverage those existing
investments and extend their life to as much as we can.
So those are my comments.
Thank you so much, you guys, for all the hard work you do.
Commissioner Williams.
Thank you, Chair.
Just want to thank Peter, Kate, and Eric
for the wonderful presentation and overview of the program
and all the work that we do together.
And to Commissioner Wilson's point,
it wasn't always and hasn't always been like that.
And we always, I mean, it's not perfect now either.
But we have an understanding.
We built relationships and partnerships and worked together,
including with our leadership, to ensure that we
have a good pathway forward with the work
that we're doing together.
And I mean, ultimately, it's pretty simple.
And I think we need more of this in the world,
where we look for common ground and look at those goals
and figure out how to move forward together.
So we had more of that.
I think we'd all be doing much better.
and I think it's an example.
Actually, I do recall just with the
Coastal Management Program Review,
just been thinking about that a little bit,
and I had the opportunity to participate in one of those
maybe a decade ago, and we were talking about
our partnership and whatnot, and they're like,
what, you guys talk to each other?
That's crazy.
So, I don't know, I think the feds,
they look at our partnership as a kind of a model
and I don't know if it's,
I don't think it's been replicated anywhere in the nation
but it is kind of understood and looked at, I think,
with a positive light.
So I'll just leave it there and thanks again.
Commissioner Nada.
Yeah, I just, I want to say thank you
for giving a good comprehensive overview
of how the state agency, we work with other state agencies,
because I think really that the California public counts
on our state agencies to work together
to deliver safe public access.
And I, certainly Caltrans is a very key partner there.
And I, you know, I'll just reflect on in Monterey County,
you know, we hear a lot, and I'm gonna say it again,
Point Lobos and Bigsby Bridge, the safety issues that are brought up there.
Just this last Labor Day, there was a near miss of a child walking to Point Lobos.
So, there's a lot of safety issues there.
I really just want to encourage Caltrans to work with state parks and with the Coastal Commission
to come up with some solutions so that the public
can access our state parks without risking their lives
and that there's multimodal access as well.
And I just think that some of these issues
are very intractable and I hear that it takes a long time
to get there and people are pointing fingers
at each other about, they have to act first,
they have to act first.
We really need to work together to get a solution to these things.
And I think that really is, you know, we owe it to the public.
They're looking to the state to work as one and not as silos.
And I think it's encouraging to see how well the commission has worked with Caltrans.
and now I'm inviting state parks to get more engaged
in this safety issue too.
So I think it's very exciting to see
some of the big projects too, like Gleason Beach,
or, you know, well we just had one last month
where we're looking at doing another tunnel
here on the North Coast.
So big or small, and public safety is top of the priority.
So I just wanted to say thank you for highlighting that
and acknowledging we've done a lot,
but we still need to keep working together.
Thank you, Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you to all the speakers.
I just had a quick comment about September
being Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Month.
So hearing our speaker highlighting
the kayaking opportunities that are coming up
for people with mobility challenges
certainly warmed this old man's heart.
Because as we all know, accessibility creates opportunity
and everyone deserves a chance to experience the joy
of being out on the water, so thank you
for what all you are doing to improve
and to provide opportunities for those
who have mobility challenges.
That was a great way to start this meeting, so thank you.
Okay, great, thank you very much.
With that, we will close that item
and let's move on to the consent calendar, please.
Actually we have a few more items under, so 6C legislative report is next.
Thank you.
Thank you and good morning commissioners.
This is the legislative report for September.
The 2026 legislative session ended on August 31st, so today's report will cover the bills
that made it to the finish line and are now on the governor's desk, as well as a few last
minute items that emerged in the final days of the session.
On August 13th, the appropriations committees held their suspense hearings where they determined
to which bills would move to the floor of both houses.
The majority of the bills the Commission is tracking
made it out of appropriations.
Any tracked bills that were held in committee
are marked in staff's written report
as held under submission.
The one Coastal Act bill that was held in committee
is AB 2254 by Assemblymember Addis.
That's the bill that would have amended
the Coastal Act and the Fish and Game Code
to require the Commission and CDFW to provide guidance
to local governments on model land use policies
for protecting monarch butterfly over wintering habitat.
Following the suspense hearings,
over the last two weeks of August,
both houses met in floor session
to make any final amendments to bill language
and to vote on which bills to send to the governor's desk.
Several of the commission's priority bills
were amended on the floor in these final days.
First is AB 2051 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.
That's the bill that would require
the Secretaries of Natural Resources and the EPA
to convene a working group of federal, state,
and local agencies, including the commission,
for the purpose of developing a permitting roadmap
to increase the pace and scale of resilience projects
along San Francisco Bay and the coast.
On August 21st, assembly member Wicks added a new,
unrelated section to the bill
that amends the Coastal Act related to the Venice Dell
project in the city of Los Angeles.
This new language would authorize the commission
to retroactively extend the deadline
for a local government to accept the commission's suggested modifications to a land use plan
amendment that authorizes a 100% affordable housing project and that would have expired
between January 2025 and December 2026.
While it doesn't call out the project by name, the author stated that this new language
is specifically intended to give the City of LA additional time to accept the suggested
mods that the Commission made when it approved the City's LUP amendment for the
Venice Dell project in 2024. Under current law the City had 18 months to
accept the mods, which is the normal six month period plus a one time, one year
extension. That 18th month deadline expired this past June, so the new
language in the bill would allow the Commission to extend that deadline by up
to five more years. Staff have no policy concerns with the new piece of the bill.
AB 2051 passed at the end of August and is now on the governor's desk.
Another priority bill that got amended in August is AB 2734, which the Commission has
a support position on.
That's the bill that would allocate a greater proportion of whale tail license plate revenues
to the Commission's whale tail grant program and the Coastal Conservancy's Explore the
Coast grant program.
The bill was amended on August 26th to specify that this increased revenue split would only
kick in if the Department of Finance determines that there's enough money in the Environmental
License Plate Fund to allocate the additional revenues to the Commissions and the Conservancy's
Grant Programs while still maintaining the previous year's expenditures plus a 5% reserve.
The amendments also added language to the bill that would set aside 20% of the revenue
generated by the 49ers License Plate, which will go on sale next year, to be split between
the Commissions and the Conservancy's Grant Programs.
Altogether, these amendments maintain the author's intent of providing a more sustainable
funding source for the state's coastal grant programs, but in a way that will avoid any
inadvertent impacts to the many other worthy causes supported by the Environmental License
Plate Fund.
Moving on, SB 1370 by Senator Stern was also amended on the floor.
That's the bill that would extend to 2030 the consolidated multi-agency approval process
for vegetation management projects, which was created by executive order following the
governor's March 2025 wildfire emergency proclamation.
The bill was amended on the assembly floor to shorten the extension to January 2029,
at which point the Board of Forestry would then be required to implement a new non-timber
vegetation management program, which would provide a similar expedited review of certain
vegetation management projects.
The bill would also require the Board of Forestry to coordinate with other departments and
including the commission, as it develops that program.
This will ensure that the policies of the new program
are well aligned with the Coastal Act
so that vegetation management projects in the Coastal Zone
can continue to be approved smoothly,
similar to how the state has been approving these projects
over the past year.
That bill passed and is on the governor's desk.
The last days of the session also saw a flurry
of last minute efforts to introduce budget trailer bills
to make various changes to the law.
Because trailer bills are technically part of the budget,
they follow a different process that doesn't include policy
committee hearings or analysis.
So in practice, budget trailers typically
go from introduction to final passage in just a few days.
A couple of budget trailer concepts
from the end of the session are relevant to the commission.
The first involves Point Lobos, State Natural
Reserve in Monterey County.
And this language went into print as part of SB 178,
which is the budget trailer bill focused on natural resources.
The relevant language, which is in section four of that bill,
would require state parks and consultation
with the commission, the state transportation agency,
and the Monterey County District 5 supervisor
to submit a report to the legislature
by April 1 of next year that provides recommendations
on how to reduce traffic and unsafe parking around Point
Lobos, while also maximizing public access, resource
protection, and the overall visitor experience.
This language went into print the evening of August 28th,
and then was passed by the legislature three days later.
Since the bill is a budget trailer,
if it's signed by the governor,
it would take effect immediately.
And as Commissioner Knothoff mentioned,
the commission would look forward
to participating in that effort.
Also, in the final days of session,
draft budget trailer bill language was circulated
in the legislature that would have created
a special truncated Coastal Act approval process
for a single project in Santa Monica
if the commission doesn't certify the city of Santa Monica's
LCP by the end of next year.
A project description in the trailer bill language
specifically fit a mixed use hotel, housing,
and museum project that the commission approved in 2023,
though the applicant later let that permit expire.
If that project or something similar
were to be proposed again,
this draft trailer language would have exempted it
from the policies of the Santa Monica land use plan
and would have significantly limited the timing and scope
of the Commission's review under the Coastal Act.
While the language didn't officially go into print,
it was reported on in the media,
which generated significant public pushback.
Assembly member, Rick Sabur,
who represents Santa Monica,
authored a letter to the governor
and legislative leadership,
which was co-signed by 11 other Assembly members,
opposing the draft trailer language as both unnecessary
and interfering with the Commission's
and the city's current work
to complete the Santa Monica LCP.
Ultimately, this draft trailer language
did not make it into a budget trailer bill.
Moving on, just to round out the results
for the other Coastal Act bills that made it to the floor,
SB 1229 by Senator Ben Allen did not pass.
That's the bill that would have slightly curtailed
the existing Coastal Act exemption
for rebuilding structures destroyed by disasters
to make sure that rebuilt structures don't expand
into state tight lands or into sense of habitat.
The author elected not to bring the bill up for a vote following concerns from
several constituents that the bill would limit their ability to redevelop their
properties with larger structures.
AB 1740 by Assembly members of Burr, which the commission took a support position on,
passed and is now on the governor's desk.
The commission will recall that, as amended,
that bill would require the city of Santa Monica to complete its LCP by January
2029, and would also expand the existing process for
the executive director to expedite new multimodal transportation projects.
Lastly, SB 1159 by Senator Cabaldon, which the convention took a support position on
in July, also passed.
That's the bill that would amend the Coastal Act and other state laws to protect public
comment processes from being spammed by artificial intelligence.
That bill is now on the governor's desk as well.
So looking ahead, the governor has until the end of the month to sign or veto bills.
October staff will provide a full rundown of the results for the bills the
Commission has been tracking this year and with that chair Harmon that
concludes the legislative report and I'm happy to answer any questions. Great
thank you so much and sorry I tried to skip you Mr. Drake. All right with that
I'll turn it to Chris to see if there are any public comments. We have one
speaker but before that I have an announcement there's a gray RAV4 XLE
hybrid outside it's at risk of being towed license plate starts with the nine
y st if you if that's your car needs to be moved and then we have one speaker
Mitch Silverstein good morning commissioners Mitch Silverstein with
Surfrider Foundation Surfrider would like to thank
Commission staff the commissioners and many NGO coalition partners and
individuals for working together to defend the Coastal Act on its 50th
anniversary. Working together we flipped AB 1740 from a severe threat to the
Coastal Act into a positive bill that requires the City of Santa Monica to
complete their LCP. The bill also provides useful streamlining for safe
street improvements that benefit coastal access. Commissioned staff were
instrumental in that achievement. Working together we were able to defeat budget
trailer bill language that not once but twice that would have exempted one
well-connected Santa Monica developers project from adherence to the Coastal
Act.
That language would have also created a developer incentive to obstruct Santa Monica's noble
intention to complete their LCP.
If that trailer bill language would have passed, it would have set a dangerous precedent that
wealthy and well-connected developers could buy their way around the Coastal Act through
lobbying and campaign donations.
On its 50th anniversary, we've worked together to ensure that our states of landmark coastal
conservation law applies to everyone.
As Susan Jordan was quoted in Steve Lopez's excellent LA Times piece, if you want to build
in the coastal zone, you need to go through the Coastal Act.
Let's keep it that way.
I want to give a massive shout out to our at coastal coalition,
especially the California Coastal Protection Network,
as well as Surf Fighter LA Chapter, the Coastal Alliance
in Santa Monica, and the greater Santa Monica community
who really went to work defending the Coastal Act.
While we preferred to avoid these challenges,
our work this year proved that the grassroots spirit
that created the Coastal Act lives on today.
Thank you.
And no more speakers.
Great. Thank you very much.
Okay, battle return, Commissioner Nada.
Yeah, I just wanna say that having survived
many end of session craziness up in Sacramento,
it's always a fraught time.
And this year I had certainly hoped
that with the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act
and the threats from the federal government
that we would all be working together
to defend the Coastal Act, which we largely have done.
But then some of these last-minute nibbles
and stuff can always be difficult.
Linda and I have survived many of these together.
And I just can't say enough how heartening it
is to have a staff that works so diligently to work on these
to come up with solutions.
And I think that's one of the things
that I've been impressed with our legislative staff
since I joined the commission is that often our staff
is coming up with solutions to make a bill
that we were concerned about actually work.
And I think that there's a good example
of how Mitch Silverstein just mentioned that
with 1740 this year.
So it's a very constructive approach
and I think that the Coastal Act is stronger for it
And we couldn't do it without our nonprofit partners
as well and the public.
It's, you know, it is pretty heartening to see the,
you know, 84% of the public supports coastal protection.
I guess I'm not surprised to see that
because I see the kind of enthusiasm there is
for coastal protection and our beaches,
but it's nice to see some actual science on that.
So I just couldn't let the end of session go
without a shout out to our hard working staff
and our partners on that, thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you Madam Chair, thank you Mr. Drake for the report.
Thank you for all your hard work,
what you all do up in Sacramento.
This is my first real budget trailer bill process,
and I've learned that it's by far the least transparent part
of Sacramento's sausage making,
legislative sauce it's making. It's mind-boggling. But I just want to thank everyone who quickly
stepped up and helped successfully push back against all those attempts to weaken our California
Coastal Act and to bypass the Coastal Commission. And so the list is too numerous to go through,
but thank you all. You know who you are. Thank you for banging the drum and continuing to bang
Thank you.
Commissioner Escalante.
I will just pile on my gratitude and congrats to the success of this, you know, campaign.
I'm actually very pleasantly surprised that it turned out so well, but that's all because
of the relentless effort by both our staff and the advocates on the ground, and I know
that you guys, Surfrider in particular and Susan Jordan
and as well have been just amazing,
amazing ocean protectors and coastal protectors
in California and I hope that we recognize it
and the state will continue to recognize it,
especially as we are now entering the reality
of climate change and sea level rise hitting us so hard.
And I, what I'm beginning to sense is that,
the fact that the public has such enormous support
for the Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission in 80%.
It makes us also an incredible target
for misinformation and for opposition campaigns.
And I do, I'm beginning to see that, of course,
with all these new tragedies happen up and down
and houses falling into the ocean
and all the erosion on the beaches,
I see that there's this tendency for some
to blame the Coastal Commission for everything,
for everything that goes bad on this coast
And I know that we'll need you more and more every day
and every year as all of these problems continue to collide
with the Coastal Act and the mission of this organization.
So thank you so much for being there.
I know that turning bills like this in Sacramento
takes years out of your life in a given session.
So this was amazing, amazing work.
And kudos to Sarah Christie as well
and the rest of the staff that's worked so hard
to get this done.
Thanks.
OK, awesome.
Thank you very much.
With that, we will close item 6C and continue on to 6D, please.
Thank you.
The next item, 6D, is an informational briefing
on the 2026-2027 El Nino.
And it is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Michael Anderson.
Dr. Anderson works for the California Department
of Water Resources, where he served as the state
climatologist for California since 2008.
Michael began working at the Department of Water Resources
Division of Flood Management forecasting section
in July of 2005.
Came to DWR after extensive graduate and postgraduate work
in hydro climate modeling and monitoring at UC Davis
and several engineering degrees prior to that.
In his role as state climatologist,
Dr. Anderson is responsible for advising state decision-makers, engineers, and scientists
to support research and improved operational forecasting of California's weather extremes.
Dr. Anderson has joined us today to talk about the anticipated 2026-27 El Nino and will be
followed by a short presentation from coastal engineer Jeremy Smith.
So now, Dr. Anderson, thank you for joining us and I will turn it over to you.
Thank you.
Good morning, everybody.
that I'm happy to have the opportunity to present to the coast commission and apologies for not being able to make it up to do this in person
, see the other side for which I like me to load
my slides, but then we go,
the other side of the other side of the other side of the
I think those are Jeremy's slides.
All right.
Do we have another presentation?
We do not know.
Dr. Anderson, I'm not sure we got your slides.
Let's see if we can't.
Did you send them to us?
I did. Well, I sent them to Jeremy.
Okay. We'll see what we can do in the interim to get them
to our staff here in the room.
Oh, do we have it?
Hold on.
one moment bear with us for one second there we go all right so uh talking to you about
uh things you've heard plenty in the media on super el nino uh for the coming year want to
talk a little bit about it so one here are two maps of uh global oceans with the focus on the
Pacific, but much around the tropical Eastern Pacific going from the coast to Peru out to the
international date line. Start looking over the average of what things looked like back in April
where we were having a La Nina decaying into neutral conditions as to where we are
in the month of August where very warm waters are present and are expected to continue to warm.
so let's go to the next slide all right so what is it well well the new is the warming of this
region strength determined by the size of the temperature anomaly and on the right side are the
categories that the science community uses i think the media found very strong not to be
evocative enough so super has been substituted for that our colleagues at the national oceanographic
atmospheric administration use an index to track these events. It's called the Relative Ocean
Nino Index. The reason for the word relative is to try and accommodate the warming that has happened
over the latter part of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century to try and put each
event on a similar scale in terms of its anomaly. Let's go to the next slide. All right, so this was
This is at the end of August.
This comes to us from NOAA's
El Nino Southern Oscillation Diagnostic Discussion.
They publish this report each week.
This week's was published yesterday.
I didn't have time to load those graphics on.
Nino 3.4 is where the official index is tracked.
The coastal area, the Nino 1 and 2 regions,
As you can see, we're above three.
Latest reading, it's approaching four degrees Celsius.
This region's never been above three degrees Celsius
warmer than average, so we are in uncharted territory.
And do expect that Nino 3.4 region
to go past the two degrees Celsius mark as well.
So when you hear a Nino region that refers to Nino 3.4,
some, you know, so maybe why that was chosen.
That region was chosen because it correlates best
with precipitation outcomes
for the continental United States.
Unfortunately, it doesn't do a great job for California.
Next slide.
So here's where we look, if we take the time series
all the way back to 1950, you see we have a few times
where we crossed that two degree threshold.
Next slide, please. Notable
ones, 1983 and 1998, where
there was significant coastal
damage. Very big water years
for California. 1992 and 2016.
Also very strong events, but
also in the midst of multi-year
droughts. That said, both those
years came close to average
for the older events, so let's go to the next slide.
All right, so what happens?
Well, El Nino actually impacts the way the jet stream works.
When it's at one of the average
tropical sea surface temperatures,
that increases our equator to full temperature gradient,
which flattens out the jet stream,
means it's just moving more west to east and it speeds up.
So this, how far south it gets to place
determines California's impacts.
Normally our wintertime displacement gets it somewhere around point arena during very
strongly only new events, it can shift further south and varies each time exactly how it
presents itself leading to various outcomes that we receive.
One thing though, with the jet stream and storms just zipping straight across the Pacific,
one they're not as cold because they're not going up into the Arctic, but it's also you
have the whole Pacific Ocean as your upstream fetch pushing against the coast. This does result in
more coastal damage and because the waters are warmer sea levels are higher. They've been running
half a foot to a foot so far we do expect it this winter to be around that one foot above.
Historic means meaning that then once you add on any spring tide or king tide and any storm tide
that would be on top of this as well. So that will have an influence on coastal inundation
this winter. Let's go to the next slide. All right, so here are very strong El Nino events
and you see the precip numbers, the worst of them are in the 80% of average. The big ones like 83
almost twice as much as normal and really big smell years, ones that aren't so great.
warmer storms really impacts where that snow line is that develops our seasonal snowpack. So
those are the things that keep on eye on here for the Department of Water Resources.
Right now, every experimental forecast looking out seasonally is leaning lit.
So we'll see how those pan out. Can we go to the next slide? All right, sea level. I wanted to show
you some peaks you see the big peaks there with El Nino events 83 98 close together but even our
last El Nino event in 2024 you see it pokes quite a bit higher uh than 83 or 98 and as we head into
this year we kind of expect another peak like that as we get closer to winter time this is for San
Francisco Bay we do have variability along our coast because we are 75 percent of the continental
the U.S. Pacific Coast. So what's happening at Dano La Jolla is very different from what's happening
up in Crescent City. Scripps Institution of Oceanography put together a really nice web page
on how does El Nino impact the California coast. I put the link in the slides.
Really appreciate their help in trying to communicate. We are going to have an impact
for the year, possibly even a record setting one, which means our history doesn't provide us a good
which is what we need to guide.
This means we take notes.
Because what starts as an
extreme now may become episodic,
may become commonplace as the
world continues to warm.
This is our chance to kind of
see how we're doing resilience
wise and maybe see what needs to
still be done before this becomes
more commonplace.
Next slide.
year outcome are storms that have
for Western Weather and Water
in the two to three day range.
You remember this past December,
we had atmospheric over conditions impacting California
for over a hundred hours.
So each event tends to be shorter,
and, um. Increasing elevation
tends to be a little higher,
but it really comes down to how
many start impacting. So, uh,
with that jet stream sped up,
you can have a quicker pace of
storms. Hitting the coast and
it's really those time between
the storms. Allow river stone
down. Landscape to recover a
bit before the next storm hits.
So really keeping an eye on
Alright, so key takeaways. Even in the years that were during grouts, very
strong only in New Year's have at least one month where precipitation was 150
percent average or greater. There's at least one window where there are
really strong storms. Timing pace and scale of storms driver impacts. Storm size
time between storms key to where we see flooding where we get time for recovery.
and the higher sea levels and the wave damage and increased storminess
definitely drive those coastal impacts and I think from here I hand it over to
the board engineer. Yeah thank you Dr. Anderson, Steph we could pull up the
slides for Smith. Coming up now. So good morning commissioners as you've just
heard the strengthening El Nino has the potential to be historic which means the
The coast is facing significantly increased odds of a stormy winter.
There are several other climactic and oceanographic factors that can influence how a very strong
El Nino can lead to local impacts, and these impacts are not guaranteed, but it is important
to prepare.
Today, I hope to build off of what we've just heard about the current El Nino event and
its effects in California, by covering what impacts to the coast we have observed in past
very strong El Ninos and what we're already seeing, and highlight soon-to-be updated resources
on the Commission's website. Next slide. As you heard from the state climatologist,
El Nino events can lead to increased storminess and wetter than normal conditions for California.
As the state experienced in 2023 and 2024, a series of relatively strong storms in quick
sequence can lead to damaging flooding in creeks, rivers, and local storm drainage networks. Heavy
rainfall on recent burn scars can also lead to debris flows and elevated sedimentation downstream.
Next slide. Heavy rainfall can also destabilize slopes and bluffs. As water infiltrates soils,
it can reduce the soil strength and make soils heavier, causing slides and slope failure.
Intense runoff directed towards bluff faces can also cause rapid erosion as the runoff quickly
pulls soil away from the steep, unvegetated slopes. This can cause the rapid formation
of gullies and undermine structures too close to the bluff's edge. Erosion at the base of
Bluffs from large waves can also lead to bluff failures as material at the toe supporting the
rest of the bluff is undercut. All of these factors can cause the significant erosion events
that have happened up and down the coast including Pacifica as shown during the 1998 El Nino winter
in this image on the slide. Where past very strong El Ninos have resulted in large amounts
of bluff retreat that happened very quickly. Next slide. Increased storminess in the Pacific can also
lead to larger waves hitting the California coast more frequently. Increased wave energy
can cause significant coastal erosion, as was observed in some locations during the 2016 Very
Strong El Nino event. The worst wave damage occurs when large swell coincides with high water levels.
This happened in Santa Cruz County in the winters of 2022-23 and El Nino of 23-24,
when record breaking waves hit during an almost plus six foot high tide.
A photo from that event in Capitola can be seen on the upper right of the slide.
With higher water levels, waves break closer to shore and more wave energy is
able to reach coastal areas and contribute to flooding.
You can see an example from Venice Beach on the bottom with a photo from 2018 on
the left during calm conditions and the damaging
1983 El Nino season on the right from the same
vantage point. With the temporary sea level rise created by El Nino, the chances of swell occurring
at high enough tides to cause damaging flooding and erosion increases. Wide sandy beaches provide
important buffer that dissipates wave energy, but El Nino's increase the likelihood that coastal
storms arrive when beaches are already eroded from stronger and more frequent wave attack.
Next slide. Much of what we know about the effects of El Nino's on our coast is the result
to focus monitoring efforts conducted by academia, such as the Scripps Institute of Oceanography
at UC San Diego and the USGS.
Monitoring things like water levels, waves, and sand elevations, and coastal cliffs during
potentially intense winters like this one is critical to better understanding coastal
hazards and how our beaches behave.
You can see in the plot at the bottom from researcher Bill O'Reilly at Scripps how El
Nino has predictably caused shoreline retreat, but the timing and level of beach recovery
is not yet well understood. Some monitoring efforts funded by the Commission's LCP grant
program have already proven useful with recent erosion concerns. And Commission staff are
working on how we can best support monitoring efforts by these kinds of academic and government
institutions to both improve our scientific understanding and provide state and local
government staff with useful information to respond during extreme events. Next slide.
As you have likely seen in the media, we are already seeing some of the effects of warmer
than normal waters off the eastern Pacific Coast or Eastern Pacific Basin.
A very active hurricane season to our South has sent strong and persistent
South swell to the Southern California coast.
This has caused severe beach erosion by pushing sand North and pulling sand into
the surf zone, which is particularly noticeable up coast of major barriers to
sand transport, such as the wedge in Newport Beach, Belmont Peninsula and Long
Beach and Tamarack State Beach in Carlsbad.
This has caused already narrow beaches to erode to the point of undermining seawalls like you can see here in Orange County.
And the large waves coinciding with high tides has caused damage from wave overtopping.
Next slide. We have also already started seeing persistently higher sea levels consistent with El Nino.
This plot on the screen is showing observed sea levels compared to the normal tide table in La Jolla down in San Diego,
where sea levels were recently eight inches higher than predicted.
Because it advances in satellite monitoring of global sea levels,
scientists and forecasters are able to better anticipate the timing of
these weeks to months long sea level anomalies, which can be used to help
local communities prepare. Next slide. As was mentioned by Dr. Anderson,
these higher sea levels are like a window into the future with sea level rise,
which is projected to increase mean sea levels by similar amounts by 2050.
El Nino's in the future will happen with those higher mean sea levels,
underscoring the need to plan for the effects of seal of rise in the present.
Next slide. Because of the potentially damaging effects of a significant El Nino winter,
it is important to be prepared. As part of statewide efforts to prepare for the coming
El Nino, staff are working on updates to the Commission's informational webpage on El Nino
with relevant information, resources, and recent science. On the webpage, members of the public
and local government staff will be able to find information about what an El Nino event is,
a brief overview of the impacts from past El Nino events,
and best practices for preparing for storms and heavy rains,
including specific preparedness checklists for local governments
and shoreline property owners. These checklists will include tables noting
the dates of significant high tides through the winter season.
They will also detail preparedness measures such as inspecting any
infrastructure or structures and identifying prudent maintenance
activities to minimize potential storm damage.
The webpage and checklist will also highlight where to contact local district offices
about any necessary permits and where to find more information from sources like NOAA or
descriptions to oceanography. We will aim to include any significant information, ideas,
or suggestions made during today's discussion. We expect the website to be updated within the next
week and will be adding a link from our home page for easy access. Thank you for your time.
I'll now pass it to Dr. Hucklebridge after which we are happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Jeremy, and thank you to Dr. Anderson for joining us today.
So, just to conclude, Labor Day, which we've just celebrated, is usually a time for barbecues and family and enjoying the coast.
This year, we watched the normally still waters of Long Beach rise up and overwhelm the peninsula,
forcing some residents to board up their homes and evacuate.
We saw waves completely swallow Tamarack Beach in Carlsbad.
and we witnessed the pounding surf damage 14 homes along Dana
Point's Capistrano Beach and now today's news of a giant sinkhole
that is opened in Malibu. Our staff spent the entire weekend
working alongside local governments and homeowners to
quickly authorize needed emergency work and we will
continue to be ready to respond quickly. This weekend as Jeremy
noted gave us a stark glimpse into the awesome force of rising
seas and how relentless that power can be.
There is no longer, this is no longer a problem for the distant future.
This is happening now, and it will only become more challenging.
This is our new normal, and we have to meet it with urgency,
planning, and action. One way we can do that is to prioritize
sea level rise adaptation planning and implementation for all coastal
communities. This work needs funding and it needs
focus, and it is the best path to protect our
coastal communities and ensure that there are there will still be beaches
left to pass on to our children. In the meantime for coastal homeowners with
damaged properties looking for help navigating permits please contact your
nearest Coastal Commission office. As Jeremy mentioned you can find contact
information on our web page and for everyone else listening please get
involved in your community's sea level rise adaptation planning efforts because
we really have no time to waste. And with that we'll conclude the briefing and
and open it up for any questions.
Great, thank you very much.
Are there any public comments?
Yes, we have one speaker, Mitch Silverstein.
Good morning commissioners.
Mitch Silverstein with Surf Rider Foundation.
We appreciate the commission taking the time
for this briefing and thank Dr. Anderson
and Mr. Smith for the presentation.
In addition to Super, I've seen this El Nino
referred to as Mega Monster, Godzilla,
and my personal favorite, Flamethrower.
A recent University of Michigan study
concluded that El Nino's are stronger than they've been in 1,000 years. This is becoming
commonplace to borrow Dr. Anderson's language. In a recent op-ed, SurFighter CEO Chad Nelson
and former Commission Executive Director Charles Lester point out that statewide coastal armoring
has grown more than five-fold since the 1970s with each surge largely triggered by El Nino
winters. That's the pattern. Storms arrive, our bluffs and beaches get hammered, and the
The commission gets flooded with emergency requests
for boulders and concrete on our shores.
Surfrider opposes the use of emergency permits
to armor the coast this winter
and in the winters that follow.
Under the commission's own regulations,
an emergency is a sudden unexpected occurrence.
El Nino is neither.
It's forecast, it's modeled.
We've been talking about it for months,
and we're here talking about it today.
We know what's coming.
Every seawall approved sacrifices the beach in front of it.
Those beaches belong to all of us.
Local governments and shorefront property owners have been noticed.
If anything good comes from the damage caused by these zonino storms,
it will be that public agencies and local governments move faster on adaptation.
We asked the commission to hold the line on what qualifies as an emergency and
to keep pressing communities to plan for storms and sea level rise with urgency now
instead of declaring emergencies after.
Thank you.
Thank you, no more speakers.
Great, thank you very much.
I'll return to the commission.
Questions, comments?
Commissioner Nata.
Just a question on, you know, when
we see these emergency permits come before us,
it's after the fact.
So are there plans to change standards in terms of, you know,
now that we see what we are likely to experience this year?
Is there going to be a new, a fresh look
at how we do emergency permits?
So emergency permit authorization is not after the fact.
Normally how it works is we are notified
of a particular emergency,
and we request information on a brief project description.
And then we authorize work to,
based on information that we receive.
And that's done before the work proceeds.
Now, with emergencies, obviously,
we have the need to move very quickly.
And so we can and do, in those cases,
do verbal approvals that are followed up
by actual written emergency permits later.
I mean, we got a call this weekend
and, you know, they needed to move immediately
to try to save homes.
And so we, you know, we talked through it on the phone
and then authorized the work that was then followed up
with an actual permit.
Now, in addition, there's a requirement
of every emergency permit to do a follow-on CDP.
And that's a full CDP.
And the understanding is that that is when we do
the full analysis of what is allowable under the Coastal Act
and protects resources, and we do the full analysis.
And sometimes that requires changes
to the work that was done as an emergency.
One more thing to add to the emergency piece
is we're always looking at what is the minimum amount of work
necessary to address the emergency.
So all those things factor in emergency work,
but it is authorized ahead of time.
That is the proper process for emergency permits.
Now, would we like to have a better process?
I mean, there's the more time we have to review, the better.
And I think it's true that we know
that the conditions we're experiencing now
are our new normal.
And they will continue and they will get worse.
And so we encourage homeowners, local governments, anyone
who is looking at work to come and talk to us early
so that we can work through a plan
to address a particular issue through the regular permitting
process.
But we can't write permit applications for folks.
And so we do, you know, we take in what's provided
and do our best to move through it.
And I think I was referring to is by the time
the commission sees them through the regular permit just
if it's happened.
Yes, that is true.
But I also just want to note that we
try to be as proactive as possible in terms of permits.
And when applicants are saying, well, why do we have to raise
our garage this much?
Well, that's so that you would not
have to have an emergency permit,
that you're not going to run into that.
It strikes me that we have these new state rules about fire
resiliency and what homeowners can
do to help reduce their risks of fire.
And I think that's getting a lot of attention publicly.
And I think we need to have that same type of awareness of what property owners can do
along the coast to reduce their risks as well.
So some of those best management practices need to get that word out because I think
that's very important that this is not this isn't something we don't know about.
We know it's coming.
We just don't know how it's going to hit us.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
And just beyond what we talk about in terms of permitting, as local governments we're
having to really think about the preparations and in Humboldt County we live through floods
and road closures and isolation and power outages all the time.
But I think this year is going to be pretty extreme and we're beginning to prepare for
that.
I'm hoping that other local agencies will as well.
We can have fairly prolonged times of isolation here.
And what I mean by that is roads will go out.
And we really have to encourage folks
to be prepared to not move from where they are, which
means be prepared with your supplies,
be prepared about power outages that could last for days,
and be prepared to help your neighbors.
It's coming, and we're going to have to be ready.
And so it's beyond just sort of this long term planning
that we keep talking about, but it will be immediate
and on the daily with working with our Office of Emergency
Services.
All I'm saying is get ready, because it'll
be here faster than you imagine.
Commissioner Escalante.
So we are approaching sort of now a nightmare scenario
that I was writing when I started on this commission
eight and a half years ago.
Aside from, you know, obviously the impacts on people and infrastructure, I'm worried
about the reactivity of the legislature since we are now talking to them, and all the legislators
at all levels, local, state, and federal, that just like with the wildfires, the knee-jerk
reaction was I you know isolate alienate the Coastal Commission the Coastal Act
and our expertise on how to rebuild appropriately in this area and I I would
bet money that next year we're gonna start seeing builds are trying to you
know curb the Commission's authority over armoring because I'm sure that some
Jurisdiction, so I wanna just throw armoring
as a solution to this up and down,
especially in Southern California,
where they're losing so much beach
that we've known about.
We have been talking about this.
I mean, every single fight, both here and in court,
over setbacks and how close people wanna build
and how much in denial folks are.
But the problem is, if you have enough money
to take the hit, and that's fine,
But when you want to sort of push that responsibility
financial and legally onto the state,
I find that extremely problematic.
That's not, you know, that's not the socialism
that we're for here.
So I hope that we keep an eye
and have those conversations early on,
especially with the state leaders
to make sure that we're not gonna start going
in that direction, although I suspect right now
they're gonna try to push us, so thanks.
Thank you.
Commissioner Eckerly.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank Dr. Anderson and our staff and Dr. Hucklebridge for bringing this informational
item to us.
Obviously, very timely, very concerning.
The Ocean Protection Council are also tracking closely, trying to figure out what we can
do for rapid response, flexibility, really filling any near-term gaps.
I also just want to remind this commission and the public and local governments that we are still actively
Investing in both planning and on the ground projects at our September 18th council meeting. We've got
funding recommendations over ten million dollars for both planning and projects for sea level rise adaptation and
Should the the budget get signed by the governor we will have an additional 25 million dollars for that
for next year's appropriation for both planning
and adaptation projects.
Okay, thank you very much.
Much appreciated.
All right, let's continue on.
I think we're breaking at noon,
so if we could power through everyone,
I'd appreciate it.
We'll move on to the consent calendar, please.
Thank you, Chair.
Item seven is the Agendized Consent Calendar.
There are no items agendized on the consent calendar today,
so that brings us to item eight.
Item eight provides for applications to be moved
from the regular to the consent calendar.
There are seven items we're recommending to be moved,
and those are item 13A,
which is a Humboldt County LCP amendment
on transitional housing.
Item 13B, a Humboldt County LCP amendment
on emergency housing.
Item 13C, City of Fort Bragg LCP amendment
for development permit updates.
Item 13-D, City of Fort Bragg LCP Amendment
on urban lot splits.
Item 13-E, City of Point Arena LCP Amendment
on code reorganization.
Item 16-A, a time extension for the Marin Wildfire
Prevention Authority's Public Works Plan.
And finally, Item 18-B, City of Santa Cruz LCP Amendment
for Sensitive Habitat and Vegetation Maps.
The applicants are in agreement
with the staff recommendations for these items,
but we have received some written comments
that I'd like to address.
We received a comment letter for item 13A,
the Humboldt County LCP amendment related
to supportive and transitional housing,
raising concerns regarding regional risks
of earthquake triggered rapid land subsidence.
The proposed amendments allow supportive
and transitional housing in residential zones,
enabling a broader range of residential types
within areas already deemed suitable for housing.
Housing projects in those areas require hazard risks
to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
as part of the project CDP.
We received a similar comment letter for item 13B,
the Humboldt County LCP amendment
related to tiny house villages.
The areas identified for tiny houses
are generally outside mapped flood zones.
In addition, ad hoc limits on specific housing types
within existing zones that already allow housing
do not reduce seismic risk,
and all projects will undergo full hazard review
during the LCP application process.
A second comment letter suggests prohibiting synthetic turf
in tiny house villages.
This is more appropriately addressed on a broader scale
as part of a more comprehensive amendment.
In the interim, water quality impacts would be evaluated
for each project consistent with the LCP.
For these reasons, staff recommends keeping both items
on consent.
For item 18B, the city of Santa Cruz LCP amendment
for its updated habitat maps,
we note that we receive written objections
and we'd also note that we publish a response
to those comments in an addendum posted yesterday.
The commenters primarily alleged
that the proposed LCP amendment does not meet the criteria
for a minor amendment,
suggesting that it would weaken protections
for monarch butterflies
and lead to adverse coastal resource impacts.
However, as discussed in the staff report in addendum,
the proposed amendment does not weaken
the LCP's coastal resource protection standards.
including as it relates to monarch butterflies
and other sensitive species,
and instead serves as an updated planning tool,
one which more accurately reflects
sensitive habitat areas in the city.
And to be clear, it's an updated habitat map,
but that map is only a tool for further evaluation.
In fact, the LCP will continue to apply to habitat
whether noted on the map or discovered through other means.
We continue to recommend this LCP amendment
be approved as submitted on consent.
With that, staff continues to recommend that the commission
vote and approve the consent calendar items.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you.
Are there any ex partes to report?
Seeing none, I will turn to Galen and Chris.
Any public comments?
For item 16A, I'll note that we have two speakers
available for questions.
And then for item 18B, we have one person
available for questions, as well as two people
who wish to speak.
We have Mike Guth and Nancy Okada.
Mike, give us a second as we're moving you in as panelists.
All right, they're both moving in right now.
And Mike Guth, when you're able to,
please unmute and begin.
Thank you, I do have a presentation.
Give us a moment to bring it up.
There we go, very good, thank you.
This is Mike Guth, speaking for the Sierra Club.
This is an item where the city of Santa Cruz
is trying to get an LCP update
to put in new sensitive habitat maps.
Staff doesn't seem to think our objections are very serious.
we're very disappointed in the addendum.
Next slide, please.
We recommend strongly that you request
the Time Limit Extension so the city can clean up
these old outdated maps that they're submitting as new now.
They do not meet the minimum threshold
set in your own original staff report.
They're inaccurate and they conflict
with currently available information,
the standard you've set.
Next slide, please.
To give you an idea, here's one of the two maps.
that's the city of Santa Cruz below the black line
and colors indicate habitat.
There's a general view.
Next slide, please.
The staff report says that the maps
are not meant to be exhaustive.
Of course we understand that, but they set a standard quote,
the maps designate known sensitive habitats
based on currently available information, close quote,
that standard is not met.
There are significant EIRs that have been done
that we followed since, okay, next slide, please.
Here's for an example, a 966 page publicly funded EIR
that's FEIR certified 2023 from the city,
same applicant, next slide please.
A map page from that, I'm using just one example
in the blue box that I've put in,
that orange blob is a monarch roosting habitat
that's mapped in an EIR from three years ago,
a big one, next slide please.
The map they're submitting doesn't have it.
This is just one example, there's no excuse.
Next slide please.
Our concern is that if you now approve this map in 2026, it's going to be seen as overriding
earlier work. They should not be submitting this old map. We believe it to be from 2012.
We ask that you have them pull this back, give them an extension, and let this the kind of
thing get corrected. Thank you for your attention. Next, Nancy Okada.
Hi, Nancy Okada, Sierra Club.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this.
And I was kind of surprised that it went to consent
because this is really a serious situation.
We really object to this designation
as a minor amendment determination.
And even though we understand that this is an old map
that predates recent good habitat mappings,
this map is 15 years old.
we just ask that you, you know, do the right thing, update it, put an updated map in this LCP,
send it back to the staff to replace the map with a current one. You know, a map from 2012
is not an updated map. So please send it back. Let's do it right and have everything in the,
in the file work well. Thank you. Thank you. And again, Mike Guth and Nancy Okada were speaking on
item 18B for that item. We have Clara Stanger from the City of Santa Cruz on
zoom and available for questions as well. There are no more speakers for any of
the items move to consent. Great thank you very much. With that I will return to the
Commission. Comments questions or a motion? Commissioner Wilson. I just want to
hear a staff response to the questions from the public. Yes thank you
commissioners. I think we just continue to believe this does rise to the level
of meaning the definition of a minor amendment.
I think this is meant to be not an exhaustive map
of every last habitat in the city.
Frankly, that can be quite dangerous
when we're relying on a sole static map
that may not be updated all the time.
This LCP makes clear that this is a tool
for evaluation for planning purposes,
but is not the be all end all or the final arbiter
of whether there is or is not a habitat
on a particular property.
That would always be used the best available science
on a site specific evaluation.
So again, this is just a tool.
These maps also clarify that it is a tool
and this is not, you know,
there could be other evidence to suggest there's habitat.
So with all that, we're comfortable that this is something
the commission can still approve on consent.
Just as a follow up question,
there was an example of a monarch habitat
that the commenter was saying is not on the map that's
in the report, but exists.
And can you address that issue as an example of how
this isn't the level of significance?
Sure.
That overwintering site wasn't identified
when these maps were drafted.
Each time we have a project come to us
or it comes to the local government,
site specific biological report is required that would need to identify any resources on site.
So there is an actual disclaimer on the map itself that speaks to on-site resource evaluation is required.
And so it is true it's not included on this map, but we're relying on the requirements for that site specific study with every project.
So what you're saying is it wouldn't be overlooked if a project was proposed in that area?
Correct.
Thank you.
Could I do follow up?
Is there a chance that we come to agreement with the city
on one map if we extended the deadline?
I'll respond and then I'll let him respond.
I think the challenge we have is that a map is always
a snapshot in time.
And so there's always updating to be done.
If we ask for this particular update,
then another one would be there's
I think the whole point of these maps is making it clear.
This is a snapshot.
This gives it a planning tool.
But when we're looking at projects,
we need the site specific analysis.
And that was the big important thing for us,
is that's very clear on the maps now.
It's not the map itself, that's meant to be,
give people an idea, planning tool,
but when projects come in front of us,
we have to do the actual analysis.
And so my concern about giving more time,
and there's never going to be the map that's perfect.
And so I think we feel like it's worth
getting getting this map finalized with that with the appropriate language
associated with it and then we will absolutely with the city be looking at
site-specific data for any projects. Thank you with with the understanding
and assurances I'm ready to move the consent items removed from the regular
calendar consent items at the appropriate time. Please. Okay I move
approval of the consent items removed from the normal calendar. Second. Great
thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner Notoff, a second by
Commissioner Oglesby. May we have a roll call vote please? Yes. Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes. O'Malley, yes. Commissioner Escalante? Yes. Escalante, yes. Commissioner Hart? Yes.
Hart, yes. Commissioner Jackson? Aye. Jackson, yes. Commissioner Kelly? Yes.
Kelly yes Commissioner Lee yes Lee yes Commissioner Oglesby Oglesby yes
Commissioner Kalmick aye Kalmick yes Commissioner Notthoff aye Notthoff yes
Commissioner Moreno Moreno yes Moreno yes Commissioner Wilson yes Wilson yes
Chair Harmon yes Harmon yes the vote is unanimous. Great thank you the motion
carries. All right and we will continue on to item 9 please Mr. Toyfall. Thank
you Chair. Item 9 is the Deputy Director report for the Energy Ocean Resources
and Federal Consistency Division. We have six negative determination
concurrences to report this month and one de minimis waiver. A proposal by Cal
Poly Center for Coastal Marine Sciences to evaluate an experimental wave energy
buoy near Avila Beach. We're not aware of any speakers or opposition to these
items and would therefore ask whether three or more commissioners object to
the de minimis waiver. Okay are there any ex partes? Any public comments? There's
no speakers for the sign. Okay do three or more commissioners object to any
item in the deputy directors report? Seeing no objections the commission
concurs. Okay director Hucklebridge should we probably break here? I would
actually recommend we continue with item 10a. Okay. Expected to take too long and
And given the rest of our agenda, I think it makes sense.
Let's do it.
10A, please.
All right.
I'll bring this 10A, and I'll hand the mic off
to our environmental scientist, Dr. Jules Kelly,
to start the staff presentation.
Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
Item 10A is an application by Pacific Shellfish, formerly
co-seafoods, to continue cultivating oysters in Humboldt
Bay for another 10 years.
Pacific Shellfish has maintained aquaculture operations
in Humboldt Bay since the 1950s
and has obtained several coastal development permits
from the commission, most recently in 2017.
Pacific's amendment request before you today
is to extend the term of its 2017 permit for 10 years
to continue operating within the same areas
currently in use.
No expansion or major change to the operation is proposed.
I'd now like to introduce our Sea Grant State fellow Katie Barr.
Katie has been instrumental in our review of this application, and
will guide you through the remainder of the presentation.
Thank you, Jules.
Next slide, please.
This map highlights the tide lands that Pacific shellfish either owned or
leases, amounting to nearly half of Arcata Bay's intertidal mud flats.
Though only 6% of this acreage is authorized for growing oysters.
As part of its last several coastal development permits, Pacific has maintained some of its
leases but left them undeveloped, protecting habitat for eelgrass, shorebirds, branch,
and other sensitive species.
Next slide please.
As pictured on the slide, Pacific's Humble operation relies on two methods for growing
oysters, colch on longline and basket on longline.
Each of these methods is authorized at narrow and wide spacing configurations that include
gaps to promote eel grass growth and wildlife access.
The primary goal of Pacific's 2017 project was to reduce and reorganize the footprint
of its aquaculture operation so that it was focused in areas outside eel grass habitat
at a wider gear spacing.
This slide compares Pacific's historic footprint, shown in the hash marks, with the current
consolidated footprint in the solid green and blue polygons.
Under its 2017 CDP, Pacific removed gear from roughly 63 acres and proposed to relocate
about 42 of those acres into areas without sensitive habitat or that still showed the
effects of its historic operations.
Next slide, please.
As part of our review of this permit amendment, Commissioned staff conducted a detailed review
of Pacific's compliance with this 2017 CDP, including multiple site visits.
Staff found that most of the cultivation bed relocation and conversion work authorized
in that permit had been completed.
However, roughly 19 acres of permitted new equipment was not installed.
In addition, one cultivation bed had not been reconfigured to include the wildlife corridors
required by Special Condition 15.
Staff also found that two cultivation beds previously identified for conversion to wider
spacing had not been adjusted and remained at narrow spacing.
To address these issues, staff is recommending that special condition 15 be modified to set
a new deadline for adding the required wildlife gaps and special condition 23 be added to
memorialize Pacific's commitment to continue leaving undeveloped the 19 acres that were
proposed for new cultivation beds in 2017 but were not brought into use.
Next slide, please.
The 2017 CDP also required extensive monitoring of eelgrass and black brant to confirm the
commission's analysis and ensure that Pacific's operation was not resulting in impacts to
eelgrass cover or brant foraging that were greater than those considered by the commission.
Eelgrass is a sensitive subtitle plant and black brant are small migratory geese that
rely heavily on Humboldt Bay's eelgrass during migration.
The permit included several conditions to protect brand and the brand monitoring program
was designed to evaluate if they were able to forage within various types of cultivation
beds.
The eelgrass monitoring was intended to quantify eelgrass cover in shellfish cultural removal
sites and in relocation areas.
Next slide please.
Across the six year monitoring period that began in 2018, eelgrass generally expanded
across North Humboldt Bay, following the 2014-15 Marine
heat wave and drought.
The eelgrass study confirmed that gear removal
and dense eelgrass habitat benefited eelgrass recovery,
while installation of widely spaced gear
did not result in adverse impacts
beyond those considered by the Commission.
For Brant, the monitoring results
indicated that Brant presence was greater in areas
of widely spaced gear compared to plots with narrow space gear.
Overall, the monitoring data demonstrated
that the effects of widely spaced gear were consistent
with those anticipated by the commission
and did not document significant additional impacts.
As such, the design changes required by the commission
in 2017 successfully minimized the gear-related impacts
of Pacific's operations.
Next slide, please.
In addition to proposing to continue those operations,
the requested permit amendment would retain a wide range
of the resource protections established under the 2017 CDP,
including limits on the cultivation footprint
and requirements to keep the remainder of Pacific's
leased and owned tide lands undeveloped.
Additional conditions from the 2017 permit
would also be retained to protect wildlife
by regulating vessel practices,
avoiding herring spawn, and reducing marine debris,
while also maintaining recreational access
through bedmarking and activity limits
during brand hunting days.
Commissioned staff also consulted with the Wiyot tribe
throughout the course of this review
and incorporated the tribe's requested modifications
to the cultural resource protection conditions.
Next slide, please.
In conclusion, with the existing, modified,
and new special conditions, staff
recommends that the proposed amendment would be carried out
consistent with the Coastal Act and recommends
the commission approve CDP 917-0646A5 as conditioned.
The motion and resolution are on page 4
and staff are available for questions.
In addition, an addendum was prepared and posted
to the online agenda to address correspondence received
after publication of the staff report,
we'd also like to note that we're revising
the total acreage of cultivation areas
and special condition two and table two
to reflect Pacific's proposal
to use approximately 260 total acres,
including 208 acres of narrow gear spacing
and approximately 10 acres of wide gear spacing.
Thank you.
Okay, great, thank you so much.
Are there any ex partes?
Seeing none, any public comments?
I guess we have one speaker, Eric Mills.
And then Eric, you should be able to be moved in
as a panelist, there you go.
All right, Eric, when you're able to,
please unmute and begin.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Eric Mills.
I'm the General Counsel and Director of Legal Affairs
for Pacific Shellfish.
On behalf of Pacific and our whole team over here,
I'd like to express our support
for the staff recommendations.
We truly appreciate the collaborative work
with the Coastal Commission.
and look forward to continuing our operations
on Humboldt Bay and serving as a responsible steward
of the Bay.
As the staff report notes,
we are not proposing any changes to our operations
as part of this permit renewal.
And in fact, they're committing not to pursue
certain possible expansions of growing areas.
We are in agreement with the proposed permit conditions,
believe they are appropriate
and have no concerns about implementing them.
Again, I cannot say thank you enough
to the commission staff for all their hard work
and cooperation to understand our operations
and work with us to get this right.
It has been a pleasure working together.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have no other speakers.
Great.
Thank you so much.
Returning to the Commission.
Comments, questions, or a motion?
Anybody?
The motion is on page 4.
Thank you so much.
I move that the Commission approved Coastal Development
Permit Amendment number 917-06-4685
pursuant to the staff recommendation staff recommends the yes vote I will
second that the motion by Commissioner O'Malley I second it seconded it we're
asking for a yes vote may we have a roll call please Commissioner Escalante yes
Escalante yes Commissioner Hart yes Hart yes Commissioner Jackson Jackson yes
Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly yes. Commissioner Lee. Yes. Lee yes. Commissioner Oglesby. Aye.
Oglesby yes. Commissioner Kalmick. Aye. Kalmick yes. Commissioner Nothoff. Aye.
Nothoff yes. Commissioner Moreno. Moreno yes. Moreno yes. Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson stepped out. Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley yes. Commissioner or Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Great.
Thank you.
The application is approved.
I think with that we need a little break.
So we're going to break here for lunch.
We'll see everyone back at 1 p.m., please.
Thank you so much.
Okay.
Thank you, everyone.
Thanks for your patience.
I hope you all had a nice lunch.
We will return to our agenda and continue on with item 10B, please.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
For item 10B, I'd like to invite our staff ecologist,
Kaylee Griffith, to join us via Zoom
for the staff presentation.
Hello, how's my audio?
Yep, clear.
Great, and we have a presentation.
Give us just a second here.
Give us a second, it's taking a moment to load on the screen.
Give us a moment, the presentation computer has frozen,
so just a second.
All right, all right, um, here we go. Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and Commissioners.
This is item 10B, the 2026-2028 work plan and budget for independently monitoring and
assessing the Carlsbad Desal Nation Facilities Marine Life Mitigation Project.
Channelside Water Resources, formerly known as Poseidon, operates the Carlsbad Desal Facility
and is responsible for implementing the mitigation project and funding its independent assessment.
to support the city and the
community in California.
Next slide, please.
In 2007 the commission approved
a CDP for construction and
operation of a seawater
desalination facility in
Carlsbad in San Diego County.
That permit required the
development of a marine life
mitigation plan to address
adverse impacts caused by the
facility's permitted average
gallons of seawater. Two main adverse impacts were identified. First, the facilities open ocean
seawater intake system and train small marine organisms, plankton, eggs and larvae, which
results in a substantial loss of marine life and productivity. And second, the discharge of
concentrated brine from the facility extends along the beach in nearshore waters, also resulting in
adverse impacts to marine life. Next slide. To mitigate for these impacts to marine life,
the commission required the restoration of several dozen acres of estuarine wetland habitat.
Channel site proposed to meet this requirement through the Otay River Estuary Restoration Project
in South San Diego Bay near Chula Vista and Imperial Beach. This project consists of
restoration of two sites within a complex of evaporation ponds formerly used for the commercial
production of salt. The sites are now part of the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge and are
owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The commission approved a CDP for the
proposed restoration at these sites in May 2019. To evaluate the success of the mitigation project,
Channel 5 was also required to fund technical oversight and independent monitoring of it.
Next slide. Construction activities for the mitigation project began in 2022 and site
grading earthwork were completed in early 2025. The work was slowed by seasonal limits on using
heavy equipment within the wildlife refuge during the nesting season for its sensitive bird species
as well as by issues with the type and quantity of soils and fill material.
Channel site is now planning to begin installation of vegetation on the sites in the coming months
and completed within the first quarter of 2029. On the independent monitoring side the independent
scientists includes coordination with the project's scientific advisory panel and commission staff,
explored new methods for measuring performance standards, worked with the advisory panel to
to recommend reference sites for the executive director's approval and let the development
of the 26-28 work plan and budget and is now hired staff to assist with the monitoring efforts.
Next slide.
The proposed two-year work plan and budget before today provides the task and cost estimate
for work to be completed from September 2026 through December 2028.
Primary tasks for this work plan and its budget include finalizing monitoring design and its
performance standards, beginning full-scale monitoring and piloting new methods, developing
a data management system, and hiring seasonal staff and establishing a workspace near the
mitigation sites. Notable differences from previous work plans include first a change
to project administration to a calendar year basis resulting in a work plan that is four months longer
than the previous one, vegetation monitoring that begins in 2028 to reflect the status and progress
of vegetation planting at both of the mitigation sites and sharing reference site data and costs
with the songs wetland mitigation program. Because of the rarity of coastal wetlands in
Southern California and low number of sites appropriate for use as reference sites, three
of the Otai River Estuary Restoration Projects reference sites are also used in the songs
mitigation project. And at commission staff suggestion, Channel Side and Southern California
Edison, are piloting an arrangement to collect a single set of biological monitoring data
from three reference sites and sharing the costs. If it proves effective at avoiding adverse impacts
to wildlife and habitat associated with duplicate sampling of the same reference sites and contributes
to operational efficiencies for the two programs, Commission staff expects it to be continued in
future budgets and work plans. And lastly, due to the delays described before associated with
soil and planting much of the previous budget was not spent as planned and will be rolled over
and applied to the current budget. The total funding requested to implement the independent
monitoring program is $5,346,821 over 28 months. I would also note that we received several comment
letters on this item that have been posted to the online agenda and we also prepared an addendum to
summarize and respond to these comments and to make clarification to the SAP report regarding the
the total mitigation requirement. While two of the comment letters we receive raise concerns
about the pace of ChannelSides progress on its mitigation project, no opposition was
received on the proposed work plan or budget for you today. Next slide. In closing, I would
like to note that we've worked closely with ChannelSides on the development of this work
plan and budget and are pleased to note that ChannelSides supports the Commission's approval.
With that, Commission staff would like to ask that the Commission vote to approve funding
for the 26th through 28th work plan
for Tranoside's Otai River Estuary Restoration Project
independent monitoring program.
The resolution can be found in page four of the SAC report.
And thank you, that concludes my presentation
and we do have Dr. Laura Coutine,
the project's independent scientist
and Tranoside leadership available for questions.
Great, thank you very much.
I will return to the commission
and see if there are any expertise.
Okay, Chris Galen to you for public comment.
We have in-person Michelle Peters with Channelside Desal.
And then we'll move on to Lori Koteen,
Rachel Stewart and Courtney Brown.
Good afternoon, I'm Madam Chair Harmon and commissioners.
My name is Michelle Peters and I'm the Chief Executive
Officer for Channelside Water Resources.
First, I'd like to thank the commission staff
for their hard work and collaborative efforts
as we prepare for the next stage of activities
at the OTAI Estuary Restoration Project here.
Secondly, I would like to reiterate
Channelside's commitment to fulfilling
our mitigation obligations
and to delivering ultimately a successful
mitigation project.
While Channelside previously shared
with the commission staff some questions and concerns
associated with the scope of the 2026 and 2028
monitoring work plan and budget,
specifically that we do not think that the scope is,
The full scope is applicable until all planting is completed.
Ultimately, we have accepted and support the proposed work
plan and budget as described in the commission staff report
as an effort to further demonstrate
our continued collaboration and coordination.
Additionally, while the agenda topic here
is for the budget and work plan for the independent monitoring
of the Oatite River Estuary Restoration Project,
Channel site understands that there
may be questions related to the current status of the project
as well as the overall projected schedule
for the completion of the planting activities.
Therefore, I thought it would be appropriate
to provide the commission with an update
on the schedule here for our project.
As staff noted here, we have overcome several challenges
both in the planning and in the earthwork and construction
and currently right now in the planting phase.
Due to elevated soil salinity levels
at both the floodplain and pond 15 mitigation sites,
We were unable to proceed with planting efforts in the 2025
to 2026 construction season.
However, as soil salinity levels have since decreased
in certain areas, ChannelSight has worked extensively
with the commission staff to develop a selective planting
plan that will allow us to proceed with planting efforts
to begin at the floodplain site later this year.
With that, thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Lori, co-team?
I don't have a public comment, but I'm
available for any questions when they lead
and monitor on the program.
All right, thank you.
And then Rachel Stewart and Courtney Brown,
I'm moving in as panelists now.
Rachel Stewart, when you're able to please unmute
and begin.
Good afternoon.
My name is Rachel Stewart and I'm the programs manager
with the Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation or SURF.
SURF appreciates the work that the staff,
the scientific advisory panel and independent scientists
have put into overseeing this mitigation program.
We are not here to oppose the work plan before you today,
but we think that there is an important issue
that still has not been fully addressed.
As we understand it, restoration work was supposed to begin
in October 2021, but did not start until about a year later.
And during that time, the desalination facility
continued operating while the required mitigation
was delayed.
SIRF's concern is straightforward.
The impact of the delay remains unclear.
The restoration project is moving forward now,
which we can appreciate,
but we're still left with the question
of whether the mitigation program will fully make up
for the period when restoration had not yet begun.
As the commission considers this work plan,
we hope to see more clarity
on how that delay will be addressed and accounted for.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Courtney Brown.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Courtney Brown,
staff attorney with San Diego Coastkeeper,
thank you so much. All right.
Thank you for speaking today on
channel sites mitigation
program. I do want to say
thank you to staff for your
responses to our previously
submitted comments on this item.
We do appreciate the
confirmation that channel sites
mitigation sites are still
required to meet performance
criteria for the same number of
years the facility operates
even if the plant stops
operating. That is meaningful
reassurance. While the history
We really can't talk about the latest mitigation work plan without addressing
Channelside's long track record of over-promising and under-delivering at
the expense of coastal resources. The mitigation plan was approved in 2008,
then nearly revoked in 2009 over inaccurate calculations provided by
Channelside, then Poseidon. It took them nearly a decade to apply for a CDP to
construct the mitigation project, which wasn't approved until 2019, and as we
construction didn't start until Fall 2022 and wasn't completed until last year. Even with the
new schedule staff describes, planting won't be complete until 20 years after the mitigation plan
was first approved. This facility has degraded roughly 100 million gallons of seawater every day
for over a decade, accumulating a deficit of several hundred lost acres of nearshore and
and estuarine productivity, which continues to grow
until mitigation is fully functioning.
We are glad that staff and channel side
are having productive discussions to resolve these issues.
We appreciate the optimism and the assurances,
but we would request any update that staff can share
on any sort of concrete actions being taken related
to the outstanding enforcement action.
Thank you.
Thank you, no more speakers.
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Toyful just quickly appreciate the speakers and want to again reiterate the point that the representative from San Diego Coastkeeper made that the requirement the obligation is for the mitigation to achieve certain established.
Commission approved performance standards and to continue to meet those standards for the same length of time that the facility operates.
because the mitigation is offset,
it's not occurring at the same time
that the plant is operating.
In other words, the plant started operating
before the mitigation came online.
The mitigation would have to continue
for a number of years after the operation of the plant
ceases in order to make up for that time difference.
So that's something I wanted to particularly note
and reinforce.
I'd also note that our primary focus
recent years has been on advancing the mitigation project and addressing the
challenges that have arisen to its its implementation and completion. Now that
the project is on the cusp of its really final significant milestone, which is
completion of vegetation planting, we're renewing our focus and efforts to get
the violation enforcement case resolved. And Channelside has reconfirmed its
commitment to working with us towards that end, which we appreciate. While I
don't have any concrete information to provide in response to the request from
C&E Ocozkeeper, we fully expect that the Commission would have an opportunity to
consider the resolution of that violation in a public hearing, and we look
forward to bringing that forward to you all as soon as we can, and certainly by
the end of the this current work plan a budget that's concludes my comments
thanks okay great thank you so I'll return to the Commission we'll begin
with Commissioner comic thank you chair you brought up the point of the
mitigation will have to outlast the lifetime of the impact if you will the
plant how do we enforce that if the plant and the entity that owns that and
as the permit no longer exists.
Would it not be potentially more feasible
to increase the mitigation?
If it's, you know, we need to do 100 units of mitigation
and 20 of those will be after,
why not do 120 units of mitigation
or something to that effect, right?
Like it seems like at the end of this,
everybody rolls up and there's nobody left
and the community and the environment
get left holding the bag.
Yeah, one thing I would note in response to that concern
is that there's actually two permits here.
One is for operation of the plant
and another for actually construction
and implementation of the mitigation.
And so while the plant may cease operating,
the permit for the mitigation project
would still remain viable.
The other thing I would note
is that we're implementing
the commission approved permits and conditions
as well as the mitigation plan
that the commission authorized.
And so, well, I appreciate those concerns.
I would assume that those are concerns
that the commission at the time in 2019
and back in 2008 considered
and nevertheless supported this approach.
Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Ready to make a motion.
All right, I move that the commission approve
the 2026 to 2028 work plan and budget
for the channel side Carlsbad desalinization
facility mitigation independent monitoring program as recommended by
staff. I recommend a yes vote. I'll second then if I can just briefly to that
state. I appreciate all the work that the staff has done on this. It's a long time
coming. I'm really looking forward to moving forward and thank you especially
for the explanation about the bifurcated permits and how the mitigation
will continue because like Commissioner Comick I was sort of had someone's
concerns and some of the folks he said. So appreciate it and that's my long-winded
one did second thanks thank you very much that's a motion by Commissioner
Wilson a second by Commissioner Malley they're asking for a yes vote then we
have a roll call please Chris yes commissioner Hart yes Hart yes
Commissioner Jackson Jackson yes Commissioner Kelly yes Kelly yes
Commissioner Lee yes Lee yes Commissioner Oglesby aye Oglesby yes
Commissioner Calmyk. Aye. Calmyk yes. Commissioner Knothoff. Aye. Knothoff yes.
Commissioner Moreno. Moreno yes. Moreno yes. Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson yes.
Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley yes. Commissioner Escalante. Yeah. Escalante
yes. Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon yes. The vote is a
unanimous. Great the motion carries. Thank you very much. All right we'll
continue on item 11a please mr. Toifel thank you chair Harmon for the
presentation on item 11a I'd like to invite our environmental scientist Dr.
Heather McNair to provide the staff presentation hey thank you good afternoon
chair Harmon and commissioners this next item is a consistency certification from
ocean rainforest before I get started I would like to note that we posted an
addendum to the staff report yesterday that summarizes in response to public
comment and make several small changes to the staff report.
Next slide, please.
In this project, Ocean Rainforest
proposes commercial cultivation of giant kelp
within a 2,000-acre area of federal waters offshore Ventura
County.
This project builds off of an earlier demonstration scale
project that the commission previously reviewed.
Under the current proposed project,
harvested kelp would be transported to Ventura Harbor
for offloading and processing into fertilizer
and other commercial products.
The project would be built in phases
over approximately 10 years,
ultimately resulting in roughly 560 acres
of cultivation space
operating across the full 2,000 acre site.
By total area,
this would be the largest marine aquaculture facility
in the United States.
And this is the largest facility
off of California's waters.
Next slide.
Before discussing coastal resources effect, I want to briefly highlight the Commission's
jurisdiction for today's action.
This is a federal consistency review, meaning the standard of review is the enforceable
policies of the California Coastal Management Program.
The Commission's review of this project is triggered by ocean rainforest application
for a federal permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
If the Commission conditionally concurs, as recommended by staff, those conditions would
be incorporated into the core permit.
Today's review covers the full 2,000-acre project, but because it would be developed
in phases, the applicant has committed to receiving review and approval from the Corps
of Engineers and the executive director prior to the installation of each phase.
Next slide.
The project site is located in the eastern Santa Barbara channel, 6.3 miles west of Ventura
Harbor.
The water depth is roughly 115 feet and the seafloor consists of soft sediments.
Next slide please.
Ocean Rainforest selected this location because the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
NOAA, identified it as among the least conflicted based on a spatial analysis of roughly 200
data layers, including navigational routes, fishing activity, biological resources, military
resources, scientific sampling stations, and offshore oil and gas infrastructure.
Next slide.
Ocean Rainforest has designed this project based on lessons learned from their demonstration
project that was conducted offshore of Santa Barbara between 2023 and 2025.
Like the demonstration project, kelp would be grown on a series of units comprised of
horizontal cultivation lines suspended 15 to 30 feet below the sea surface by buoys.
The units would be secured in place by 26 drag embedded anchors.
A single unit would have a surface footprint of roughly 27 acres, and a seafloor footprint
of roughly 78 acres due to the angled placement of the anchoring lines.
Next slide.
Importantly, Ocean Rainforest is proposing a phased implementation of the project through
four separate phases, with a potential full scale of the project at 2,000 acres.
These build out will allow Ocean Rainforest to determine if it will proceed to a next
phase and to facilitate monitoring and assessment of environmental conditions before proceeding
to the next phase.
Advancement to each phase would require approval from the Executive Director and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
At full build out, the project would include 21 cultivation units evenly distributed within
the project site.
The initial phase would be in place for a minimum of three years of operation.
After the initial phase, each new phase would be in place for a minimum of two years before
the next phase can advance.
Under the proposed phasing timeline, full bedat is expected to occur no sooner than
ten years after the initial installation.
Next slide.
As proposed by Ocean Rainforest and formalized through Condition 2, advancement from one
project phase to the next would require a so-called phased gate review. Ocean
rainforest would submit a notice to proceed request to the executive
director with materials demonstrating compliance confirming that coastal
effects remain within those evaluated in this review and documenting
stakeholder engagement and wildlife protection performance. Next slide please.
Each phase gate review would include summaries of compliance, incident logs,
and infrastructure monitoring, analysis of environmental monitoring results,
engagement summaries, particularly with the local fishing community, updated
operational plans, an updated decommissioning surety instrument, and a
detailed plan for the next phase. As part of the executive director's phase
gate review, commission staff would present an informational update at a
commission meeting summarizing ocean rainforest compliance, engagement, and
monitoring results. If her review indicates that changes in project
operations or coastal effects are beyond what was originally evaluated, the
executive director may withhold approval of the next phase and pursue a
supplemental consistency review or other appropriate action. Next slide. The
project has the potential to affect several coastal resources and uses. Key
concerns include increased entanglement risk for marine wildlife and effects on
commercial and recreational fishing. Additional potential effects include
anchor related disturbance on benthic habitats, changes to pelagic water
quality and primary productivity from kelp cultivation, navigational hazards
and spill related hazards associated with project vessels. Next slide. The
project would be located in an area of high marine ecological value. The Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary and Channel Islands National Park are
nearby, along with several marine reserves and conservation areas.
The project also overlaps with important habitat for humpback and gray whales and is known
to support high densities of marine mammals.
The presence of this wildlife raises the potential for entanglement with project structures,
vessel strikes, and disturbance from operations.
Here I will focus on entanglement.
Next slide.
The project's extensive system of ropes and lines, including roughly 150 miles of cultivation
increases entanglement risk, particularly for large whales. Entanglement and fishing gear and marine
debris is a major source of injury and mortality for marine mammals. In its biological opinion for
the project, the National Marine Fisheries Service identified humpback and gray whales as the most
at-risk species due to overlapping habitat and humpback behavior to seek out and roll in kelp.
However, known instances worldwide of whale entanglement with aquaculture gear are rare,
And NIFS ultimately concluded that entanglement probability with a project is very low.
Next slide.
Ocean rainforest has also incorporated numerous design and operational measures into this
project to minimize entanglement risk.
These include maintaining taut, large gauge lines to reduce slack, marking and inventorying
all deployed gear to help identify if any becomes lost, and a commitment to ensure it
does not cause a net increase in marine debris by recovering or offsetting any lost material
that it is not able to recover.
Ocean Rainforest also proposes to visit the site four to five times per month and conduct
monthly infrastructure monitoring to help ensure the facility's structural integrity.
It has also established entanglement response protocols and wildlife training programs for
staff.
The project's phased implementation will help verify the effectiveness of these measures
And staff's analysis indicates that they would minimize the project's entanglement risk to marine wildlife.
Next slide.
Next slide, please.
The Santa Barbara Channel supports diverse commercial and recreational fisheries vital to the regional coastal economy.
Ocean rainforest selection of a site identified through NOAA's siting process reduced,
but could not fully eliminate the project's anticipated impact to commercial fisheries.
Fishing data show that trawl fisheries, such as those for Ridgeback Prawn and
California Halibut and several of the gear types, have the highest number of
annual transit near the project area. The presence of the proposed project
would directly displace these fisheries. Next slide. To estimate the economic
impacts of this displacement, staff determined how much fishing area would
be lost by each phase of the project and how much that area contributed to total
catch value. Under full build-out, fish landings are estimated to decrease by
approximately $52,000 per year. This may be an overestimate because it assumes
fishermen cannot make up the catch somewhere else. However, it also assumes
that the total value of fishing activities can be represented by
landings, which in reality only represents a portion of the contribution
to the community. Research on displacement around other offshore
infrastructure indicates that economic impacts tend to be greatest during the
initial one to three year period as fishermen adapt to a project. However,
the ability to adapt relies on their being suitable alternatives that include
fishable area and non exclusionary competition. Next slide. To address
fishing impacts, Ocean Rainforest and staff developed a fisheries mitigation
plan and funding agreement detailed in condition 12. This would establish a
resiliency fund to support affected fishing communities as they adapt to the
project. The funding plan follows the intent of the Commission approved
statewide strategy for coexistence of California fishing communities and
offshore wind. Funds could support projects or programs that enhance the
economic viability and sustainability of the affected fisheries. An administrative
entity would hold the funds and allocations would be determined by a
Committee of Fishermen representing the affected fisheries and communities.
Ocean rainforest would make mitigation payments during the first three years of each project
phase.
Payments reflect the marginal increase in displaced landings and are listed on this
slide.
If the full project is built out, contributions would total approximately $156,650 plus an
inflation factor that would add to the total.
These mitigation measures, along with conditions for maintenance, navigation marking, monitoring,
facility removal, financial assurance, gear damage claims, and resiliency and funding
for fishing operations.
Staff analysis indicates the project would be consistent with the CCMP fishing policies.
To support that phased review process, the project is guided by a suite of management
and monitoring plans.
of these plans are included as exhibits and would be finalized through staff report conditions.
These include phased implementation framework, aquaculture gear inspection monitoring and
debris management, environmental monitoring plan, sediment and water quality monitoring
plan, hazardous spill prevention, critical operations and curtailment, marine wildlife
education and training program, lost or damaged fishing gear compensation plan, fisheries
mitigation and funding plan, and a decommissioning plan. With these phased review process and
inclusion of the Commission staff's recommended conditions, Ocean Rainforest's approach supports
responsive management and gradual expansion, requiring each step to demonstrate infrastructure
performance, validated environmental conditions, and continued stakeholder coordination. Next slide.
In closing, as proposed and condition, the project would be consistent
with the enforceable policies of California's coastal management program.
Staff recommends the commission conditionally concur
with consistency certification CC 00125.
The motion is on page five of the staff report.
This ends the staff presentation.
Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much.
Are there any expertes?
Excuse me, seeing none, I'll turn it to Chris.
any public comments? Yes, we have a number of people sign up to speak. We'll
start in the room with Kyra Wallace with Ocean Rainforest. Kyra Wallace. Hi there,
good afternoon commissioners. My name is Douglas Bush and I am the Director of
Operations for Ocean Rainforest Incorporated. I'm joined today by Kyra
Wallace who is our regulatory and engagement lead. In this hearing Ocean
rainforest is requesting your confirmation that our project be for
commercial cultivation of California native macrocystis kelp is consistent
with the policies of the CCMP. But I'd like to take a moment to first back out
to 30,000 feet and sort of reintroduce who we are, why we're doing this, and why
we believe that this project is important to sort of collective goals
for coastal California. Next slide please. Ocean rainforest was founded in 2007 in
the Faroe Islands, shown here on an exceptionally calm summer day. Kelp
cultivation began in 2010 with a cultivation system design emphasizing
scaling, engineering, and safety. The Faroes will in a typical winter experience
three to five hurricane force ocean weather events, with accumulated
recognized leadership in the technical aspect of seaweed husbandry, Ocean
Rainforest was invited to examine the feasibility of ocean cultivation of
macrocystis in California, supported by the ARPA-E mariner program. Ocean
Rainforest Incorporated was established in Santa Barbara in 2017. So what is it
that we intend to do with this harvested kelp biomass? Next slide please. This
This World Bank graphic is fairly famous in the seaweed circles.
It shows a projected execution timeline of seaweed subsectors, including animal feeds,
nanomaterials, nutraceuticals, methane mitigators.
Agricultural biostimulants are shown in the upper left corner, indicating a short-term
development horizon and a projective sustainability impact.
Ocean Rainforest is working on precision extractions of unique bioactive compounds from kelp.
These compounds have been shown in many crops to improve nutrient uptake efficiency, to
improve heat and drought and salinity stress resilience, and to reduce reliance on synthetic
inputs.
In Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, the iconic strawberry and avocado crops occupy
combined around 50,000 acres in those two counties alone and have an annual economic
contribution to those two counties of $1.96 billion as of the 2024 crop reports.
In California, agriculture is extremely pressured and increasingly so through factors both related
to climate and cost.
Kelp biostimulants are one, just one, but an important one tool that can assist California
agriculture in meeting resiliency goals, particularly if the kelp that is used as
the input material for that task is locally sourced in a sea to soil model.
Next slide please. By placing this proposed project in NOAA aquaculture
opportunity areas adjacent to the Ventura Harbor, we have the opportunity
to make this a hyper local circular proposal. Cultivate kelp in the near
offshore, fixing from an oversupply of dissolved nutrient and inorganic carbonates, and create
a specialized, harvestable kelp resource.
Land and process the kelp at the Ventura Harbor, diversify the portfolio of sustainably managed
commerce, which is supported by the harbor's essential infrastructure, and contribute meaningfully
to a working waterfront model that is viable for the future.
powerful kelp bioactives to the crops that are literally in the backyard of the central coast.
Between carbon depleted returning carbon to carbon depleted soils and playing an active role
in coastal ag food system resilience. I'll turn it up now to Kyra Wallace to talk about safety,
transparency and phasing. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners, thank you Doug for
for that introduction.
I'll do you next slide, please.
So as Doug mentioned, kind of the higher level topics
of why we're proposing this project,
I wanted to go back a little bit
into the more recent history of ocean rainforest
to explain how we got to this commercial scale proposal.
And we started back in 2021
with the first few cultivation lines
that were associated with the Santa Barbara
Mariculture Site in Santa Barbara.
We then graduated to our own site,
which was the demonstration site, 86-acre,
research-only cultivation site,
approximately four miles offshore of Santa Barbara.
And that's where we were really able to validate
the design of the actual infrastructure
in some real open ocean conditions.
After operating that site for approximately 31 months,
we validated a lot of different aspects of the project,
tested different cultivation methods, monitoring protocols,
and also influenced some of the changes
that we incorporated into this proposed commercial scale
project.
So it was directly influencing the design.
That project was decommissioned in 2025,
where we removed all of the cultivation infrastructure, which
leads us now to present day with this project.
And as was described before, it is a phased implementation.
And so the first phase being a very reasonable step up
from the demonstration scale that we were previously
operating at, with approximately 54 acres of cultivation
at that first scale and moving only onto the next phases,
once monitoring data and project performance
validate scaling up to that next phase.
And again, at that full phase,
with all four phases constructed,
we would be operating approximately 560 acres
for cultivation of the 2,000 acres
so that there's room for navigational lanes and buffer zones
that other ocean users can use
to move through the project safely.
And so throughout this process,
each previous step has informed the following step
and lessons learned have been incorporated
into those project plans.
Next slide, please.
And so the project itself is designed
to avoid and mitigate impacts.
It's built into the structure itself.
And I wanted to highlight three of the monitoring plans,
three out of the nine that Heather was listing previously.
The first being the environmental monitoring plan.
Click once, please.
And that's where the entanglement prevention measures live, making sure that all of the
lines associated with the infrastructure remain connected and under high tension to reduce
those entanglement risks.
It also includes invasive species monitoring and native fish spawning detection so that
we're keeping track of the species that we find out at the site.
Click once, please.
We also have our aqua culture gear inspection monitoring and marine debris management plan.
And this is what establishes the gear inspection protocols, the frequency.
This includes both below surface ROV surveys, above surface drone surveys, again, to make
sure that all the infrastructure is performing correctly.
It also houses the marine debris prevention, which as mentioned previously ensures that
there's a net zero gain of marine debris in the Santa Barbara channel from this project.
We also have our biofouling and gear replacement management, so that we're keeping biofouling
to a minimum and ensuring that gear is replaced
on schedule based on its expected lifespan
as well as observed conditions.
And then lastly, I wanna highlight the sediment
and water quality monitoring plan.
Click once please.
This is what establishes the baseline conditions
out at the site including both for the bentos
or the sea floor condition and the water quality
as well as the continual monitoring
of those conditions throughout operations
so that we have a very strong indication
of before and after comparisons.
And with that, I'll go next slide, please.
So we are working with existing ocean users on this project.
We have ongoing conversations with local commercial fishing
groups, specifically the Ventura County Commercial
Fishermen's Association, conversations
around how we can best collaborate and minimize
impacts to their industry.
We've spoken about various different ideas,
including utilizing existing commercial fishing
fleet for seasonal work such as for seaweed harvesting or offloading in the
harbor, coordinating on establishing transit routes between the Ventura and
the project sites so that fishermen know where they can expect to find our boats.
We've spoken about collaboration on potential future kelp restoration
projects because we have kelp cultivation expertise and access to
hatchery facilities. And then of course as laid out in Special Condition 12 we
We do have the establishment of a fishing resiliency fund which is designed as a mitigation
tool but also is meant to promote a collaborative relationship with the industry moving forward.
Next slide please.
I just wanted to very quickly highlight who was on board.
We have a very broad support base for this project as you'll see reflected in the public
comments received on the agenda item ranging from local government to NGOs to researchers
to industry and I just want to say a quick thank you to those who provided comment and
expressed their support. Next slide please. With that I want to say thank you commissioners
for your time. Thank you to commission staff for all of your help in getting us to this
point in the project and myself and Doug are available for questions if you have any. Thank
you. Alright thank you. I will also note that we have Javier Infante on Zoom with the Ocean
Rainforest also available for questions. Next we will begin with our Zoom speaker
starting with Jesus Rios who I believe is from the Office of Assemblymember
Greg Hart. After Jesus will be Sierra Club California Coastal Committee which
will include a group of speakers and then Stephanie Caldwell, Dave Kolker and
Jesus it looks like you're ready to go. You may go ahead.
Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners. My name is A.D. Cerrios and I'm here on behalf of Assemblymember Greg Hart regarding Ocean Rainforest Proposed Offering Culp Cultivation Project.
Culp is an important part of the health and resilience of California's Culp ecosystems. Responsible Culp Cultivation presents an opportunity to advance climate resilience support innovation research and grow California's sustainable blue economy.
economy as California continues working to protect our oceans and prepare our
coastal communities from the impacts of climate change but I just like this
offering an opportunity to explore how conservation and responsible economic
development can work together. We respectfully ask the commission
to give full and fair considerations to the ocean rainforest proposal and its
potential to advance responsible cultivations, strengthen climate
resilience and support California's growing blue economy. Thank you for your
time consideration. Thank you. Next is our group of speakers from the Sierra Club.
We have Katie Wagner, Nancy Okada, and Leslie Purcell. It was unclear which
order you wish to speak in, but we have your joint presentation. Thank you and we
each logged in separately. Do you see us all? And if so, Leslie Purcell will go
first, then Nancy Okada and myself. Okay, that sounds good. Leslie, you should be
in as a panelist?
Okay, hi. Leslie Purcell, I am a Sierra Club Coastal Committee
member and a Ventura resident and Sierra Club appreciates the
staff report detail and special conditions regarding ocean
rainforest aquaculture project aim to reduce the project's
impacts to marine resources, fishing and navigation is
laudable. However, significant questions remain given the
unprecedented scale of this proposed project with the problems and history of the previous pilot
project. For these reasons we oppose this project in its current form. Could I have slide two?
Oh no, yeah. First the project may increase entanglement risk for whales and other marine
wildlife. Santa Barbara Channel which includes Ventura area is used by gray humpback blue and
thin whales, dolphins, pinnipeds, sea turtles, and seabirds on aquaculture operation with more than
150 miles of cultivation lines in such a vibrant ocean environment warrant careful consideration.
Probability and consequences of component failures and wildlife interaction may be severe.
From the beginning of the project, cumulative impacts on the marine environment must be monitored,
providing additional essential and updating necessary protections.
The speed of nearby vessels projected additional 800 trips a year may cause injury and fatalities
to marine mammals. The staff report says that when whales are in the vicinity,
aquaculture vessels will reduce speeds to 12 knots. However, based on the successful statewide
Blue Whales Blue Skies program, we recommend vessel speeds to be 10 knots for the protection
of the whales. As shown in Exhibit 5 of the staff report, the proposed project is within
the gray whales migratory area, including migrating with offspring, and within the edge
of humpback whale feeding area. The project is also very close to blue whale parent feeding
area, as well as near-to-fin whales. Okay. I just wanted to mention that Nancy Okada
next? Yes, we have Nancy Okada and then Katie Wagner. Okay, thank you. Next slide
please. The massive size of this commercial aquaculture operation must be
reconsidered. Ocean Rainforest Demonstration Project was within an 86
acre site. This commercial project encompasses 2,000 acres or 3.125 square
miles. That's more than 23 times the pilot project area. In fact, the smaller project
in place for two years experienced equipment failure. Its four-float buoys detached and
one corner marker buoy detached twice. Biofouling contributed to both the float failures and
corrosion of mooring hardware detaching the corner marker. Although the buoys were recovered
and materials maintenance practices modified, these events prove component failure is not
merely a hypothetical.
So the central question is does a two-year 86-acre pilot project in a different area
of Santa Barbara Channel provide an adequate basis to predict performance of a 2,000-acre
long-term commercial installation closer to Ventura Harbor?
Why is there a rush to farm the sea as climate change increases ocean temperature, severe
storms and alters marine habitats in ways we have never seen before?
And let's look at the economic impact.
A full build out staff simplified analysis notes 7% of fishing block 665 could no longer
be fished commercially.
The proposed lost or damaged fishing gear recovery plan also recognizes lost revenue
with a compensation process for both commercial and recreational fishermen whose gear is lost
or damaged.
And I'll now pass it on to Katie Wagner.
Thank you.
Next slide, please.
All right.
Staff points out the cultivation structures may aggregate fish, thus increasing recreational
fishing around the facility, yet ocean rainforest does not propose prohibiting recreational
fishing in an area where there may be potential hazards.
The staff report recognizes the entanglement and navigation hazards that buoys, ropes,
anchors, and displaced components create, which raises an important question under the
Coastal Act.
If the facility attracts fish and, therefore, recreational fishermen, how will those fishermen
safely use an area containing extensive submerged infrastructure?
The Commission should determine how much of the 2,000-acre site will remain safely usable
for recreation.
The staff report does not contain a dedicated Code 30244 analysis.
concern is not merely theoretical. B.O.E.M. has recently studied submerged paleo landscapes
around California's northern Channel Islands because post-glacial sea level rise inundated
former terrestrial landscapes that may preserve evidence of early human occupation. The proposed
project site averages 115 feet in depth and full build out would place hundreds of drag
embedment anchors into the seafloor across the project area. Before concurring, we asked
for confirmation that the required Section 106 review has been completed, including a
submerged archeological or paleocultural resource survey, whether prehistoric shoreline information
has been evaluated in selecting anchor locations, and what avoidance and stop work procedures
will apply if previously unknown inundated cultural resources are encountered.
Given the unprecedented scale of this project, we urge the Commission to require a data-driven
implementation process and clear answers to the following questions.
equipment failure rate should reasonably be expected over the commercial life of the facility?
Was the reasonable worst case scenario if multiple components failed during a major storm?
What happens when lost or displaced equipment cannot promptly be recovered?
What additional risks are presented to whales and other marine wildlife as deployed
infrastructure and vessel traffic increases? How will displacement affect neighboring
commercial fishing grounds? What navigation risks will result from the infrastructure
and approximately 800. Thank you. Next we will have Stephanie Caldwell followed by Dave Colker
and then Lauren Witt. Stephanie Caldwell. Thank you. My name is Stephanie Caldwell and I serve
as the president and CEO of the Ventura Chamber of Commerce. I'm here in strong support of Ocean
Rainforest's proposed Ventura Offshore Culp Cultivation Project. For more than a decade,
Ventura has been working to advance a sustainable blue economy that creates jobs, supports innovation
and protects our coastal resources.
Since 2016, the Ventura Ports District
and many community partners
have invested significant effort
in positioning Ventura Harbor
as a hub for ocean-based industries and research.
What once seemed like a bold vision
is now becoming a reality.
The Ventura Chamber was an early supporter
of sustainable aquaculture
because we recognized its potential
to create economic opportunity
while advancing environmental stewardship.
When we learned about ocean rainforest
and their successful work
cultivating seaweed in other regions, we were excited at the possibility of bringing that
expertise to Ventura. This project represents more than just a kelp farm. It represents the
opportunity to establish an entirely new industry in our region, one that will create quality jobs,
support local businesses, attract investment, and strengthen Ventura Harbor as a center for
marine innovation. It also has the potential to provide meaningful benefits to the California
agriculture through seaweed-based products and soil amendments, creating valuable connections
between two of our state's most important economic sectors.
Just as importantly this project reflects the kind of forward-thinking
environmental leadership California should champion.
CELP cultivation can contribute to healthier oceans,
support climate resilience, and expand opportunities for scientific research
and education. It is a model for how economic
development and environmental sustainability
can work hand in hand. What makes this project especially compelling is that it
builds upon Ventura's natural strengths, our working waterfront, our entrepreneurial spirit,
our agricultural heritage, and our commitment to ocean stewardship. Ocean rainforest has
demonstrated a willingness to engage with stakeholders and develop a project that can
coexist responsibly. Ten years from now, I hope we will look back at this decision
as the beginning of something transformative for Ventura and California's coast. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Dave Kolker, Lauren Witt and then Rocio Lozano-Nolton, Dave Kolker.
Yeah, thank you, Commissioner. And thank you to the staff for your thoughtful consideration
with your recommendation for including the impact to the commercial fishing industry.
Dave Kolker, executive director of the Ventura County Commercial Fishermen's Association.
We still have a strong line of opposition to the project based on the loss of territory.
However, the usage of any aquaculture opportunity areas in our opinion is better
least out to Kelp and Mollusk farming rather than finfish. Another topic there, but back to
our position here, we do support the staff's recommendation with a caveat that we haven't
finished meaningful mitigation conversation and are not willing to accept the current
mitigation set out in the report. We do have some work to do there, but with ocean rainforest being
actively engaged with us, believe that we could get to a point if that's something that's needed.
to note that also here that this isn't just about a selfish
attitude for our fishermen, our commercial guys and our
industry, but has a broader impacts including to support
businesses and it's just as important as our local
communities access to high quality, high protein, non-GMO
food source with a lower carbon footprint as compared to
imported supply. Both Doug and Kyra have our contact info and
I'm happy to share mine and also I'll stick on the line if
you have any questions. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Lauren Witt, and then Rocia Lozano-Nolton. Laura Witt, go ahead.
Hello, Commissioners. My name is Lauren Witt. I'm the Legal and Policy Intern with the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin.
We protect biodiversity and coastal ecosystems in Marin, and we also run a statewide aquaculture coalition.
Some of our NGO partners have also been in contact with ocean rainforest, and we appreciate their willingness to dialogue with conservation groups and their transparency.
We appreciate that the commission addressed project decommissioning in the staff report.
Additionally, thank you to the commission for discussing whale entanglement in the staff
report. However, we do remain concerned that this could still be a risk and that the conditions do
not prescribe any specific consequences in the event of an entanglement of a whale or other
wildlife. We would like to see an additional condition to address this like paying into a
mitigation fund and or a commitment to reopen the concurrence if evidence of wildlife entanglements
becomes apparent. It is important to take precautionary approach when dealing with marine
resources and marine mammal issues. Thank you for your consideration today.
Thank you. Rocio Lozano-Noulton.
Yes, hi. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Rocio Lozano-Noulton. On behalf of the
Medita Foundation board and staff, we support Ocean River Forest proposal with the caveat of
precautionary measures, especially for great well and tank limit, which is feasible,
but we do believe it's very important our mission is to protect the ocean because
Kelp is dying because it's really hot the ocean because all the greenhouse gases, all of these
that we all know, and we work constantly in the Channel Islands and the Aptos down to 90%
in some of the islands. So it also creates diversity and they can serve as stepping stone
for the MPs along the coast of California for species to disperse and repopulate,
so there will be spillover effect and other things that can benefit overall.
Ocean rainforest also supports the blue economy, as mentioned before, it generates local jobs,
innovation, sustainable food and agricultural products, benefiting local communities,
and some of the products. Another issue we see often in the field and we do a lot of community
science and involve the public and participation in scientific research is quality blooms.
So the runoff is a huge problem for Southern California, other parts of California and this
there's other benefits beyond what we see that this organization is actually doing.
And this also the ocean rainforest staff have been exemplary role models for younger generations
to inform and participate in ocean protection and ocean related professions and careers in science
biotechnology and green entrepreneurship. So we have witnessed this and the impact to our students
in demographics not traditionally represented in the fields of ocean of any kind so over the past
two years. So we hope that the Chiropractic Commission concur with the other speakers.
Thank you. We only had one person we weren't able to find on Zoom,
Terry Taminen, who I believe is with the Alta Sea organization.
Terry Taminen, if you are on Zoom, please raise your hand so we can find you.
All right, last call for Terry Taminen. Seeing no hands raised, there are no
more speakers, Madam Chair. Great, thank you very much, Chris. All
All right, with that, I will close public comment
and look to see if our staff would like
to make any closing comments.
Thank you.
We would, thank you.
I'm Holly Weier, I'm a supervisor
in the Energy, Ocean Resources
and Festival Consistency program.
Firstly, we'd like to thank the CRF lab
for their comments and we say that we shared
our concerns about entanglement.
Several features of this project have been designed
to minimize live entanglement risk.
The facility has been designed to prevent
or flexible lines in the water that could form loops or wrap around wildlife.
Holly, sorry, if I can interrupt you, you're not coming through super clearly.
Maybe you hold the mic a little closer.
Is this better?
How about this?
Yeah, and then just maybe a little bit slower.
Okay, sorry everyone.
The facility has also been designed with ropes larger than 1.5 inches in diameter,
which would be held under tension.
This tension configuration would be maintained throughout the entire facility.
Additionally, Condition 1 requires regular infrastructure monitoring and correction of any hazards,
causing imminent entanglement risk within 24 hours.
All other identified hazards must be corrected within 14 days.
We also require infrastructure monitoring post storms.
I remember that one of our commenters mentioned storm concerns that there would be specific trips
out to monitor infrastructure for unhappy adaptive storms.
Condition 3 also includes finalizing the wildlife entanglement monitoring and notification protocols
if wildlife entanglement is observed or suspected. These protocols ensure that Ocean
May Forest staff will follow NOAA guidance, document the encounter, follow the instructions
of authorized response personnel, and provide timely notification to the Commission and to NOAA.
I also wanted to clarify with regard to the vessel fee comments that Condition 6 requires
Project Vessels to comply with no one's
vessel fee production program, which includes limiting vessel fees to 10 knots or less from
May 1 through December 15. Condition 6 also requires that project
vessels limit their fees to 10 knots within 100 yards of solicitation
and 50 yards of a teneted or sea turtle regardless of the time of year.
Thank you. Thank you, Holly. And just to reiterate what Holly said in the beginning,
we thank the Sierra Club for their comments.
Many of these same issues were raised in a written comment
that they submitted on the staff report
and the written comments were provided by staff there
and that resulted in a number of changes to the staff report.
As Holly reiterated, there's a number of entanglement measures
that have been included and protective measures
and there's been this inclusion now
of the reduction in vessel speed.
We'd also like to address the comment from the fishermen
about the ongoing coordination between Ocean Rainforest
and the Ventura Fisherman's Association.
And we are glad to hear of that coordination
and look forward to it continuing
as we put together this resiliency funding.
We'd also like to reiterate that this phased implementation
allows for this continual review
of the impacts from the project
to ensure that they're within the bounds
that are considered today.
So that includes for the fishing association,
for entanglement, for these environmental parameters.
They would all be reviewed, looked at again,
before the project progresses to the next phase.
Thank you.
Great, thank you very much.
With that, I will return to the Commission
and we'll begin with Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
Wow, it's super echoey.
I wanted to express my support generally for the project.
I have to say, I was surprised to see it appear
on our agenda so quickly after we had the hearing
on the pilot project.
And given that there were issues with that
that seemed that remained somewhat unresolved.
And I do think that going from an 86 acre pilot
in one location to a 2000 acre project
a different location is a dramatic increase and I do understand it's phased and I'd love to hear
just a little bit more about that. Just reading the Sierra Club comments and recognizing that
there's 882 buoys 550 anchors, 150 miles of cultivation lines, it's a significant impact
in the area that you're talking about and you know I live up here in Sonoma County where
uh, crabbing is a huge part of our economy and has been basically, uh, crabbing has been stopped
during whale migration periods. So I was wondering if staff could talk about those things that,
number one, just one more clarification, if you would, on the phasing and also how, how, uh,
the awareness of entanglement occurs and how quickly there can be a response to it. I'm very
concerned about entanglement. Understand that the speed reduction is going to be part of this.
So explain the difference between crab pots and this situation and the phasing
and the dramatic increase. Those are my questions.
thank you commissioner heart in response to the phasing a this first phase of the project would
include two of these cultivation units so each cultivation unit is larger than the demonstration
unit but the full project footprint for the first phase is about 190 acres an ocean rainforest would
need to stay and operate the project at that scale for at least three years before they came
back for a phase gate review and approval for the next subsequent phase.
And so during that 36 months of operating the project, they would need to do
facility monitoring, environmental monitoring, and continued communication
with the local communities. So if Ocean Rainforest decides they would
like to proceed to phase two after that, they would come to the executive
director for a review and approval and if everything looks good, is in
compliance, is operating as expected, the next phase would go up to eight
cumulative cultivation units over 760 acres and that would have to operate for
at least 24 months before going to the next phase. Phase 3 would be 15
cultivation units and would again have to operate at 24 months before going to
phase four, and then phase four was when there could be that full build out of 21 units.
Just to expand on that a little bit, under that proposal, the fastest that the full
scale facility could be installed would be 10 years, and that would involve four opportunities
for those phase gate reviews, which would require additional authorization and approval from the
executive director and the US Army Corps of Engineers before they proceed. Those
would be opportunities for the monitoring results and data to be assessed,
compliance to be assessed, any unforeseen issues or unexpected impacts to be
evaluated and acknowledged and resolved. And so it's, while as Ocean Rainforest
described they've started quite small with a with a portion of a facility off
of Santa Barbara and then a pilot facility off of Santa Barbara all told I
think around five years of that and then they would be implementing this this
phased approach for their commercial facility there's still a lot of unknowns
those are different locations for the prior work and so this phased approach
provides an opportunity for continued adaptive management continued
assessment of effects and opportunities to address those effects as they arise,
if they arise.
Do you have information about the, I mean, I understand that these
are taught lines that are permanent, more or less permanent. How is this so
dramatically different than the crabbing operations, that the crabbing operations
are forced to completely cease operation during will migration? Can you, can you
address that or if it's coming. Yeah, thank you Vice Chair Hart. So the two biggest sources
of mortality and injury for whales that were aware of are vessel collisions, particularly
with cargo ships, and then entanglement with fisheries equipment, particularly crab trap
buoy lines and lobster trap buoy lines. So one thing to note about those distinct from
This project is that those buoy lines, one, they're typically in much, much closer to shore in shallower waters where particularly migrating grey whales are at higher densities.
And then secondarily, those lines navigate through the water column in a very loose way. There's typically a lot more line than water depth. And so
it's been recognized that that's one of the leading causes of
entanglement is that there's loops in those lines that there's
just more line that's kind of available. And so one of the most
consistent strategies that's been seen with open ocean
aquaculture gear is maintaining lines in that top fashion. So
it's a rigid line rather than kind of a loop to loose line.
And I would note that while this particular facility is first
of its kind in California, there's very little evidence
that these types of facilities pose an entanglement risk.
There's been very little documentation
of any entanglement events involving
these types of structures.
And as Ocean Rainforest noted, they
have facilities in the Faroe Islands.
There are other facilities in New Zealand
not too dissimilar from this one.
And those types of issues haven't
occurred nearly the same way that lobster and trout fishing
gear has occurred.
And so there's really two key pieces there.
One is the, we're talking about a different location
and a farther off shore site where there's a less,
a lower density of marine mammals and whales.
And then the second is that the actual structure
of the lines in the water column is quite different
than what you see with fishing gear.
And if I could just have one more question, chair.
Could you just describe just very briefly
if there is an entanglement,
How long does it take to determine that?
I mean, I understand that there's regular monitoring,
but let's assume a will is entangled.
What is the process then from that moment forward?
So I'll take a start at that
and ask Dr. McNair to fill in some of the details.
It's my understanding that Ocean Rainforest
would be on site several times a week
to monitor the facility.
In addition to that, however,
They have GPS-enabled buoys around the perimeter,
and so an entanglement event involving such a whale,
such a strong animal would be expected
to displace the facility, and that would be recognized
by a displacement of those buoys,
which would be assessed in real time.
So that could trigger a more immediate response
by ocean rainforest to go out onto the facility.
And I'd note that it's not just for an entanglement event,
A storm could trigger a similar thing, a displacement,
or a break of an anchoring line, something like that.
And that would trigger an immediate inspection.
But Heather?
Yes, I think just adding to Cassidy's point there
that the largest entanglement risk
comes from lines breaking or from the facility
not being maintained in that taut structure.
And so those GPS buoys help ensure
that it is operating and situated the way it's expected.
So if a buoy goes outside of the range
that ocean rainforest has mapped it in,
that would trigger an immediate response to go out
to the facility and see what's happened.
And they would report that back to the commission as well.
OK, thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, just a couple of questions on sort
of taking a sort of different view.
I mean, I appreciate the concerns around entanglement.
I think that's really important.
I think the impacts on folks already working in those spaces,
fishermen already working in space, also important.
But I was just wondering, is in the evaluation or the monitoring
of this new facility or use, are we going to be looking at
Or will there be an assessment of the bioaccumulation of the external species?
And what I'm getting at is colonization, as well as aggregation that may be occurring.
And sort of taking the idea or the viewpoint of like if this was a natural phenomenon,
if it existed, how would we be looking at it differently even from a perspective of
the access for sport fishermen to fish around that.
Which I didn't see any sort of exclusionary zone review
or anything like that.
So it was like, because we see that
in terms of other infrastructure in the ocean,
especially in the Gulf of Mexico and other places like that.
Where the very popular areas to have
those sort of recreational fisheries.
But then also, what's called biofouling on here
is colonization, it could be of species that maybe that you would want.
And I'm just kind of wondering like, will we be evaluating for
its potential positive ends if they exist in this evaluation, thanks.
Yeah, great question, thank you.
Regarding the aggregation of fish, yeah, you're absolutely right.
You put a buoy out in the open ocean and
there's going to be fish inspecting it and starting to aggregate around it.
And so I believe that was observed at the,
the pilot scale facility and would certainly be expected on this facility.
And importantly,
ocean rainforest would not be excluding recreational fishing,
sport fishing around this facility.
And there's certainly a possibility that this could be become a very popular
location for, for fishing due to that aggregation effect that it may be having.
And so in addition to the facility being open
for recreational and sport fishing,
there's also conditions and commitments
from Ocean Rainforest around loss, fishing gear,
and damage to fishing gear,
and compensation program that would be established
around that to ensure that any loss of fishing gear,
damage to fishing gear is compensated.
Regarding biofouling, that would be expected
as well.
And it was something that was noted on the pilot demonstration
facility accumulation of things like mussels, barnacles
on the lines, both the cultivation lines
and the facility backbone lines was occurring.
There's two parts to that.
One, it could be beneficial.
It's providing additional surface area
for accumulation of native marine species
and establishment of them.
but it could also be attracting invasive marine species,
a lot of which are biofouling.
And so that's something we looked at closely
in established protocols around ensuring
that if invasive species do accumulate on this as fouling,
that they're, during the time of harvest,
when the kelp is being harvested,
they're accumulated and disposed of onshore
so that it's not, doesn't become a source for them.
But in terms of the long-term establishment
of kind of an ecosystem around this facility,
Ocean Rainforest will need to kind of keep the facility clean
because too much biofouling can start to degrade and break
the lines or become too heavy and affect
its structural integrity.
And so that's where those protocols around collection
and inspection of the particular fouling communities comes in.
Thanks, that answers my question.
Thank you, Commissioner Moreno.
Thank you.
There was a conversation about rain.
Just correct me if I caught this.
Ocean Rainforest is going to be doing
the monitoring for the potential entrapment of whales, right?
And did I hear you guys say that you guys are
going to utilize drones?
Thank you for your question, Commissioner.
we will be using drones as part
of the regular structural monitoring.
So at a minimum of monthly,
but likely more frequently than that.
Drones would be used to inspect from above
to see if all of the buoys and general structure
is as it should be.
Because from an aerial view, it's fairly obvious
if there's something out of the normal rectangular structure.
So that is part of the normal monitoring.
Can you reiterate what the regular structural monitoring
is gonna comprise of?
Yes, so there's a below surface
and above surface component.
The below surface mainly utilizes ROV.
Basically it's a underwater remote operated vehicle.
So it's about maybe this big.
It's propulsive so you can essentially drive it
with a video game console.
It has video footage on it.
So you can see underwater what condition
the infrastructure is in.
Specifically, that will be used to look at the coupling plates,
so the connection points underwater
between where the different lines go out
in different directions.
And that footage is recorded and made available upon request
to the agencies.
And it's also included in the annual report.
And that ROV is going to be driving around all the time,
or is it going to go out?
That's going to be on a monthly basis, where all of the coupling plates or connection points
will be inspected at least quarterly.
But as the ROV moves around on that monthly basis, it would be able to see any abnormalities.
And it also would be used in association if we do a post-storm inspection, if a GPS buoy
triggers an inspection, if something is, if the GPS says that a buoy is out of place.
So there's some additional times where it may be used to confirm how the infrastructure
is underwater.
Okay, so you're going to have ROVs, you're going to have drones, and the buoys are actually
detecting as well.
Correct.
Any activity.
And I'm assuming the buoys are 24-7.
You guys are getting pinged.
Correct, yeah.
It has real-time location services, and there's essentially a geofence around each buoy, which
which is the expected range of motion
the buoy would have based on currents.
And so if the GPS records a location
outside of that geofence,
that would be a trigger to go inspect
if something is not correct.
Okay, wonderful.
Well, thank you for the,
I forgot to say thank you for the presentation
and also thank you to staff for working on this.
Thank you for answering my questions.
I know there is not a motion on the floor,
but I am prepared to support this item before us today
and see how it goes and then we can monitor it
and either expand or go another route.
So, thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
Yeah, I do think that, you know,
this is, you know, an interesting good direction to go.
I am concerned, I guess, the 12-hour number
that that's as soon as somebody's going to go out there.
And a whale would drown in 12 hours, right?
So I'm kind of stuck on that 12-hour number.
But what I'm hearing is that the difference here
is this is a dense enough structure
that marine mammals will naturally
avoid it because it appears to be a dense structure
underwater, more so than a crab pot.
Is that kind of a theory that they won't try and go through it?
Because I hear that there hasn't been a lot of problems in other places, but I don't
know if they have that they are as such a marine life rich area as this area near the
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary is.
So it's the 12-hour thing, like, you know, there's a lot of fishing operations where
we fishing operations are required to have real-time observers on the boats at all times
to avoid wildlife interactions.
So this one is, there's not going to be anybody there, and the quiz case that somebody could
get there would be 12 hours, so I'm kind of stuck on that.
Thank you Commissioner. I acknowledge that concern and it's something frankly that we
shared and this is part of the reason I think we were so it was so important in our discussions
within ocean rainforest over time to pursue this phased approach starting small in learning
because there are a lot of unknowns.
I just wanted to respond quickly to the question you raised
about if it was the density of the facility
and an expectation that it would be avoided
by marine mammals.
No, that wasn't our expectation.
And that's, I think, the observations
from the pilot facility showed that marine mammals were
in close proximity to that facility.
There's a variety of measures that would be in place
to help minimize the potential for entanglements.
Inspections, maintenance, just the layout
of the facility itself I think is one of the dominant ones.
That in contrast to a lot of fishing gear that's in kind
of this loose, untensioned rope through the water column,
This would be a very different setup.
And that itself is probably the primary means of minimizing
that entanglement risk.
But it would be, if a marine mammal were to be entangled,
then it would be potentially a number of hours
before anybody could respond.
Just to follow up.
So the applicant has agreed to proactively comply
with all of the conditions.
And then what would happen, what's the expectation
between phases?
Say we are observing entanglement in phase one,
would that trigger, you know, we wouldn't move to phase two?
Or what would happen between the phases
if we do observe difficulties?
The ocean rainforest may want to respond to that.
But I'll just kind of start by noting
that if there were an entanglement event,
in addition to commission, the executive director
being informed of that within a short period of time,
Ocean Rainforest would also be obligated
to inform the National Marine Fisheries Service,
NOAA, and the US Army Corps of Engineers.
I think the Corps of Engineers is not expecting
an entanglement event to happen.
It would be a severe impact that would need to be addressed.
There would need to be a reconsideration
of some of these underlying evaluations and assumptions.
And I would expect an investigation
of what the circumstances that contributed to that event
and what could be done to prevent it from happening.
So because the assessment and analysis that we've done
is recognizing that there is a potential there,
but we're not expecting that to happen.
If it did happen, that would be a changed circumstance
and even outside of that phase gate review process
would trigger an ability to reopen this consistency review
and address that situation.
If there isn't a clear way to put more whales in the sea
to offset such an impact, that said,
there are programs that are providing significant benefits
to marine mammals, including vessel speed reduction program
that's now extensive throughout California,
bringing down the speed of large vessels
and reducing vessel strikes,
as well as programs to remove fishing gear
that poses that entanglement risk.
So there are ways to benefit whales directly
if it comes to that.
Could I ask the applicant if you had any experience
with this and what your actions were subsequently?
Thank you, thank you commissioner for the question. Um, we have fortunately not had to mitigate or deal with with an issue like this and we're not aware of issues like you're describing in similar installations around the world were well networked with a broad array of people who are working in the seaweed cultivation space and this is this is not something that is a recurring incident.
One comment I did want to try to introduce and I'm not sure whether this
will assuage your concerns. I mean we are steadfastly you know committed to
transparency and just core values of stewardship here and it's in no one's
best interest for an event like that to occur obviously. There are things that
can't go into special conditions or project design because they're not
necessarily shovel-ready. There we have been the beneficiary of conversations
that are very very innovation focused on things that we can do to mitigate risk
down the road and there's an important element for a project like this to serve
as a resource and a like a test case in a laboratory for for example acoustic
sensors, which we have had interesting conversations with people developing acoustic sensing technology
which could have either preventative or response related, but it's not appropriate to try to
include these in special conditions because they're technology that isn't completely
fleshed out yet, but without an opportunity to put an installation in the water and create
innovative ways to try to mitigate risk,
those things they never get out of first gear.
We never find out if there are effective ways
to mitigate risk in our or other future
infrastructure development type initiatives
that have these challenges.
Okay, thank you.
So I'm hearing you that you are committed
to adaptive management.
100%, 100%.
It's whether there are things that are not yet developed
that could be, you know, out of phase gate analysis,
you know, developed in a grant funded test case
sort of manner or similar,
something that we would be able to bring to staff,
to commissioners and say, look, what we've learned,
this is gonna make it a better installation going forward.
And that level of transparency and back and forth
with staff that have helped us develop these conditions
is I think really key to this phased
and progressive proposal that we're sharing with you.
Okay, thank you very much for your explanation.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks to all the commissioners for their questions
and insights and for the presentation
and comments of the public.
It's definitely a very interesting new technology.
I do recognize the concerns of further mass
industrialization of our oceans,
especially under the new climate realities
and climate conditions that are gonna be
surprising us every year with new challenges
up and down the coast.
So just to close on the issue of entanglement,
which is significant, and I think that
It would be absolutely devastating not just to us
and not just to the public who care about whales,
but also to your business if there were
something of a big mammal getting entangled in that.
So obviously trying to prevent that at all costs is ideal.
So my question is just in terms of logistics,
why is it 12 hours and not a maybe more rapid response?
Thank you for your question, Commissioner.
I think the 12 hours specifically comes from some
of the limitations we have around our operations.
In terms of our permit with the US Army Corps of Engineers,
we'll also additionally need to get permits
from the US Coast Guard, patent permits
for all of the navigational buoys.
Part of those approvals, there are limitations
on when we can operate at the site,
including nighttime limitations.
So we cannot operate during nighttime hours out at the site.
we can only be out there during the day.
So I think the 12-hour provision is meant to sort of
cover the nighttime limitations.
If an incident were to occur during the day,
I think the response would be more immediate
because we would have the ability
to go right out to the site.
So I think the 12 hours is more so stemming
from the nighttime lighting limitations.
Thank you, I appreciate that explanation.
In an ideal world, I think we would love to be able
I have 24-7 access to that, but I do understand that it's also, you know, people that need
to be protected from the elements.
And hopefully you guys will do all you can to prevent that.
One question about just sort of the resilience of these type of operations, since obviously
this started as a small pilot and not exploded and maybe we'll, you know, I'm assuming you
you guys want to expand even more across the coast,
is in terms of climate impacts and, say, more storms,
changes in currents, maybe algae blooms that may come up,
how do those things, what is your climate adaptation
plan in a short gist, just so I can understand
how these huge operations are going
to interact with those elements coming forward?
in the future.
Sure.
Thank you for your question.
So as kind of the phase gate review allows for review of the previous phase to see if
there needs to be an adaptive management change made to the structure, just because the structure
is the way that it is now or the project is proposed the way that it is now doesn't mean
that we can't potentially change or adapt certain aspects of the project.
When it comes to increases in storm and wave activity, as our director Doug mentioned,
this infrastructure is originally coming from designs that are being used in the Faroe Islands
currently.
They maybe could be a future look at the storm as we could maybe see in California in terms
of frequency and size one day.
But the infrastructure stems from conditions, survivability and conditions like that in
the North Atlantic.
I believe the infrastructure itself has plans for being resilient and survivable in over
a 100 year storm event, which we did, I believe, see a 50 year storm event during the pilot
project with no detectable changes to the infrastructure at that point.
So we are kind of already planning ahead for larger storms like that at a certain frequency
as part of the project.
If we have a storm of a certain significance with a certain wave height, that triggers
an additional inspection of the infrastructure. Things like that will be incorporated to make
sure that increased overall ocean activity is covered by the monitoring protocols. Things
like harmful algal blooms are very interesting because those often stem from excess nutrients
in the water that come from runoff. Kelp needs those nutrients to grow, so it is beneficial
to have a certain amount of those nutrients for the kelp to grow.
We won't claim that our kelp facility is going to reduce the possibility of harmful algal
blooms but it could be one sort of piece of the puzzle that helps with part of those impacts
because the kelp itself is utilizing some of those excess nutrients.
But it's certainly part of our plan throughout the project whether or not it's a phase gate
to review how the project is performing and adapt to some of those future conditions.
Thank you, I appreciate that, it might be worth a good study
on that to see if actually there's some benefit to that.
Certainly.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Wilson.
So I just had a follow-up question,
because there was a brief review, or almost a discussion,
I'd say, about carbon sequestration,
because we keep talking about climate change.
And as we emit and hold more carbon in the atmosphere,
spirits going into the ocean is causing acidification, which is pretty significant.
And we're talking about the harvest of these plants which grow a foot a day, and sometimes
so there's carbon being pulled in the form of harvest in this way from the ocean.
And so I'm just kind of wondering, will there be an analysis of sort of that potential eat
both localized potentially and from a technological perspective
as a potential for carbon sinking in the ocean.
Yeah, interesting question.
And there has been, I think, some robust and novel ideas
around using kelp for carbon sequestration.
It's important, though, to consider the end
use of that kelp.
In this case, it wouldn't be taken out of the carbon cycle,
so to speak, and so eventually it would break down
and that carbon would return to the atmosphere.
If kelp were to be used for carbon sequestration,
I would expect that kelp itself, once it's grown,
would need to be buried somewhere or sunk in the deep ocean
or something else for it to actually be sequestered.
Regarding ocean acidification, we didn't do that type of analysis. It's an interesting point though and
On a localized scale potentially. I'm not aware that this particular location is one that
Is
Predicted to experience ocean acidification but but I could be wrong
We talked about ocean acidification and its impacts on Humboldt Bay and the positive impacts of eelgrass on that
So I was just kind of expanding or extrapolating from that and this is a pretty large project.
So I don't know, I'm just, I assume someone's gonna do some graduate work on this in the future at some point, I imagine.
So thanks. That's the only question I have.
Commissioner Oluso. Thank you, Chair. I thought the kelp was being used to supplement fertilizer and
And so more kelp less fertilizers less carbon somewhere up the chain down the chain out imagine
Yeah, I I don't know that ocean rainforest has committed to a definitive end use but as Mr
Bush was describing if it is to be used locally as a supplement or replacement for fertilizer, then there would be out on
Climate change or carbon benefits from that
Thank you. Okay, I'll make my brief comments. No questions. I really appreciate this conversation
I support staff recommendation in connection with this project. I think
the way that the conversation has evolved and the close coordination with our staff and the way that these conditions really
thread the needle for me is important and also important use of the model of how to engage with our fishing communities in particular
and so I
I'm excited and and quite interested to see how this evolves and and appreciate the concerns that were raised
Through the questions and and the thoughtful answers
So I think we're all sort of rowing in the same direction here in a lot of ways, which is really
heartening to see so
Unless there are any additional comments. I'll accept a motion
Okay, we're just waiting for it to come up. Thanks
Commissioner Moreno
Wonderful. Thank you. I move that the Commission conditionally concur with consistency certification
CC zero zero zero one dash 25 on the grounds that if modified in accordance with the conditions
recommended by staff the project described therein would be fully consistent with the enforceable policies of the California coastal management program
That is my motion. I
recommend a yes vote. Thank you
I'll second. That's a motion by Commissioner Moreno. I've seconded. We're asking for a yes vote. May we have a roll call vote, please?
Yes, Commissioner Jackson
Jackson yes, Commissioner Kelly
Kelly yes, Commissioner Lee. Yes Lee. Yes Commissioner
Oglesby
Hmm Oglesby. Yes Commissioner Kalmyk
Yes
Kalmyk. Yes, Commissioner not off
aye
Not off. Yes, Commissioner Moreno, what do you know? Yes, Moreno. Yes, Commissioner Wilson. Yes
Wilson. Yes, Commissioner O'Malley. Yes
O'Malley. Yes
Commissioner Escalante. Yes
Escalante. Yes, and I believe
Vice-chair Hart has a conflicting meeting and a stepped-out and then chair Harmon. Yes
Harmon. Yes, the vote is unanimous
Motion carries. Thank you very much
All right, if we could continue on we'll give our staff a moment to switch over and then we will go to the Deputy Director's
Report for the North Coast District
Thank You chair Herman
Item 12 is the Deputy Director's Report for the North Coast and this month
We have a written report and also a short presentation on a Caltrans project update
Let's start with the written report the written report includes one waiver and one immaterial amendment
It also includes two reporting items an emergency permit waiver and an LCP amendment certification review
The city of Eureka received an emergency permit waiver to repair water main leak within face blue wildlife area north of Eureka
The repairs were necessary to maintain essential public water service to Eureka residents
With regard to the certification review Humboldt County acknowledged and accepted the Commission suggested modifications for its lighting ordinance
That was approved earlier in February of this year
the executive director has reviewed this acceptance and determined that the county's action meets the requirements for certification and
Staff is not aware of any opposition to the two concurrence items and the North Coast District Director report
And we are asking whether three or more commissioners object
Any expertise any public comments?
No, no public comment for this item. Okay, do three or more commissioners object?
Seeing no such objection, the commission can curse.
Item 12a will be introduced by Abigail Strickland, an analyst
in our transportation unit.
Thank you, Shanna.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon, commissioners,
and members of the public.
The purpose of today's briefing is
related to conditions imposed by the commission
on its approval of a CDP for various safety improvements
for the six-mile-long Highway 101 corridor between Eureka
and Arcata here in Humboldt County.
One of the conditions imposed by the commission
required Caltrans to develop a comprehensive
sea level rise adaptation plan for this highway corridor.
A second condition required Caltrans to monitor
flooding and tidal elevations
in the highly vulnerable corridor
and to present this monitoring and a progress report
on the adaptation plan to the commission.
In October of last year, Caltrans provided an update
on the adaptation plan and the latest monitoring report.
At the same time, the commission approved an amendment
to the CDP to extend this middle of the Cape
from the end of 2025 to the end of 2027.
However, Caltrans was able to complete the Cape this year.
So today with us is Lorna McFarland from Caltrans
and she will be providing you with a brief update
on the Cape and where it stands currently.
Thanks, Abby.
I do have some slides that were sent over.
Okay.
So as Abby said, I'm Lorna McFarland
Caltrans district one and I'm here to present on the Eureka Arcata corridor.
Next slide. So in 2019 Caltrans was granted a CDP for the Eureka Arcata
Highway 101 corridor improvement project. To ensure consistency with the Coastal
Act two special conditions were adopted. The first special condition required
annual monitoring and reporting. It's included sea level hazards and any
updates. And then special condition two was the creation of the comprehensive
adaptation and implementation plan which we affectionately refer to as the Cape.
Next slide please. So starting with Special Condition 1, here's a quick
overview of our findings. So between the reporting periods of 2019 to 2026, we
had no flooding or coastal hazard impacts to highway infrastructure along
the Uke Arcata corridor. No repair maintenance on dikes or berms was needed.
No impacts that required a planned response. And all these reports are
currently available on the northcoastclimateaction.org website. If we
look at the graphics on screen.
We'll start with the graph on the left.
This shows the maximum water level across all reporting
years, which again was 2019 through 2026.
The y-axis shows the North Fit tide gauge and the water
elevation in feet.
The x-axis shows the reporting time period.
And then the photo on the right is the 2005 storm event,
which overtopped US 101 with a tide of
approximately 9.55 feet.
This is significant because we observed a larger water volume
of 10.03 feet in 2526, but no flooding on the corridor.
Next slide please.
Moving on to special condition two, this is the Cape,
our comprehensive adaptation and implementation plan.
The crux of the Cape relied on vulnerability assessments
that were created in partnership with Cal Poly Humble
and Northern Hydrology and Engineering.
The Cape is a living document that aims to establish
a timeline of vulnerability for the corridor
based on the best available science.
So we examined hydraulic, coastal groundwater,
and geologic hazards in this region.
The analysis was highly detailed
and unlike some publicly available models,
it included things like local tidegates and culverts.
And then of course provided information on spatial
and temporal scales.
So starting with the image on the top right in the blue,
you'll see the mean monthly maximum water title conditions
with 3.12 feet of sea level rise
in the 2100 intermediate scenario,
coupled with at least a two year
frequency riverine storm.
This view allows us to see specific locations
that are vulnerable to overtopping
and better understand the mechanisms
that drive highway flooding.
The image on the left shows the 101 highway elevation,
so the gray undulating line that you see going up and down.
That is our highway elevation.
And then we've got a 100 year coastal storm event
in the 2050 intermediate sea level rise scenario
in light blue with a 100 year coastal storm
in the 2100 intermediate scenario in dark blue.
So I know that's a lot of numbers and kind of hard to digest
but the takeaway is that you can see that by 2050
we have flooding on much of the highway
during extreme storm events.
And by 2100 even more of the highway is underwater.
So lastly, the photo on the bottom right picture
came out of one of our vulnerability assessments
and it shows the decade at which the frequency
of severe flooding, which in the Cape we determined
was greater than four inches of water,
exceeds 0.01 days per year.
So this is on average one event every 100 years.
So you'll notice the southbound lanes
or the western edge of the corridor show vulnerability now
while the northbound lanes, we have a little bit more time.
So these full tech memos, again, can be found
on the northcoastclimateaction.org website.
Next slide, please.
So to develop the adaptation strategies,
the roadway was divided into 13 segments
based on factors such as drainage, watershed,
surrounding land use, highway access, et cetera.
We found that segments with less than 16 feet elevation
were identified as needing adaptation.
And then we walked through a slew of adaptation
possibilities reflecting segment-specific considerations.
So these are those adjacent land use, things like that
that I just said, and so we looked at the possibility
of a viaductorized embankment, no treatment,
and the possibility of a living shoreline.
A very detailed analysis of this can be found in Chapter 7
of the CAPE, which again is published online.
Next slide please.
So just as an example, we wanted to zoom in on one
of the segments, so like I said, there's 13,
but looking specifically here at segment 10,
we can see that there are existing hydraulic connections
to the bay through the bridges.
We identified in the report that the parcels to the east
were owned by the city of Arcata,
and future adaptation possibilities might very well align
with their LCE.
And then the Cape walks through a menu of adaptation options
which in this case were the raised embankment,
a raised embankment with a living shoreline,
a raised embankment with a connection to the bay,
a raised embankment with a shoreline and a connection
and then a viaduct with a living shoreline.
So this again was done for all 13 segments.
And then that information was shared
with our technical advisory committee
as well as published online
using the multi-criteria evaluation tool
and published in time for public comment.
Next slide please.
So it's important to keep in mind
that the CAPE is a planning document
and not a list of program projects.
So what that means is it is a conceptual implementation plan
and a living document that can be updated as conditions
and available science change.
So keeping that in mind, the implementation plan
as required by special condition two shift focus
to a timeline based on sea level rise scenarios
and vulnerability that indicates when planning
and implementation of the adaptation project should begin.
So if remember previously I showed you just a picture
that showed what decade the highway would see flooding.
So this incorporates all of that data.
So we can use that data to prioritize
which segments need to be addressed first.
And this helps align with the possibility
of having appropriate funding.
So looking at the screen, the red box shows the schedule
for potential future projects based on vulnerability.
And just above the red box,
you can see the corresponding sea level rise scenarios
and the year in which the road segments
would need to be addressed.
So, the last thing on this slide I want to point out is line one in the red box shows
an interim sea level rise project that we're working on now called Zero M270 and I'll come
back to that in a minute.
Next slide please.
Just to wrap up on the Cape, I wanted to highlight some of the public comments that did come in.
There was a desire to enhance tidal exchange across and through the highway system.
There were quite a few comments stressing greater consideration of environmental performance
needed to be given, and that the consideration of operational changes as an adaptation strategy
should also be considered.
So all of the public comments, including the responses, are also published as a matrix
on the northcoastclimateaction.org website.
Okay, next slide please.
So zero M270 is the near term sea level rise resiliency project I just mentioned.
So work from the Cape will continue to inform highway adaptation as we move forward.
from the Cape indicated that we needed to do a project sooner rather than later on at
least some of our highway and that is Zero M270.
So thinking back to the image that I showed you before, it's again on the slide that you
see and you can see the areas of highway along the southbound lanes that are vulnerable now.
And based on that, we started programming and designing Zero M270.
We aim to head to construction in the mid 2030s, but of course it will follow our standard
Caltrans project delivery process go through permitting, public comment, et cetera.
Next slide, please.
So zooming out, the work on the CAPE has established a useful framework for vulnerability assessments,
not just along the Eurek Architador corridor, but elsewhere in Humboldt Bay.
And so the climate team at Caltrans District 1 is looking forward to creating the same
hydraulic model that we did for the Eurek Architador corridor, but for South Bay.
As you can see in this photo, we did get some flooding in December of 2025 and that did
close the highway.
Next slide please.
So getting close to wrapping it all up here, this is a screenshot of what you'll find on
the website if you want to download the full CAPE, the appendices, or the response to public
comment.
Again, that's northcoastclimateaction.org and I'd be happy to take any feedback from commissioners
today before we finalize the document.
Next slide, please.
So I will just end it here showing you some fun images of wildlife that have been using
the land around and under the corridor.
We've recently partnered with Cal Poly Humboldt to monitor wildlife along this section of
the corridor and this work is helping us justify hopefully incorporating some wildlife crossing
features into Zero M270 and future projects.
Next slide, please.
And then I have the entirety of the Climate Unit, Roxanne and Caitlin here, if you have
have any questions. Great. Thank you very much. All right. Are there any public comments?
Yes, we have a couple speakers. We have Jennifer Kult and then Kent Sawatzki.
Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Jennifer Kult with Humboldt Waterkeeper. I'm also speaking
on behalf of the Environmental Protection Information Center and the Coalition for Responsible
transportation priorities about this project.
Specifically, we would like to speak about Caltrans' cost-benefit comparison of raised
embankments versus viaducts.
Caltrans' draft plan tells us something important.
Viaducts would allow water, sediment, fish, and tidal processes to move beneath the highway.
They would restore hydraulic connectivity to Humboldt Bay's historic tide lands and
avoid coastal squeeze in which hardened shorelines trap wetlands between rising water and a
fixed barrier until those wetlands simply disappear.
Embankments by contrast create a permanent wall and water blocked in one place doesn't
vanish.
It gets displaced onto neighboring shorelines, wetlands, and communities.
Here's the problem.
Caltrans cost comparison found that viaducts cost roughly six times more than embankments.
But Caltrans admits in its own response to public comments that this estimate excludes
environmental mitigation, long-term maintenance, permitting, and right-of-way costs.
In other words, Caltrans is comparing a construction estimate for one alternative against a construction
estimate for another while acknowledging that the excluded categories would add costs to
embankments and reduce the relative cost of viaducts.
In commenters including our three organizations asked Caltrans to account for the indirect
costs of shoreline armoring like flood displacement onto Eureka and Arcata or the cost of future
mitigation for wetland loss, Caltrans' response was that these costs are quote, difficult
to estimate so they were simply left out of the analysis.
That is not a neutral choice.
Treating an unknown cost as zero doesn't make the number more accurate.
makes the 6 to 1 comparison misleading
and systematically favors the option that looks cheaper only
because its real cost hasn't been counted yet.
Is that my time?
Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Kent Sawatzki.
Hello. Kent Sawatzki.
I'm a long-term resident.
I watched this project develop from the start.
It's a nice band-aid.
I mean, it's going to last for a while
and we can't ask any more than that.
I think that people say we have sea level rise here.
Well, we have actually ground dropping.
That's part of our problem in Hubbell County.
And it was explained to me by a geologist and said,
eventually, these plates will go.
And he called it the boiling thing, which I found kind of
interesting.
The plates will snap back up, and we may have ground rising
by four to six feet in these areas.
I can't see spending a lot of money on this particular
project.
One of the projects that were considered, if you really want
look at long, long term is this was all to be raised up on concrete like you'd find bypasses
around areas, things of that nature. But I highly recommend that we don't spend our money
too much on these particular things. I think that Mother Nature is going to have an effect
and change things on our own. I did wish to make mention one of the conditions of this
particular project when a lot of people lobbied for was the fact that the billboards would
be taken down and blocked the view. As coming here today there were two billboards that
are still up there. One is out in the bay within your jurisdiction and I think it's
an advertisement for a weed and the other one that's a little bit further inland that's
actually on the shore is for, I think it's a forward advertisement. So maybe your staff
can follow through. Maybe it's okay to leave those there. The rest of them are removed
and for those of us who would like to see that viewscape as part of this project be
completed. And great to see the thing completed. My understanding is we will now
slowly be able to drive a little faster through the area safely. The one concern
that's been brought forward by somebody is the closing of these crossings has
precluded safety personnel from getting to certain areas as quickly. They have to
go around in a circle to get to places. So that might be something that comes
before you later. Caltrans may come up with a way that safety vehicles can cross
safely under certain circumstances. Thank you for having me speak today. Thank you. We
We had two other speakers on Zoom.
They weren't able to find them, Sylvia Van Royen and then
Matt Simmons.
If you've heard your name, please
raise your hand on Zoom, Sylvia Van Royen or Matt Simmons.
I'm seeing no hands raised.
Madam Chair.
OK, thank you very much.
This is an informational item.
But I will return to the commission
to see if there are any comments or questions.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, I'll note that it's true.
there was a requirement for the removal of 10 billboards
that were removed as part of this.
They're all on public property, on public lands.
And so they were all removed.
I will also note that the requirement
to build the trail between Arcata and Eureka was part of that.
This was in 2019.
So thank you very much, Caltrans,
for following through on that very important requirement.
And thank you to what was then Humboldt Baykeeper and now
Humboldt Waterkeeper for being a strong advocate along
with many of other transportation advocates
to make that happen.
So I just wanted to note that that was very important.
I do think it's also, as we look at options
and how we move this forward, it was interesting to note
that one lane going in one direction
was closed under this extreme scenario
and the other one was open.
And I'm always curious about our ability
to look at these situations in terms of managing
our expectations about what it is
that these infrastructures can do.
Sometimes we talk about these infrastructures
as if they will always be the way they are today,
and that under extreme conditions
we have to have them operate exactly as they do
under normal conditions.
And maybe we have, operationally or programmatically,
they perform differently under extreme conditions,
and maybe we only have two lanes under extreme conditions,
and see what the cost savings of that is,
and modify our behaviors as we've done so many times
under extreme conditions, and understand
that some communities are connected by ferry schedules.
It's like some, we do a lot of modifying our behaviors
because other things are much, much too expensive
to have expectations for continuous
and 24-hour, 365-day applications.
So those are my comments.
I really appreciate Caltrans and all their work
and everybody else who's been moving these things forward.
And all the mitigation that was done as part of this,
the work on Toowat Island that was done in terms of the,
the cordgrass and everything else, that's great, thanks.
Okay, seeing no other comments, thank you so much.
We will close this item, and I'm gonna suggest
we take a 10-minute break, and we will return with item 14.
Everyone, please be back at 3.25.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you everyone.
Thanks so much for your patience.
I know a lot of you have been waiting all day
for this next item.
We are at item 14A.
Director Gray.
Yes, item 14A will be presented by Melissa Kramer,
our North Coast District Manager.
Thank you.
Could you please bring up the slides for this item?
Good afternoon.
Item 14A is a consolidated permit application
from the Humboldt County Public Works Department
to reconstruct a 900 foot long segment of a county road
vulnerable to wave overtopping to elevate the road
on up to 10 feet of fill and armor the elevated road
and proposed new public access parking area
with rock revetment placed on the sandy beach.
Please note an addendum for this item
was posted yesterday to respond to public comments
and suggest some changes to special conditions,
which I'll discuss in a moment.
Next slide.
Centerville Beach County Park is a small two acre park
located five miles west of the city of Ferndale
and about four miles south of the mouth of the Yule River
in rural Humboldt County.
Next slide.
For context, although the county park is small,
it's an important public access point for the region
that serves as a primary entry point for public access
to miles of additional recreational beach and dune lands
that extend north to the mouth of the Eel River,
including hundreds of acres of beach and dunes
managed for public access by the Wildlands Conservancy,
seen on the left map.
Additionally, this stretch of Centerville Road
at the project site provides the only public access
to the 460 acre federally managed Lost Coast headlands
south of the site seen on the right map.
Next slide.
Slide four is a view of Centerville Road
at the project site.
Centerville Road is a narrow two lane county road
with no shoulders that in this area runs along the base
of a small steep coastal bluff.
This segment of Centerville Road is the only portion
of the approximately 10 mile long road
that directly fronts the ocean and Sandy Beach.
Next slide.
Centerville Beach County Park was established in the 1940s,
and the park and surrounding beaches, dunes, and bluffs
have been experiencing significant erosion
over the past several decades.
Historically, there was a beach parking lot
for up to 100 vehicles off of the roadway,
much of which is still visible in this image from 1979.
Note the wide beach and dunes and the stable vegetative bluffs
below Centerville Road down coast from the project site,
which is circled in yellow.
You can also see an old house, a couple of barns,
and other structures at the northern end of the project
site.
Next slide.
By 2002, there had been significant narrowing
of the beach, lots of dunes, and much less parking.
In this image, you can see a line of concrete K-rails
installed by the county, delineating
the edge of the remaining county park parking area,
where just one car is parked in this image.
The house and big barn are no longer present,
presumably destroyed by wave run up or storm surge
at some point in the late 80s or 90s,
similar to other historic barns that
have been lost in recent years just up
coast from the project site.
Next slide.
As seen in 2019, there's been further loss
of dune vegetation and additional erosion
evident in this image along the Bluffs down coast.
The k-rails are no longer visible, buried by sand.
This image was taken a couple of years
after a significant wave of brush and erosion event
that prompted the county to apply for and receive grant
funding from the federal government
for the proposed project.
Next slide.
Initially, the county pursued the option
of realigning the road inland, as shown in this example,
rather than elevating and armoring it in place
as proposed.
However, the private landowners of the surrounding inland
properties were unwilling to provide right of way,
and the county concluded that the retreat of the road
in the near term was infeasible.
The county has stated its interest
in exploring this alternative again in the future
as the design life of the proposed road alignment
becomes more threatened.
Next slide.
This photo from 2020 shows the constrained setting
and complete loss of historic parking area.
Cars have no room to park off the roadway except on sand.
Next slide.
Here are a few current images.
In the two photos on the left,
you can see there's been some erosion of the road surface
and berms of sand have been pushed up next to the road
by the county's maintenance actions
to clear sand overwash off the road
after storm events from the prior winter.
The cross seen in the lower right is a historic monument
commemorating an old shipwreck that from about 1920 to 2017
had been sighted on a high bluff
on adjacent private property south of the site.
But due to bluff erosion,
the structure had to be removed and relocated in 2017
and the county decided to place it here at that time.
Next slide.
Here's the same image from earlier
showing existing conditions.
The cross is noted for reference.
The next slide will show visual rendering
of the proposed project from this vantage point.
Next slide.
Again, the project would reconstruct
a 900 foot long segment of the vulnerable road
that fronts this county park,
elevate the road on up to 10 feet of fill
and armor the elevated road and new parking area
with rock revetment placed on the sandy beach.
A ramp would be embedded in the armored field
to facilitate access by people and vehicles to the beach.
Next slide.
Slide 13 is a site plan with the main project elements.
The toe of the rock armoring is the light gray area
that wraps around the seaward perimeter
of the improved road segment
and around the new elevated paved parking area.
As road and parking area will be elevated
10 feet above the beach,
The project also includes a 90 foot long access ramp
for pedestrians and vehicles to access the beach.
The county's proposal includes a gate on the ramp
to limit public vehicular beach access to daytime hours.
Existing access at this county park
is currently open to motorized vehicular use,
with vehicles able to drive directly off this segment
of road onto the sandy beach.
Historically, vehicles have not always
complied with the county's requirement
a confined travel along the wave slope only, and over the years there has been documented
degradation of dunes and other environmentally sensitive habitats from off-road vehicles
throughout the several miles of beaches and dunes in this area beyond the county's two-acre
property. Staff are recommending that only passive recreational uses be allowed and that
motorized vehicle use be prohibited except for county emergency access and infrastructure
maintenance purposes. Next slide. While Centerville Road was originally
constructed prior to 1977, the plans proposed to redevelop this stretch of
roadway to create a new structure not entitled to protection under the Coastal
Act. However, it's staff's recommendation that the project can still be approved
through the the Coastal Act's conflict resolution procedures where protecting
the reconstructed road and associated parking with the armored the armoring
proposed, along with some required project changes
to limit impacts and mitigate for those that are unavoidable,
would be, on balance, more protective
of significant coastal resources than permit denial would be.
Denial would lead to the significant loss
of important public recreational access
inconsistent with the coastal acts affirmative mandate
requiring protection of public access,
lower cost recreational facilities,
and ocean front land suitable for recreational use.
As mentioned, Centerville Beach is the only beach access point
in this lower Eel River region, not only for Ferndale residents
and visitors, but also for residents
of the cities of Fortuna and Rio Del and the Bear River
Band of the Rona Vero Rancheria, which
is 10 miles to the east and other areas
in this part of the county.
Next slide.
The project will provide safe public access
to the coast along this highly scenic portion
of Centerville Road until the longer-term realignment plan
for the road is feasible to achieve.
This safe public access with improved off-street parking
over the next 20 years and restrictions
on motorized vehicle access to protect public safety
and beach and dune habitats is a resource enhancement
over the road being closed due to being damaged
from storm-driven erosion and risk to public safety
and, in turn, hundreds of acres of coastal recreation
and access areas being inaccessible to the public.
However, the project would result in significant impacts
from armoring with the calculated loss
of beach and shoreline area of about 2.2 acres
over the project's proposed 20-year design life.
Nevertheless, staff believe that approving the development
with the mitigation package required
by the recommended conditions shown here, among others,
would lead to significant public access enhancements,
habitat enhancements, and the development
of a long-term adaptation plan
to manage the retreat of public facilities
that provide important lower cost coastal recreational access opportunities.
I'll note that in the addendum published yesterday, we are recommending revisions
to Special Condition 5 to improve the mitigation package provided
for the project's armoring impacts.
The changes to Special Condition 5 would require the adaptation planning study
to specifically address other vulnerable portions of Centerville Road directly south
of the project site to include a strategy and timeline for right-of-way acquisition
and potential funding, and to require the county to provide regular reports to the executive
director on its progress in planning to safely adapt the county road and park facilities.
Next slide.
Lastly, we understand there are concerns related to the permit conditions prohibiting vehicular
use of the beach for public recreational purposes.
However, staff believe this measure is necessary to protect wetlands, rare plants, and western
snowy Plover habitat and to discourage unauthorized vehicle trespass onto
neighboring private lands. Staff continue to recommend that the Commission after
a public hearing approve the Coastal Development permit with the special
conditions and findings included in the staff recommendation as modified by the
addendum. That concludes the staff presentation and happy to answer any
questions. Great, thank you very much. I will look to my colleagues to see if
there any ex partes? Commissioner Wilson? I have one ex parte, it's in the record,
let's see, I was called on March 6th by Jennifer Savage, Surf Rider Foundation,
she had, well it's in the record, everyone can see it, so that was it, that's that's
still my only ex parte. Okay, excuse me, thank you very much, Chris to you. All
All right, we have John Jones here with the county.
They'll speak first.
John Jones.
All right, I'm not seeing anyone approach.
We have 22 other speakers.
We'll start with the Dylan Firebend,
Adam Tate, Dave Cernakovich.
Good afternoon, I'm Dylan Fierbend.
I grew up staring at Centerville Beach,
we're out in Rush Lane off Centerville Road,
Watch that beach erode for the last 20 plus years.
While nothing has been done, the landowners
have tried to do stuff to save their property.
Commission did not allow it to happen.
So it's interesting now that you want to restrict
public access when that's not really the problem at all.
When it comes to public access,
we go down there and go fishing quite often.
Pretty much all you'll see is a few older gentlemen
on four wheelers, a few on side by sides, occasionally a truck.
No one's going too fast.
No one's driving through dunes.
In fact, there are no dunes.
There's one stretch on the Conservancy's property line
about a half mile long.
The rest of them are gone.
Their concerns with trespassing, in the past, years ago,
people used to drive the dunes.
They would look to go over the dunes, go back on, get back off.
They were not hanging out on their property.
As far as the snowy clover and the sensitive plants
that were referenced, vehicles, nobody's
driving in grass areas.
They're driving strictly on the sand.
And I find it ironic that on your website,
you have a beach access wheelchair.
Well, that wheelchair is more than heavy enough
to crush any snowy clover habitat or sensitive plant.
So what would be the difference between that and a vehicle?
So it seems a bit contradictory.
I understand that the Conservancy also has
some influence on this given their project,
the $23 million project that is currently going on
that you guys have approved.
That is the only landowner that even can access the beach
anymore.
The other landowners can now longer access with the new ditch
and then the new plan in place.
So their concerns over trespassing is non-existent.
Last thing I'll say is that I find it interesting when it
talks about the Coastal Commission,
the responsibility to protect your constitutional right
to enjoy the beach.
Well, me being able to drive on there and fish
is my constitutional right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No clapping, please.
If you want to show support, use hands.
Thank you so much.
It takes too long if we wait for the clapping
to finish between every comment, so it saves us time.
We do actually have a representative
for the applicants that please state your name
when you approach.
If you could turn the mic on, sir, and also please
tell us how much time you need.
Hank Seaman, Public Works Deputy Director
for County of Humboldt, three minutes please.
Thank you.
So I represent the applicant.
As staff mentioned, this is a storm damage repair project
for the county.
There was significant storm damage several years ago,
and then we have federal and state funds
to not only repair the road, the county road,
and the adjacent beach access facilities,
but also make betterments to improve the resilience.
It is a very dynamic landscape and it's exposed to both shoreline erosion and also bluff erosion to the south.
And so we fully recognize just the natural hazards in the setting and the need for a long term retreat strategy.
But that is very challenging with the constraints with terrain and property boundaries and funding.
So we've put forward this infrastructure project
to buy time to allow a more managed retreat strategy,
both for the county road and the beach access facilities.
I also wanted to mention that the county road
does lead to eight residences further south,
just past the Lost Coast Headlands.
And so we've been working with staff
over the last year and a half.
We appreciate revisions to the conditions
related to park amenities and also the term of authorization.
And we feel like those are acceptable on the infrastructure
side.
What's really challenging here is the change in beach access.
And under current county ordinance, vehicles,
four-wheel drive vehicles and all train vehicles
are allowed to access the wave slope through Centerville Beach
for driving on the wave slope.
And then, so the condition to discontinue beach access
for vehicles is a major policy change.
And that's something that we can accept at the staff level.
So whatever the conditions are today,
we'll need to bring that set of conditions
back to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors,
hopefully in October, and just talk about all the trade-offs
and the uncertainties of accepting the conditions
and the commitments and liabilities that that brings.
Yeah, it's a difficult topic because vehicles can be
an important part of legitimate beach access
for people with disabilities and mobility challenges,
people who fish and have gear, families with gear
that want to get further down away
from the immediate parking area.
I think one consideration is that the commission
consider a more interim period for creating time to allow development of a
program that would have more restrictions and limitations on vehicle
beach access and again whatever is approved today as staff will need to
bring it back to the County Board of Supervisors for their consideration
Thank you. Thank you. Now proceeding is continued. Adam Tate, Dave Cernkovic,
Jennifer Savage. Adam Tate, not seeing anyone approach, Dave Cernkovic. Good
afternoon. My name is Dave Cernkovic. I'm representing the California Commercial
Beach Fishing Association. I've fished on Centerville Beach since 1958. I began
commercial smelt fishing in 1995. I brought relatives and young people for
decades to experience the coastal outdoors and mentored them on the
importance of behaving and keeping the beach clean. And all this time I have
never seen anything that warranted the closing of the beach. I have a certified
card that is required by the state and national parks on the snowy Plover. I
I hold a key to access Gold Bluffs Beach, fresh water and Hidden Beach, and as well
as stone lagoon.
I fish approximately 165 days a year.
I am a small cottage local business that provides a local product.
I supply Sequoia Park Zoo for their river otters, bears and some birds.
I also supply Humboldt Wildlife Care Center for injured birds and animals and they expect
a lot of birds coming up because of El Nino.
I also supply to Cal Poly Marine Lab.
Your decision to close this will in reprobably injure my livelihood.
I have to drive on the beach to get to the fish.
Fish are like people, they are constantly moving.
I view this condition on the county to repair a county road, an act of extortion to staff.
I have this to say.
The California Constitution and California Coastal Act both prioritize the protection
and survival of the commercial recreational fishing and provides the absolute right of
the people to fish.
Thank you.
Next Jennifer Savage, Mitch Silverstein and then Rex Bone.
Jennifer Savage.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon, commissioners, Jennifer Savage, Serfrider Foundation.
Oh, I should have some slides.
There you go.
Thanks.
Mitch and I went to Centerville earlier today during the break.
we wanted to get a real time look at the situation there.
So I'm sharing a few photos and I'm noting
that Centerville Beach also happens
to be a really popular surf break, which is meaningful
and wasn't included in the staff report,
at least as I could tell.
Next slide.
In the 11 years that I've been commenting
on items before the commission,
this is the first time a coastal seawall has been
on the North Coast agenda that I can remember.
I mentioned this because the damage that seawalls do
to public property has not been part
of the public conversation here.
People need to access Centerville Beach
in the Lost Coast Headlands,
but I've seen no indication that the community
has been informed of the trade-offs that happen
when we use armoring to protect roads and parking lots.
No outreach about how a seawall
will increase the massive erosion already happening
through winter waves, storms, and rising seas.
Similar to the photos in the SAP report,
you can see how narrow the road is
and that even midday on a Wednesday,
people are out enjoying the beach.
It is really nice today.
So next slide.
Here's a deteriorating road
as it leads toward Lost Coast Headlands,
it's a small part of the larger problem.
I reached out to one of my friends who grew up in the area
and he's been surfing Centreville Beach for decades.
He described it as one of the most volatile beaches
on our coastline, said that the amount of sand
and erosion that happens there every day is mind-boggling,
I mean every year is mind-boggling,
that the winter swells completely scour the sand away.
With the combination of sea level rise,
powerful waves and storms, and anticipated El Nino impacts,
the beach that remains today may be significantly altered
next year and the ability of this project to withstand the oceans and
storms for 20 years is uncertain making the sacrifice of the beach even worse.
Humboldt has been fortunate to remain mostly unarmored. We do not want to see
seawalls become the default false solution here that it has been nearly
everywhere else along California's coast. We support the effort to ensure access
to the beach, headlands, and adjacent properties for the long term not just the
immediate future. We commend the county for pursuing the logical solution of
realigning the road out of harm's way and your staff's
effort to balance preserving access with minimizing damage.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mitch Silverstein, Rex Bone, Chris G.
Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Mitch Silverstein, Surfrider Foundation.
First, we want to thank North Coast staff
for their work on this difficult permit.
Our letter asked for three additions to the adaptation
study, and staff was able to integrate them.
The study now has to look at the road south of the project area,
which is also at risk.
It has to include a right-of-way acquisition strategy
with a timeline and funding sources,
and the county now owes the executive director
a written progress report every other year,
rather than a 14-year gap.
Surfrider appreciates this higher level of accountability,
as well as a more holistic approach to adaptation
for the entire threatened portion of the road.
We also ask for a 10-year permit rather than 20.
For the same reason we ask
for more frequent progress reports.
The longer a jurisdiction is allowed to do nothing,
the more likely it is that nothing will be done,
delays lead to emergencies and lost access. The step that already stalled
this project for years is land acquisition. The county itself named
condemnation as a last resort. Surfrider is optimistic that a deal can be reached
within the time period, but we ask that the Commission hold the county to
showing real progress on acquiring right-of-way. If negotiation fails, then
condemnation must be pursued because there's no other sustainable solution
besides road realignment. We respect private property rights, but the public
has property rights too and the beach is public property. Finally, on mitigation and the forthcoming
easement, we asked the Commission to require the County to make a good faith effort to
accept the adjacent 80 acre beach access easement conditioned in a previous CDP when it becomes
available. Those easement offers could lapse if no one accepts them. Staff report that
the County will consider acceptance in good faith. We would ask the Commissioner to get
the County to confirm that on the record today if possible. Humboldt has the least armored
coastline in California. Like my colleague Jennifer Savage said what
happens today and how the county responds will shape how this coast
responds to sea level rise. Thank you. Thank you Rex Bone. Chris G. Stephen S.
Rex Bone. Thank you for visiting Humboldt County. I'm a five term county
supervisor in Humboldt County. Senator Bill lies right in the middle of my
district. I've spent over 60 plus years since I was old enough to go out there
out there. But I wanted, I was worried about, we're talking about the safety of the OHVs. So I called our
sheriff, I called Chief Sly from Ferndale. I actually talked to Fortuna Police Chief. Printed calls for
service, specifically OHV related incidents for Centerville Beach for the last five years are basically
minimal incidents, violations. There's only been one violation. That was somebody from Oregon that came
that came down and had a little bit of other issues and that's still going on.
Beach parties are a bigger problem. Stuck vehicles, smoldering driftwood,
parties, illegal fireworks. Along those lines we have a problem. The county did
not move the cross. The native sons of the Golden West moved the cross down the
hill where it sat for two and a half years and we turned it down to the beach
Beach to commemorate the 29 lives lost in that shipwreck.
I want to understand historic riding opportunities at locations such as Tullah Dunes, Orick
Beach, Clam Beach, portions of the Humboldt Bay Dunes complex, we have lost all those.
Today, Oceana Dunes state vehicular recreation remains the only public state managed beach
where motorized recreation continues.
I was just down, I appreciate that Jennifer Savage went down there and looked at it.
I was down there two weeks ago, looked at the project,
rode out on the beach on a side-by-side, sorry.
The issue with that is there's not enough signage down there
to tell people to stay off.
We've lost two Ford Dunes.
Those two Ford Dunes are not lost
because of vehicular access in side-by-sides.
There are people that have recreated down there.
I remember when those barns that went away
with all the other barns, which I'm not sure,
was an operating dairy.
When the Mirandas, Frank and Mary,
when they gave that land to the county for access for a park,
they did it with the condition that there
would be motorized vehicle access in 1948,
but only to the north.
If you're worried about the south,
you can coat less than a quarter of a mile
and the bluff is down there.
So I appreciate you being here.
But I'd really love for you to listen to the people that
live out there.
Thank you.
G. Stephen S. Cheriss-Blatchley.
Hi, I was born and raised in Humboldt County and I've watched this movie before.
Could you speak into the mic, sir.
Thank you for being here today. I've watched this movie before. I'm from McKinleyville,
a town just north of here. Our beach access was closed about 15 years ago by the same
problems we're having right now. We only have a few beaches in all of California that you
drive on. This is an amazing wonderful resource that we're about to lose. There's over 400
distinct beaches in California and maybe three of them that you can drive on. I really hope you guys
are here with an open mind. This is a wonderful thing that we have and we're about to lose it.
This overregulation is not necessary. We have a wonderful thing. Please don't do this to us.
We need to capitalize on the uniqueness that we have left here. We've lost the marijuana
industry, we've lost most of fishing, we've lost most of the timber industry, we
we could capitalize on people driving on the beach, you know, in a controlled, safe,
sane way. We could have quad rentals, we could make this a beautiful thing for
our community. It doesn't have to be a negative, it can be a good thing, and it
is currently, and it doesn't need to change at all. We need to think three
dimensionally on this. Really what I'm here to say is we don't need to take
this way and everybody who's going to be here speaking today came here at before
nine o'clock we've been here for eight hours I had to take time off work I had
to have somebody else pick up my kids I've been in here all day to speak and
everybody else has to so I implore you to let everybody speak and listen to
them with an open mind thank you thank you Stephen s
Hi there, can you hear me alright?
Thank you guys for coming to Humboldt, I hope you guys do visit the beach.
We have a wonderful environment, and it's unique and it's special.
It's not San Francisco, it's not San Diego, it's not slow, it's not Santa Barbara, it's
the north coast, we're different.
Like speakers before me, I'm here because I'm upset about this change of vehicle access.
I live just down the road from Samoa, where it's wonderful that I can take my kids out
on the beach without an OHV and enjoy it alongside folks who do enjoy it with an OHV.
Seeing that lost in Centreville would be terrible.
I think we have less than 12 beaches in the state you can still drive on.
I'm lucky enough to have grown up in San Diego where I could drive out on Fiesta Island
with my family, lived in Pismo where I could go out Oceana Dunes and enjoy it with my family,
and now I live in Samoa and I can see it with my family.
Here in Humboldt we have more beaches that you can drive on in California than anywhere
else in the state.
You take that away, you are violating your chapter three portion of the Coastal Act about access.
You'll drive people to go to Oregon and spend their money there instead of here.
I implore you not to make this change, to let the county go ahead and maintain the road,
but to continue to allow OHV access.
Thank you for coming. Have a good day.
Thank you. Next, Charis Blatchley, Mike Astry, Joey Sancho.
I'm not seeing any of them approaching.
One approach.
My name is Joey Sancho, and as Mr. Fairbend spoke originally, the erosion isn't something new.
It's been going on for over 20 years, and now we're finally seeing that something's going to be done about it,
but now you're going to take everything away.
Your original plan that had elevated the parking lot and adding a ramp so that there's access was a great idea.
My grandfather in April of 1967 died on the beach.
You take away access for emergency personnel.
I mean, it's like, so now everyone's gonna have
to pack a patient out if something occurs.
I mean, let's be real, even like during COVID,
what you see in Southern California
isn't what we see up here.
The beaches aren't overly populated.
They're not being torn up by ATVs and so forth.
But yet, just one more thing, just to take away from myself
up here on the North Coast.
I would please ask for your consideration on this
before you do it, and actually before you leave.
Take the time out to go out and see it for yourself,
I mean, before you make a decision.
Thank you.
Thank you, next is Eli, then M. Bushnell,
Kent Sawatsley, Eli.
Hi, my name is Mike Astry.
I work for Humboldt County Public Works,
but I also own my own off-road recovery business.
So I'm down at the beach a lot.
I meet a lot of people.
If you close this beach,
you're gonna give away a lot of money
because I'm down there all the time
pulling people off this beach, getting stuck,
and they all come here just to drive on the beach
because it's one of the last ones left.
Yeah, I mean, I don't see you doing that.
There's no reason to close the beach.
They can do whatever they want with the road.
There's not one reason to close off access to that beach.
They've already done it to all the other local beaches.
It makes no sense at all.
I've been down there before and had surfers be hurt.
And because I am down there in my vehicle on the beach,
I was able to actually get something done right then
where maybe somebody would have died.
But they didn't, because I was there in my vehicle
on the beach.
I mean, you take that away, and I
feel like there's going to be more issues.
You're worried about snowy plovers.
What about people?
I mean, think about it.
Thank you.
Eli M. Bushnell, Kent Sawatzley, Sue Long.
If you've heard your name, you can approach.
Hello, thank you for being here.
I'm Michelle Deschanel.
I'm a Humboldt County supervisor.
I'm here representing my district and my constituent,
not my board.
I would like you guys to consider the permit that's
been put forward by Humboldt County Public Works
and to allow for public access to the beach.
And I think the addition that they have put forth
with a gate will solve a lot of the problems
that Supervisor Bohn talked about in the evening.
It is really a long tradition for Humboldt County.
I live in the very southern part of Humboldt County,
which is my district.
I've been visiting that beach since I was 10 years old.
There's not a lot of things to do here in Humboldt County,
but one of them is beach and beach access.
Also, one of the things about Centerville Beach
is that you can go there
and you can get away from everybody.
You can drive down the beach with your family,
all your stuff, park, have your dogs there,
and not be inundated with people.
If there's no access and you all have to be
conglomerated right there in that parking area
or just right in that beach, it is gonna increase
people not being able to get down in a way
and have their space.
I really also implore you to really think about
this hasn't come to the Humboldt County Supervisors yet
and you guys putting conditions on it before coming there.
I really think you should reconsider that
and just propose the permit as was submitted
by the Public Works.
Thank you.
Thank you, Kent Swatzley, Sue Long, Phyllis Coy.
Kent Swatzley, I'd like to emphasize what,
I'm 72, a little long on the tooth,
and I hope I'm getting smarter as I get older.
You're supposed to get institutional knowledge.
The people that are speaking here
are speaking from their heart,
and you have a lot of Humboldt County people.
We're a little different mindset
than some people are in other areas.
We're responsible in these kind of things.
You're gonna have a few people misbehave
no matter where you're at.
in your own neighborhoods, have somebody there who just won't follow the rules.
But to take away this treasure that so many people value, I mean it's a beach where you
can have a wedding or a celebration of life, a person like me, I'm still getting along
with a new metal knee in my knee, but for so long that's only, that's limited.
So to preclude us, it's kind of, we want to talk about equity and inclusion and everything.
the rest of us, thank you, include the rest of us older people who are kind of hobbled
by what we are going through in life and give us the right to drive out on the beach with
our families and enjoy this beautiful thing. We don't trash, you know, there's always
bad players, but I think respectfully go forward with the project as proposed by Tom
Mattson, Director of Public Works. I trust our staff there, I've known him for years,
And I trust our supervisors and I trust our law enforcement to do the best thing for Humboldt
County and to do the best thing for Mother Nature and the environment.
That's a key issue.
I've had exceptions to some of the things passed before.
One was a gigantic motel process right on the Trinidad beach in the viewscape that should
have never moved forward.
It didn't move forward.
It's been 10 years and it didn't move forward because Mother Nature gave me access to funds
to make sure something atrocity like that doesn't move forward.
Strong environmentalists both here and down in Mexico
where I also have a lot of beach property that people enjoy
and do the right thing.
Thank you for being here to speak
and please take these viewpoints into consideration.
Thank you.
Sue Long, Phyllis Coy, Gordon Shokwist, Dennis Mayo.
Good afternoon, Sue Long.
I'm the former Fortuna mayor and council member
and I'm still super involved in the community.
I sit on some county boards and some city boards
and I keep an eye on, you know, the pulse of the community
and you're hearing over and over again about the lifestyle
in Humboldt County and I know that some
of you probably can't relate to that
because if you were raised in the city,
if you live in the city, your beaches are different.
Your entertainment opportunities are different.
Northern California, the real Northern California,
which is where we are right now, is different.
We have a lifestyle that we treasure.
We have environmental resources that we treasure
and we take care of.
We have the redwoods.
We have the rivers.
We have the most beautiful part in the entire state,
in my opinion.
You've heard so many people say
that families here don't have a lot to do.
There's not a lot of, you know, the kind of entertainment you
guys have with waterslides and Disneyland and all
of the things, we don't have any of that here.
We count on nature.
We count on the environmental things that we can do.
We count on hiking, we count on hunting.
Those are the things that our families have treasured
for all of these years.
I grew up going to the beaches, and when I go there,
I go there for the solitude because it reminds me
of spending time with my dad, and I want to hang
out with my family and friends.
So if you're all conglomerated in this little area
off the parking lot, you hear other people's music,
foul language, other people's children, all of the things
that when I finally get away from my work
and all my obligations, I want to spend time with my people.
Being able to drive down the beach gives everybody
that opportunity.
I'm not in a wheelchair, but I am to the point now I can't carry
an ice chest and a chair and a blanket and all the things
that I would want to spend some time at the beach.
I can't walk down the beach and carry all of that very far.
So, I implore you, as the other people have here today,
to take all of that into consideration
and to realize our lifestyle here is different than yours.
Thank you.
Next, Phyllis Coy, Gordon Schokwist, Dennis Mayo.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Phyllis Coy.
You may say I'm here wearing two hats, both pro and con.
I understand the property owner's concerns about people
trespassing on their property.
I also have concerns about ending public access
to publicly owned land.
Think about people, perhaps your own grandparents,
who would not have access to a beach wheelchair.
Once public access is denied in one location,
It may be contagious and all along the coast.
I truly hope that Centreville Beach will not be one of the few public beaches that could
have public access limited severely.
Think about your own grandparents, who may not be able to see the ocean except in pictures
or in the movies.
any of you have if not viewed Centerview view centerville beach please do so
before you leave the area thank you for your time respectfully fill us koi thank
you Gordon show quests Dennis Mayo Curtis Barry hello I'm Gordon Gordon
chocolates lifetime resident of Humboldt County here I'm concerned about the loss
of the beach also. Centreville is definitely a special place. I have been raised here in
recreation on the beach my whole life. I watched us lose everything also. In high school we
used to be able to get on the beach at Samoa and we'd go all the way to the Nada River.
We'd get off at Arcata, we'd go to the Arcata Drive-In, a few people might still remember
get back out on the beach, spend the night in the dunes, not hurting anybody.
Just recreating. I take my kids out there, my grandkids, and we really enjoy, you
know, like I've already said, you can put everything in the back of your truck, go
out solitude, and just people are way watch, and watch whales go by. I'm not
into kayaks or going out there in the boat and watching the whales where you're
going to be distracting them or anything like that, we watch from the beach line.
The port is swimming by a certain time of year when the waves and the warmer
water bring them in and just been recreating the whole time. We do still
need vehicle access at Centreville. We have a little spot that we're corralled
at Samoa, but that's just one more spot that we're losing. So thank you very
time. Thank you. Next Dennis Mayo, Curtis Barry, Michelle Smith, Iver Scabdahl. Good afternoon.
Thank you all for being here. In 1952, I drowned in the wave at Centerville Beach.
A Ferndale fireman who was off duty, who was down in his Jeep fishing,
Pulled me out of the waves and CPR'd me.
They saved for quite a long time before he brought me back to life.
And I want to thank him, I don't even know what his name is, but he's given me 75 years
to be an advocate for recreational and commercial access all over.
People talked about all the beaches that have been lost,
so I'm not going to go through that again.
But in 1996, I was asked to start working on protecting the fisheries at Redwood National
State Park.
And it was a battle.
I worked on it until 2006 when President Bush signed into law the protection for this young
man and many others to continue that fishery, an important fishery in California.
I've got that Plover card right here too.
I can and I want to tell you something about plovers in 1966 I believe it was
Gary Page came up and did the first study on the plover he's the guru 64
breeding pairs of plovers millions and millions and millions of dollars later
and today take a wild guess how many breeding pairs of plovers there still
are 64. Now it goes up and down a little bit but you guys all of this stuff
sounds good and we're all patting ourselves on the back to save this and
that. The ability to use this beach is important. Support the county's plan.
thank you. Thank you. Curtis Barry, Michelle Smith, Ivar Skabdle. Hey, my name is Curtis Barry,
I'm a public member, live in Ferndale. First of all, I'd like to invite anybody, I'll take
anybody on a ride out on the beach tonight, whenever you guys have time, let's go, I'll show
you. You will never forget it and you will definitely be on the other side of this after
that. There's no reason to close this beach, it may be 20 years ago, I remember there was some issues
with vehicles up in the dunes, those dunes aren't there as has been mentioned, the dunes
were actually held in place by invasive beach grass which other parts of our county are
trying to eliminate anyway.
The Snowy Plover, there's another beach in this county where vehicles are sharing the
beach with Snowy Plover nests and that's not an issue.
In the 840 general miles of California coastline, not including inlets and bays and all of that,
less than 25 miles of vehicular accessible beach and yeah, Centreville has five of those
miles and so imagine everybody goes out from the parking lot right there where you saw
all those pictures and then there's five miles going to the north of that that's not accessible
to vehicles.
That's not going to make a lot of sense.
People drowning up there, surfers up there, anybody needing trouble, you know, you need
vehicles I understand that there's a plan to keep a gate there so emergency
vehicles can get there but sometimes the public is the quickest emergency
vehicle there are no problems with there's no confrontations with with
vehicular users and non-vehicular users it's we have a great thing up here it's
part of our culture in this county to be able to drive on the beach so trying to
trying to force us to you know to follow the the lifestyle of places that are
hundreds of miles away from us doesn't make any sense you know it's this
country's designed in a way that local people are supposed to have the most
power to be able to control their local environments and we we know what's best
for us up here and we don't need to close access to the beach. Thank you.
Thank you, Michelle Smith and Ivar Scavdle. We're also missing an Eli and
Asheris Blatchley. Good afternoon, I'm Ivar Scavdle. I'm a resident of
Ferndale, California. My grandson represents the seventh generation to
visit Centerville Beach in my family. I'm a retired engineering executive with a
global engineering environmental sciences firm and I'm currently the
Humboldt County planning commissioner representing this district, although not
here in that capacity today. I'm here to express my disappointment in how this
condition became a part of this project, the condition about limiting vehicular
access. This is an emergency road repair project. It's simply a raised section of
roadway less than a thousand feet long. It's intended to provide safe access to
to residents, ranches, and public lands beyond.
It's funded by federal grant money.
And believe me, Humboldt County can use every dollar
of federal grant money we get.
The Coastal Commission has attached
a totally unrelated condition, shutting down
beach vehicular access to the project.
There has been no community discussion
as to why this is necessary.
There's no evidence of any damage to the beach
has been presented.
In fact, the only beautiful pictures that you've shown today,
the only evidence of beach damage
is the pavement that's eroding onto the beach.
You haven't engaged the community at all.
If there is a problem, engage this community
on possible solutions.
That's how we do things here.
This just appears to be a backroom deal stuck
into the project holding the project, the residents,
and the county hostage simply because you can.
You know this is wrong.
Do the right thing today and approve this project
without this condition.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next.
Please, no clapping.
Thank you.
We have Michelle Smith.
We were able to find on Zoom.
Michelle Smith, you should be able to unmute and start
your camera, if you wish.
Hi, this is Michelle Smith.
I'm the wife of Adam Jade.
We were there earlier today, and we have to do the land stewardship and animal husbandry.
We have to run back and take care of our animal stuff, but basically, just wanting to reiterate
what everybody else was saying, our family has been recreated and utilized in that beach
for over three generations, successfully, side-by-side with the snowy silver, even when
the parking lot there could park a hundred cars up until recently, and we just wanted
to express how important it is to keep that age access
for the recreation of our teens, our kids, and our elderly.
And some, sorry, it's important for our communities
in our area for everyone to enjoy the beauty of nature
and I hate to say anybody's age.
Sorry, anybody's to regret that they didn't get
I'm going to call the names that we weren't able to find again.
Adam Tate, Cheris Blatchley, and Eli, and then anyone else who has signed up that didn't
hear their name called, if you can raise your hand.
All right.
I'm seeing no hands raised.
Madam Chair.
Oh.
Okay, go ahead just one second
Press the button on the bottom sir
Thank you
My name is Joey brought
I'm a lifelong resident of Humboldt County
small business owner retired and I just want to say
I'm not gonna belabor everything that was said before me
But I am totally opposed to the closure of that
I'm a commercial not a commercial fisherman. I'm a sport fisherman. I've been going to Centerville Beach
Since I was a little kid and we surf ish
day and night fish
perch fish and
We have vehicle access to get out there. I
Haven't been in this
Chair for very long
I'm a
Starting to interrupt you I'm gonna stop the clock and I want to have you move that way so I can get a shot of you
In the camera. Okay, cuz this is right in the way of you great
Right. There's fine. Yeah, right. There's perfect. Yep. Thank you. Okay
Anyway, I
like I said, I'm a
Commert not a commercial. I'm a sport fisherman my family born and raised in Humboldt County and
We've used Centerville Beach since I can remember. I'm 77 years old. I'm an army vet now
I'm disabled and the only access I got to get on that Beach is
Not in this it's in my truck and I or my quad and
No one is abusing that Beach
If anybody leaves trash on it
It's the people who just walk on it and I have hauled more garbage off the beach
Than I've ever laid there
So I just want to say I'm totally opposed to the closure of it. And if you put a gate
How is it? I'm gonna get on the beach at for doing night fishing
surf fishing perch fishing and
so anyway, I just want you to know I thank you for being here and listening to us giving me the
opportunity and
I hope you consider not closing it
First and foremost, thank you
Thank you
Any more people who signed up for this item, but didn't hear their name called
All right. I'm not seeing any hands
Madam chair
Thank you very much and and I want to thank the public for your testimony. We really appreciate you being here today and
Being patient while we got to this item
I'm gonna ask staff do we need to return to the county at this point or do I turn it back to staff to staff?
Okay, Miss Gray
Thank you. I want to echo that as well. Thank you to everyone who has come out to speak about Centreville Beach
It's very clear that this stretch of coastline means a lot to this community
We've heard today that continued access to the beach is deeply important to the residents here.
And we recognize how important this project is to provide regional public access opportunities.
We understand that limiting vehicle access on this beach would have real impacts to the community.
At the same time, the commission is required to evaluate these projects under the Coastal Act
to protect coastal resources, including sensitive habitat.
Staff has evaluated this project using that lens.
And in this area, the county does allow vehicular use of beach areas on the wave slope.
essentially the wet sand area below the mean high tide.
However, vehicles accessing the beach at this access point
are able to move beyond the county park
onto adjacent privately owned beaches and dunes,
which has been contributing to resource damage
and also trespass issues,
including on lands that are dedicated to passive uses
and resource protections.
Therefore, as outlined in the staff report,
staff is recommending permit conditions that would limit vehicle use of the
ramp this would not preclude emergency vehicles or maintenance vehicles that
are necessary to serve the public those would continue to be allowed we heard a
request about an interim period up to continue to allow vehicular access on
on the beach here.
Staff does not recommend extending vehicular use
even temporarily because the conditions
that make vehicular use problematic,
erosion, habitat disturbance and compatibility concerns
would still continue to occur.
I think the last point I'd like to make at this point
and then take your questions is
with regard to community involvement,
We heard there is a little bit of frustration as to not being able to have local hearings
and workshops and, you know, more public input at the local level.
And I would take a minute to let you know that this was originally scheduled and we
were completely ready to go with this in March.
And the county requested it to be postponed so that they could take it back to the community,
back to the board, and have more conversations about that.
And that did not happen.
And so here we are, and we're coming close to our 270th day, and we needed to bring it
back to the Commission today.
So with that, I will conclude, send it back to you, and happy to answer questions.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
I'll return to the Commission.
Questions, comments, we'll begin.
Commissioner Wilson with you.
Thanks.
I appreciate everyone.
I've spent my time on Centerville Beach as well.
So couple of questions I have in this, and I'll probably have more, because as anyone
knows me, I have a scattering of notes, some of which are legible, and I'll come back to
them.
So we're talking about access, and the agreements are really about access to the wave slope.
And that is basically a line that's associated with the public trust access zone I guess
you'd say.
And so then everything above the wave slope, we're not, when people are talking about having
weddings or hanging out and all those things, that's mostly not in the wave slope necessarily.
And so I'm just kind of wondering where we're going with this, because unlike at Samoa,
or unlike at the other, at Oceano or other places, we're talking the county is providing
access which then immediately transfers to private property.
Even the wave slope with its overlay of public access is still private property, I mean it's
still and that is still the two major parcels there are private property they
go out into the ocean and so I'm just kind of wondering where you have you
have do we have other places where we have riding on beaches that actually go
and access private property and where's the permission structure from the private
property owners. I know there are some private in holdings at Oceano Dunes and
I don't know off the top of my head
although someone here might.
Whether there is specific access provided
from those private property owners at Oceana Dunes,
that's the only place I can think of off the top of my head.
That's what we're aware of.
And maybe this is a question for our county staff.
Maybe, hey, my answer is we've had,
and someone has mentioned this before, access through gates
in relation to commercial fishing and ADA in the past
as some of our local.
And so we pass out a key or have in the past.
I don't know what our program is right now
and managing that.
And I don't know if I have anyone from public works here
that can talk to us about that.
I can't, come on up.
It's gonna be a bouncy evening here, so.
So currently the county ordinance
and the board supported resolution
allows vehicles to access Matt River Beach.
And so we have a,
but that's limited to a permit program.
And so it's for seniors, 65 and older,
commercial fishermen or people with disabilities.
And so they approach public works to get a permit
and to have a key for the gate.
That's not a highly used area because of the,
kind of the topography of the dunes
And just the sand surface is not very amenable to vehicles.
So it's not a highly used area.
But we do have that program for Med River.
And for the most part, people are accessing public lands.
So at Med River, they access the wave slope.
And the wave slope is really the sand
that's wetted by the most recent high tide.
I think the actual edge of state lands
is the mean high tide line.
And so that's more of a fixed line,
but the wave slope is actually a little more day-to-day.
So the vehicles are supposed to stay on the wave slope,
and then people can park and then
access by foot the adjacent beach area.
OK.
I'm going to go back to our staff for a second here.
And I do understand the findings that you guys
relying on in terms of the Coastal Act and the and the resources that are that
could be impacted is it possible if this is going to be whatever decisions made
today if it comes back to the board of supervisors for this county could we
create a plan that makes us accountable to the to our potential impact on to
these private properties and also because right now there is we I'm kind of
concerned a little bit about the liability of this of us now doing
something that's been that's been just people been doing it but now it's going
through a permit process it's a little different than and so we're we're
actively creating an actual barrier or opening that barrier and in that case
what happens then like so it how do we manage for that what's our
responsibility in the access we we can have a gate that goes onto our two acre
parcel but then there's no expectation that anyone's going to stay on that two
acre parcel there and and there's no expectation that in some regards I'm
hearing that anyone actually sticks to the wave slope overall so I just I'm
just kind of wondering if we this is coming back to our our board is there a
potential for us to propose a plan and take accountability for the access that
we would be creating under this under this new construct or really under this
new infrastructure. There is a public access plan requirement, right? Right
that's that's included as a special condition on the permit so that's that
would that would describe public access in this location. Are you talking
specifically about vehicular access?
Yes, I'm talking specifically about vehicular access.
Outside of emergency and maintenance.
Outside, and I will say there's different layers of what
we've heard here today.
Some is commercial fishing, some is ADA,
and then there's sort of like the overall just completely
open.
It appears to me there's sort of a spectrum of potential uses
and thresholds by which we might manage that vehicular access.
So the way my understanding the permit,
the special conditions are written now,
is that it really does the findings
support passive recreation.
So that, I mean, that's the way
the permit is set up now.
So I suppose the county could propose
an amendment to that permit that would allow
for vehicular access in the future.
However, I think our concern would be
that it wouldn't be consistent with the findings.
Unless the plan was found to be consistent,
because it's well-written, I suppose, and accountable.
That's the other part about it, too, because, again,
we would be accountable to the impacts that
would come from having an open gate beyond this point,
as far as I can tell, because it's our permit,
and also to private property as well.
I want to reiterate that everything north of this two
acre parcel is private property.
And while it has a public trust access overlay
on the wave slope, it doesn't necessarily
have that above that that I know of.
At least it hasn't been adjudicated.
So that's the other part about this.
I don't know where we stand if a private property owner says,
hey, you've let folks come through your gate.
And now they're on my property.
And they've done damage.
And now I have to deal with that damage.
Does that come to us?
and unless we're prepared to take that on,
I have some concern about that.
In the other cases where we might be providing access
is going to public lands, is going to BLM land,
is like there are resources available
and actionable agencies that manage those
and have the ability to patrol and budgets to do that,
and what we would be being asked to do
is to manage and patrol to protect private property
that we have been, that we've created a potential liability on.
So I was just kind of wondering if we were to come, if we could modify the requirement
or the condition that we could, if we could produce a plan
that actually we could be accountable to that, do you think, all I'm asking is, like,
would that be a potential consideration?
doesn't mean this commission would support it necessarily or endorse it or approve it but at
least have open the door for us to be able to make a decision for ourselves whether we want to make
that attempt. So if I understand correctly you're asking whether potentially adding the possibility
of a future change to public access in this place I mean again I think the key is is that it is
consistent with other Coastal Act policies and the findings of the permit.
So I think that that's critical.
If that's something you want to explore,
that would be within your purview.
I'm trying to get us over the hump here and also to bring it
back because it will be coming back to Humboldt County Board of Supervisors for that.
I'm unsure of the findings that we could make that would go backwards,
or not back, but to the existing conditions.
I did see that the agreement with the property owner that
gave the county the two acres to begin with, in 1974,
included fencing.
It included actionable items that the county would
take to protect their private property rights.
And that does not exist in this current arrangement.
And so I'm a little concerned about where we go from here.
So that's something I don't think we've really
taken into consideration yet.
So if staff can address some of those questions,
be great. I'm not exactly sure what question you would like us to address, I'm
sorry. Maybe, could we address just for a second that original I mean do you that
original arrangement with the and does it even come into play here that the
original deed you know the the deed or whatever was the easement or whatever
it was created had obligations of the county that we are not meeting currently
from that time, from the 1970s.
I think there were some, the original deeds,
or maybe not the original deed from the 40s,
but the updated deed with the Miranda's from the 70s
identified there was an agreement with the county
that the county would erect fencing adjacent
to the wave slope or at the edge of the dunes
on the private property to prevent trespass.
I'm not sure if that was completed by the county,
if it's been since buried.
I don't know what the status is of that older deed.
I don't know that that's a requirement
in the current deeds with the different landowners
who are there now.
I'm not sure.
I think it's also just to be clear outside
of our review purview under this coastal permit.
I realized that and I have to,
you know, I'm kind of wearing two hats here.
So that's my questions for now.
going to let other other commissioners kind of get into this and get their
thoughts thanks anyone comments questions Commissioner Jackson are you
okay yes ma'am thank you thank you for all the speakers we appreciate your
your comments appreciate your passion and appreciate the difference you know I
think it's important that yes it is different on the north coast than it is
from where I am in the concrete jungle of Los Angeles.
One question for staff.
We had a gentleman who spoke about the initial application
was for to address the emergency construction,
and then this condition was placed
on that permit application.
Am I understanding that correctly?
Yeah, I think the the funding that the county received was might
have been referred to as emergency storm damage repair
funding. But the county didn't apply for an emergency permit,
they applied for a regular coastal permit to construct an
elevated road, so not the same road, you know, a different
structure, including the brand new elevated armored parking
area and so because of the project that's being constructed with the ramp
facilitating access in a way that doesn't exist now people as you saw from
the photos the road and the beach are one right now and people can just drive
off the road onto the beach but given the nature of the project this was our
our thought that facilitating access onto the beach and off of the county's
small property onto surrounding properties raises conflicts with
HESHA protection and other issues that we've talked about. Okay so just to make
sure I'm clear, and I appreciate that clarification because it makes better
sense now, so the construction would by design impede access, limit access. Yeah
In the county, their proposal is to have a gate that they will open and close daily so that I think I think the plan was to keep it closed or just limit vehicular access to daytime hours.
And so the county's proposal basically included kind of like a controlled access.
And when we looked at that proposed level of access and intensity,
which this commission has never authorized and
others were talking about some of these other areas.
In the county that have used to have vehicular access and
that's been reduced over time through actions of this commission, LCP amendments.
It was our recommendation that, you know,
the proposal to kind of facilitate
and actually formalized access here
raised those ESHA conflict issues.
Certainly understand and appreciate that.
And so if I understand my colleague,
the county supervisor's last coastal commissioner,
extraordinaire, he is discussing a potential use of the gate
as a substitute for access that would be precluded
as a result of this project.
Is that through the chair?
Yeah, I think you.
Did I summarize that generally speaking?
Repeat yourself.
So, my understanding is if the gate
that the county controls is opened
on a more, on a regular frequent basis
compared to what it is now, then that could provide the access
that would be precluded as a result of this project.
Am I understanding that right?
Let me give you my understanding.
So right now, there is no actual infrastructure
that provides access.
It's the lack of infrastructure.
So the proposal is to build this revetment and an elevated
parking structure.
And that, by itself, would prevent access.
So then the proposal is to also build a ramp
as part of that infrastructure so that there would be,
at least, vehicular access that would mimic or allow
or have something controlled.
The county proposed that to be open as in the current context.
And then the staff, under the provisions of the Coastal Act
protect ASHA and other resources to be closed, and that's what we're considering right now.
So what will happen as part of this process, whatever decisions made today at the commission
level will be have to come back to our board as to whether or not we accept the conditions
as given to us in order to receive the money to build the permit in order to so we can
do that or not.
And so what I have been, what I'm, I guess what I'm asking for is there will be a consideration,
even if the, this commission decides in this moment to go with staff recommendation to
close the gate as part of the thing, would there be a, is, can we build into the conditions
the just allowing the county to come up with its own management plan our own
management plan to come back to see if we can have some vehicular access
basically there's a spectrum of potential there which is all the time
all these various uses whatever it may be and there's some accountability to
that which is how is the county going to be protecting Esha and those other
things as part of our ability to provide that access.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you Madam Chair for that.
Thank you Commissioner Wilson.
So what I think I understand is that you are looking for a coordinated opportunity to discuss
how to split the baby so to speak.
Yes.
King Solomon.
I guess, I mean, really I'm just trying to get,
this is a unique situation, again,
because we are providing, we would be providing access
to private property.
This is not like any of the other locations in general,
like in a broader sense, this is different than that.
And I don't see explicit permission from the land owners
that they're like cool with that, right?
They're not cool with that, I mean, I haven't seen,
there are no property owners in here saying,
keep them off my property.
Well, as there's a saying in my family,
it's called, it's all cool till it's not.
And so I just want to prevent that from being
a thing for us as a county and taking on if we battle it out
to keep something open, what happens
in the context of this infrastructure, where right now
It's very feral, right?
We now will be creating infrastructure
with an actual gate, and that's a different framework
than the current context, so.
I certainly, and I appreciate your family saying,
because we have a saying, particularly in L.A.,
Hermosa Beach, that it's not an issue until it's an issue.
And we tend to look at things and if there are no issues.
So outside of this permit, has there been an issue with OHEs?
According to the report that in front of us, there has been damage to ESHA, yes.
And maybe you can want to ask staff that question.
Yes.
My apologies.
Thank you.
In the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service technical letter that was prepared for the project,
They did cite the off-road vehicle access as one of the reasons why there's been a decline
of western snowy plovers in this particular area.
There are very few documented nesting attempts on this beach, according to the latest surveys
that were done, as I understand it.
And then just anecdotally, we've heard from landowners north of the project site about
driving on the dunes and some impacts to the dune vegetation, which includes habitat for
rare plants, federally listed rare plants as well.
Thank you.
I certainly appreciate the environmental impact.
Has there been any thought or consideration of doing what they've done in Oceana where
You've got the orange fencing to protect those sensitive
habitats.
Understanding is sometimes people drive through those.
But at least you have a visual symbol of a protected area.
And let me just be honest, here's
what I'm having a tough time with.
It's hard, really hard, putting the toothpaste back
in the tube.
And so it's hard to say, OK, for years,
whether we think it's right or wrong, for years,
this has been an activity that has been done in this area.
And then to say, like that, it's no longer permitted.
That's a hard pill to swallow.
And so I like Commissioner Wilson's thought about, OK,
is there an opportunity to figure out
how to do this in a manner that sort of splits the baby?
If I can.
Just in response, thank you, Commissioner.
Part of the challenge is that this is a very un- you know,
I think one of the commenters described it
a little bit as the Wild West.
There's been no management here.
And so there are fencing, no proposals for that.
We've never seen that here.
And so that's part of the challenge
is that there aren't any types of management infrastructure
or process or anything along those lines
that would address some of the concerns I think
that are raised in the staff report.
Given, you know, I think could there be any type
of a management plan that would allow some vehicular access
that would also be protective of dunes and habitat?
I don't know.
We have not seen it.
It's not proposed by the county right now,
but maybe what I would suggest if that's the direction
the commission would like to head,
that you develop some language that we could add
to one of the conditions that sort of make it clear
that that's a possibility for the future.
So for example, I believe it's special condition 10
is a public final public access management plan requirement.
And maybe there is something that you might all wanna
consider language that would again,
contemplate some future plan that could be brought back to
the commission as an amendment or something along
those lines that would allow for some type of access,
if it also meets the requirements of the Coastal Act as
protective of habitat and public access and recreation.
I appreciate that. I think I'm
moving towards Commissioner Wilson's sentiment in terms of,
Hey, let's see if we can figure out how to come up with a management program.
There's no doubt the folks in the room understand the importance of that.
And I think that might be movement in the right direction as to sort of
how to weigh the, you know, from 60 to zero.
And I think I would support that discussion.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Commissioner Notoff.
Oh, OK, I have a list.
But you'd like to go first?
Commissioner O'Malley.
Sure.
Thank you, Chair.
I want to comment on two things.
I'm actually going to save the vehicle access
for my second thing.
I appreciate all the work that you've done in this.
And I want to talk about some of the first comment
that Sirfryer made.
And by the way, thank you for your comments.
The county offered, you know, I love
that they're offering to provide updates.
I love that a lot of progress has been made there.
I guess my question, or my feeling is,
and you could take this as a question or maybe a explanation,
is I don't disagree that 20 years is pretty much
a realistic timeline for how things are going to be done.
And while I appreciate our executive director
and our staff is receiving updates,
I don't, and maybe you can explain to me,
I don't see any reason why a 20-year conditional timeline
based on things that need to be met within 10 years.
So I guess I like having things, and maybe I'm crazy, but I like having things come back
to the commission somewhat regularly so that we can actually say, okay, 10 years in, because
quite frankly, I hope you're here in 10 years, Dr. Hukovich.
But I don't know who we'll be, and I don't know who will be up here too.
So I think being kept abreast of what's going on at a commission level is great.
And so I would favor that timeline, but I don't know if this is going to be an issue
I push. I want to talk a bit about the procedure so far and mentioned the
Wild West and there's nothing like this before. I remember looking at the, you
know, or knowing that this was going to come up in March and then we've had six
months and my recollection was that six months was in order to have some public
input that's happening now to be able to discuss this. As I understand that has
not happened. So I'm kind of really frustrated that we're having this
conversation right now, you know, of what we're trying to do. And so I was hoping the
last six months was what would, you know, what Commissioner Wilson is trying to get
to now, to see if there's something. I'm very, very uncomfortable to try and sit
here today at five o'clock and have us make up a plan where we think it's going
to protect Esha and other things while we have other people have access. I'm
more of a, hey, you know, I'm inclined to vote and support staff on this.
And then the county, if they say, hey, we can't live with this, because we're up against
a deadline, right, at this point?
I mean, is that right?
I think we have one more hearing, but we are getting close to the 270th day.
It's later in October.
Gotcha.
Well, that's just my two cents.
I appreciate, and I do appreciate how difficult this issue is, and I thank you all for coming
and showing up here as well, too, so thanks.
Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks, everybody, for all your input.
It's been very informational.
And first, I want to clarify a few misconceptions
that I heard, just for folks' understanding
of this commission and how it functions.
A third of the full-time commissioners
live in the North Coast.
It's actually probably one of the biggest numbers before, so it's not like this commission
is not very, very well aware and connected with the issues and the places and people
of this region.
The second one was the snowy plovers are a very threatened species that will probably
disappear in our lifetime, which is why this commission, who has one of our responsibilities
is to take care of the environment on the coast.
We don't stop destroying their habitat.
Such as doing things that's driving on their nest
in the sand is, we're going downhill with them.
And lastly, the coastal light guides our actions
to protect our public trust, which
is a legal doctrine that obligates a state
to manage these lands and areas for public benefit.
and this is, you know, including navigation,
fishing, recreation, but also ecological preservation
for the benefit of all and future generations
and not just a few.
I understand that the traditions are very important
to people, especially in isolated places like Centerville.
I recognize that, you know, the thought of this change
is painful to some, and I do feel for the concerns
of those who are limited in the mobility
or the recreational fisherman that accesses this area.
And of course, I also empathize with those
who find so much healing by accessing this beach
in whichever way they can.
But I do have many concerns about this permit.
It's a massive armoring project in a place
that's been, you know, saved from these in the past.
And the timeline to me seems too long.
The process issues within the county,
I think they're, you know, messy and confusing.
Sort of the factor of this vehicular use issue, you can make an argument to allow any
vehicles on sandy beaches anywhere on the California coast to heal, to have more fun,
to maximize recreational shore fishing, to let people with mobility issues reach further,
to encourage businesses to cater to those more high-intensity uses.
But this is a very public resource and I go back to the mandate of the coastal act and
our responsibility to be able to take care of these places for the use of most people.
So I, you know, the truth is that this conversation hasn't sort of made things any clearer for
me.
I'm sort of more on the side of Commissioner Malley just to send it back and see what the
county does and then we they come back to us because I I mean other than just
straight out saying no and what what would it mean if we declined denied it
today would it go back to County if the Commission denied the permit then yeah
there would be no project and so the if the county wanted to consider a different
project they would have to come back and go through the full process again you
you know, I love Humboldt County, my neighbor,
and I know that, you know, I would like to hear more
from Commissioner Wilson, and maybe some of the other
commissioners before I sort of settle.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
Thank you, and thanks everyone for their patience today.
But I feel like we, so to me it sounds like we need
more processed, but we've had six months
to have some local process.
There's three county supervisors in the room
last time I counted, and we haven't had any progress
at the county level, so I'm flummoxed about that.
I would support more process.
I do think it's clear, you know, we do have,
there is flexibility in terms of what the plan is
that we would like the county to develop,
And so there, I think, Commissioner Wilson,
there's some flexibility in the language
of what we would be looking for the county to do.
I mean, it's, this is kind of an extreme situation
where we're going from unmanaged,
you know, wide open use of this beach to some management.
And it is unusual that there's been so,
So an absence of management of a resource like this.
But as I understand it, it's a two, what'd you say,
Commissioner Wilson, it's two acres of a park
in a five-mile stretch of beach,
which the vast majority of this beach abuts private land.
So it's just when you're talking about wave slope,
I think you mean the public trust,
the wet public trust land.
Yeah, it doesn't just abut public, I mean private property,
is private property that has an overlay, a public trust overlay.
So the property lines actually go down in through the wave slope and out into the ocean.
So when people are crossing the wave slope, they are actually on private property as we
understand it.
It's just that there is a public trust overlay that allows for the public constitutionally
to access that, but really just up to the wave slope.
So then when you get beyond that, we would be enabling folks to then access those other
places.
You still would do it under folks walking for sure.
That's still a possibility.
It's just exponential in its access when you add motor vehicles to that.
So that's what's happening here.
That's what makes it different than all the other places because usually there are places
Because you're accessing BLM land or state parks or some other agency that is allowing
for that to occur.
And manages for that.
That's the difference.
We're not managing for it, and the private property owners aren't managing for that either.
Or they're trying to, but there's no policy other than the designation.
Right.
I mean, last time I was at this beach, I didn't see very many people there.
I saw maybe a few vehicles parked on the road,
but I don't even recall seeing vehicles on the sand
when I was there, when I was there for my nephew's wedding.
I mean, I would be supportive of more process,
but I feel like we're jammed on the deadline situation,
and so we don't have much time for process,
And maybe the best way to facilitate process
is to take action, send it back to the county
and have the county come back to us
with a good faith effort to figure out some management
if they want to have some improvements to this beach area.
So if there's some willingness to have some flexibility
in, you know, I see there's some language here on conditions
that say prevent vehicle access.
Maybe we can have managed vehicle access.
I mean, something like that that staff might suggest
that would help us have some local state interaction
in how we move forward here.
Commissioner Wilson
Yeah, if there is I think the idea if we could ask staff
I would like to ask staff to propose something that that just allows us to
allows the county to in the future and I and I get it that
Honestly, we could always come back with an amendment at any time
But I just want to open the door that there's an expectation that the county might come back with an attempt at an amendment
Do you see what I'm saying?
So that at least, at least there's an, at least that,
at least the door is open, we can do that.
And I have to say, we as a county will have to make a decision
as to whether or not we're going to take that project on.
Because again, that will have cost to it.
That will have all these other things that come with that.
And we will have to make an active decision as to whether
or not that is something that's of value to us.
And so, do you want me to make some suggested language?
If you have some, I think if you need assistance
or if you want us to.
I'll take a shot.
Hold on a second.
Here, let me see if I can think about that for a second.
OK.
And so before you start, really quick,
just want to clarify a little bit of process.
Oh, an amended motion.
Yeah, I think what you would be looking at.
I think it's fine to talk about what that might be now.
But the process would be to get a motion on the floor
and then amend that motion with suggested language
that you are considering.
So just want to make that clear for everybody.
But again, I think it's OK to discuss
what you're thinking about so that your fellow commissioners
have an idea of where you're headed.
So we'll be going to the public management and use
portion of this document.
And it would be basically where it says,
only passive recreational uses and no motorized vehicles
shall be allowed, something to the effect of unless amended
in the future or something to that degree
or something like that, then no vehicle access of the beach
ramp or beach shall be allowed except the county emergency
and maintenance.
And then some language around, if the county develops
a vehicular access management plan,
provides controlled motorized vehicular access,
ensures confinement of vehicles to the wave slope,
and basically takes into consideration
ASHA water quality, marine resources,
those sorts of things.
And the plan, I think, probably would
have a minimum of details around timing and restrictions
and those types of accesses and how we would enforce,
I think, would be that.
Those would be the details you'd want in a plan.
Do you want five minutes to come back with some language
to propose for that?
Or do you want me to OK?
Or maybe give us, while you discuss amongst yourselves,
we might be able to come up with something
and that we could read out to you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Ogilvie.
Thank you.
I'm open to the flexibility.
I heard the passion in the room, and I
heard a couple of comments about way of life
and things of that nature.
And I think all of us so-called have our own way of life,
but we understand others' way of life.
So I think we can understand and definitely agree
with any type of major changes.
And I do think it will be a major change to close it to that type of recreational use.
And at the end of the day, part of our job is to,
what is it enforce the COSO Act and protect some of these habitats?
But I like the fact that Commissioner Wilson talking about how does the county
leadership here work through that, work through that with their residents and
and come back with something that allows this commission
to feel comfortable that we're doing our responsibilities,
and I think we're headed in that direction.
You know, for me, it's kind of like a jump ball type thing
where it could come down either way,
but there's nothing wrong with it falling in a way
where residents benefit, and they're not always the losers.
And I believe it's a way that they can still access
at beach, I would imagine, and protect the habitats.
And I think the county could come back shortly
and allow us again to be comfortable with this process,
with the management plan.
And so I appreciate the process.
I appreciate the commission talking through these issues.
Thank you.
Commissioner Kalmyk.
Thank you.
I have a couple of interesting questions, I think.
in my mind, they're interesting.
But and then some process questions.
So I guess I'll start with, when I was asked to join this
commission as an alternate, something was brought up about
representing California values.
And I think that California values understand the
uniqueness and diversity that is California.
And that getting down to the local levels, while it is the
folks that know the best there is still an overarching theme of California and
we protect our coasts and and it the state sometimes falls on either side of
that issue where the local local folks agree or disagree with what the state
decides to do it does sound though like the local authority has neglected the
last six months to pick this issue up as it was given to them and it's kind of
foisted it on to us, and I mean that with all due respect,
that it seems like we had a couple other commissioners come
up and testify today that this is a surprise,
that this kind of happened.
But the supervisors, I'm sorry, supervisors
came up and testified, which two more, three makes a quorum,
if you will, of those commissioner,
of those county supervisors.
But we have a different mandate, I think,
than local county supervisors.
And that's, I think, a big difference
is coming from a local elected background
to this board that we represent the state of California
as our constituents and not necessarily the locality.
And while we take their advice and consultation,
and we have a larger mandate.
So I guess I have a couple of specific questions of,
is equestrian access allowed on this beach
Or is there any equestrian access at all, is that not something that happens up here?
Yeah, I believe there's equestrian access.
And as part of the proposal, there will be at least one parking place for trailers, of
course, trailers, yeah.
So then I've, kind of when I've been doing planning stuff, we always say, okay, we're
going to build this cool thing, and then no one's going to use it, right?
It's building a castle and a forest that no one has access to.
Or if we build or allow the county to build this road,
based on the design, it sort of looks
like you could just drive up past the new construction,
make a left come down the hill, and access the beach anyways.
So I just want to make sure we're not going to create,
this doesn't contemplate a new attractive nuisance that
gets created from now, you can just drive on the beach.
But if there is vehicular prohibition,
the folks in this room sound pretty passionate about wanting
to have their vehicles on the beach.
what is the kind of protection against now that you've come up so many feet and you go around it
looks like you go up the hill and it still looks like there's open space to make kind of the left
or a right and just kind of come down through what appears to be Esha to get to the beach and
you're going to see a new path kind of emerge from the overheads. So if I'm understanding your
question you're asking about how do you get down safely down to the beach in a way that doesn't
resources. No, I'm saying if we put a if there's a ramp down to the beach but
there's a lock gate on it but about 150 feet up the road you can drive off the
road and come down through. Oh yeah off-road. Yeah so as part of our
recommendation I think it's special condition one we have a recommendation
that the county should submit revised plans that add barriers such as guard
rails along the elevated road segment so that people can't do what you're describing.
Okay, I just wanted to understand and make sure that. So then I want to understand the
standard of review then. So Commissioner Wilson's proposing we add some language to this that
effectively says that the county comes back with a management plan that the commission
could make that change. There's just two roads forward here, right? There is, we pass what
what staff has recommended, then the county could come back
and has to approve that, except the permit,
or that's the permit they have and they can go with it,
or they can apply for a permit amendment,
which again, what's the standard of review for that,
versus if we put language in this permit that says,
based on a traffic mitigation plan,
for lack of a better term,
that would the full commission review that,
staff review that and the executive director approved that. So I'm just trying to understand
the level of review because all of this costs money to taxpayers to try to achieve I think
some sort of Coastal Act compliance that would say hey look we can we actually done a study
and we can prove that we can get vehicles on this beach maintain a way of life and still
protect all the coastal resources and meet the Coastal Act. But it sounds staff has said
that it seems like there was no plan submitted,
so we have to evaluate what's presented to us.
So I guess it's really a,
is it gonna be the same process no matter what,
if we just approve exactly what they have,
county does the meeting next month,
decides, hey, we wanna proceed
with some sort of vehicular access,
they go and submit the permit amendment in six months,
we're back here again having a conversation.
It's a different process.
I don't think we have enough information today
to be able to add the parameters on a condition
in a legally defensible way.
I'm sorry, did somebody throw by as you were?
So I don't think we have enough information in here today
to try to craft a plan here with legally effective parameters
without knowing all the things that the county would
have to investigate if it wanted to develop a plan.
So I don't think that is a viable path.
But an amendment would come back to the commission for a vote.
I don't think we would be right back here in this situation
because the county would have worked through its local process
to have developed a plan and yes, we would evaluate
whether we think it's coastline consistent.
We being the commission and staff would make
a recommendation about that.
And then to put in real terms as I always like to bring
this back off of a big paper document and the real,
the county has funding to complete this project
if the CDP was approved today and goes through,
oh sorry, through the chair.
If you have any questions to staff, Ms. Gray, Ms. Kramer.
Yeah, I think that they have the majority of the funding
through the federal grants, federal and state grants.
I think there's some cost that the county has to spend,
but I think the majority is covered.
So the project's shovel ready then?
I believe so.
And the representative from Public Works
may want to come up and answer that question.
Again, I'm getting to the point of if this county were
decide they wanted to pursue this they can go through the amendment process but
there's no fencing going up tomorrow that precludes this access at the time
for the time being and by the all things being equal we could get to the same
point if they can prove that they can protect coastal resources and have
vehicular access. I apologize I didn't hear your full question. Is the project
shovel ready like are you guys if this permit gets approved as you know are the
bulldozers moving next month type of thing? In terms of the infrastructure we
We need probably two to three months to finish the engineering plans and specifications,
so we could put the project out to bid as early as December or January.
Right.
And the change for mitigation, all vehicles would just use this new ramp if that were
to be something that could be proven was feasible and meets the Coastal Act.
That ramp would be, I'm just saying, from an engineering standpoint, you're going to
look at much more traffic down it than just emergency vehicles and maintenance vehicles.
that have to change for our original proposal was for a wider ramp that would
accommodate the public use the condition that's currently in the proposed staff
report is to minimize the width of that ramp okay just really intended for
emergency vehicles okay all right so thank you so much I appreciate it so it
sounds like several months delay potential if the county decides they
want to pursue this. I don't know if we necessarily need to amend staff's
recommendation because it sounds like the county can decide at a public meeting
and have folks again unfortunately show up again make that determination and
then vote to say hey we'd like to keep this have a consultant build a plan
submit it to Coastal and then have this hearing again for the amendment process.
Meanwhile staff you know does their engineering work to maintain that. I
And we'd be interested to see if there's language that could get us here from the dais, which
I'm always kind of uncomfortable with, to get to some sort of compromise that would
minimize taxpayer expenditure and double work and all of that fun stuff.
So, thank you so much.
Thank you.
I'll follow up on that with a question.
And maybe this will be clarified when we see the language in front of us.
But I'm wondering, Ms. Warren or really whoever can answer this if possible, what is the operational
difference between the proposed solution or the proposed amendment to the conditions that
Commissioner Wilson has put forth and the county pursuing an amendment to the CDP and
sort of the traditional process that would not change?
Just operationally, in a couple bullet points, what would be the difference there substantively?
If I understand what Commissioner Wilson is trying to achieve here, and I do, we do have language that we drafted that we can get up on the screen, but again, I would look to Commissioner Wilson to let us know if we got it right or if this is kind of what he's thinking but if we're getting, understanding what he's, what he's asking.
I think the idea would be to allow specifically for some type of amendment that might contemplate future vehicular use if it is
Consistent with other coastal act policies. And so I and again, I think the concern would be that without some
Acknowledgment that that's a possibility then we might reject an amendment out of hand because it would be a weakening amendment to this permit
And I I suspect that's what Commissioner Wilson is trying to address
But I think I think there's if that is really the direction the Commission wants to go I would suggest considering
It would be good for you to consider some language to that effect to make it clear
Thank you
That's helpful and in the absence of submission by the county of such a management plan
The prohibition as it exists within the conditions would stand. Is that correct?
That's correct and maybe what we could do is bring up the slide that I just sent over to you all and I can walk through
It so again forgive the lat I did it really fast. So this is not this is part of condition
special condition 10
number B
Okay, so just to be clear special condition 10 is called final public access management plan. There's a couple there's ABC
There's a bunch of things but number B is public access management and use and so and so this is the language that we came up
With the the additions would be in the bold underline
So the existing language is in the regular text
Again, so please Commissioner Wilson. Let me know if this is kind of what you were thinking, but this is what we were
This is what we came up with
It looks good to me. Okay
So maybe do you want if I met I could read it or do you want to give everyone a minute to look at it?
It's kind of long. Why don't you go ahead and read it? Thank you
So all public access areas improvements and amenities shall be available to the general public 24 hours a day free of charge
Only passive recreational uses and no motorized vehicle use shall be allowed. Here's the change unless an amendment to the CDP is obtained
No vehicular access use of the beach access ramp or beach shall be allowed except for county emergency and maintenance purposes
Here's the next part of the addition if the county develops a vehicular access management plan for Centerville Beach County Park that provides for controlled
motorized vehicle access use that ensures
Confinement of vehicles to the wave slope areas below the mean high tide line
The Commission may consider such a proposal under an amendment to this coastal development permit
The vehicular access management plan shall demonstrate the ability for the county to ensure that motorized vehicle use
Will be managed to protect public safety and coastal resources consistent with the coastal act
including but not limited to
Esha water quality and marine resources
The plan shall include at a minimum details on any timing restrictions for such for such access
Measures to identify motorized vehicle use areas and provisions for dedicated enforcement
Thank you, and while my colleagues consider that I'll just follow up question
And I think the language is clear, but I want to make sure in the event that the county
Does provide such a plan and it does include those five or six things this in no way
Obligates the Commission to accept such use, correct?
It would come before you as an amendment to this permit that we would that would better it would include a another public hearing
And a consideration from you all as to whether it achieves
It's consistent with the special condition as you are considering amending. Okay. Thank you Commissioner. O'Malley
Thank you chair. Very brief question. Maybe you answered this just trying to get it straight
Thank you for driving through the language if we were instead to just vote staff recommendation
There is no process for the county to come meet and come back and then try to amend
So I think they could you can always come back and amend your permit or apply to do so
I think the concern would be that
a
an amendment to allow for vehicular use here when it's specifically
Prohibited by the special conditions would be considered a weakening amendment
And therefore could be rejected again. We don't have such an amendment in front of us
So I hesitate to say it would be but the idea that it could be rejected
Okay as a weakening amendment to the permit. All right. Thank you very much
Okay, I'll make my comments briefly, you know, I and I really do appreciate and want to recognize
the love of this
activity, this beach that we heard today.
And it's so reminiscent of the conversations
that we had in Oceana, which is an area that I represent
on this commission.
So I'm very sensitive and particularly sensitive
to the sense that you all didn't have a voice in the process.
That said, I find it frankly impossible to square
our mandate under the Coastal Act with vehicular access.
So, with that said, I think Commissioner Wilson has come up with an elegant solution.
If the county is able to do that work effectively, I'm skeptical that there could be a management plan that would respond sufficiently to the mandate as it's laid out in the Coastal Act.
But I appreciate the effort by our staff and Commissioner Wilson to try to allow for that process to go forward.
to go forward. So I do support the revision and that's where I am if my
colleagues want to weigh in Commissioner Wilson. I'm happy to make a motion and
when the time comes. Commissioner Jackson. I appreciate the staff's
flexibility in and improvising that amended recommendation. So I just want to
make sure so the interim impact would be zero vehicles if this passes today as
amended and unless and until there's an actual management plan which could take
months there is there is no vehicle access is that correct can I answer it
it will just I'll be really clear that limitation to vehicle access only really
begins after that it's construction of the of the because there is no physical
boundary at this moment. So I don't know what what else to say about that. Okay I
just want to make sure I was clear on the immediate impact. So okay I think I
got it, thank you. The third chair was the second. Excuse me. I don't think the
motion's been made yet. I'm sorry just one quick. We're still conferring but
I actually need to remove one component of the suggested language. Can we bring the slide
back up again? It's just to avoid confusion. And again, this is we're doing this in real
time. So would you like to take a five minute break, director? No, it's literally it would
be really fast. I can just describe it to you. And again, I know we're not even at the
point of doing the amended motion. So but I want to I just again, it was sort of in
doing it fast. So you'll see in in the second edition, if the county develops a vehicular
access management plan for Centerville Beach County Park that provides for controlled motorized
vehicular access use that ensures confinement of vehicles to the wave slope. And then there's
a parenthetical that says areas below the mean high tide line. I would like to remove
that because it's confusing. And I think it adds confusion. The wave slope and the mean
high tide line and how they, the wave slope is the, is the way that it's described in
the county. You know, that's how they, that is the boundary. And so I think we should
just keep it to that. I think it makes sense. The rest of us live in the world where we
talk about mean high tide lines that was our attempt at sort of trying to bring
them together but I think it adds potential confusion and so I I would
like to strike that from the suggested mods. Commissioner Wilson. I appreciate
that because things are moving all the time and so that I think we know what
wet sand is and we know what dry sand is and so that will be very helpful and
easy easier for people to understand. Okay if there are no further comments I
I will accept a motion.
We're taking the main motion first.
I'll make the main motion.
I move that the commission approve
Coastal Development Permit number 1-24-1028
pursuant to the staff recommendation.
I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
OK.
That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson,
a second by Commissioner Oglesby.
I'd like to make an amending motion
and help me with the language on this.
I'd like to amend the motion to include the language as displayed
by staff five minutes ago or whatever it was.
You're amending the special condition, not the motion.
I'm amending special condition number 10B.
10B, thank you.
I'll second.
So to the amending motion by Commissioner Wilson,
I've seconded.
We're asking for a yes vote.
May we have a roll call vote, please?
Yes.
Commissioner Kelly.
Oh, Kelly is offline.
Commissioner Lee.
Yes.
Lee, yes.
Commissioner Oglesby.
Yes.
Oglesby, yes.
Commissioner Kalmick.
Yes.
Kalmick, yes.
Commissioner Notthoff.
Aye.
Notthoff, yes.
Commissioner Moreno.
Moreno, yes.
Moreno, yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
No.
O'Malley, no.
Commissioner Escalante?
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Jackson?
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Chair Harmon?
Is Carol online?
Vice Chair Hart, did she vote?
She was not here for public comment.
Oh, apologies.
OK, then I'm a yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is 9, yes, 1, no.
Thank you.
The motion carries.
And now we'll move to the main motion
as amended by the amending motion.
That was made by Commissioner Wilson
and seconded by Commissioner Oglesby, asking for a yes vote.
May we have a roll call vote, please.
Yes, give me a second.
All right, Commissioner Oglesby?
Aye.
Oglesby, yes.
Commissioner Kalmyk?
Aye.
Kalmyk, yes.
Commissioner Knodhoff?
Aye.
Knodhoff, yes.
Commissioner Moreno?
Moreno, yes.
Moreno, yes.
Commissioner Wilson?
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante?
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Jackson?
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Lee?
Yes.
Lee, yes.
Chair Harmon?
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, everyone, for being here.
These are challenging and important topics.
appreciate your participation. I'm going to suggest we take a 10-minute break and
then we will come back to finish out our day's agenda. 545 please commissioners.
Okay, thank you everyone. We are returning to our calendar for the day and I
believe we are at, might need some help here. What number are we on? I believe we're
item 15. Thank you. That will take us then to the North Central Coast Deputy
Director's Report and good evening Chair Harmon, second month in a row now that
we're on starting in the after five o'clock. Today we're reporting one waiver
and one emergency coastal permit. We're not aware of any comments or
controversies associated with these items and so we're asking for your
concurrence on the DD's. Thank you. Any ex parte? Any public
comments? No speakers for this item. Okay. Do three or more
commissioners object to the deputy directors report? Seeing
no objections, the commission concurs. Thank you very much.
Item 17, please. Great. So that will take us right to the
Central Coast deputy directors report. Today we're reporting
one CDP extension and one emergency coastal permit.
We're not aware of any comments or controversies
on these items either,
and so we're asking for your concurrence.
Thank you.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
No speakers for this item.
Thank you.
Do three or more commissioners object
to any item in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Mr. Con.
Great.
Then that will take us to the LCP calendar,
And item 18a is a Santa Cruz County request
to update its LCP ADU provisions.
Nolan Clark, lead planner on this item,
will be giving the staff presentation.
And there is a PowerPoint, and Nolan.
Thank you, Kevin.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Item 18a is a proposed Santa Cruz County LCP amendment
to update the county's accessory dwelling unit
or ADU provisions.
Slide one here shows an aerial oblique photo
of the Pleasure Point area.
county area with fairly dense housing stock where could be facilitated. I would
note that an addendum for this item has been distributed that responds to
comments received but that does not change the staff report, sorry, staff
recommendation which continues to be that the Commission approve the proposed
LCP amendment as submitted. Next slide please. At a broad level the proposed
updates primarily serve to implement recent changes to state ADU law as well
as guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community
development, or HCD, as a result of their review of the county's current ADU
provisions. Importantly, the changes to state law continue to explicitly require
that the Coastal Resource Protections in the Coastal Act and by extension LCPs are
not suspended in the construction of ADUs and thus
updated local government ADU provisions must continue to protect coastal
resources. Here the county's proposed updates seek to do just that. The proposed
changes will provide the county with additional tools to concentrate new and potentially more
affordable residential development in areas with adequate services to support it. As shown here
on slide 2, the county's proposal clarifies definitions for the different types of ADUs,
including new construction, conversion, and junior ADUs. Additionally, the proposal updates the
allowed number, size, setback, and height requirements consistent with state ADU law,
prohibits short-term mental use on properties with ADUs, requires correction of non-conforming
conditions or existing LCP violations unless the project is limited to an ADU-only project
then the violations are not currently impacting coastal resources,
applies specific coastal resource protection requirements for coastal hazards, environmentally
sensitive habitat areas, and agricultural lands, and updates the appeal procedures for ADUs in the
coastal zone. Overall the proposed updates can be seen as further refinements in alignment with
state ADU law while also still requiring that coastal resources be protected when ADU projects
are considered. Next slide please. In particular, the county is taking a proactive approach to
balancing coastal resource protections with ADU development by proposing coastal zone specific
requirements. Notably, new construction and conversion ADUs would be prohibited within
the 100-year geologic site stability setback on coastal bluffs and in coastal hazards areas
seaward of coastal bluffs, where residential structures are frequently significantly damaged,
and where sea level rise is only anticipated to increase risk over time.
One such location includes Beach Drive, shown on the bottom left here on slide 3,
where in 2023 residents was lifted from its pier foundations and rafted some 30 feet towards
the coastal bluff and subsequently demolished. Similarly, the proposed amendment prohibits new
construction ADUs in environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or ESHA, allows conversion ADUs
in ESHA only when the converted structure does not increase in size or building footprint
and allows JADUs in legally permitted structures in ESHA because such projects are located
wholly within the space of an existing residence.
Finally, the proposed amendment clearly spells agricultural protections for ADU projects,
including by requiring that all ADU development is an ancillary to the primary residential
use of the property, is clustered with existing development to avoid and minimize the removal
of land from production, minimizes impervious surfaces, and consolidates driveways and any
related infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible.
With these proposed provisions, the amendment will serve well to focus ADU development in
the areas best suited to accommodate it, which comprises a large majority of the county's
coastal zone, while also protecting coastal resources and avoiding additional development
in the most hazardous areas.
In conclusion, the proposed amendment will continue to promote and should further facilitate
sustainable ADU production in the county's coastal zone,
while also avoiding any potentially significant
coastal resource impacts, especially as it relates
to key coastal zone, shoreline, agricultural, and Esha areas.
Thus, staff recommends that the commission
find the proposed amendment consistent with
and adequate to carry out the policies
of the certified land use plan,
and that the commission approve the amendment as submitted.
The motion and resolution are found
on page five of the staff report.
This concludes the staff presentation.
Thank you.
Great, thank you very much.
Are there any expertise?
Seeing none, I will turn it to Chris.
All right, we just have three people signed up.
They're all available for questions.
We have Santa Cruz County members.
OK.
Yeah, no other speakers.
Thank you so much.
I'll return to the commission.
Commissioner Wilson.
I'm happy to make a motion unless anyone
wants to discuss further.
Excuse me, Madam Chair, I just want to clarify that one of the people who submitted a letter
is signed up and apparently is just listed as available for questions, but I'm surprised
by that.
We're seeing their hand raised now, actually.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Well, yeah.
Kevin Huber.
You're being moved in as a panelist.
All right.
Kevin, you're in as a panelist now.
You should be able to unmute and begin.
Sorry about that.
Thank you.
Can you hear me?
yes we can hear you. Great thank you. Chair Herman commissioners Kevin Huber
my wife Sandy and I are owners of 625 Beach Drive in Aptos. Andrew Vogel from
the Nossman Law Firm has submitted two letters in response to the staff report
and addendum that are also in the record. Commission staff has identified multiple
areas that will necessitate a future amendment to this LCP amendment
including a concern that this LCP may be inconsistent
with state ADU law and textual language
that must be modified with a future cleaned up version
of that section.
At two o'clock today, I received an email from HCD
indicating that they sent comments to the county
on August 28th, following their process of review
for proposed ADU LCP amendments.
This date, which is the same as your staff report,
clearly demonstrates that their comments
have not been considered in what's before you today. The Commission and
public deserve to see HCD's comments prior to certification and the
Commission's ADU guidelines suggest the LCP be withdrawn and resubmitted with
HCD's comments addressed. If the Commission is inclined to
proceed, one modification available to you today is to add and adopt the exact
language that this Commission adopted in Mendocino. In Mendocino, the Commission
prohibits ADUs in a coastal hazard area, however you adopted carve-out language
that allows an ADU if it is contained entirely within the footprint of an
existing residential structure with no distinction made as to whether that ADU
is a JADU or a conversion ADU. Again your guidelines promote such flexibility.
The LCP amendment before the Commission today is incomplete. It contains
admitted errors, it doesn't address the HCD comments on this LCP amendment, and
there is no reason to rush the certification. We submit that it would be
more prudent to delay certification until HCD's comments and other
acknowledged errors are addressed. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any
questions. Thank you. Thanks for catching that. No more speakers. Thank you. With
that, I will close the public hearing and turn to our staff if they'd like to
respond? Yes thank you and briefly we did respond to Mr. Vogel and Mr. Hoover's
comment letter in the addendum. Just briefly we believe that the amendment
both is consistent with the letter of the law in terms of standard of review
here being adequacy to carry out the Santa Cruz County certified land use
plan which includes some rather specific provisions about how to deal with new
building sites and potentially hazardous locations.
We think that the county provided a pretty good approach
in terms of allowing for junior accessory dwelling units, which
are essentially internal remodels
in the interior of a building versus more standalone
conversion ADUs, which would intensify coastal hazards
risk in these low-level beachfront locations.
We also just think it's good public policy
to do so as well, to not intensify that risk here.
And then with respect to HCD, they
have reviewed this ordinance actually several times.
That's what precipitated the amendment in the first place
was HCD's review.
They did identify some other additional non-coastal resource
issues after publishing of the staff report.
And those will be addressed by the county in a future
amendment.
But they don't address our reviewing lens, which is consistency with the land use plan.
So for all those reasons, we continue to recommend approval as submitted.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
I'll return to the commission.
Commissioner Wilson.
I move that the commission reject implementation plan amendment LCP-3-SCO-26-0035-1, Part A,
submitted by Santa Cruz County and I recommend a no vote. Thank you that's a
motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Vice Chair Hart they're asking for a
no vote may we have a roll call vote please. Yes, Commissioner Kelmick? No.
Kelmick no. Commissioner Notthoff? No. Notthoff no. Commissioner Moreno? Moreno no.
Now, more no, no, Commissioner Wilson.
No, Wilson no, Commissioner O'Malley.
No, O'Malley no, Commissioner Escalante.
No, Escalante no, Commissioner Hart.
No.
Hart no, Commissioner Jackson.
No.
Jackson no, Commissioner Lee.
No.
Lee no, Commissioner Oglesby.
No.
Oglesby no, Chair Harmon.
No.
Harmon know the vote is unanimous.
OK, thank you very much.
And that's the only motion.
Correct, Mr. Khan?
OK.
That is correct.
Great.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Then we will move on to the next item, please.
Great.
That will take us to 19A, the Cambria Community Services
Districts, Water Reclamation Facility, CDP Appeal.
And there is a PowerPoint on this one.
All right.
So thank you.
And good evening, Chair Harmon, commissioners.
Agenda item 19A is an appeal of a San Luis Obispo County approval for the Cambria Community
Service District's water reclamation facility, elements of which are pictured here in slide
one.
The project will treat groundwater to drinking water quality and re-inject it near the district's
potable production wells to maintain a protective groundwater gradient and reduce the risk of
seawater and treated effluent intrusion during drought conditions.
Next slide.
The project is located at the site of CCSD's existing wastewater treatment percolation
ponds and water supply infrastructure along San Simeon Creek between the communities of
Cambria and San Simeon, as can be seen in the image on the top of slide 2.
CCSD's property is outlined in yellow on the slide to the right.
As you can see, State Parks Campground is next door, and both are just inland of Highway
1 along San Simeon Creek.
Next slide.
Cambria is a community of roughly 6,000 residents along San Luis Obispo County's north coast,
halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The community is entirely reliant on water from the San Simeon and Santa Rosa Creek aquifers,
which are relatively shallow and porous and susceptible to significant declines during
periods of drought.
As such, CCSD has sought for decades to add more supply to its overall system, which serves
as the backdrop for the County-approved project.
The County initially approved the Emergency Water Supply Project pursuant to an emergency
coastal permit in May of 2014, in response to an extreme drought and a concern from CCSD
staff at that time that there was a two to three month supply of water remaining if nothing
were to be done.
As such, CCSD proposed construction of an emergency desalination project, the purpose
of which was to augment water supply with a new source during this emergency drought
condition only, and with the hope that it could be shown to potentially serve as a longer-term
more sustainable source in the future, including to allow for additional growth and development
in the town.
Elements of that project are shown here on slide three.
The main components were construction of a desalination plant identified as the AWTP,
Advanced Water Treatment Plant, and conversion of the wastewater treatment plant's former
effluent storage pond into a Bryant evaporation pond, shown in yellow on the slide.
That project raised considerable environmental concerns, including from commission staff
at that time, about potential sensitive habitat impacts from both the siting of the facilities
themselves, as well as from the pumping of ground and surface waters that is typically
related to desalination projects.
one built on an expedited timeline without adequate review.
Nevertheless, construction commenced in August 2014 and the plant was operational through
2016.
In the intervening years, CCSD evaluated other project permutations that could address its
water supply shortages.
And after nearly a decade of study, CCSD proposed and the county approved the project subject
to this appeal, which both serves as the required follow-up authorization for some of the emergency
project and to authorize new improvements and habitat mitigation measures moving forward.
Next slide.
The county approved project retains some of the emergency project's infrastructure, including
the advanced water treatment plant and intake well, but eliminates the open air brine evaporation
Pond, decreases the scale of operation, and now includes a robust monitoring and adaptation
program.
The project is now called the Water Reclamation Facility, or WERF.
The facilities treatment process is shown on slide 4.
First, noted with a number 1 on the slide to the left, treated effluent from the existing
wastewater treatment plant, located about 2 miles to the south, is pumped to existing
percolation ponds at the site.
At number 2, this water enters the aquifer and mixes with brackish groundwater.
That groundwater is then pumped at number 3 and then piped to the advanced water treatment
plant where it is treated at number 4.
Water is tertiary treated including removal of chlorides and up to 425 gallons per minute
is pumped and injected back into the aquifer near CCSD's existing potable water supply
wells, at number five.
The intent is to add more fresh water into the groundwater system to keep seawater from
migrating upstream and affecting potable water supply wells during times of drought.
While not pictured here, an additional 100 gallons per minute of treated water would
be directed into the San Simeon Creek Lagoon to help maintain habitat function and water
quality there. Next slide. Central to the previous project was a roughly three
and a half acre brine evaporation pond noted in light green on slide 5 toward
the left center of the slide. That pond proved problematic for a number of
reasons including because it flooded during heavy precipitation events. For
this new version of the project the brine will now either be treated in a
zero liquid discharge ZLD facility to remove 99% of the liquid before the
remaining materials are trucked to a disposal facility or if the ZLD treatment
proves infeasible, Brian will be temporarily stored and contain tanks and
truck to appropriate disposal facilities. Project updates also include an extended
pipeline to direct treated water into the San Simeon Creek Lagoon to help
maintain water levels there during times of drought. The wharf would operate up to
five days per week and no more than seven months per year during the dry
season depending on precipitation and groundwater levels which are described
in the staff report. All told the project's physical footprint is less
than an acre. The three and a half acre former brine evaporation pond which was
an effluent storage pond that was lined under the 2014 eCDP will be restored to
habitat, and four acres of riparian vegetation upland
habitat will be placed into a protective open space easement.
As will be described next, the project also
includes extensive monitoring and management.
Next slide.
The appeals primarily contend that the project
will adversely affect environmentally sensitive
habitat areas, or ESHA, water quality,
and sensitive creek environments
inconsistent with the LCP.
Given the very technical nature of this project
and the contentions, I will now turn the mic over
to the Commission's staff ecologist, Dr. Rachel Pausch,
and the Commission's water quality expert, Dr. Holly Hall,
to explain this project from a habitat and water quality
perspective.
Both have been heavily involved in this project's review
and have extensively reviewed project materials.
Thank you, Mr. Kahn.
Related to habitat and ecology, there
are two potential concerns to evaluate.
The first is the project's physical siting itself,
and the second is the potential impact
the operation could have on the creek's riparian habitats.
Regarding physical siting,
the project includes 20 acre of infrastructure,
the majority of which is shown here on this slide,
in addition to the 3.6 acre former effluent basin.
Almost all of this infrastructure is located
in ruteral habitat that,
while composed of mainly non-native species,
still does qualify as Escher
because it serves as dispersal habitat
for the California red-legged frog.
Some appeal contentions argue the project
is not an allowable use in Esha.
However, an important distinction
about this particular LCP is that it potentially allows
for essential public infrastructure in Esha
when certain findings are made.
Given the location of the potable production wells
and existing percolation ponds,
this project necessarily must be cited in this area
and it has avoided riparian Esha
to the greatest extent possible.
The only infrastructure located within riparian Esha
is the 400 feet of pipe that will be used
to direct treated water into San Simeon Lagoon,
located at the outlet of San Simeon Creek,
during periods of drought
to help preserve habitat quality.
Unavoidable project impacts
will also be adequately compensated for,
including via over seven acres of habitat mitigation
as part of the county's approval,
and including the removal of the brine pond liner
and restoration with native plantings.
Second, the project should not result
in any significant adverse impact to riparian resources
and sensitive species in the lagoon.
The project will only draw groundwater
during the dry years after surface water flows
have ceased in the lower reaches of San Simeon Creek
and thus not impact fish passage.
And there is required riparian vegetation monitoring.
The lagoon system does support aquatic species year round.
Thus the project water diverted to the lagoon
also has the benefits of ensuring fresh water
will be available for habitat protection during drought years.
The project will also protect the production well resources.
thereby potentially reducing the pumping demand
on Santa Rosa Creek's extractions,
which would be a habitat benefit at that creek as well.
This is all explained in more detail
in the staff report and addendum,
but for now, I'll pass the mic over to Dr. Hall
to discuss water quality
and the updated adaptive management monitoring program.
Thank you.
From a water quality perspective,
a central function of the project is to maintain
a protective groundwater gradient
between the CSD's potable well field
and the downstream percolation area and coast.
Groundwater extracted near the percolation area
would be treated to drinking water quality standards
and re-injected closer to the potable wells,
helping prevent treated effluent and potentially seawater
from migrating toward those wells.
That water is cleaner than background conditions.
The project also directs microfiltration-treated groundwater
to the Upper San Semenian Creek Lagoon.
That water has lower concentrations of total dissolved solids, sodium, and
chloride than the shallow groundwater that currently seeps into the lagoon.
As such, based on my review of the project materials and
available water quality information, I agree that the project is not expected
to result in significant adverse water quality impacts.
However, modeling cannot predict every condition that may occur during operation.
That is why we have given considerable thought to the Adaptive Management Plan,
or AMP, which is a key component of this project.
The AMP is designed to verify the project's predicted effects under actual
operating conditions, detect potential problems early, and
require operational changes when needed.
It monitors groundwater levels, water quality, riparian habitat,
special status species, and conditions in San Simeon Creek and the lagoon.
Groundwater level monitoring is particularly important because the project
relies on maintaining the proper groundwater gradient.
CCSD has a network of production and monitoring wells with a substantial
historical record.
During WRF operation, key wells near the creek and lagoon will be monitored
continuously, as will the wells used to calculate the groundwater gradients that
control the operation.
Another well and four existing piezometers
in the wastewater percolation area
will provide additional continuous measurements
during operation.
Together, these data will allow CCSD
to identify drawdown associated with pumping
and determine whether it extends
toward the creek or lagoon.
Water quality monitoring provides
a similar early warning system.
The AMP includes monitoring of electrical conductivity,
total dissolved solids and nitrate at the percolation area,
in shallow groundwater near the lagoon
and in the upper lagoon.
Site-specific thresholds will be established
using pre-operation baseline data.
And if monitoring approaches or exceeds those thresholds,
the AMP requires prompt review, confirmation sampling,
and if change is confirmed and reasonably attributed
to the WRF operation,
adaptive management measures are required.
Those measures can include increased monitoring, adjustment to lagoon discharge,
reduction in groundwater pumping or reinjection, and if necessary,
temporary suspension of affected WRF operations.
The AMP also establishes a technical advisory committee with representatives
from the Coastal Commission and other resource and regulatory agencies
to review monitoring results and adaptive responses.
The combination of groundwater and piezometer monitoring water quality monitoring and quantitative triggers agency oversight and progressively stronger adaptive response provides a robust framework for identifying and addressing water quality or habitat impacts if they occur with that said I'll turn it back over to Mr.
Next slide, please.
Some appellants also argue the county approved project did not adequately evaluate the project's
costs, citing it as an environmental justice concern.
Staff notes that while Cambria does not meet the criteria of a designated disadvantaged
community, ensuring critical infrastructure financing does not disproportionately burden
those with the least ability to shoulder this additional expense is something the commission
grapples with up and down the state. In this case, CCSD has committed to seeking grants
and keeping project costs as low as possible, and notes several existing programs for residents
of lower income to keep their utility bills affordable. We encourage CCSD to continue
finding all means possible to ensure its operations are carried out in an equitable manner.
And lastly, in terms of growth inducement, we'd like to make a few points. First, the
description does not provide for additional growth and development,
including since most new water-using development is simply not permissible
under the LCP at this time. The LCP is not proposed for amendment and those
restrictions will continue to govern unless and until the Commission
certifies an LCP amendment that provides for new growth. Second, the project is not
also is also not adding new water supply or otherwise changing the allowable
amount of water it can extract for the community's consumption purposes, which those two are
governed by a commissioned CDP and the State Water Board.
Those two would need to be amended to allow for additional water consumption, and neither
of which are part of this project.
And lastly, the project is meant to help make its existing supplies more resilient in the
face of seawater intrusion, but it is not intended to be a solution to all of its water
supply inadequacies.
As this commission is aware from several CDP appeals over the years, these creeks are simply
too important a habitat and too unreliable during times of drought to serve as a community's
sole water source.
But until the time that a project or projects are identified to augment its supply in a
meaningful and coastal compliant way, this project can help keep an already stressed
system operational and prevent further deterioration of the groundwater resource.
think this is an important context that should not be understated. Next slide. In
conclusion, this project has a long history and previous iterations of it
did raise serious coastal resource concerns. But the current project, as
approved by the county, has been modified over the years in response to those
concerns and generally should now be understood to protect existing water
supplies, groundwater health, and lagoon habitat, and to include significant
monitoring and adaptive management
with commission oversight to ensure no negative resource
impacts over time.
This project evolution is the result of community advocacy,
regulatory agency input, and a concerted effort
by CCSD staff to listen and to respond accordingly
to such direction.
Staff believe that all parties should feel a sense
of accomplishment to get to this point
as it represents the positive change that
can happen as part of an open and robust dialogue
on important public infrastructure.
As a result, staff recommend the commission
determine that the appeal contentions do not
raise a substantial LCP conformance issue,
and that the commission decline to take jurisdiction
over the CDP application for this project.
The single motion to implement this recommendation
is found on page 9 of the staff report,
and this concludes our presentation.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes to report?
Seeing none.
I will open the public hearing and go to you, Chris.
All right, I believe we start with the appellants.
We have Tina Dickison, Christine Heinrichs, and Mary Webb,
listed as separate appellants, which are supposed
to be received three minutes each.
We are not seeing Tina Dickison or Mary Webb on Zoom.
If you are there, please raise your hand.
We are finding Christine Heinrichs.
Christine, you're being moved in as panelists.
All right, I am seeing one other user
with their hand raised,
but they're under the name Zoom User.
You will go after Christine.
Thank you.
Let me find my statement here.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Thank you also for this thoughtful staff report and addendum.
But I have concerns that remain ambiguous.
I ask for further guidance in settling them.
Uncertainty can lead to further confusion
that the commission could again be asked to resolve.
I appreciate the commission's continuing engagement
in the Technical Advisory Committee
and oversight of the Adaptive Management Plan.
However, I ask that you specify when the TAC will meet
and what notice and access the public will have
to meetings and reports.
So far as I know, the previous tech never met,
or if it did, the public was not notified
and I've been unable to find any records.
I asked the commission to be specific
with regard to the district's claim of existing commitments
that the district uses as a subterfuge
to approve new construction in Cambria.
In the past, the district has continued
to approve these permits under various guises.
despite the commission's statements
that no such commitments exist
or can be used to approve new construction permits.
The permits are then appealed individually
wasting everyone's time.
While your statement that it, the district,
is not seeking to use this project
to justify new development
and will continue to only serve existing development,
if you do not direct the district
stop approving new construction permits under various guises, the District will do so and
each permit will be appealed separately, resulting in more projects to add to the list cited
in footnote 11 on page 21 of the staff report. Please, close this door firmly.
The zero liquid discharge process remains at best uncertain. Please make clear that
new facilities will be required to get the appropriate permit before construction.
Please make these points clear. Thank you. Thank you. Next, the person under the name
Zoom user, please go ahead, state your name. Yes, my name is Mary Webb. I'm sorry, my name
didn't appear up there, I'm not sure why. The CCSD built a public works project with changing
descriptions under an emergency permit in ESHA, then we're never required to complete the CDP for
12 years. This, to our organization, Green Space, is who I'm speaking for, is of regional and
statewide significance. It sets a precedent that we believe the Commission should not allow.
Shouldn't the Commission prevent this from happening again? What condition
would prevent the local CSD from repeating the same scenario in the same location and
expanding the project. Let's see, we are not assured that San San
San Rosa creeks will be protected due to past CSD violations that made it clear we need
a like a 24-hour hotline so that we can immediately notify a third party in the TAC
because we only see issues outside of the CSD property
after the fact, it's all gated.
So there may be reporting and monitoring
and triggers required,
but our citizens in town find the violations
and then we have to try to call the agencies ourselves.
So we would really like to have a different reporting program
so that citizens can be involved.
Condition is needed to require possibly a pilot project
of some sort in order to approve the project
has no adverse impacts to San Simeon Creek
and the white prairie and habitat.
It needs to actually run with third party oversight onsite,
which has never happened since 2014.
The project has already caused significant adverse impacts
to ESHA, no mitigation has been done for that.
We warned the CSD in 2008 to 2014
that mitigation could cost the district millions of dollars
in this location if they built a public works project there.
They ignored that and did it under the emergency CDP.
What mitigation will be required of the CSD
for the damages already done?
The ZLD proposal should require its own CDP
to measure actual operational effects at the site.
They're super concentrating brine waste now in tanks
right next to the creek.
So what is gonna, this could present a bigger problem
rather than a reduced impact.
The chemicals need to be identified
and it needs to be analyzed for hazardous spills
and amount of storage in the riparian area.
Flooding has occurred in this location on the site,
in the creek right next to the project
in both 2016 and 2023.
It's gonna occur again, possibly this year,
as you knowing that the atmospheric river
is coming this year.
Storing chemicals, so what happens is the CSD,
when they have a flooding event, they start clearing.
Vegetation is breaking.
Please finish your thought, ma'am.
I'm sorry.
Finish your thought.
Or have to apply for future emergency permits,
so that those need to be tried to prevent those in advance.
There's so much more, but yeah, thank you.
Thank you.
one more call for Tina Dickison, the last applicant. Tina, I'm not seeing any hands
raised. We'll move to the applicants. That's okay. All right, we have with the
applicant group Matthew McElhamy, as well as Jim Green, Tristan Reaper, Kevin
Merck, Gus Yates, Christina Galloway and Eric Johnson, all here in person. And we
also have Timothy Carmel on Zoom, just to note that. I have a note that they've
requested 15 minutes total for that the applicant group all right thank you
good evening chair and commissioners I'm dr. Matthew McLean the general manager
of the Cambridge Community Service District next slide please or if we can
get the slide deck up that'd be great and next slide thank you the question
before you is focused do these appeals raise a substantial issue as to whether
the county approved project conforms to the certified local coastal program and applicable
Coastal Act policies. The record contains a defined project, extensive technical review,
enforceable conditions and adaptive management. We respectfully submit that the appeals do not
demonstrate a substantial issue. Next slide please. Cambeau relies primarily on the Sand
Seaman Creek groundwater basin, a small coastal aquifer vulnerable during drought and reduced
recharge. Next slide. When groundwater levels decline, the real risk of seawater intrusion
increases. Next slide. What the project is and what it is not. That distinction is important.
The WRF serves existing customers only. It does not create new service connections,
lift the moratorium, authorize new development, or provide growth capacity. It also does not
approve a future ocean outfall or regional brine disposal systems. Those
would require separate approvals. Next slide. The first appeal theme concerns
groundwater neighboring wells and creek hydrology. The County of San Luis Obispo's
record includes hydraulic analysis, monitoring wells, groundwater monitoring,
and adaptive management. The AMP requires monitoring and operational changes when
established triggers are reached. Condition 43 also requires reporting to
the County of San Luis Obispo and the Coastal Commission, including actions
taken. The project does not simply assume that there will be no effect. It
measures conditions and requires response. Next slide. The second theme
concerns San Siam and Creek Lagoon, the drinking water, and treated water
discharge. The project includes water quarter monitoring and operational
triggers. Condition 47 ties the WF operation to dry season conditions and
requires cessation when natural stream flow resumes. Water quality is also independently
overseen by the Regional Water Control Board, Division of Drinking Water, and the County
of San Luis Obispo. Next slide, please. The third theme is habitat and sensitive species.
The County of San Luis Obispo required biological surveys, avoidance measures, restoration and
revegetation. The AMP also monitors habitat and riparian conditions. The project is largely
within the disturbed utility facilities,
minimizing new habitat disturbances.
Next slide.
The fourth theme is growth.
The permit authorizes infrastructure,
not new connections, subdivisions, or development.
Growth management remains under the jurisdiction
of the County of San Luis Obispo.
The WRF does not lift the moratorium.
Next slide please.
The fifth theme concerns brine disposal
and zero liquid discharge.
The county approval identifies the ZLD facility
and associated infrastructure with required agency permits
or determinations before operation.
Any future regional brine disposal system
or ocean outfall would require separate approvals.
The project before you has a defined regulated brine
management strategy.
Next slide.
The sixth theme is project completeness and process.
After a long history, a very long history,
the County of San Luis Obispo approved a defined project
with specific improvements, operational limits,
mitigation and permit conditions.
The record includes SQL review, technical studies,
mitigation measures, the AMP itself,
and the County of San Luis Obispo's findings.
Historical disagreements provide context,
but the substantial issue must focus
on the project actually approved.
Next slide, please.
The adaptive management plan is central
to many of these concerns.
Its structure is straightforward.
baseline, measure, evaluate, triggers, respond and report.
This is not passive monitoring.
It is designed to identify a developing condition,
determine whether WRF operations may be contributing
and respond before significant impact occurs.
Next slide.
When the appeal themes are compared
with the administrative record, the pattern is consistent.
The appeals largely restate policy disagreements
and historical concerns that the county has already considered.
They do not demonstrate an inconsistency between the San Luis Obispo County Approved Project
and the certified LCP.
Instead, the record demonstrates a defined project, a technical review, enforceable conditions,
and adaptive management that protect groundwater, water quality, creek and lagoon conditions,
and habitat.
Next slide, please.
For those reasons, the CCSD respectfully asks the Commission to find no substantial issue
and allow the county's approval and conditions to proceed.
And with that, I'll turn it over to our utilities manager, Jim Green.
Thank you, commissioners.
I know it's been a long day, so I'll keep my comments brief, and I appreciate your time.
I'm Jim Green, utility director.
I've been in my role for almost 10 years at the district, and I was a core part of this
projects transformation, starting about nine years ago, which is where we're at today.
The pure intent of this project is not to develop more water simply for development's sake.
It is not to overcome environmental protections, and it is certainly not to place the future of
St. Simeon Creek, Santa Rosa Creek, or the resources of this coastal community at risk.
The intent is much simpler, to protect the long-term water reliability and sustainability
of the community in which we steward.
We know the community has historically limited water resources and we live in a place where
every gallon matters and where the health of our groundwater, streams, riparian habitat,
and sensitive species is inseparable from the health of our community.
That is why we have approached this project with a long-term understanding that water
reliability and environmental stewardship are not competing objectives.
They are the same objective.
If we fail to protect the environment, we ultimately fail to protect our water supply,
and if we fail to develop a sustainable and reliable water supply, we put pressure on
those same environmental resources and put the community and the visitors of the community
at risk.
We understand the concerns that have been raised and we take them seriously.
More important, we have not simply acknowledged these concerns, we have acted on them.
The majority of the appeals have been previously addressed or resolved well before we reach
the point where we are today.
We have developed and implemented specific, measurable, and technically grounded responses
engineered to address potential impacts and strengthen environmental protection and provide
ongoing monitoring and adaptive management.
These responses are based on the knowledge and experience of industry professionals whose
major career achievements include over 40 years of study, data collection, and published
documents that support the same findings of the SAM. We recognize that protecting
these resources is not something that ends when the Commission approves a
permit. Stewardship is an ongoing responsibility. Our commitment to operate
this project conservatively, transparently, and responsibly. If monitoring tells us
that something is not working as intended, we will respond. If additional
information indicates that an operational adjustment is necessary, we
will make it. Ultimately we are trying to leave the next generation with something
better than what we were inherited. A community with a reliable water supply
in a healthy environment and stewardship capable of sustaining them. That is our
true intent with the project here. Thank you and with that I'll hand it over to
Christina Galloway. Thank you. I'll try to talk fast. Good evening chair and
commissioners. My name is Christina Galloway and I'm a Cambria resident and
and chair of the North Coast Advisory Council.
I'm speaking today in my individual capacity
as a community member and in support
of the project before you.
In the work I do in our community,
I remind myself and others not to approach complex matters
with a predetermined position,
rather to dig in, seek different points of view,
follow the facts wherever they lead,
and help organize a public process
that gives our community both the information
to reach its own conclusions
and a pathway to make those conclusions heard.
Through that work, I've had the opportunity
to work closely with the CCSD staff
across a broad range of issues,
from public safety and emergency preparedness
to infrastructure projects seeking community input.
Over the last three years, that has included
continued engagement in the water reclamation facility
permitting and the public process surrounding it,
through which our community has expressed strong support.
I've sought to understand this project's history,
its benefits and limitations,
potential impacts and costs, and of course, what it's permitting would authorize and what
it would not.
The staff report describes the WRF as a water supply protection project, not a significant
expansion of Cambria's water supply.
Its purpose is to protect the existing ground water system and water quality.
It's designed to serve existing users and uses, not new growth.
Cambria faces very real and ongoing water and environmental challenges.
As such, our community has invested in this infrastructure and continues to carry its
cost.
The Water Reclamation Facility provides protection for something fundamental to the future of
any community, which is a reliable water supply.
As someone who spends a considerable amount of time reviewing land use projects in our
coastal community and asking government agencies to do the necessary analysis, show the basis
for their findings, and honor both the regulatory framework and the intent of the local coastal
program. I feel it's equally important to take time to recognize when those same
agencies exceed our public expectations and to see the architecture of coastal
protections be put to work as it was intended. What I've witnessed over the
past several years is a willingness by our public agencies to keep doing the
work, to follow the evidence, invite the community into the process, collaborate
and draw on environmental expertise and refine this project accordingly. No one
can predict every environmental condition this facility may encounter, as
as was noted earlier.
That is why the safeguards built into this project
through this process matter.
As a member of the public, I'm personally in awe
of the commitment and expertise Coastal Commission staff
have brought to this work,
along with CCSD county staff and technical experts.
Together they've built a framework that can respond
when these conditions don't behave as predicted.
I don't believe we should have to choose between
a water security and environmental stewardship.
The project before you reflects a responsible effort
to achieve both, and a lifeline for the sustainability
of our community.
Cambria, Pines by the Sea.
I respectfully ask for you to find no substantial issue.
Thank you.
And with that, I will turn it over to our district
to San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Bruce Gibson.
All right, Bruce Gibson is on Zoom.
We're moving in as the panelists.
Thank you and good evening, Madam Chair.
I'm Bruce Gibson.
I'm the second district supervisor
for the County of San Luis Obispo.
I've been involved with this project
since before the emergency permit was issued in 2014.
And there's a reason that it took so long
to get to the point of this hearing.
And that is because there was a very long discussion
between CCSD County staff and commission staff
in order to achieve LCP compliance.
And with the appeal from the Board of Supervisors approval
of this project, that discussion continued.
I would note that your staff's report
and the addendum are both excellent
and they reflect the care
with which that discussion was carried on.
The report speaks point by point
to the significant LCP issues that were addressed
and the addendum makes particularly clear the difference
between the current project before you
and previous iterations of it.
I would note that in the Board of Supervisors
appeal hearing, our Board of Supervisors
did add one condition that assures timely reporting
of AMP monitoring to the commission
so that you are aware of situations on the ground
and able to enforce efficiently.
And so with that, I would add my respectful request
that you find no substantial issue
so this project can move forward.
Thank you.
Thank you, is there anyone else with your presentation?
I am noting that we do see Tina Dickinson now, one of the applicants. Are we allowed to go back and take our testimony. One of the balance. Yes. Yes.
Okay, Tina Dickinson you're moving in as a panelist.
And Tina, when you're ready, go ahead, you'll have three minutes. Thank you very much.
I am Tina Dickinson I am one of the opponents.
Thank you, Chair Harmon and Commissioners. Staff's recommendation
of no substantial issue and without a single condition was
disappointing to me. I have followed the this WRF project
and its many iterations since its inception in May of 2014. I
have submitted comments to the Commission and multiple
agencies in the past, and as an appellant to the Slow Planning
Commission slowboat of supervisors
and to this commission to address my areas of concern.
I find it extremely troubling that staff did not provide
adequate time for the commission to read the many comments
associated with this item.
How is the commission expected to fairly grasp a sense
of all the issues with less than a day's notice
when the comments were posted yesterday?
I have some real issues with it. I will say that I appreciate some of the changes that
staff has made such as the decrease in the level of pumping to 425 gallons per minute,
significant and positive changes to the AMP, removal of the pond liner and leachate system,
and for the pond to return to natural habitat. And I would strongly suggest that a deadline be
proposed to the Cambria CSD for the removal of the pond liner and the leachate system.
It isn't good enough just to say it should be removed or it will be removed. There needs to be
a time, there needs to be a deadline for that. Growth-inducing impacts were not satisfactorily
addressed by staff. There is still an issue between what the district is saying and what
what the county is saying.
And I believe I read in the report
that we have 4034 active dwellings
and 36 non-active dwellings.
Specifics are needed in this area.
And I asked for clarification there.
I would hope you could take a look
at one of the photos I sent.
I believe it came in yesterday of the facility
as it looks now and the vegetation that surrounds it
compared to the photo that was displayed earlier
from the applicant's presentation.
That photo was number 7309.
And yeah, I think it's worth seeing
how things look there now.
I'm worried about chemicals.
I am worried about fire.
I am worried about trucking to Oceano with waste,
with no EIR having been done on this project.
So there are many, many concerns.
And that's why I do believe that this deserved a hearing,
not at the end of a very long day
in which it's been 94 degrees.
So thank you for allowing this.
Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
So we have two speakers signed up
who I have noted as opposed locally
and are allowed to speak.
They will be given two minutes each,
Crosby Schwartz and Laura Schwartz.
I see that you're sharing a device.
You should be able to move in as a panelist now.
All right, you should be able to unmute
and turn your camera on if you wish.
And Crosby and Laura Schwartz, go ahead.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon,
commissioners and staff members.
The appeals that brought us here today
all raise valid questions about water quality
and water quantity in the San Simeon Creek Aquifer
during operation of the water reclamation facility.
The most important control that the CCSD has
during WF operation is the pumping rate
into the WRF from well 9P7 next to the pond.
There seems to be no agreement about a safe
and sustainable pumping rate from well 9P7.
The rate of recharge into the percolation pond
is approximately 300 gallons per minute,
and this would be a safe and sustainable pumping rate
from well 9P7.
CCSD plans to pump approximately 600 gallons per minute
from well 9P7 to produce the 425 gallons per minute output.
This amount of overdraft will affect the water levels
and flows in the aquifer
and may not even add any more water to the supply.
The adaptive management plan will eventually figure out
what is the most effective pumping rate at well 9P7,
but to avoid adverse impacts in the meantime,
the commission should require test operation
of the WRF at various pumping input rates
to determine the most effective pumping rate.
In my written comments
to the County Planning Commission hearing
and the County Supervisors hearing on this matter,
I suggest a test operation of the WRF
at input pumping rates of 200 gallons per minute,
400 gallons per minute,
and 600 gallons per minute from Well 9P7.
observing the adverse and beneficial impacts at production and monitoring wells during test
operation, the most effective pumping rate will be determined. The subject of safe and effective
operation of the Canada WRF, including pumping rates, is a substantial issue. The Commission
should condition their concurrence with this project with a requirement to perform appropriate
testing of the facility as soon as possible. We do not have to wait for the next drought to figure
We have to have to thank you for hearing my comments.
Thank you.
Laura.
Yes.
Go ahead.
Good afternoon.
Sorry.
Yeah.
You know what?
I'm here.
We share my husband and I. Good afternoon, Chair Harmon,
commissioners, and all.
I'm Laura Swartz, longtime resident of Cambria,
18 years to be accurate, concerned
and an engaged citizen of Cambria
with concerns about Cambria's future and its environment.
I also spoke as you know at the County Board.
If this permit is approved as staff is recommending,
I applaud the special condition
of the Technical Advisory Committee being formed
and guided by the California Coastal Commission.
It needs some outside guidance in my estimation.
I hope this committee is organized
and ready to perform its functions
before the EWSWRF is allowed to operate.
During the tech biweekly monitoring,
is the public privy to results?
Do we have minutes of meetings
or have the ability to contribute any information?
Public involvement, please.
If a problem is found to exist,
by what method of enforcement can pumping be reduced
or temporarily halted?
Many more questions.
We've been following this since we've been here.
We were here for 2014-15, went through all of the meetings.
We just keep going to meetings, so we're very involved.
But finally, what triggers the dissolving of the TAC?
What's the timetable?
how long does it continue for?
Thank you for your consideration.
And it was very hot here today.
Thank you.
We only had one other sign up.
Tom Luster, who we love and miss,
but we do have a note that he did not oppose it locally
and so he's ineligible to speak.
So besides that, we have no more speakers, Madam Chair.
Great, thank you very much.
With that, I will close the public hearing
and return to our staff if they have any closing comments.
I'll keep it brief here.
I think what you've heard today is that this project does
did have a long arc.
Previous iterations of it did raise some serious concerns.
Cambria is tough.
It's an interesting community.
There's Monterey Pine Forest, Esha, growth inducement,
build out issues.
And so it just raised all of those concerns
about what is it that this plant should be
and how should it function.
I think where we've landed, though,
is that the technical studies that we requested
to make sure that it is going to be at a minimum benign
and hopefully a good thing for Habitat have been done.
And we also have the, I think the most critical piece
is the adaptive management provision
to make sure that it is what we expect it to be.
And my technical experts to my right
here have spent considerable time working on those triggers,
working on those details to make sure it's enforceable and identifies problems before
they're a problem.
So with that and with CCSD's excellent management here and commitment to working with us, we
feel comfortable moving forward with the no substantial issue recommendation.
Great.
Thank you very much.
With that, I will return to the commission.
Commissioner Wilson.
I'm happy to make a motion.
I move that the Commission determine that appeal number A-3-SLO-26-0017 raises no substantial
issue with respect to the grounds in which the appeal has been filed under Section 30603
and I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
Thank you, Commissioner.
That is a motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner Oglesby.
They're asking for a yes vote.
May we have a roll call, please, Chris?
Yes.
Commissioner Notoff?
Aye.
Notoff, yes.
not off yes commission or more no more no yes more no yes commissioner Wilson yes Wilson yes commissioner Malley yes a mallee yes commissioner Escalante yes Escalante yes commissioner Hart yes Hart yes commissioner Jackson Jackson yes commissioner Lee yes Lee yes commissioner Oglesby I Oglesby yes commissioner Calnick hi Calnick yes chair
Harmon. Yes. Harmon. Yes. The vote is unanimous. Thank you. No substantial issue has been found.
Thank you all very much. Okay. And before I let you all go, we have some minutes to
approve, I believe. Anybody? I'll move the minutes. Okay. I'll second that. Okay. Commissioner
Moreno. It was a motion by Commissioner Kalmick, a second by Commissioner Moreno to approve
the minutes. May we have a roll call vote please? Yes, Commissioner Moreno.
Moreno yes. Moreno yes, Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson yes, Commissioner O'Malley. Yes.
O'Malley yes, Commissioner Escalante. Commissioner Escalante. Oh sorry, I was just looking at
the dog. Yes, yes. Escalante yes. Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart yes, Commissioner Jackson.
Aye. Jackson, yes. Commissioner Lee? Yes. Lee, yes. Commissioner Oglesby? Aye. Oglesby, yes.
Commissioner Kalmick? Aye. Kalmick, yes. Commissioner Notoff? Aye. Notoff, yes.
Chair Harmon? Yes. Harmon, yes. The vote is unanimous. Great. Thank you so much. The
minutes are approved. Thank you everyone for your great work today. Thank you AGP,
Chris, Galen, thanks staff. We'll see y'all tomorrow.