Okay, everyone. Good morning. Thank you for your patience
We'll call this meeting of the California Coastal Commission to order and we'll start by saying happy day after election day
thank you everyone for participating in our democracy and
Congratulations to our colleagues for their successes yesterday with that. We will begin with a roll call, please
Thank you. I'll also start with a happy birthday to Anthony from ATP
Commissioner O'Malley present. Commissioner Escalante. Here. Vice Chair Hart. Present.
Commissioner Jackson. Present. Commissioner Kelly is on her way.
Commissioner Loenberg. Commissioner Smith. 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.
And now to virtual meeting procedures, please. Good morning. This Coastal
Commission meeting is occurring both in person and through Zoom. This meeting is
also being webcast and can be viewed online at cal-band.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 web page.
Paper forms and a scanable QR code for paperless submittal are available on
the Commission staff table just outside the meeting room. For those on Zoom, we
have posted virtual hearing procedures on the Commission's agenda webpage which
is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone. Members of the public
speaking during general public comment may be given up to two minutes to speak
at the discretion of the chair.
Request to speak during the general public comment period
will not be accepted after 9 a.m.
on each day of the meeting.
In order to provide the opportunity
for the broadest range of public participation,
you may speak on a specific topic one time only each month.
Those speaking on an agenda item
that is not general public comment
are typically allowed two to three minutes to speak
at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item
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 speech 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 your phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedures.
Great, thank you very much.
And now we will move to agenda changes please, Mr. Carle.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners,
and welcome to San Francisco,
the home of the WNBA champion, Golden State Valkyries.
So yes, I'll start with agenda changes, item three.
The posted agenda changes memo remains accurate,
and that's a good reference,
and all told, there's seven agenda changes today.
It's all moved to consent.
So I'll run through those.
Item 10A is the City of Half Moon Bay's
housing-related changes LCP amendment.
Move to consent.
Item 10B, this is San Mateo County's
Mid Coast Residential Unit Cap LCP amendment.
That's also a move to consent.
Item 11A is the London Coastal Permit Application
for Residential Renovations in Seadrift in Marin County.
That item's a move to consent.
Item 11B is the Hardiman Coastal Permit Amendment Application
also for Residential Renovations in Seadrift
in Marin County, and that item's a move to consent.
Item 11c is the Caltrans coastal permit application for covert replacement along tamales Bay and Marin County
that items move to consent
Item 15a is the post LCP certification map update for San Luis Obispo County and that item has been moved to consent and
Finally item 15b which is the post LCP certification map update for excuse me
15a was for this excuse me this one is for City of Pismo Beach and that one's moved to consent as well
And that it concludes the agenda changes for day for today, and I'll hand it back to you chair Herman
Okay, thank you very much. All right now. We will move to general public comment, please. Thank you Chris
All right for members of the public. I'll be announcing
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 life
video testimony on Zoom, we will be bringing you in as panelists. As we bring you in, your Zoom will
reload, and this may take a moment. To speed up this process, we will bring several people in at
a time, but please remain muted and keep your video off until we ask you to speak. After your time is
up, you'll be moved back to attendee mode. For members of the public present in the room, I will
call your names in the order that they appear on our sign-up list. When you hear your name, please
line up behind the podium and introduce yourself when you approach the speak. There is a raise your
hand function that will help us find you in the attendee list. If you are using a phone for audio
you can raise your hand by dialing star nine. If you are participating by zoom you should see a
button on your zoom screen. If you have signed up to speak for this item and are able to do so please
raise your hand now. When it is your time to speak we will invite you to unmute and turn on your
camera. You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six. It turns out that today we only
have three speakers signed up for general public comment. We'll start with Benny Drescher in the
room, followed by Patrick McGibney and Jim Holtz on Zoom. And then go ahead and unmute the mic
with the button at the base of the mic before you start. Speaking today on behalf of Westcliff
Waves and Beaches, our beaches and waves are precious. That's why we're all here. An errant
beach-strewn riprap takes them away from California citizens without any benefit to shoreline
protection. We would like to see the Coastal Commission encourage and empower removal of
errant beach-strewn riprap however possible, including issuing blanket permits for cities,
counties, and municipalities to remove beach-strewn riprap corroborated by close consultation with
with the most knowledgeable and affected
community populations.
The consultation and collaboration part
is very important.
Contractor companies and their workers
will probably reach for the simplest rocks to remove.
That's not going to be a job well done.
The most problematic rocks are often situated
in complex locations.
the contribution of local knowledge and passion
to these errant riprap removal efforts
ensures accurate and efficient execution.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Patrick McGibney.
Thank you.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you.
I am Patrick McGibney,
Chair of the Los Osos Sustainability Group.
Thank you for the years of protection
of our coastal resources.
Knowing you have much on your plate
and it's hard sometimes to keep up with all the changes,
I'd like to inform you of some of the recent ones.
Coming soon, you'll be receiving appeals
from the sustainability group on the construction
of new water intensification projects.
This commission looks to the best available science
to help determine appropriate findings.
Staff has used and for some reason is still using
the best available science from several years ago.
In June, 2025, the Basin Management Committee
switched from the original steady state model
to the newer transient model,
which precipitated a significant reduction
in the aquifers sustainable yield.
Since 2024, the sustainable yield used
for calculating the basin yield metric
drop from 2,700 acre-feet a year to 2380 acre-feet a year.
And for the calendar year of 2026 and 2027,
it has been 2,000 acre-feet a year.
The BYM now stands at 84, 90,
if you're using the transient model's five-year average.
The transient model is telling us
that the current rate of extraction
is causing seawater intrusion.
A sure sign a basin is not sustainable.
This is the best available science today.
Any further water intensification from the,
whether from guest houses or ADUs or more,
motel rooms will only deplete the basin further,
allowing seawater to advance more.
The first goal of the basin plan
is to stop seawater intrusion.
The Los Osos community needs your help in turning the tide,
or more accurately, turning the chloride front
by denying any parts of our water basin.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Jim Holtz.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Commissioners, you may have heard
of Better Neighbors LA or Benlaw
and its affiliates repeatedly speak
against short-term rentals at previous commission meetings.
Benlaw calls itself a correlation
of tenants, housing advocates, and community members.
Yet his mission is protecting hotel jobs
and his proposals would largely eliminate all home STRs.
At October's meeting,
I counted 10 speakers opposing STRs,
seven of whom were associated with BenLa,
the hotel worker unions that created it,
or BenLa's affiliated organizations.
We were paid by BenLa employees
and another was a paid employee
of an affiliated hotel union.
It appears that Bedlock also recruited two clergy leaders,
both listed as part of his coalition on Bedlock's website.
I believe Bedlock grew out of the Hotel Labor Union,
and then was shopping for allies among groups
whose concerns it can exploit to advance its anti-SCR agenda
while creating the appearance
of a broad independent grassroots opposition.
the paid union employee repeatedly
remind the commissioners of the complaints
they have already heard from previous speakers.
Looking at the source of all these speakers,
I suspect her organization helped organize
the very speakers who testified before her.
And the commissioner on my city council,
congratulations for being reelected,
repeatedly attacks Airbnb for making billions
while backing restrictions that benefit
competing in the multi-billion dollar hotel industry.
The very industry Benlau was built to protect.
Apparently corporate profits are objectable
only when they come from the competition.
Commissioners, please consider who is speaking,
whose interests they represent
and whether their claims were absolutely supported
by evidence.
I do not hide who I am.
I'm here because my family defends on my SDR rental income.
We have contracts in my view that will hide the hotel industry interest behind this supposed housing coalition. Thank you.
Thank you. We have no more speakers.
Okay, thanks very much. We'll all return to the commission to see if anyone has any comments or questions. Seeing none.
Okay, we will move forward to you, Dr. Hucklebridge.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, commissioners.
As always, my published ED report can be found
on the commission's website,
but I'll take a few minutes
and go over several of the items
and just be aware there's a lot of stuff
in today's ED report, so be ready.
So first, although this was not included in my written report,
I did want to provide a short update
on NOAA's review of our federal program.
As you probably have read late in the day on Friday, October 16th, the three California coastal zone management agencies, the Coastal Commission, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, or BCDC, and the Coastal Conservancy received from NOAA its draft Section 312 final evaluation findings for the review that started in 2023 and which now covers from 2018 to the present.
You will remember that NOAA announced via social media in May of this year that it would
expand the existing incomplete Section 312 evaluation process for the three agencies.
And as I have told you, the agencies responded to that announcement by each providing NOAA
with additional information.
As NOAA's draft final findings in response to those submissions are now public, I want
to give you a short overview of the document.
It begins by claiming that the California Coastal Zone Management agencies do not operate
by using a proper balance of interests that they impose unjustified hostility toward oil
and gas interests and engage in a pattern of jurisdictional and regulatory overreach.
In some, according to NOAA, the record demonstrates that from July 2018 to August 2026, the CCMP
has attributed too much weight to certain considerations, for example, conservation,
at the expense of other considerations, for example, public recreation, affordability
and the national interest in energy security
and intergovernmental coordination.
Such that it subverted the compromise reflected
in the CCMA.
We disagree with this assessment.
More specifically, NOAA's draft evaluation assessed
our program against CCMA's 11 policy goals.
NOAA found our program inadequate in four areas,
including public access and recreation,
streamlining procedures,
consideration of federal agencies' views,
addressing living marine resource planning
and state federal coordination.
And it found us grossly deficient
in giving priority consideration to coastal dependent uses
and siting of major facilities, including energy,
national defense, ports and transportation.
NOAA also found our program excellent in regulating
and planning for coastal hazards and sea level rise
and coastal water quality,
and adequate in natural resource protection,
waterfronts and historic features,
public participation,
and sea level rise and subsidence planning.
To address the areas of inadequacy,
the response lists 42 separate recommendations
for changes to the Coastal Management Agency's practices
and 20 specific corrective actions,
ranging from requiring internal corrective measures
to prevent political bias,
to holding meetings with interested parties
to be accomplished no later than April 30th, 2027.
It is worth noting that NOAA found the California agencies
have responsibly implemented NOAA's various forms
of funding during the evaluation period.
The draft findings report that NOAA received
over 23,000 public comments,
96.5% of which were supportive
of how the agencies are implementing
California's coastal management program.
NOAA has not suspended existing funding
for the agencies at this point.
to that end, you will be acting on the interagency agreement
to disperse our 2627 NOAA grant to BCDC
and the Coastal Conservancy,
in a little bit later this morning.
However, NOAA also states that if corrective actions
are not taken, our program will not be eligible
for future funding.
And it also, and I guess another important thing to note,
if it hasn't been obvious yet,
is that almost all of the recommendations
corrective actions are targeted at the Coastal Commission, not at the Coastal Conservancy or
BCDC. The California agencies continue to work together and will respond jointly to the draft
final findings by November 30th. We expect that NOAA will publish its final findings
soon after receiving our response and I will continue to keep you all updated as this progresses.
Next, I'd like to move and talk about a few El Nino related items.
I think first, I'm going to turn it over to Jeremy Smith,
one of our coastal engineers for a brief science update.
Yes, thank you, Kate.
Good morning, commissioners.
If we could pull up the slides, 6a Smith El Nino.
So I'm back today to give a brief update on the record breaking El Nino event.
This morning, I'm going to focus on sea levels.
Next slide, please.
As you've likely heard, sea levels have been higher than normal.
The difference between what we call the astronomical or predicted tides
and the water levels we actually observe is called the sea level anomaly.
I grabbed the plot you see here from the water level monitoring company
Hohonu's El Nino coastal water level watch.
It's showing the average monthly sea level anomalies for four Southern California tide gauges.
As you can see, we expect the month of October was the highest ever observed monthly sea level anomaly
by quite a margin, at around 15 inches.
In other very strong El Nino events,
the sea level anomalies have peaked in Southern California
in the early winter.
In Central and Northern California,
they typically peak a little later.
That means the worst is potentially still yet to come.
The bottom line here is we are in unprecedented territory.
Next slide.
Here's what causes those higher than normal sea levels.
Warmer than normal ocean waters off the California coast,
the arrival of bulges from the equator called Kelvin waves,
and changes in regional wind patterns.
Those are all related to the current El Nino,
but they're happening on top of long-term sea level rise
trends, which amount to about two inches of the 15 inches
I mentioned earlier.
As sea level rise continues and accelerates,
we expect future El Ninos will result in even larger impacts
on coastal sea levels.
Next slide, please.
So why do higher sea levels matter?
First, they allow waves to break further to shore
and run up higher on beaches and seawalls.
This creates hazardous and erosive conditions
on our beaches.
Second, higher sea levels can back up stormwater systems
and even cause flow in storm drains to reverse
and create pathways for flooding in lowline areas.
It also means the water from waves overtopping beaches
has nowhere to go, requiring pumping for that water
to end flooding to seas.
Next, as we've unfortunately already seen,
It can create dangerous flooding in low-lying areas,
create hazardous conditions for drivers,
and damage low-lying property.
Last, sustained higher sea levels
also raise coastal groundwater tables,
creating issues for infrastructure
and things like basements.
Next slide, please.
As we all know, the tides go up and down throughout the day.
Some high tides are higher than others,
and we are expecting even higher tides later in the year
and into the next.
They will be higher than the pure astronomical or predicted tides because of the effects
I described earlier.
You have likely heard the term king tide.
King tides is not a scientific term, but people generally use it to refer to the highest tides
of the year.
Some people have been using it lately to refer to the water level that king tides in non-El
Nino years typically reach.
In Southern California, that's about seven feet.
We've seen recent high tides reach those elevations across the state even though they were not
particularly high astronomical or predicted tides.
That means the king tides this year could result in even higher water levels, and we've
already seen some records broken in places like Los Angeles and La Jolla tide stations.
If even medium-sized waves reach our coast during those very high tides, there is a strong
potential for damaging conditions.
Next slide, please.
With all that said, I want to reiterate that it is important that we continue to prepare.
If we do see extreme conditions, critical information will be disseminated at the local
level.
We are encouraging the public to sign up for local emergency alerts, which can be done
at the following URLs.
More detailed information about flooding, potential flooding conditions will likely
come from the National Weather Service, which has several offices in California, who publish
those forecasts and weather alerts.
Thank you, and I'll hand it back to our executive director.
Thank you, Jeremy.
In an effort to ensure that Californians are prepared
for this winter's El Nino,
Governor Newsom issued two executive orders on October 27th
related to preparing for and mitigating impacts
from the 2627 El Nino.
Executive order N-13-26 specifically addresses
El Nino related threats to California's iconic Highway 1.
The order directs the California State Transportation Agency
and California Natural Resources Agency
to convene a Highway 1 task force,
including representatives from Caltrans state parks,
several governor offices, and the Coastal Commission.
The task force shall work to identify threats to highway one,
including both immediate threats from highway one
from the Sal Nino and the larger threats
from climate change and sea level rise.
Along with an assessment of the threats,
the task force is also tasked with delivering a plan
to address the threats by December 15th, 2026.
Commissioned staff are already engaging with Caltrans,
state parks and other agencies to activate this task force and leverage
existing resources and studies to complete the tasks to the extent feasible.
Executive Order N-14-26 directs state agencies to expedite preparations for
anticipated El Nino impacts by suspending selected statutes, regulations,
and permitting requirements that could delay flood, erosion, and infrastructure
protection projects. The order authorizes streamlined approval of activities such
as levy repairs, sediment and debris management,
flood control projects, and protection
of public infrastructure while retaining
environmental safeguards and oversight
by the California Natural Resources Agency.
For coastal areas, the order specifically
suspends portions of the California Coastal Act
to allow the rapid placement of sand berms and sandbags
to reduce flooding and erosion.
And it prioritizes actions to protect coastal infrastructure
from El Nino-related storm impacts.
I also note that this order follows a previous governor's state of emergency declaration on September 21st, 2026 that I reported last month related to preparing for and responding to this winter's El Niño.
That order requires the Commission to expedite emergency work requests to help prepare and inform coastal communities of our process to address emergency needs.
We created a specific page on our website related to this Winter's El Nino with information on the event, how to prepare for it, and how to quickly seek approval for emergency work under the Coastal Act.
We also set up a direct email contact at emergencyrequests.coastal.ca.gov to help ensure easy contact information and have been staffing on weekends to ensure a quick contact is ready if needed.
Before we leave this topic, I wanted to report
on two relevant public education program items.
First, the California King Tides Project invites the public
to safely photograph the highest predicted
astronomical tides of the year.
The project asks the question,
what will our coast look like when the King Tides today
become our everyday high tides?
This year, that question is particularly poignant
as we experience a historically strong El Nino
with record-breaking ocean levels
likely to continue through the fall and winter,
exacerbating landslides, flooding,
and unsafe ocean waters.
With these conditions in mind,
it is more important than ever for project participants
to follow local and statewide safety guidelines
during and after storm and high surf events
and heed any emergency closures and warnings.
Please do not see king-tied photos in your area
unless you can do so safely.
get tips for safely viewing and photographing King Tides at our website.
California King Tides project dates are selected based on NOAA's tide predictions for the
highest tides of the winter season, as Jeremy explained, which are determined by the relative
position of the earth, moon, and sun and do not include any storm surge or El Nino impacts.
This season's project dates are November 24th through 26th, December 23rd through 25th,
January 21st through 22nd. Some Northern California locations may also include December 22nd,
January 20th, and or January 23rd. Again, you can learn more at www.coastal.ca.gov
backslash kingtides. Next, the California Boating Clean and Green program released a new Dockside
podcast episode, sitting down with experts from Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
the California Coastal Commission, Coastal Engineer Jeremy Smith, and California State
Parks to unpack several topics. First, what El Nino actually is, why this year's conditions
are so unusual, how inland and coastal communities may be affected, what king tides mean for flooding
and erosion, which areas are most vulnerable, and how to prepare and stay safe this winter.
So please check out the podcast. Again, you can find the link on our website.
Next, I have a few gatherings to report on. On October 19th, staff from the Commission
Transportation Unit attended a site visit with Caltrans engineering staff to review the ongoing
emergency at Crystal Cove State Park, where a landslide combined with erosion from the
large El Niño-fueled tides are threatening Pacific Coast Highway. Commission staff continue
to be actively coordinating with Caltrans and state parks on how to ensure the safety and
continued operation of Highway 1 here while minimizing impacts to the beach and the important
coastal public access it provides. Jackie Phelps, District Supervisor in the South Central Coast
Office was invited to participate in a panel at the California Ocean Observing Systems Summit
on October 12th in Santa Barbara. Specifically, Jackie participated in the Maritime Commerce and
Maritime Applications Panel, which was intended to provide insight into regional and statewide
coastal data and information needs. Jackie shared how sea level rise
adaptation planning is currently informed by ocean observing data,
including how data supports coastal monitoring and sea level adaptation
planning pathways. Luke Henningson from the North Central Coast District Office
was invited to speak at the Environmental Science Associates annual
Northern California permitting symposium on October 16th in Berkeley.
Joined a panel with representatives from the San Francisco Bay Conservation
Development Commission, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers focused on permitting
guidance and updates.
Luke provided a general overview of the Commission's history, coastal permitting, and streamlining
efforts.
How the local coastal plan process works in partnership with local governments, recent
policy updates related to SB 272 for sea level rise planning, and El Nino preparedness, and
offer general guidance for early coordination with commission staff.
Next, I have a few additional items from the public education program.
The Boating Cleaning Green program will be working with Point Blue and the Chumash Heritage
National Marine Sanctuary in the implementation of a National Marine Sanctuary Foundation
and NOAA Marine Debris Program Grant.
Through this grant, program staff will install up to 40 new fishing line stations and will
We'll revive the California Stow It, Don't Throw It program, creating and distributing
up to 1,500 portable fishing line recycling kits to anglers.
The climate storytelling contest for the current school year is now open for middle and high
school students to create a photo essay, a podcast, or a narrative essay on the prompt
what are your feelings about climate change and how could those feelings lead to action.
Grantees may be submitted from now until May 27, 2027.
Staff hosted a whale tail grantee networking event on October 22, giving organizations
a space to learn from and connect with one another.
Grant recipients from 2023 through the present were invited and 35 individuals participated.
Grantees were able to connect by geographic location and discussion topics of interest
with many expressing enthusiasm for continued relationship building.
This was the third year in a row for this successful event.
The Public Education Program staff will staff a booth at the California Association of Science
Educators Conference in Sacramento on November 6 and 7.
This annual event gathers over 1,500 educators, curriculum leaders, and district decision-makers
from across the state.
So before we move into the 50th anniversary section of my ED report, I have a couple of
important announcements about staffing changes.
For this first one I have a slide.
So first it is with a heavy heart that I announced that Dan Karl will be retiring from the commission
this month after an incredible 33 years of service to our agency.
Dan was an early environmental advocate becoming actively involved with the NGO Save Our Shores
as a middle schooler and helping to campaign against oil drilling in the Monterey Bay area.
The early passion ultimately led to Dan starting his work at the Commission in 1993, when he
was hired as an intern to work on LCP reviews on the Monterey Bay area.
He very shortly thereafter transitioned to coastal planner work at the Central Coast
District office.
During that time, he led Commission efforts on a variety of issues, large and small and
spanning the Central Coast geography, including creating the 7,000-acre Catone Coast Dairies
National Monument, protecting wetlands and agricultural lands in South Santa Cruz County,
denying a proposal by Pebble Beach Company to build a new golf course in several hundred
luxury homes within nearly a thousand acres of sensitive Monterey pine forest, and then
serving as a lead negotiator on a revised project that protected such habitat, moved
Highway 1 inland, removed several miles of armoring at Piedras Blancas, and provided
for a new coastal trail and state park land in its place.
Dan was promoted to Central Coast District Manager in 2007.
And then CEA District Director for both the Central and North Central Coast Districts
in 2011.
In that time, Dan has been instrumental in pushing for coastal resource protection and
good public interest outcomes over a vast coastal region, extending from Sonoma County
to the north through San Luis Obispo County to the south, and including 22 different local
government jurisdictions.
He's been instrumental in establishing a new focus on local government coordination, particularly
on LCP planning.
Dan also led several complex and often controversial planning efforts, including the city of San
Francisco's Ocean Beach Master Plan, providing an adaptation blueprint for the city's shoreline
to protect critical infrastructure while restoring dunes and providing public access, and the
Oceano Dunes Management Plan, working to provide for recreation and natural resource conservation
in the vast dune and beach park.
All in all, Dan has provided over 33 years of service
on behalf of the California coast and its resources.
Dan is never shy from doing what's right for the public
and the public's resources, and is a steadfast believer
in good government and good public policy.
But perhaps Dan's most notable achievement in his 33 years
is instilling these same principles and beliefs
into his staff.
There is no replacing Dan, but everyone who supports robust
coastal resource protection can be comfortable knowing that he
has taught a cohort of people to think like him, to question
like him, to push the envelope, envelope like him and to uphold
the Coastal Act and honor the Coastal Commission like he has
for so long. His teaching and mentorship and example is
embodied in his staff, and we will take that torch moving
forward. So thank you, Dan, and happy retirement. And I just
everybody who has works under Dan stand up because there's so many of you here
today part of Dan's legacy here today. On a related note I would also like to
announce that Kevin Kahn has been promoted to serve as the district
director for North Central and Central Coast Districts. Kevin has been with the
Commission for over 14 years climbing up the career ladder first as a coastal
planner in both the Central and North Central Coast Districts. Then a Central
Coast District Supervisor, and for the past five years
as the Central Coast District Manager.
In these roles, he's navigated essentially every aspect
of the Commission's planning and permitting program,
and tackled some of the agency's most controversial,
complex, and consequential
coastal resource management issues,
from planning to appeals to permits.
Kevin has built critical relationships
with local government representatives, NGOs,
elected officials, environmental justice advocates,
tribal representatives, and diverse communities,
and served as the Central Coast representative
on the team developing
the Commission's Environmental Justice Policy in 2019.
I'm confident that Kevin will shine in this role,
and you can all look forward
to seeing him here more often.
Congratulations, Kevin.
Now I would like to highlight a few items
related to the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act.
First, a note about swim California,
which we have featured in previous months.
Ultra-marathon swimmer, Catherine Breed,
completed her 900-mile-long swim
along the California coast on October 21st.
She's the first person to ever attempt such a feat.
Along the way, Catherine partnered
with local organizations to hold 10 community events
to highlight coastal access and marine conservation success
stories across the state.
Katie Barr, Sea Grant Fellow, working
with our statewide planning unit,
was fortunate enough to be a part of the support team
for Catherine during her swim past the San Francisco Bay Area,
as well as for the last week of the four month long journey.
And if you check out my published report,
you can see a great picture, Catherine and Katie,
including Katie in our 50th anniversary t-shirt.
As Catherine neared her finish at the border,
she drew attention to the Tijuana River pollution crisis,
which has resulted in near continuous beach closures
in the region over the last five years.
Catherine noted that people often assumed
her greatest concern would be encountering sharks.
When in reality, the health and safety risks
posed by the pollution crisis were a bigger challenge
for her team to manage.
As she put it, we're more fearful about animals
that live in the ocean and have little interest in humans
than we are about the damage and destruction
we are causing to our own home.
So for this month's Act to Action,
the first 50 years of coastal protection,
we have a few highlights to share with you today.
As part of the act to action segment, we're doing a program spotlight on the Commission's
coastal resilience work.
And so with that, I'll first turn it over to Shannon Gray.
Good morning, commissioners.
And we do have a nice staff presentation for you today.
As part of our 50th anniversary highlight series, the Commission's statewide planning
unit will describe how the Commission has addressed sea-level rise as a critical component
of its mission.
Hopefully we'll, there it is, over the past few decades, but before we do that
I'd like to introduce the team dedicated to the Commission's statewide
sea level rise and coastal resilience programming. Next slide please. Okay this
slide may look familiar because last month as part of the housing highlight
I introduced staff from the statewide policy side of the statewide planning
unit and detailed some of their efforts. Today I'd like to tell you a little bit
more about the coastal resiliency side. Our team is led by resiliency manager
Britney Casalino and supervisor Kelsey Ducklow. This team plays a central role
in helping the Commission address coastal resilience by providing policy
leadership, technical expertise, and extensive coordination with our technical
and district staff, our other state agencies, and local governments. We have
We have a number of talented environmental scientists and analysts dedicated to this team working tirelessly on these issues, including Carrie Batha, Karen Vu, Sydney Schmitter, Brannon Quintana, Olivia Wan, and Jasmine Han.
slide, please. Our resiliency team serves as a statewide resource to help ensure consistency
across the Commission's regulatory work and advance climate resilience efforts throughout
the state. This includes project-specific support to help ensure, for example, that
adaptation measures are fully evaluated and tailored to local conditions. Additionally,
our staff continue to support development and incorporation of locally appropriate resilience
provisions into local coastal programs.
And there is so much more to share on this topic than we could possibly cover today,
so I'm going to turn it over to the rest of the team.
And for the rest of this briefing, Carrie Bathe, Kelsey Ducklow, and Brittany Cosalino
are going to take you through the past, present, and future of the Commission's work on sea
level rise.
Sea level rise and the importance of adaptation have grown in prominence in recent years,
but the Commission has actually been addressing sea level rise issues for several decades.
The commission's first report on sea level rise.
Next slide, please.
Thank you.
That's good.
The commission's first report on sea level rise and its impacts to the California coast
was written in 1989 by Jamie Michaels, Dick McCarthy and Leslie Ewing who later became
the commission's staff engineer and a leader in our work on sea level rise.
The report laid out many of the issues we know well today.
Beach erosion, cliff retreat, wetland impacts, impacts to development and the impacts of
of using armoring to protect development.
It also called for much of the work we are now doing today,
considering sea level rise in the permitting process,
incorporating sea level rise into LCPs,
and ongoing study of the most up-to-date science.
However, at the time,
the report was not adopted by the Commission.
Next slide, please.
That said, the Commission continued
to address coastal hazards,
recognizing the importance of the issue.
In 1999, staff produced the beach erosion
and response guidance document,
which focused on armoring setbacks and hazard management.
The idea behind this work was to ensure
a consistent statewide approach to armoring,
minimizing its impacts to coastal resources,
and incorporating anticipated sea level rise.
It also discussed improving mitigation measures
for projects affecting sand supply,
alternative approaches to armoring,
and other beach erosion issues.
Next slide, please.
The commission also made a number of permitting decisions
related to coastal hazards, public access,
and other topics that continue to provide
a foundation for how we approach sea level rise today.
Among these include denial of proposed new homes
and a rock revetment at LaChouza Beach in Malibu,
a decision upheld by the California appeals court.
Resulting case law established the important legal precedent
that the mean high tide line is ambulatory,
a critical factor for protecting public access
in an era of sea level rise.
Later, in 2006, the commission approved a CDP
for the first phase of a managed retreat project
at Surfer's Point in Ventura.
Removal and relocation of parking and other development,
combined with dune restoration in this location,
provide a nationally recognized success story
for adapting to sea level rise in a nature forward manner.
Next slide, please.
This came at a time of growing recognition
of the hazards associated with sea level rise,
and throughout the early 2000s,
commission staff produced several reports
and briefings on the topic
and what it could mean for the California coast.
This was matched by growing statewide interest.
In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed
Executive Order S-1308, which directed state agencies
to consider sea level rise as part of planning projects
and commissioned the National Research Council's 2012 report
that included sea level rise projections for the West Coast.
Then, in 2013, the Coastal Commission's
five-year strategic plan included, for the first time,
a series of actions on C-level RISE.
Note among these was the creation of policy guidance
for use in planning and permitting.
Next slide.
This ushered in an era in which C-level RISE
became a key priority for the Commission.
Staff developed the first C-level RISE policy guidance
in 2013 and adopted it in 2015
after several rounds of public review,
which included over a 130 comment letters
and coordination with stakeholders.
The guidance summarizes best available science
on sea level rise, impacts to coastal resources,
and how to incorporate sea level rise considerations
within the commission's planning and regulatory processes.
Importantly, the guidance has become a living document.
It was updated in 2018 and again in 2024
to update the sea level rise projections
based on current best available science.
The 2024 update also incorporated environmental justice,
another growing priority for the commission and state,
as well as how to comply with SB 272,
legislation from 2023, which we will come back to shortly.
Next slide.
As Shana highlighted a moment ago,
the commission staff team working on Sealvirus
has grown during this time,
in part to be able to provide technical and planning support
on Sealvirus issues, both within the agency
and with local governments and other external partners.
In addition to day-to-day support,
the team has developed
several topic-specific guidance documents.
In 2021, the commission adopted guidance
on adapting critical infrastructure to sea level rise,
specifically including transportation
and water infrastructure.
In 2023, the commission adopted
the public trust guiding principles and action plan,
which discusses the affirmative duty of state agencies
to carry out the public trust doctrine
and how this relates to the commission's work
on sea level rise adaptation.
Just a few months ago, the commission adopted guidance
on nature-based adaptation strategies,
highlighting how such approaches can help
address sea level rise while also preserving
or enhancing coastal habitats and resources.
Next slide.
Of course, a major emphasis for the commission
has been working with local governments
to incorporate sea level rise
into new or updated local coastal programs.
The LCP grant program, re-initiated in 2013
with a focus on climate resiliency policy updates,
has been instrumental to this work.
Funding pools for the program were initially available
in relatively smaller amounts,
but a budget augmentation in 2021
provided $22 million to specifically be awarded
to local governments.
This enabled the Commission to better meet local needs,
switching from competitive grant rounds
to a rolling application process
and funding at amounts that better match actual costs.
In total, the Commission has awarded over $30 million
to 48 jurisdictions for 99 individual planning projects.
This includes a substantial body of vulnerability assessments
and adaptation reports,
as well as numerous other technical analyses
and considerable public outreach and engagement.
Critically, this funding has also supported
more than 20 LCP certifications,
including both comprehensive updates
and targeted amendments to LUPs and IPs,
and three first-time LCP certifications,
with many more in the pipeline
and expected in the next handful of years.
I should note that at this time,
no more LCP grant funding is available,
though staff are in close contact with OPC staff
who are awarding funding for similar planning work.
Next slide.
A key partner in this work has been
the Local Government Working Group.
This group was formed in 2019
and is made up of local government officials
and staff representatives
from the California State Association of Counties,
the League of California Cities,
two Coastal Commissioners, and Coastal Commission staff.
The group's focus has been to develop solutions
to better address sea level rise adaptation planning generally
and LCP updates in particular.
In 2020, the group developed and the commission adopted
a joint statement on adaptation planning,
and the following year produced several products
related both to specific requests for tools
and coordination improvements,
as well as to broader scale recommendations
and guidance for LCP updates.
You will hear more about the recent work
of the Local Government Working Group at Friday's workshop,
so don't spoil the surprise now,
but as a preview, expect to hear a common theme
that sea level rise planning is challenging.
And while there has been a lot of work to date,
there is still a long way to go,
and that work will require coordinated action at every level.
Next slide.
So in this vein, a key component of the state's efforts to address sea level rise in the years
ahead will be fulfilling the requirements of SB 272.
This legislation was advanced by Senator Laird and passed in 2023, and it requires that for
the first time, local governments develop sea level rise adaptation plans, and that
within the Coastal Zone, they certify those plans as part of their LCP.
The plans must include the items noted on the slide here, and they must be completed
by January 1, 2034.
As you might have noted, components like vulnerability assessments and adaptation reports are the
types of planning documents that many jurisdictions have already completed, as Kelsey just went
over, and the Commission has been working to inventory what local governments have done
already in line with SB272 requirements.
Importantly, SB272 also highlights several key additional items, including identifying
specific adaptation projects, identifying agencies or partners that are responsible
for implementing actions, and identifying adaptation costs.
So this will all help advance the state of adaptation from the current phase of initial
planning to actual implementation.
The Commission remains committed to closely coordinating with local governments to take
these next steps.
Next slide.
So to close, I'll reiterate that while the Commission, local governments, and numerous
other partners have significantly advanced sea level rise planning up and down the state,
there is still work to be done. LCPs are a critical tool for defining how to protect
the coast even as sea levels rise, and it is essential that these documents are updated
to reflect those changing conditions and needs. This type of planning will require both the
long-term vision for how we want our communities to look in the future, but also the identification
of the steps and strategies for reaching those goals.
And as the impacts that we've already seen this fall
from El Nino are showing us neither the long-term planning
nor the actions to address these growing hazards
can be set aside for the future.
We have no time to waste, thank you.
Thank you everyone.
So for this month's Access Spotlight,
we wanted to highlight a beautiful sandy cove
just north of the town of Wallala in Mendocino County.
The bottom trail leads to Cook's Beach
and is operated by the Redwood Coast Land Conservancy.
There's also a viewpoint just steps off the road shoulder
offering expansive views of the coast
and perhaps migrating gray whales.
So I'll turn it over to Linda for the spotlight.
Thank you, Kate.
Good morning, commissioners and community members.
As Kate just said, this month's public access video
spotlight is the bottom trail and Cook's Beach.
located just north of the small town of Wallala
in Mendocino County.
This viewpoint is located on a high bluff,
just steps from the county road.
The beach trail starts from the viewpoint
and drops down about 50 feet,
meandering through a bishop pine forest
to a large sandy cove.
The bottom trail on Cook's Beach
were protected for public use in perpetuity in 2001,
when the commission approved the subdivision
of a 35 acre parcel.
The trail was named for the landowner, Dee Dee Bonham,
former executive director
of the California State Parks Foundation.
This was a significant win for coastal access for everybody
in that the entire beach became publicly owned
in an area somewhat devoid of large beaches.
The nonprofit Redwood Coast Land Conservancy
has managed the viewpoint trail and beach since 2010.
Over 500 volunteer hours were spent to upgrade the trail
and construct a more robust staircase to the beach.
The Land Trust has been providing
a wonderful public access experience here
for over 16 years, and we acknowledge and thank them
for their ongoing dedication.
Staff will be highlighting in the next few months
another public access trail operated by the same nonprofit.
More on that on a future meeting.
So we're ready for the two videos, thank you.
Southern Mendocino County doesn't have many sandy beaches,
so make sure to hike the Bonham Trail down to Cook's Beach
next time you're just north of Wallala.
This 10-minute hike starts near a scenic bluff top overlook
and leads through coastal pines
to a large sandy pocket beach backed by steep cliffs.
This tranquil cove has tide pools and a sea cave
accessible at low tide.
Plus, you can walk your pup along the water, as long as you keep them leashed and pack
out any waste.
To find this hidden gem, take Highway 1 to County Road 526 and park along the shoulder.
Consider carpooling with friends as space is limited.
From the road, look for the sign for the bottom trail.
You'll also see a bluff top bench with a sweeping view ideal for whale watching.
the trail down a set of stairs, through a Bishop Pine forest, and finally to the ocean.
Once on the sand, you can soak up the sun, splash in the waves, or have a picnic with
friends.
Public access like this is made possible thanks to the California Coastal Act and the California
Coastal Commission.
Check out the bottom trail to Cooks Beach next time you're in Hualala.
Thank you, Linda.
So finally, I wanted to report out on last month's beach celebration.
So on October 10, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act at Unipero Beach in Long
Beach.
The day featured phenomenal speakers, live music and dancing, sandcastle building contests,
snow cones, and lots of time celebrating and reminiscing with partners, colleagues,
and friends.
The day turned out to be memorable in ways none of us anticipated, with El Niño and the
a Kelvin wave damaging nearby homes, a flooded parking lot,
and emergency sand berms being built nearby,
the realities of coastal hazards were impossible to ignore.
In an unexpected way, these circumstances
underscored the importance of the Coastal Commission's work
more than ever and the urgent challenges
California faces as sea levels rise and storms intensify.
Against that backdrop,
celebrating 50 years of the Coastal Act
felt especially meaningful.
It was a reminder of how much we have accomplished together
and how much work lies ahead
to prepare for a changing coast.
We are grateful for the support of so many individuals
and organizations that support the mission
of the Coastal Act and this agency,
and we felt the love on October 10th.
We would especially like to thank the organizations
and individuals who contributed funding,
planning and support, and people power
to make the beach party a reality.
A huge thank you to our co-hosts Azul,
Surf Rider, and the Coastal Protection Network,
and to the City of Long Beach for hosting the celebration,
and to Partners of Parks for being our fiscal sponsor
and providing crucial planning help.
And to all the staff that helped with planning
and execution, a huge thank you from me.
And I'd like to give one last special thanks
to Milwaukee Schwartz, and especially to Eben Schwartz,
who made this event happen.
So thank you, I think they're both here in the room today,
so thank you.
Madam Chair, that concludes my executive director's report
and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Great, thank you very much.
All right, are there any public comments?
Yes, we have five people sign up to speak.
We'll start in the room with Vicki Hoover.
And then following Vicki, we have Mike Guth,
Nancy Okada, Katie Wagner, Connor Edwards.
Go ahead and turn the mic on
at the base of the mic, the button.
Yeah, there you go.
Good morning, commissioners.
That was an inspiring report.
And I'm just here really as a 41 resident
of San Francisco, an important coastal city,
I hope you will admit, in what is obviously
an important coastal state.
I want to thank the Coastal Commission
For consistent support for our wonderful coast,
both the ecology of the coast and assuring public access,
I feel this strong support, especially now,
in the light of the threats we're facing from Mr. Trump.
And he's putting the integrity of the Coastal Commission
at risk and the independence at risk just now.
And that at the same time as he's trying
to do more offshore oil drilling means
that it is especially important that we continue
to have this strong coastal commission fighting
for California.
So I just wanted to thank you.
And I'd like to highlight an event
that we in the local Sierra Club
put on in late September, in fact, on Public Lands Day,
and I believe public lands should include public waters,
we wanted to rally in support of the Coastal Commission
and the Coastal Act, and in opposition and protest
to the Trump threats, we held an event called
hands across the sand in beaches the full length of of california
here and there beaches we had more than 1 000 volunteers
lining up right at noon on september the 26th
to rally in support of the coast the coastal commission
and our wonderful work so thank you very much
thank you next is mike cooth can you hear me
Yes, so we can hear and see you. Thank you.
Chair and commissioners Mike Guth from Santa Cruz. I'm sure I'm not there in person. I've been much too ill to travel, but I did want to make sure I had an opportunity to say thank you to Dan Carl. So thank you Dan.
For years and decades of work, we're so lucky to have had you in the North Monterey Bay here all the time. I've been a coastal activist and I.
wanted to add to Dr. Hucklebridge's summary of Dan's history and the projects he's worked
on. Next slide, please. This is my view of Dan's Magnus Opus 23 years ago when you had
an aggressive developer wanting to build on a beach in a high hazard zone where the prior
home had been demolished by a big El Nino and they were lawyered up with lawyers spinning
yarns as masquerading as legal theories, just like you'll see later today again on the beach
in Santa Cruz County, and here's the staff recommendation of denial. Next slide, please.
Once again, and it was in Moran Lagoon, the butterfly lagoon near my house I'm always talking
about, and if you see the beach there with the culvert, it was just to the right down there in
the sand. Next slide, please. This is what these places look like in big winters. This is what's
so insane about building in these areas. Sometimes you just have to say no. Next slide, please.
Here's what the prior house, we're pulling the pieces out after it got demolished, 1983.
Next slide please. 20 years later, a new purchaser bought the lot for $11,000,
clearly not a buildable lot. Puts his story polls. Look where that orange netting is.
Next slide please. And that on the left is where they were going to build to the left of the road.
but is denial a taking? Next slide please. In Dan's staff report, hundreds of page staff report,
64 pages of analysis, I taught this case to land use students at the law school for years.
That's how good the work was leading to denial without taking and I just wanted to point that
out to you how important this kind of work is and thank you again Dan for all the years. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Nancy Okada, followed by Katie Wagner and Connor Everts. Nancy Okada.
Good morning, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to thank you for all your hard work
on keeping our coast together. And thanks for the NOAA review succinct summary. We were very,
very upset. I'm with the Sierra Club California Coastal Committee and we wanted to offer any kind
of support of our membership to you during this time to fight the battle to to continue to protect
the coast. We really appreciate everything that you're doing and in particular the fact that
Through the CZMA, we can get information on various federal agencies that otherwise we would
not have access to. You really provide for us a window into the federal government operation,
which is very, very important given their continual threat to post oil wells up and down our coast.
So I want to let you know that the Sierra Club is behind you, we support you,
and anything that we can do we will we will offer our our membership and efforts to
promote and keep you safe. So thank you again for all your hard work.
Thank you. Next is Katie Wagner followed by Connor Everts. Katie Wagner.
Thank you. Good morning. Katie Wagner. I'm a campaign manager with Sierra Club California
and I'd like to speak on Noah's draft decision. What I had planned to say yesterday looks very
different from what I rewrote for today. Trump's NOAA came after California's coastline for the
benefit of his friends in oil, transportation, and desalination companies Sable and SpaceX,
but that ends now with last night's blue tsunami and with the people of California saying hands
off our land. NOAA's draft decision to suspend funding to California's coastal agencies and
attempt to force more oil drilling and desalination contracts is a pathetic attempt to infringe on
state's rights. It is absurd to ask the Coastal Commission to apologize for doing their job
and trying to make conservation sound like the public doesn't want this. NOAA citing the
Commission's record on conservation as a reason to force more oil drilling is a testament to how
effective the Commission has been at protecting our coast. We support the Commission's long track
record of protections and will not let the current federal administration abuse their powers.
NOAA ignored the 95 percent of the 23,000 comments from the public who said we support
the Coastal Commission, while the public responded last night with our votes. With El Nino's,
Kelvin waves, warming temperatures run off from the LA fires and other fires and ag and municipal
waste and potential floating nuclear reactors, marine life is taking a hit. Sea turtles are
laying nests farther north than they ever have before, only for their nests to then be threatened
and by powerful waves.
We need a strong, well-funded,
coastal commission now more than ever.
So this attempt to take away states' rights
is very obviously a test to see what Trump's NOAA
can get away with and how foreign to fascism
will let them slide, but America responded last night
with a resounding no, this ends now.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Conor Evertz.
Thank you very much, Conor Evertz.
I assume you can hear me.
I can see you at a distance.
I'm sorry I'm not there in person for many years.
I would chase you up and down the coast.
I was also at the NOAA hearing
where I live in Santa Monica,
that long, long day where somehow
I ended up being one of the very last speakers.
But I was happy to do it.
I really appreciate the Coastal Commission staff,
commissioners and all the work
that you've done to protect the coast.
I found it absurd to have to go through that process
and then see a report that did not reflect,
as was stated by my colleagues, Nancy and Katie before me.
And I don't think I can do a better job than that with that.
After a long and interesting night last night,
I hope we can move forward and protect our coast.
And along with the environmental justice
and community groups I work with,
I would like to offer my support as well.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We had one other person signed up.
We aren't able to find them on our Zoom list.
Wes Chuang.
Wes, if you are in the Zoom meeting,
please raise your hand.
Or if you're here in person, Wes Chuang.
All right.
Seeing no hands raised, Madam Chair, no more speakers.
OK, awesome.
Thank you very much.
Well, I'm sure there will be a lot of comments,
but I just want to kick it off, Mr. Karl,
by thanking you so genuinely
for your 33 years of service.
That's amazing.
And I personally have learned so much from you
over the years as I've sat up here.
Just the way that you translate
what is sometimes quite complex
into understandable coherent arguments
it's been a huge part of my learning on this commission.
And as a state, we owe you a huge debt of gratitude.
And I hope that every time you go to the beach,
you remember what an important role you have played
in protecting and preserving our coast and access to it.
And I'm personally so grateful.
So with that, I'll turn it over to my colleagues.
We'll begin with Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
Dan, I mean, I wanted to clap.
I didn't know about this.
So it was hard to get on board with the excitement.
I just, I remember the first time I met you
when I was the director of parks in Sonoma County
and we were dealing with the state park fee issue.
And I was so intimidated really by the Coastal Commission
and you just made me kind of understand it.
But since then, I mean, you're just my go-to person.
You're like my representative.
And I really, it's hard to fathom the commission
without you, but I have to just line myself
with the comments of my colleague,
what you've done for the state of California.
I don't think there's any way to really sum it up.
It's just been a constant.
I mean, you're why the Coastal Commission
is the incredible agency that it is.
It's because of your commitment
and everything you've given.
I'm so grateful for you and I'm gonna miss you so much,
but I really hope that you have a great retirement
in this Monterey thing.
That took me by as far as,
I thought you were completely dedicated to Sonoma County.
Thank you for everything, Dan.
On Crystal Cove, Kate, I don't know if you know.
I'm concerned, obviously, from a state park perspective
of what's going on with that tremendous effort
that was spent down there to renovate the cabins.
What's up with that situation?
So we've been in active communication
with both Caltrans and state parks on the Crystal Cove.
I'm sure most of you have seen it in the news.
That was where they had that large crack
that kind of came right up to the edge
of Pacific Coast Highway.
So they've shut down at least one of the lanes.
I think I saw Peter in here.
Do you wanna come up, Peter,
and give us a little bit more of an update
than I can provide?
But essentially we've been working closely
to figure out what are the next steps.
And they started by putting sheeting over the hillside
to kind of keep any additional rainfall and other things out.
And then they're working on both sort of
the immediate solution
and then the more mid-term, long-term solution.
Peter, would you mind giving a quick update?
So Peter, could you talk about what it's like
at the, down the hill?
Like, I understand the impact on Highway One.
What's the impact on the actual park?
Is the park open?
What's going on with the cabins?
The cabins, I believe, are reopened now.
I'm not fully certain about that, though,
but they were temporarily closed.
But that was supposed to be a temporary closure
because of those high floods.
So we could see that again,
especially when the king tides come.
But the park is, you know, generally open
and the beach is open at this time.
And then the southern part is where we've been really
focused on that emergency repair.
Sorry, just one follow-up question here.
So I know that there was that new campground built
at the top up there, is that impacted?
You know what I mean, up by?
I know what you mean, yeah.
I'm not sure of the status of that, are we?
I don't think that's been affected,
at least I haven't heard that yet.
I will say there is a lifeguard station
that's down near where the failure and so that,
I think there's concern about that particular
lifeguard station and probably I need to look at
some potential future solutions.
Okay, Commissioner Eckerly.
Thank you so much, Chair.
I want to also align myself with the comments
of the Chair and Vice Chair and thanking Mr. Carl
for all of your work, your leadership, your legacy.
I've only had the pleasure to work with you
for a couple of years my role on this commission,
but it is clear to me the impact that you have had
in the past and now into the future.
So thank you so much for everything you've done
for this commission and for the coast of California.
I wanna also congratulate Kevin on his new role
and certainly looking forward to his leadership
in that position.
I also wanna just thank the Sea Level Rise team
Since they were all here today, you are all incredible.
You work so closely with my team
at the Ocean Protection Council,
and I just wanna thank you for your leadership
and your partnership.
And finally, on the subject of El Nino,
I would like to share that at our last
Ocean Protection Council meeting,
my council approved an expedited funding solicitation
up to $1 million for urgent monitoring
and rapid response to what we're seeing from El Nino.
The eligible projects fall under one or both
of the following tracks.
Track one is time-sensitive monitoring
and assessment to inform response,
and this is for time-sensitive monitoring,
research, and assessment.
And track two is targeted management and response
to reduce, mitigate, or respond to observed
or anticipated impacts of El Nino
on coastal and marine species and habitats,
as well as those affecting public safety,
health, coastal access, communities, and livelihood.
And I had a great conversation
with the head of the Coastal Conservancy last week,
and they are now considering adding
an additional $1 million in funding to this solicitation.
they're bringing this for approval to their board
at its December 3rd meeting.
They will consider the range of eligible activities
that I just shared.
An additional priority for them is to evaluate
the performance of shorelines restored
using nature-based solutions to evaluate
how those are holding up compared to similar armored
or degraded shorelines, particularly in San Francisco Bay
and Southern California.
thank you commissioner Wilson first what the hell I just I did not know this was
coming so luckily for you not a lot of words to prepare but I just just had the
best time working with you I just want to say super super awesome I'm just kind
wondering and I also behind the scenes big help on the dark skies stuff I
really appreciate that work that has been helping us move forward on our
lighting policy and I think that's gonna have it has great impact and I'm
gonna talk to you about who's who's gonna be the legacy on this because I
just wanna I'm so we're gonna do that so thank you and I just can't believe I'm
I'm really grumpy that I didn't know this beforehand,
but everyone else should be happy
that I don't have a long-winded speech.
Thank you, Kevin, for your work.
Also, a fun person to hang out with and staff.
It's really great.
Technically awesome, but pretty great.
If I could, I did love the review
of all those various documents in the history.
That was really cool.
If someone could forward me the public trust document,
That'd be awesome.
I use that language often for,
it seems like we're always educating people
about what that is and what it means
and what that means not just for coastal communities
but what it means for everyone who lives in California.
So I think that's just super important and thanks for that.
And I'm looking forward to Friday
when we can really dive into this sea level rise.
to say it's complicated is an understatement.
And so we're gonna get into it.
So that's all I got for you today.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Thank you, Chair.
Just wanna thank you and congratulations on your retirement
and echo about Kevin, congratulations, you too.
I wanna point out that I didn't know this was coming
because I do read the executive director report.
Thank you.
Ouch.
Any other?
OK.
Yes.
Thank you, Chair.
Oh, sorry.
OK, yes.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Williams.
Let me go.
First, Dan, Carl, your departure marks the end of an era
for this commission.
As far as I see it, I mean, 33 years.
That's your whole life.
And your retirement is bittersweet,
as you can tell.
You deserve to enjoy the rewards of your hard work,
of course, and dedication with your family.
I know you're looking forward to that,
but we will miss,
I will deeply miss your remarkable leadership
and you're a gentle giant with a very sharp
and thoughtful mind and a heart of gold
and a profound sense of courage
and that has always greatly inspired me.
So I hope that you take that to heart
and I'm personally grateful for your decades of service
and proud to have worked alongside you
to protect the precious central coast, as we have done.
And congratulations, Kevin, on your promotion.
I have no doubt that you will carry dance torch honorably.
And of course, to close that immense gratitude
to Dr. Huckerbidge for your leadership
during these very challenging times.
And of course, to all the staff for keeping on the fight
and for showing up always with so much joy and commitment
as it was shown at our anniversary party,
which I was very, very proud and happy to have been part of
and have witnessed and listened to all the speeches
and the great recognition of the great work
this agency does.
So, and lastly, thanks to the public for your support
and always, you know, not just carrying us on your shoulder
but really pushing us to be better and to be stronger.
So I'm just, I'm sad, I'm very sad, of course,
but I'm not gonna cry anymore.
But I do wish you, Dan, the best.
I mean, I hope that you just go travel the world
with your kids and have the best time.
You will be missed.
Mr. Williams.
I wanted to congratulate you, Dan,
wishing you the best.
Definitely will miss all of our battles
back and forth over the years.
I'm just kidding, but no, it's definitely appreciate you
and all of our work together.
I also just wanna go back a little bit
to the Crystal Cove and just in my coordination
with our district there, District 12,
they just wanted to express their appreciation
for Pete, Alan, and his team,
as well as the Coastal Commission's engineers
their close work with our engineers to really find a good solution there and to figure out
a path forward.
So I just wanted to say thank you.
Okay.
With that and our sincere gratitude, we will close this item.
And I'm going to suggest that we take a break, please, if everyone could be back at 1045.
Thank you.
Please quiet down.
We're going to get back to our agenda.
And I will look to our staff to remind me what's next.
All right, so we don't have a legislative report for this month.
So we will move to item 60, which is the interagency agreements for implementing California's
coastal management program for fiscal year 26 and 27.
And I will turn it over to Megan.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Item 60 seeks the commission's authorization to enter into two interagency agreements to
To pass through portions of California's annual Coastal Zone Management award dollars
to BCDC and the Coastal Conservancy to implement the state's federally approved coastal management
program.
This is a routine item that comes before you each year.
As Dr. Hucklebridge mentioned in the ED report, our current CZMA funding is not affected by
the ongoing 312 review.
As you know, California's coastal management program is administered by three state agencies,
the Coastal Commission, BCDC, and the Coastal Conservancy.
The Commission is the primary recipient of all federal funds, and then we pass the other
two agencies' shares to them by means of an interagency agreement.
For the FY26-27 Coastal Zone Management grant cycle, California will receive $3,197,000.
Of this, BCDC will receive $405,950.
The Coastal Conservancy will receive $393,300.
And the Commission will retain the remaining $2,397,750.
The three executive directors agreed upon this distribution of the funds.
The majority of the commission's federal funds will support our core program activities
for regulation, planning and enforcement.
A subset of these funds, approximately $431,250, is directed towards projects that seek to
enhance our program in the areas of coastal hazards, LCP planning and wetlands projects.
I seek your approval of the two interagency agreements
There are two motions of approval that can be found starting on page one of the staff report
This concludes my remarks and I'm happy to answer any questions
Great. Thank you very much. Are there any
ex partes
Okay, any public comments there? No speakers
Okay, I'll return to the Commission questions comments or the motion
Vice chair heart I move the Commission authorized the executive director to enter into an interagency agreement to pass through
four hundred five thousand nine hundred fifty dollars of federal funds the San Francisco Bay Conservation
Commission for the purpose of implementing the California coastal management program for fiscal year
2627 as for yes vote second second
Thank you. That's a motion by vice chair heart and the second by Commissioner Kelly any they're asking for a yes vote any objections to
unanimous consent
Seeing none the motion carries vice-chair Hart
I move that the Commission authorize the executive director to enter into an interagency agreement to pass through
393 thousand three hundred dollars of federal funds to the state coastal
Conservancy for the purpose of implementing the California coastal management program for fiscal year 26 to 27 ask for yes vote second
Thank you a motion by vice-chair Hart second by Commissioner Kelly. They're asking for a yes vote any objections to unanimous consent
Seeing none the motion carries. Thank you very much. All right, we'll continue on to the consent calendar. Mr. Carl
Yes, that brings us to item 8
These are the items that have been moved to the consent calendar as I described earlier. We moved seven items this morning
I'll walk through them quickly
Item 10 a this is the city of half moon Bay's housing related changes
LCP amendment helping the city to move forward on their HCD requirements and to provide from our housing in the city
Item 10 be this is San Mateo County's Midcoast residential unit cap lcp amendment
Item 11 a this is the London coastal permit application for residential renovations in c-drift in Marin County
Item 11 be this is the Hardeman coastal permit amendment application also for residential renovations in c-drift in Marin County
Item 11 see this is the Caltrans coastal permit application for covert replacement along Tamales Bay and Marin County
item 15 a which is the post LCP certification map update for San Luis Obispo County and
Item 15 B. This is the post LCP certification map update for the city of Pismo Beach
Although we're in agreement with the applicant in each case identified. We did receive some feedback on the city of Pismo Beach mapping update
These comments were fairly technical in nature and we responded via an addendum that was posted yesterday
we also met with the commenter and I'd note that the comments were primarily directed to
Thoughts about data sources and other inputs to review when future map updates occur
We are as always committed to making sure that the maps reflect best available data and technical interpretation of the governing criteria
Including in any future mapping up update efforts, so we continue believed that the map should be approved on the consent calendar
So in each of the cases for the items moved to consent the applicants in our agreement with staff recommendations
We've described known objections and comments on these items and we've made changes Vina denda or explained why they don't change the staff
Recommendations where applicable thus we continue to recommend that the Commission approved these seven items on the consent calendar
Thank you very much any ex partes
Any public comments? Yes, we have three speakers sign up to speak across all of the
And I must move to consent we have a number of people also available for questions. I'll start with item 10
W10 we have Chiara Santa Maria Contos here in person
And then we also have Leslie Lacquot from the city of Half Moon Bay available for questions for this
Turn the mic on really quickly and go ahead
Good morning, Madam chair and commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to provide insight on the amendments to the LCP of the city of Half Moon Bay
regardless of the recent emotions. My name is Chiara Santa Maria Cantos and I am a San Jose native
who has enjoyed Half Moon Bay as a beloved campsite, downtown sandwich spot, and a spectacular sunset
viewpoint. Although I'm not from Half Moon Bay, I am familiar with the rampant development and need
for housing that challenges coastal communities across California. I would like to bring to your
attention two points of concern in the third part of the LCP amendments that proposes by right
processing for qualifying housing projects the first being that neither
the existing LCP nor the proposed amendment define objective standards for
by right processing such ambiguity could lead to unclear regulation for housing
projects or unintended loopholes for other development projects despite the
numerous LCP provisions and that that the Commission qualifies as objectives
another point of concern is that the housing projects under by right provision
would require a public, would not require a public hearing.
This action undermines public engagement
and stakeholders ability to voice their concerns.
Despite the LCP being consistent with the Coastal Act
and that appealable areas would still require
public hearing, the idea that public involvement
is in diminish with this by right provisioning
is in settling.
Although I have these concerns with these amendments,
I do full heartedly want to remind the importance
of farm workers rights in their livelihood,
especially with the recent passing of Dolores Huerta,
the recent ballot measure Q in San Mateo County,
and the ongoing threats from ICE agents across the nation.
California Government Code defines environmental justice
as fair treatment of all with respect to the development,
adoption, implementation, and enforcement
of environmental policies and regulation.
Without public hearing for the proposed housing projects
in the LCP amendments, conversation and collaboration
to create a more environmentally just
California coast would not occur.
Thank you, and Go Valkyries.
Thank you, Go Valkyries.
Next, moving on to item 10B.
We had one person who wished to speak, Timothy Pond,
but we're not able to find them.
Timothy Pond, if you're on Zoom, please raise your hand.
For that item, we also have Bharat Singh
and Steve Manowitz from the county, available for questions.
All right, I'm not seeing Timothy Pond,
So we'll move to item 11A.
We had one person available for questions.
For item 11C, we have someone from Caltrans
available for questions.
And we also have Hrishikesh Kati, who wants to speak.
Give us a moment as we promote you in as a panelist.
Hrishikesh Kati.
Excuse me, apologies.
Did you say you found them, Chris?
This is for item 11C.
We have a new speaker.
Kirishi Keshkati, when you're ready, go ahead.
So this is a 2J510.
It's a project on Highway 1 at post-mark 40.3.
This is a culvert replacement project
which will be taking care of the damaged culvert.
We will be, the project is currently in PSNE
and we will be delivering the project
and advertising it around spring next year.
And the construction will be in June, 2028.
This project will be placed with 60-inch culvert
and take care of the damaged culvert.
That's all I have.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
We have no other speakers,
just those available for questions.
Okay, great.
Thank you very much.
With that, I'll return to the commission.
Comments, questions, motion.
Commissioner Wilson.
I'll move, consent.
I'll second.
That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson.
I've seconded.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the commission concurs.
Okay, now we'll move to those items
that have been removed from the regular calendar
to consent, please.
Nope, that was just them.
So we're going down to item nine.
So item nine is the North Central Coast
District Director's Report.
And this month we're reporting three coastal permit waivers
and two emergency coastal permits.
We're not aware of any objections or controversy
regarding these matters.
And so the question is whether three or more commissioners
object to any of the items in the report.
And if not, then the commission will concur.
Any expertise?
Any public comments?
no commenters we just have one person from the from Marin County available
for questions okay great thank you returning to the commission comments
question questions or a motion it's just whether three or more commissioners
object thank you do three or more commissioners object seeing none the
commission concurs thank you I've crossed that Rubicon from not enough
coffee to too much coffee. So with that we will continue on thank you. So that
will now take us down to the Central Coast District calendar and item number
12 which is the Central Coast District Director's report and this month we're
reporting one waiver, one extension, and five emergency coastal permits. We're not
aware of any objections or controversy regarding these matters and so the
question again is whether three or more commissioners object to any of the items
In the report and if not then the Commission will concur
Thank you any expertise
No speakers. Okay. Thank you very much. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors report
Seeing no objections the Commission concurs. Thank you. Mr. Carl. Thank you, madam chair
That'll take us to item number 13a. We do have a PowerPoint for this
This is the appeal in Santa Cruz County and Nolan Clark the analyst from the Central Coast District Office is here to give our staff presentation
Yes, thank you. Item 13a is an appeal of a Santa Cruz County coastal permit
decision approving the construction of a new single-family dwelling with over 2,900
square feet of habitable space elevated on concrete caissons and the conversion
of an over 2,500 square foot single-family residence to an accessory
dwelling unit all on a single parcel located along Beach Drive in South Santa
Cruz County, a beach level subdivision seaward of the coastal bluff at this
location. I'd first note that we distributed an addendum yesterday that
responds to comments received from the applicant but that does not change the
staff recommendation. Specifically staff believes that the county's coastal
permit decision raises a series of substantial LCP conformance issues
because the site is located in an area subject to coastal hazards where the LCP
does not allow a new building site such as is proposed here, does not allow for
the series of variances from LCP requirements that were provided this
project and does not allow development to rely on shoreline protective devices to provide
a stable building site where here there is a seawall and a series of caissons that do
not meet that requirement.
The new house portion of the project is also halfway cited in an LCP open space designation
where residential development is not allowed and the site's available density under the
LCP is actually zero given the beach location and here there would be an ADU and a new residence
which exceeds that density.
Accordingly, staff is recommending that the Commission determine that the County's approval
of a coastal permit for this project raises a substantial issue with respect to conformance
with the certified LCP, and that the Commission thus take jurisdiction over the coastal permit
application for the project.
Because staff is making that recommendation, unless three or more Commissioners desire a
full hearing on that question, this presentation and the Commission's response to it acts as
the first portion of the appeal hearing, and the Commission will have found substantial
issue for the reasons articulated in the staff report if that is the case then we will bring
this matter back for the de novo portion of the coastal permit appeal hearing at a future
date so now the question is whether three or more commissioners want to discuss the
substantial issue question further and if not then substantial issue will be found and
we will move to the next agenda item okay thank you any expertise any public comments
do we take public comment we don't take public comment okay unless three or more commissioners
Would like to do so do three or more with three or more commissioners like to have a hearing on substantial issue
Seeing none substantial issue has been found. Thank you. We'll move forward
Thank you
Next item is
Item 13 be the Benson mixed-use appeal out of Los Osos and I'll have Kaylee Arboreta a new coastal planner in the Central Coast Office
Give the staff presentation and it's her first one
Good morning commissioners. I'll be presenting item 13 be
Item 13B is an appeal of a San Luis Obispo County approval of a two-story mixed-use building
on a vacant parcel in the Baywood portion of Los Osos.
The image on slide one shows the rendering of the county approved project.
Next slide.
Slide two shows where the Los Osos community is located in relation to greater San Luis
Obispo County, south of Morro Bay and north of Pismo Beach.
Next slide. Slide 3 zooms in on Los Osos with the site noted by a red dot. Next slide.
Slide 4 zooms in even further on the site, outlined in red. As you can see here, the
site is currently vacant and it is located at the intersection of 2nd Street and Santa
Maria Avenue, which is part of Baywood's main commercial corridor. Next slide.
Line 5 shows the county approved site plan.
The project would include a total of three one bedroom units on the second floor and
three commercial spaces on the first floor with new landscaping and sidewalks as well
as onsite and on street parking improvements.
Next slide.
The appellant raises contentions in three main issue areas, namely with respect to parking,
neighborhood compatibility, and public services.
With respect to parking, the project provides 13 parking spaces through a combination of
on-site and on-street spaces, which the LCP allows for, serving both the residential and
commercial product components.
The project also includes new sidewalks and curb and gutter systems to provide enhanced
walkability in the neighborhood.
Although the vacant lot has been used historically as an unimproved parking lot from time to
time. It is also located well inland from the shoreline in an area where there is on-street
parking availability for the public. Next slide. With respect to neighborhood compatibility,
the project aligns with Baywood specific design requirements for building height,
second-story residential uses, pedestrian circulation, and landscaping. The county
relied on visual renderings as seen here on slide seven, showing the project from various vantage
points to help measure compatibility and the project is located within an
established commercial corridor in the center of town that includes other
buildings with two stories. In addition, the area's straight gridded street
pattern means that existing public view corridors of Morro Bay and surrounding
hills along Second Street and Santa Maria Avenue will remain open and
unaffected by the project. As such, the project appears to appropriately blend
in with the character and aesthetic of the commercial corridor, and will not adversely
affect any significant public view.
Next slide.
Finally, in terms of public services, the Commission has repeatedly found that there
is adequate water to serve some new development in Los Osos, because the amount of water pumped
from the basin is less than its defined sustainable yield, which is explicitly the LCP test on
this point.
In addition, the project is required to participate
in the county's water retrofit program
to offset its expected demand.
Regarding public safety and accessibility,
the county's CDP requires evidence of approval
by the local fire department before construction.
The department has already conducted
a preliminary review of the project,
offered the recommendations,
and did not identify any significant concerns.
The project will be constructed
satisfy all ADA standards including providing the LCP required ADA parking
space. Next slide. In sum, the county approved project is a relatively modest
project that doesn't raise any significant LCP issues and at the time
that it and at the time it furthers statewide efforts to support infill mixed
use and pedestrian oriented development within existing areas able to
Accommodate it staff recommends that the Commission find no substantial issue and declined to take jurisdiction over the coastal permit
Application for this project the motion and resolution to do so are found on page four of the staff report and that concludes the staff's presentation
Okay, great. Thank you very much
Excellent first report. Do we have any ex partes?
Okay, we will open the public hearing and I'll turn it over to Chris
All right, we'll start with the appellants we have Vincent James divine and Larry Sullivan on zoom
Let me promote you in as a panelist really quick
And I'm not seeing a Larry Sullivan, but we do have Vincent James divine. They might be together
Vince divine I see that you're in as a zoom panelists. You should be able to unmute and turn your camera on
There you go. I see you're unmuted. No, go ahead
Good morning commissioners, my name is Vincent Devine and I'm a palant representing a unified coalition of residents in Baywood Los Osos.
I'm actually a Baywood homeowner right in the Baywood downtown area.
The proposed mixed use building at 1300 Second Street represents an unsustainable footprint that our fragile coastal village cannot physically support.
This project is in direct violation of LCP Community Character Protections and Planning
documents that the Los Osos citizens have historically protected. Our coalition of
civil engineers, state government, facility and risk managers, local businesses, and residents
have carefully reviewed the permit request and submitted a technical discrepancy matrix to your
staff along with recent Los Osos Basin Management recommendations.
The submittal is Exhibit A and it's available in your packets and it was actually updated
October 8, 2026. Anyways, the Los Osos Basin Committee has explicitly downgraded our sustainable
basin yield to 2,000 acre feet per year, mandating a strict 0.0 growth allocation due
to the severe aquifer degradation. The developer's reliance on outdated water demand ledgers
completely bypasses the scientific projections of the 2025 transient model, which proves
that adding new net structural demand directly violates Estero Area Plan Water Standard A.
I'm also going to move on to the second item that we had in our discrepancy matrix. The project
introduces acute public safety risks that have been glossed over in the local review process.
Please look at your page two of your technical discrepancy matrix when you have time.
The developer site plans assume the existence of a 12-inch water main upgrade to handle commercial
fire flow in hydrant capacity. This is a massive physical gap between what is on paper,
which is a six-inch line, and what exists in the ground. Relying on an ad hoc non-binding
promissory agreement with the CSD to defer infrastructure safety audits, post-approval
leaves our community vulnerable and fragrantly violates the LCP Public Works policy. Finally,
we must adjust the reversible visual and operational impacts on our designated special
community. That's why the neighbors of all participated. There's 300 petitions and more to
come. But we're here today to explain the structural footprint as laid out in California
AB 413, the daily daylighting law and how they adjusted the commercial parking spaces
within the 20-foot visibility envelope and the pedestrian cross rocks. Please finish your
that sir public safety hazards thank you thank you I'm asking the
commissioners to help uphold thank you sir thank you next Larry Sullivan I
believe you might be under the name Laura on soon you raised your hand la
ure is that you Larry Sullivan please unmute good afternoon good morning
commissioners and Mr Benson. My name is Larry Sullivan. I've lived in Baywood
path for more than 33 years. I'm asking the commission to postpone its decision
so it is time to address our concerns. Our local businesses and farmers market
give Baywood a small town feel. I don't think the proposed building fits the
corner of 2nd Street and Santa Maria Avenue. In one weekend I collected over
300 signatures opposing the project. The neighboring businesses, Beawood,
noise, Marina and Mary maker all have signed too. Baywood has lived through years of building
restrictions, tied to sewer problems and residents still have many questions about the water.
Before this project moves forward, we want some clearer answers about what it would mean
to our neighborhood, our local business and the farmer's market. Mr. Benson, would you
give us the opportunity to buy the lot? We came together to raise money to preserve question by
to see and we'd like to get the chance to do that again. If you're not open to selling would you
meet with us to talk to us about the design that would fit Baywood better? Commissioners please
postpone your decision so we have time to get these answers and have that have that conversation.
Thank you and have a good day. Thank you. Next we have Robin Rice and Chuck Susana. Robin Rice.
Good afternoon. Hopefully, you can hear me now.
Yes, we can hear you.
Great. Thank you.
Our appeal is a concern about continued overdrafting of the Los Osos groundwater basin.
The aquifer was originally classified by SGMA as being high-priority and critical overdraft.
The basin itself, since that time,
its use has not changed in May of 24.
Blaine Riele, County Director of Groundwater Sustainability,
told the Coastal Commission to wait for the new transient model to better evaluate basin health.
Well that model has been used for a year and a half now and that highlights reduced sustainable
yields. They've dropped down to 2,000 acre feet for the last two years. The four metrics utilized
to monitor basin health are all in decline. The water level metric is falling. The basin plan
states a level metric of 8 feet above sea level is needed to mitigate seawater intrusion.
The level, however, only peaked at 4.1 feet and is now falling below 3.5 feet. That's
one indication of overdraft. And the chloride metric remains high. The BMC annual report
states and I quote, the central area zone E seawater intrusion continues to advance
40% of the place. That's
in line and the groundwater
management ordinance with the
base and yield metric now
dictates 0% growth. The base
and management committee has
recommended 0.0% growth for
the last two years running.
That's 0.0%. Your coastal
commission staff note in the
report. There is plenty of
water. Well, that's true
because of this aquifer. You
sea water. We've got a continuous supply. So our concern is the quality of our drinking water,
which is degrading. Our request is you consider a delay for a period of time, allowing the three
water purveyors to optimize their pumping strategies and confirm positive results before
revisiting any new water extraction equipment. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Next, Chuck Sesena. Hello, Chuck Sesena, 40-year resident of Los Osos Baywood Park.
You've heard all the reasons before you about the uncertainty in the new groundwater model.
I don't know how much you know about the fact that the Title 19 retrofit to build program will
be going away. It's just not possible to find enough retrofits anymore, so we're talking about
a nexus study for an in lieu fee program with a project to be determined later.
My concern is that fees get collected and there's no project that gets built with water in it before
any of this goes. I don't know if you've heard about that kind of thing maybe an update on the
inner tie efforts to connect to the state water project that the CSD started funded through
environmental studies. We're trying to find funding for the permitting so that we truly are
shovel ready when perhaps federal grant money flows that's probably the only way without county
help we'll be able to do that. There's a lot going on right now and the new transient groundwater
model talked about not only lowering the sustainable estimated sustainable yield,
it talked about five-year program for the purveyors to maximize their pumping schemes,
you know, which wells need to be used so many hours of the month and that kind of thing.
The community services district is very far from being able to accomplish that. We're
one year into the five years that we were supposed to have to do that before this
new sustainable yield would even kick in.
There are just so many questions.
I'd really like for you to schedule a little workshop.
I think that would be great.
And I do appreciate the work you do,
the time that you do, you are saving our coast.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have no more speakers, Madam Chair.
Okay, great.
Thank you very much.
With that, we will close the public hearing
and I'll return to our staff.
Mr. Kwan.
Great, thank you.
Yes, we think the staff report adequately walks through
this project's issues in sufficient detail,
but I'll just reiterate a couple points.
One is that we feel the project is appropriately
cited and scaled in relation to its surroundings
in this walkable kind of urban village.
It meets the LCP site planning standards
for things like height and second-story residential use
and active ground floor pedestrian use.
So we don't see any LCP or coastal resource conformance
issues with the project itself.
And then just lastly with respect to water,
because I know that's a topic that this commission
has grappled with a lot in Los Osos
and taken a real deep dive,
both through the community plan approval from 2024
and then in subsequent projects and appeals since then.
I'll just broadly note that the LCP test
is whether new development can be served
by an amount of water within the sustainable yield
of the groundwater basin.
And the best available science shows
that the amount of water being extracted
is within that sustainable yield.
So we feel pretty confident that the project meets
those LCP tests and can be approved here.
With that, we're available for questions, thank you.
Great, thank you very much.
With that, I'll return to the commission.
Comments, questions, or a motion?
Commissioner Wilson.
Let's bring it up here.
I move that the commission determine that appeal number A-3-SLO-26-0024 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.
I'll second that.
That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson.
I've seconded.
We're asking for a yes vote.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, no substantial issue has been found.
Thank you.
Thank you. That will then take us to item 14a and that's the West Cliff Drive
armoring adaptation access project in the city of Santa Cruz
And I'll have Kiana Ford our lead planner assigned to this project to give the staff presentation and there's a PowerPoint
All right. Good morning chair Herman and commissioners item 14a is a project in the city of Santa Cruz
located along Westcliffe Drive, a portion of which is shown here on Slide 1. Next slide, please.
The Westcliffe Corridor is highlighted in green here on Slide 2 and is located on the west side
of the city of Santa Cruz, running approximately from the entrance to the Santa Cruz Wharf,
passing around Lighthouse Field State Beach and through to Natural Bridges State Beach.
Westcliffe has a number of small pocket beaches along its length,
two of which, specifically Mitchell's Cove and its beach, are labeled here on Slide 2.
Westcliff is known for its public recreational pathway and it is a surfing
destination including being home to one of the most famous surf spots in
California, Steamer Lane, which is highlighted on this slide at Lighthouse
Point. Next slide please. The Westcliff Drive Corridor, including the road and
the recreational pathway, is an extremely important public access system, providing
a continuous east-west coastal trail and roadway along the shoreline and
connecting coastal overlooks, surfing spots, trails,
beach stairways, pocket beaches, and parks.
Here on slide three, you can see some examples
of the types of public recreational access
that can be found here, including surfing, biking,
walking, and taking in coastal views.
The Westcliffe Corridor serves as an essential
public promenade in the city and provides critical means
for the public to enjoy the shoreline and ocean.
Next slide, please.
Due to the geology, wave characteristics,
and storm cycles along the stretch of coastline,
large episodic erosion events have eaten away
at the bluff edge, leading to very little space
between the eroding bluff and the West Cliff corridor
in certain locations.
Thus, in these areas, the road, related road infrastructure,
and critically, the coastal dependent
public recreational trail are in danger from erosion,
and over the years, the city has installed a series
of different armoring measures
to protect these public improvements.
In particular, winter storms in 2023 and 2024,
photos of which are shown here on slide four,
led to a series of emergency permits
to install armoring along the roadway.
Staff and the city have worked together
to implement targeted armoring solutions
in these discreet locations
affected by recent erosion episodes,
while also identifying areas
where non-armoring strategies,
such as retreat of the road and path inland
and away from coastal hazards,
and thus avoidance of hard armoring can be utilized.
Next slide, please.
The resulting proposed project
includes three main components.
The first is the required follow-up approval
for a series of shoreline armoring structures,
primarily in the form of infill walls,
one of which is shown in the upper left image on slide five,
that were implemented as a part of the emergency measures
from recent winter storm events.
The second is for after-the-fact approval of rock riprap
placed in these locations in the 1990s and early 2000s
that didn't receive the required followup
coastal permit authorization.
And the third is authorization for development
not yet completed consisting of managed retreat
where a portion of West Cliff Drive
and the adjacent recreational trail
shown in the bottom image and highlighted in red
would be relocated inland so as to avoid armoring.
Next slide, please.
The result is a glimpse into what the West Cliff corridor
might look like in the future where certain sections
use hard armoring strategies to protect the road
and pathway for public use and enjoyment.
While other sections are realigned landward
to avoid armoring and coastal resource impacts
to the beaches, bluffs, and offshore surfing areas
where this is possible.
The portion of the project at 800 West Cliff Drive,
shown here on slide six, provides an important example
of relocation inland out of harm's way,
being the preferred strategy over hard armoring,
as well as being a collaboration between the city
and state parks as the relocation would occur
onto state parks property.
And it is important to note that the city
is continuing to explore a managed retreat
along the corridor, including recently issuing
their own coastal permit for retreat
of the recreational trail at two other spots.
Next slide, please.
Lastly, while the project is obviously
partially self-mitigating as a result
of the public recreational access benefits
that have been returned to the public
by providing a continuous recreational trail and road.
The city has also put together a robust mitigation package
that includes a series of public recreational access
and public view enhancements, including removal of rip rap
at Mitchell's Cove and Cowell Beach,
repairs to surf access stairways,
removal of errant concrete debris,
implementation of graffiti abatement measures,
and a series of other improvements,
including a commitment to work with state parks
to implement expanded public parking lot hours.
In addition, the city has committed to identifying
both shorter and longer term corridor-wide
public recreational access and public view enhancements
through ongoing adaptation and planning work,
including measures such as removing defunct infrastructure,
ongoing landscaping efforts to remove non-native
and invasive species, improving bluff top overlook spaces,
improving bike and pedestrian transit,
and other similar measures.
Lastly, the city has committed to developing
a suite of design guidelines for West Cliff Drive
that are intended to provide a unified design aesthetic
for future projects and planning efforts.
Next slide, please.
In conclusion, the proposed project responds
to coastal hazards threats through a combination
of managed retreat and hard armoring
so as to keep the West Cliff corridor open
and available for public use and enjoyment
and is one of the few examples
of voluntary managed retreat in the state.
The city has indeed taken a proactive approach
to planning for the future of Westcliff,
including as evidenced by the many adaptation planning
efforts that are ongoing.
And staff would like to thank the city
for their close collaboration and willingness
to be an active partner in developing this project.
The motion and resolution to effectuate this recommendation
is found on page five of the staff report.
This concludes staff's presentation, thank you.
Thank you very much, appreciate that.
Okay, now I will ask, are there any ex partes?
Okay, Commissioner Kelly I
Spoke with a community member
Bernie whose last name is escaping me at this moment who wanted to talk about some of the mitigations regarding
Some of the armoring that ended up
Possibly being placed in the wrong locations that are impacting surfers and other beach users and talked about
Mitigations going forward and what the plans can allow for
Okay, thank you commissioner we will open the public hearing and Chris. I'll turn it back to you
all right, we have in-person Nathan win from the
County of Santa Cruz City of Santa Cruz County and then how much time will you need for your presentation?
If you could just turn the mic on sir that button, right? Got it
five minutes
Good morning Commission Nathan when director of public works for the city of Santa Cruz. Thank you for having me
I want to appreciate the collaborative work we've had
with the Coastal Commission staff with regards
to the emergency projects, as well as the development
of this staff report.
I believe I had a slide deck, if that's available.
We wanted to take an opportunity to drive
a little bit more background with regards
to some of the planning work that's been underway
at the city of Santa Cruz, as it relates
to our shoreline management plans.
Next slide.
So there's been a lot of work that's occurred
at the city over the last eight years.
A lot of the studies, technical studies,
conditions of inventory alternatives analysis,
that all culminated into a West Cliff
adaptation management plan in 2021.
Unfortunately, in 2023 and 2024,
we had bombside clones that hit our coastline.
And so the city had to pivot and develop a 50-year vision
as well as a five-year roadmap for the implementation effort.
Again, again, I want to commend the staff
working with the city with regards to the emergency
CDPs during that time.
Substantial completion of those projects has happened
in 2025 and we look to do some additional work
with Man's Retreat at our 800 relocation site.
The 50 year vision also informed the ongoing development
and LCP beaches and bluffs chapter,
as well as other near term planned work in the area.
Next slide.
I just wanted to provide, again, a quick overview of the Shoreline Adaptation Management plans.
Our effort here is to kind of talk about the timeline process as well as some of the deliverals
in this process.
Part of the SAMHPS will develop visual accessible format projects, triggers, and thresholds
for implementation, as well as provide Shoreline blueprints and technical briefs.
Next slide.
So this is an overview of where we're at on the project.
We've done a lot of background work.
We've adapted, created adaptation pathways,
but we're currently in the funding phase,
evaluating the different funding sources
that can be available.
So we're looking at some of the key funding strategies
for different projects.
We have been successful in the past
for leveraging some grants as well as the disaster funding,
but we know that these grants aren't enough
to improve the coastline, and so we're utilizing this work
to help guide us towards the future.
Next slide.
This slide highlights the three areas
that we're targeting within our SAMHPS projects,
Westcliffe, Maine, Cal, as well as Eastcliffe and Seabright.
Notice that they each have their own different types
of strategies that can be applied along the coastline here.
With Westcliffe, we're looking at targeted protection
it's a managed retreat while at Maine and Cowles,
there's a layered flood protection risk
and hybrid adaptation, shoreline adaptation plan.
And then over in East Cliff Seabright area,
we're looking at nature-based adaptation combined
with access and mobility changes.
Next slide.
This slide just gives you a real kind of overall overview
of some of the medium-term strategies
that we are taking along West Cliff.
This highlights zones one and two.
Medium term is a 10 to 30 year effort.
In addition to these medium term strategies,
we're also including projects
that are in our five year roadmap,
and that's again some of the 800 roadway relocation effort.
We're also looking at proposing some improvements
at Pyramid Beach, abating Legacy Rebel,
removing seawalls where possible,
and relocation where space permits in the 30 year horizon.
But it also includes proposing transition
our rock armament to sea walls,
as we did most recently with the infill walls
and the high-risk erosion areas.
This is also to increase beach footprints,
as well as protect critical infrastructure,
such as our wastewater treatment outfall.
Next slide.
There's been a good amount of robust engagement
as a part of this process.
This includes, for the Bethany Curve mural,
including surveys of the design, neighborhood participation
in those mosaics and so we just wanted to be able
to highlight the number of touch points we have
with the community and continue to have.
Next slide.
So the final deliverables of our SAMS projects
we'll look at developing these footprints
as well as these technical briefs.
We look to wrap up this work in the fall of 2027
and continue to have more community engagement.
Next slide.
This is the last slide.
So just wrapping up the presentation here,
we've been really busy at the city
in regards to our planning work as well as our CIP work.
We're looking at doing, again, the roadway relocation
very shortly with the approval of the CDP
as well as continue to find financing
for additional sites for revetment removal,
and we have additional staff available for any questions.
Thank you.
Great, thank you very much.
All right, thank you.
Moving on, we'll start with people in the room.
Mitch Silverstein followed by Kathleen Cosetti,
Beni Drescher and Bernie Tershey.
Mitch Silverstein.
Hopefully.
Silverstein at W14A.
I don't believe we have that, yes.
Okay, you sent it this morning.
We'll move on to our other speakers
and we'll get that over to them really quickly.
Kathleen Crocetti, Beni Drescher and Bernie Tershey.
I believe you have a presentation for me?
Yeah, we're bringing it up.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, thank you.
My name's Kathleen Crocetti.
I'm the Executive Director of Community Arts
and Empowerment, we're a nonprofit organization
that strives to make public art for, by,
and with the community.
Next slide please.
Please approve the mosaic as part of the permit.
The process was followed, presented publicly
at least four times, including the City Council meeting
that approved our contract.
The ocean view stays open, art only goes
on the bridge's interior faces and landlord side.
The artwork is muted by design.
Residents picked the artist for her muted palette,
and we as the mosaic experts further chose tiles
that were more muted than her own design.
Neighbors built it.
170 participants put in 367 hours,
and 218 people have signed a petition
in support of the project.
The ocean view over the, oh, sorry, next slide, please.
The ocean view over the bridge is not touched.
No art is on the ocean facing side.
It's only on the interior faces.
The bridge has its frames that the artwork fits within
and it's consistent with LCP policy CD2.
The city staff found that the art does not interrupt
or impede upon public views
of the natural cliff and the bluffs.
The mosaic went through every possible public channel.
Can we have the next slide, please?
There was an open bid process.
Community Arts and Empowerment won that,
partly because of our outreach record.
The city council approved the contract at a public meeting.
We put 800 flyers door to doors to involve the community
and let them know it was happening.
There was a survey to choose the artists
where 684 folks responded.
We had three public forums in 2025 to help with the design.
And after the design was approved,
we had community night builds
when neighbors set up alongside our crew
to build the artworks.
I do have a sample.
Our opponent said that it was going to be garish.
They made three AI images that are not representative
of what will go up.
Thank you for your time
and we hope you approve the mosaic portion of this project.
Thank you.
Thank you, next Benny Drescher, Bernie Tershey,
and then Mitch Silverstein.
Benny Drescher.
I'm speaking on behalf of 70 members of the public,
I'm wondering if I would be allotted three minutes
instead of two.
Sure.
Thank you.
First off, the city has been doing great work recently.
I'm very excited to have the opportunity
to speak to you today.
I'm here to support you, the commission,
in keeping the city of Santa Cruz accountable,
and that's an important job.
Thank you so much for doing it.
We request that the commission accept our fifth condition,
which we provided, which establishes a mechanism
to ensure that the city adheres to future beach restoration.
West Cliff is an exemplary expression
of our coast's beauty, but few know what we know.
It is a miracle of nature.
There are very few places in the world
where waves bounce off of natural cliff face
to then barrel on sand.
Next slide.
West Cliff is unique because its geology creates
these types of waves in extraordinary abundance.
Folded into this permit is a 1993 rock piling project
that the time immediately smothered several of these spots
and those next door, known as rock bowl,
middle bowl, and finger bowl,
have consistently been degrading
due to the rock pile projects there.
Next slide, please.
This is where our children learn how to handle
barreling powerful waves at a small scale.
This is a core part of our identity.
Most of the best surfers that have come out of Santa Cruz
grew up booby boarding these waves.
Next slide please.
Rip rap on West Cliff has taken an amount of sand area
equivalent to three times the size of its beach.
Next slide please.
Most recently, rushed construction efforts
led to the additive placement of rocks right at these spots,
even though we urged them not to.
Isn't this kind of emergency action allowed only
on the condition that it be later removed?
Please click next seven times.
Adding these new rocks pushed others
even further onto the beach, a severe impact.
As a result, we're now this close
to never again riding these waves
because sharp rocks are right where we surf.
I'm really curious for what reasons
the 1993 square footage remained
up until now unpermitted and what has changed today.
I am very glad and thankful
that the city is for the first time ever
beginning to take steps in alignment with our requests.
Thank you.
But the mitigations currently provided
are still not enough.
23,000 square feet of rock pile
thrown on precious geology.
Next slide, please.
Antiquated shoreline protection strategies
are smothering these coastal treasures.
This is one of my favorite places on Earth.
It's so beautiful.
We love what we're seeing from our city staff recently,
honestly, but who knows what the future holds
for our city government?
Cliffside amenities are nice,
but they're far from commensurate.
We need a framework to keep everyone steering on target.
Without our fifth condition, there's no guarantee.
We urge you to adopt the fifth condition
for a robust system of restoration as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Bernie Tershey, then Mitch Silverstein,
and we'll move to our Zoom participants.
Brent or she?
Thanks to all of you because for you,
because of you and your predecessors,
we have a coast worth fighting for.
And at a global level, California is unique
because of the Coastal Act.
I represent West Cliff Waves and Beaches.
We have centuries of combined surf and beach experience,
people who've like devoted their whole lives
to little micro pocket beaches that obsess on them.
the collective wisdom of these people,
we've tried to channel through the recommendations
we've made and that is we're stoked out of our minds
that the city is moving forward
to remove some of this riprap.
We think they can do better and they want to do better
and we want to help them do better
by putting the conditions in place
that will facilitate that, right?
I'm a professor when people take classes without,
not for grades when they audit a class,
they don't do as well
because they don't have that external pressure.
That's what we're hoping that you can provide
to the city by approving the conditions
that Benny and our group laid forward.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mitch Silverstein, keeping us on our toes today.
Followed by Gene Crawford, Megan Dawson,
and Aldo Giacchino on Zoom.
Mitch Silverstein.
Okay, it's a presentation ready, thank you so much.
All right, morning Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Mitch Silverstein with Surf Rider.
Surf Rider really appreciates the work
that the city and the commission are doing together.
They seem to really have a good vibe
on proactively tackling head-on issues
for around coastal adaptation.
Next slide.
But these are a few of the images
from the staff report of the armoring.
It's a lot, it's 1,200 linear feet of seawall and rock.
It's got a 23,500 square foot footprint
and your staff calculated accumulated value
of $18.3 million would be needed
to cover the loss of public beaches
and shoreline sand supply.
Instead, it's being authorized.
All the emergency work from 2033 on
and older rip-rop as well
and being offset with a single mitigation package.
Importantly, the mitigation package is not shown
to be commensurate with the damage
which Santa Cruz's LCP now requires.
Next slide.
Let's look at West Cliff Drive.
You can see on the east side there
where it's a lot of development,
that's where all the armoring is,
and there's not really a good options there.
You know, you've got a road
and you've got homes right behind it,
so armoring is likely gonna continue there.
Then let's look on the west side, or east side, excuse me,
where you have Lighthouse Field,
and the most exciting part of this project
is this 600 foot long managed retreat project,
pulling the road back, I think, 30 to 60 feet there.
Let's look closer, next slide.
This is where there's coastal adaptation can actually occur.
And the city's already committed to it in their LCP
through this shoreline adaptation management plan
due by 2031 that needs to look at avoiding armoring
where feasible and looking at the least damaging options
for the environment, which is pulling the road back
and allowing natural shoreline processes to resume,
saving the beach, saving public access.
Next slide.
That said, we do have two recommendations.
We recommend conditioning those same LCP commitments
as part of the mitigation package for this CDP.
That makes the mitigation commensurate
because it requires forward movement
towards the most feasible non-armoring adaptation
for Westway to split the road back.
And then secondly, the city is doing a great job
driving this process along,
but even the best driver needs a good insurance policy.
And that's where you come in.
The LCP planning deadlines are not enforceable.
They can be pushed back, neglected, abandoned.
Tying them to this mitigation package
is that insurance policy, and it's not burdensome
because they've already committed to doing it.
I have provided staff with proposed language
that I would ask you to consider adding
to the requirements of this permit.
It gives us all more leverage to save our beaches.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have seven speakers on Zoom.
We'll start with Gene Crawford,
followed by Megan Dawson and Aldo Giacino.
Gene Crawford, please accept being moved to panelists.
Or we just have your video, we can play your video.
Yeah, I don't think they want to move in,
but we have your video.
This is a three-minute visual presentation
with recorded audio using AI
to ensure we stay within the allotted time.
We oppose the de minimis waiver
for 34 eight-foot mosaic panels
on the Bethany Curve Coastal Culvert Bridge.
A formal waiver approval requires findings
of no potential for adverse impacts on coastal resources.
We ask four Commissioners to deny the waiver and require a standard coastal development
permit review and present here potential adverse impacts.
West Cliff Drive is a critical public view shed, and the bridge is a celebrated marine
life lookout to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
The Commission routinely interprets Public Resources Code 30251 as a strict directive
to keep public infrastructure subordinate to surrounding coastal character, rather than
and serve as a decorative distraction.
According to the Westcliff Emergency Repairs Project
document, the bridge's integrally-colored, textured
concrete was intentionally designed
to soften its appearance.
A standard coastal development permit review
should evaluate whether the large-scale mural will
significantly adversely impact the scenic qualities
of Westcliff Drive.
Bethany Curve is located at the lowest point on Westcliff.
Furthermore, a UC Davis study reported October 21, 2026,
identifies West Cliff Drive as particularly vulnerable to flooding and storm damage during
the coming El Nino winter, and identifies Bethany Curve as an active erosion zone, regularly
overtopped by winter storm-driven swells.
Adhering 34 8-foot mosaic panels with non-porous epoxy grout could trap saltwater chlorides,
accelerating rebar corrosion, concrete spalling, and premature infrastructure failure, threatening
millions in public investment.
The city's engineer warns the bridge may require armoring within a decade.
Preserving the mosaic could influence those decisions, conflicting with the local coastal
program's commitment to managed retreat and natural bluff preservation.
Wave-driven stones could fracture ceramic and glass tiles, releasing shards into the
intertidal zone and risking ingestion injury to marine life.
The artist's and volunteer's dedication deserves consideration of alternative locations
for the artwork and its educational message while avoiding potential adverse impacts on
coastal and biological resources.
The proposed project site already provides public access to an iconic marine lookout.
The mural's educational intent does not eliminate potential adverse impacts or the irony of
degrading the resources it seeks to protect.
A low-profile educational plaque could inform visitors while preserving the raw, iconic
beauty of this coastline.
We respectfully ask four commissioners
to deny the de minimis waiver
and require a standard coastal development permit review
of these potential adverse impacts.
Thank you, and next Megan Dawson followed by Aldo Giacchino
and then Pamela Kirby, Megan Dawson.
Can you hear me?
Hi, yes, we can hear you.
Very good.
Okay, great, thank you.
Thanks for hearing our concerns
about the proposed tile mosaic panels on Westcliffe Drive.
When construction began on the damaged coastline,
city staff repeatedly assured residents
that Bethany Bridge would be restored
to its original dimensions and appearance.
There was absolutely no mention
of large-scale mosaic panels.
In March 2025, 11 commissioners inspected the bridge,
yet mosaic panels appear nowhere in your report.
Local residents only learned of this development
in August, 2025 after the site had been chosen
and the contract had been approved
on a July consent calendar without public notice or input.
We canvassed the immediate neighborhood,
not a single resident had received city notice
of this site selection,
all of them opposed decorating the bridge.
A letter of objection signed by 120 residents
was sent to the mayor,
but our efforts were met with dismissals that quote,
Westcliff is no different than any other street
in Santa Cruz and quote, this is a done deal.
Months later, the city finally conceded
that a proper CDP was required and agreed to,
pardon me, agreed to apply only to pivot shortly after
to request a de minimis waiver instead.
The restoration of Bethany Bridge represents millions
dollars in public funding. Sitting at the lowest point of West Cliff, it is highly vulnerable to
winter storms and wave action, especially in wild El Nino years. The large-scale tile mosaic panels
qualify as a development under the Coastal Act. We urge the Commission to require a standard CDP
and a full review process. We are not art haters, but by choosing this vulnerable site and proceeding
without permits, the city has actively denied the public its oversight role. By the way you will
note that even with your even with your posted duplicates, correspondence letters run two to one
against this installation. Thank you for listening. Thank you. And next Aldo Giacchino,
Pamela Kirby and then Catlin or Caitlin Crawford. Aldo Giacchino. Hello can you hear me? Yes we can
hear you. Thank you. I urge the commission to remove from the approval of the resolution before
it item number four of the project description, the murals, described as viewshed enhancements.
This permit application encompasses a variety of projects and viewshed enhancement is just one of
them. The reasons include insufficient investigation of feasible mitigations
or alternatives that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impact on the environment
of the proposed viewshed enhancements. The proposed installation of nearly 300 linear feet
of kitschy mosaic panels cemented to the walls of the Bethany Curve Bridge is not a viewshed
enhancement. This is an area of majestic natural scenery. No attempt to enhance it is required.
The commission routinely interprets section 30 to 51 as a directive
to keep public infrastructure subordinate to the character of the surrounding area.
West Cliff Tribe is a protected critical public view shed of the Monterey Bay and the bridge
is a celebrated lookout for marine life. The proposed installation would have a comic strip
effect degrading a highly scenic coastal landscape. I do not object to the mosaic art but I strongly
object to locating it here. It trivializes in major coastal resources, and there are
alternatives in other areas of the city with bare walls where this art would be more appropriate
and more effective. For these reasons and others, I urge you to require a substantive review of this
specific project separate and apart from the rest of the permit application. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Pamela Kirby followed by Catlin Crawford and then McKenna Keene. Pamela Kirby.
Pamela, you're in as a panelist. You should be able to unmute.
Thank you. Can you hear me?
There you go. We can hear you.
Okay. Thank you. This is one of the lowest and narrowest sections of West Cliff Drive
where this proposed mosaic is supposed to go. A large-scale mosaic would create significant
driver distraction at an already congested intersection which includes three crosswalks.
There is no shoulder, fluff, or area where a pedestrian observing that mosaic could safely
step out of the way and to get out of the way many may step into the street. Those that do stop to
enjoy the mosaic will be subject to dog walkers, many with extended retractable leashes, and multiple
dogs, pedal bikes, e-bikes and scooters, and rudders. Not just a runner, but oftentimes
at least two or three at that narrow intersection. So I plead for our safety because I walk that
on a daily basis that we reconsider where this mosaic goes. Thank you very much.
you. Next is Caitlin or Caitlin Crawford and then Makenna Keene. Caitlin Crawford.
Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.
Good afternoon. My name is Caitlin Crawford and I am a resident of Westliff Drive. The Bethany
Curve Bridge sits at the lowest point on Westliff Drive and remains an active erosion zone. It is
for these reasons that the city's own engineers do not expect the recent armoring of the bridge
to have a normal lifespan. They expect to be back within a decade to recalculate how
to continue to protect this site from high impact wave erosion. An expansive hard surfacing
of the culvert bridge meets the definition of a development requiring a coastal development
permit application. The standard exemptions and waivers found in local coastal guidelines
like Santa Cruz Municipal Code Part 3 for what the city argues here is a minor improvement
specifically excludes sites located within a natural hazard area and active erosion zone status means that the city must submit with the coastal development permit application.
The exemption of a so called minor improvement would also be denied, whereas here the emergency coastal permit conditions expressly required a new permit for any future exterior alterations.
The alteration would change the character of a critical public view shed, be adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat area and require disruption of public access to the coastal path for installation, regular cleaning and sealing, including staging and use of heavy equipment.
The addition of expansive mosaic panels would cause significant secondary effects for flora and fauna. In recent winters, high impact waves through large stones across the street and against the bridge wall.
These rocks and storm debris will hit the mosaic panels, creating shards of tile and glass that according to NOAA will be fatally mistaken for food by marine life.
The coastal development permit process allows the Commission to assess potential adverse impacts and evaluate alternative locations.
The San Lorenzo River walk offers an alternative site that accommodates the murals dimensions and eliminates the risk to our coastal resources. Thank you for allowing me to speak.
Thank you. McKenna Keene.
Good morning, chair and commissioners. My name is McKenna Keene and I am opposing the approval of item 14A with the conditions currently proposed.
I was born and raised on the west side of Santa Cruz and my family uses West Cliff Drive every day.
I am happy that there is a concern about the longevity of West Cliff Drive and I too want to protect it for as long as possible.
However, I don't think we can keep relying on hard armoring to protect our coast, and I don't believe the mitigation measures to the hard armoring proposed in this plan are acceptable.
The staff's report acknowledges that hard armoring prevents surf breaks from adapting to sea level rise and that it can reduce sand limiting our beaches and our access to the beach.
The suggested mitigation by this permit includes things like rehabilitated surf stairways, dog waste stations and graffiti removal.
Those are nice amenities, but a new staircase doesn't matter if there's no beach or no wave at the bottom of it.
The city's LCP states that proportional mitigation must be provided for all unavoidable impacts to coastal resources for the life of the armoring.
The surf and the beaches along West Cliff are rare, and the impacts of hard armoring may diminish, but we love most about our coastline.
I don't think the mitigation proposed in this permit accounts for the future loss of beaches
and surf here. So I'm asking the commission to move away from the dependence on hard armoring
along West Cliff and instead explore nature-based alternatives, alternatives that will work
with the nature and not against it. Thank you for your time and the work that you do.
Thank you. We just had one person we weren't able to find, Sean Burns. Sean Burns,
If you are on Zoom, please raise your hand.
Sean Burns.
All right, I'm not seeing any hands raised.
Madam Chair.
Okay, thank you very much.
With that, we will close the public hearing
and I will return to our staff, Mr. Kark.
Yeah, I'll start and then I'll pass it to Kevin and Kiana.
I think specifically to Sir Frider's comments
about on adaptation and requiring the West Cliff Drive
Shoreline adaptation and management plan, which the SAAMP within five years as a conditional requirement
You know, I don't know that we're opposed to that kind of requirement
I think some backgrounds appropriate here and it was alluded to by some of the comments the city for a very long time
Didn't take adaptation along West Cliff Drive very seriously
They took armoring West Cliff Drive very seriously
But some of the requirements to look at it more holistically
Kind of fell by the wayside and in in this nearer term with Nathan and some other folks at the city
The the way the city's approaching West Cliff Drive is entirely different than it was say 20 years ago
And you saw the slide that nascent Nathan put up of all the various efforts that they've got going
They've got a lot of irons in the fire
Not only in West Cliff Drive
but also their other beach areas and as you saw that the armoring really in in Santa Cruz would be in this upcoast portion of
Santa Cruz where there's
Limited space and I think Mitch referred to that too, but the other areas of the city
They're really looking into managed retreat a good example, you know at lighthouse field where the roads gonna be moved inland for 600 feet
But also the other parts of the beach or excuse me other parts of the city going down coast
They're really looking at nature based adaptation strategies
And so this city is really putting its money into that sort of thing as well
and I wanted that you'd have that context because we are working really well with the city they have and
Probably more efforts on calling related to these sorts of things
Than the other jurisdictions in Central Coast for sure
And it's difficult and it's costly and so I'm putting that out there because I think the city wants some flexibility about the stamp
Which is required by the LCP?
but at the same time
we've developed a certain working relationship and
trust with the city that we're on the right path to getting these plans in place and
So I just wanted you to have that that context as you know
If that question comes up and you know to respond a little bit to what Mitch said pass it to Kevin
That was very eloquently put
I would also just art or say just really quickly. There was a little confusion about the mural
And a reference to a de minimis waiver just for clarity's per
purposes that that project is part of this project. So that's
not a separate application or anything like that. And the
renderings of it are shown in exhibit six. And we think it's
an appropriate public art installation that will help. And
lastly, I'll say about just the project here is this really does
highlight all of our entire program, essentially from working
on emergency permits and working with the city to understand what
exactly is going on in real time as portions of West Cliff
Drive are falling into the ocean,
trying to put out the minimum necessary to abate that threat.
And then working through our LCP grants program,
which culminated in the approval of the Beaches and Bluffs LCP
amendment back in April, which really set in motion
and really codified what Mr. Carl said
about this kind of sea change, the idea of not just throwing
rock here, but also strategically thinking about where can we relocate,
where can we thoughtfully plan for the future?
And that's shown both in big and small projects. So obviously,
relocating the road through Lighthouse Field is a big project, but there's
these micro projects that's actually listed in the addendum here,
removing some parking spaces to relocate the trail inland so as to avoid
armoring. So I say that because there's a lot going on here and it really
does show the entirety of a program
and now culminated in this coastal permit application.
So planning, permits, appeals, you name it.
Count anything else?
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much.
With that, I will return to the commission.
I assume there'll be some comments or, okay.
Commissioner Kelly, we'll start with you.
Thank you.
Yeah, so just a question about the volume
of riprap removal.
it seems a little bit open-ended.
Can you talk a little bit more about the evaluation process
and who makes that determination?
I know there was a request from the community
who are in the water regularly
and experiencing some of those hazards
to be able to participate in a process
that could help inform what gets removed.
Yeah, I can take that question.
So, this stretch of Westcliff, which we were looking at,
and we are looking at this discrete stretch,
we were not looking at the entirety of Westcliff,
some of the permitting goes back to the early 1990s
and documentation at that time
was not quite what it is today.
And so, our process was a combination of, you know,
examining old permits to extract the maximum amount
of information we could to estimate the sizes
of this RIPRAP as well as using mapping techniques
with our mapping unit to try and estimate sizes
that we couldn't get exact amounts for.
And then that was added as well
with the current emergency permits and the sizes of those.
And so that is the total amount
that we are kind of estimating here
is that previous RIPRAP that maybe doesn't have
the exact amount or number listed in the permits,
but that we can sort of estimate.
And then the newly placed armoring structures,
which we do have good estimates for.
Oh yeah, and then I can answer your question
about removal as well, sorry.
So in looking at the, so part of the riprap in this area
was removed as part of the emergency permits.
So because the infill walls kind of extend a certain amount,
there was some riprap that was no longer needed
and that was removed, it's already been removed
as part of the permit.
And then there's additional riprap that the city
has identified in kind of consultation
with some of the stakeholders in areas
where it would affect kind of body surfing
and surfing culture and surfing spots.
And so the city has identified those areas
as areas where it's feasible to remove the armoring
in terms of getting equipment down there
to actually remove it,
and would have pretty big public benefits
for the surfing community.
So their kind of goal is to work with the stakeholders
to, you know, as this process moves along,
identify, you know, specific boulders and specific sites
where it'll make the most difference.
Great.
One thing I will just quickly say is our addendum also made
one of the recommended changes to have a community meeting
for these members of the public that clearly know
the ins and outs of the surface conditions best
to be part of that process as well.
Okay, great, and is there a representative of the city
who could just speak a little bit more
to what that armoring removal kind of riprap process
and engaging stakeholders could look like.
I mean, I've attended many different types
of community meetings, so I think it's wonderful
that you guys are planning to have one,
but also how that can inform the process.
I'm gonna what your thought process is
on how to engage the stakeholders.
Just press the button, thank you, sir.
Thank you for the question.
Nathan Wynn, director of public works
for the city of Santa Cruz.
As staff has noted, we are committed to working
with the community to identify a particular riprap
that can be removed along some of the locations
as mentioned earlier in this presentation.
We haven't decided exactly what the engagement process
would look like, but we are definitely, again, as noted,
we will have a community meeting going onsite
as something that was suggested to be able
to actually point out specific riprap that is in that break.
And so ideas like that are being discussed,
but as mentioned, we are willing to do that.
Great, it's wonderful to hear that the community meeting
or the engagement will be on site
because I imagine that could help inform the process
that much greater and I think just to clarify,
I just want to pause and appreciate the city's work
and the goals of reopening West Cliff Drive
and moving the road and path inland.
That is, that realignment is the type of adaptation
that we want to support and to see
in lots of other locations up and down the coast
when feasible and so we appreciate the city's leadership
and partnership on that, so thank you.
And then I had a question about, again, for city staff.
One of the conditions talks about,
and this is maybe minor for some people,
but for coastal users, an important one,
it says that condition 1H is about the water fountain
and water bottle refill station,
that the condition is that you're gonna pursue
funding opportunities to install a water station,
at least one.
I am hesitant to allow that language
to say that you're gonna kind of pursue the funding
as opposed to just the city will install.
So can you tell us if there's gonna be,
if you've identified any challenges
to being able to have a condition
that just says you will install it?
Thank you for the question.
I think similar to some of the work
that's been occurring along West Cliff
or in the coastal areas, is that funding
is a critical piece in order to implement
some of the work that we see out there.
And so we worked with coastal staff in saying
that we are committed to finding or pursuing funding
to implement a dog station, a water station
along West Cliff, but at this time we haven't identified
what that current funding would look like.
That's similar to be said to some of the other
restoration work or work that's happening
in the SAMHSA projects, we're in that phase right now
where we're exploring different funding sources
and so that's why we left it as a,
to continue to explore the finding that funding source.
Okay, great, thank you.
Okay, Commissioner Wolfman.
Thanks, I just want to recognize the,
what was referenced in terms of the sort of evolution
and enlightenment of the city of Santa Cruz
in terms of mitigating for and managing sea level rise
and especially the erosion that's occurring in that area.
It is evolving.
We are all, and tomorrow,
let me not tomorrow, but on Friday,
we'll talk about that some more.
But I do think that that trajectory is set in motion.
I don't think it's going back.
I appreciate the concern
and sort of what Sir Frider and others are speaking about
in terms of the insurance.
But I have a good feeling about how the city of Santa Cruz
is gonna move forward with this.
Honestly, I don't see policy-wise,
and I don't see how that can move in an opposite direction,
even with a potential change politically on their board.
It just doesn't seem likely to me.
So I'm happy about that.
I'm not stressed about the artwork at all.
I want to appreciate, actually, the sort of organic nature
in which that effort has been put together
with the community outreach and those sorts of things.
I think public art is important.
And this is, in my mind, not that obtrusive.
I was a little the juxtaposition of a message
to us built with AI
to then oppose something
from a community art project
was just a little bit strange
to me.
But that's sort of the world we
live in, I guess.
And I'm hoping that more human
beings can be involved
in these processes and less
of that sort of thing.
Not saying that the comments didn't have relevance
and that they aren't important.
It's just that it was just an interesting juxtaposition.
And with that, I'm happy to support staff recommendation.
Any other comments, questions?
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks, I wanna align myself with the comments
that were just made by Commissioner Wilson.
You know, I have that concern too.
Can't help it that a little bit is left to
Reliance on the city how much depends on the city council remaining. Do you have that concern at all? Mr. Carl?
Or how do you the Sam requirement is in the LCP currently?
So the beaches and bluff plan that Kevin referenced is now, you know, it is the certified LCP. We have full
Confidence that the city is going to pursue that I don't well
I mean obviously can't say how the city council is going to go
But that is going to be a requirement of the city and city staff and Nathan in particular are they're committed
And I think there's a certain amount of trust that we have to have with our local government partners
and they've shown nothing but
The the you know the type of thing that's that that's going to result in the stamp
That's going to result in adaptation is that is the type like Commissioner Kelly just spoke of
So we're not we're not concerned in that regard
Great. I also just want to point out here in the importance of lighthouse the existence of lighthouse field
And I just want to recall our last hearing where the Commission approved the development of an area that the community
was
Fighting for a park and just I think that the Commission really needs to pay attention to the value of
Open space along these coastal areas for adaptation
Like we're seeing here there's nowhere else that you can that managed retreat can be accomplished in this area
If it wasn't for lighthouse field, which of course is impacting the size of the park
But at the same time is giving you this alternative and creating this public access
So I just think it's an important point to note and I want to appreciate you for the managed retreat plan
Okay, thank you. Commissioner Wilson. I'm happy to make a motion. That's all right. I
I move that the Commission approve cults development permit number three
Dash to six that's zero five to four pursuant to the staff recommendation. I recommend a yes vote second
Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly. They're asking for a yes vote any objections to unanimous consent
Seeing none the motion carries
Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, and I believe we have an enforcement report
I'll look to our staff we should power through that's so the enforcement report is about 20 minutes
So I would it's up to you. We do also do have a closed session. So just noting that as well
Okay, I think I think we will then break for lunch
Lest there's a mutiny up here. So let's say everyone be back at 120, please
The parade should be going by pretty soon
Okay, thank you everyone for your patience. We will return to our agenda and I'll turn it to Miss Hagee for the enforcement report
Thank you so much. Good afternoon chair Herman and commissioners for the last item today
We have an enforcement report highlighting some case successes in our northern district since we're here as you know
We periodically do these enforcement reports to highlight some of the work that our district enforcement staff
Due to resolve cases at the district level where the vast majority of our case resolutions actually occur
And earlier this year we reported on some examples
of Southern California Enforcement District cases.
Today we're gonna show you some cases
from the northern part of the state.
As you're about to see, these cases represent
a wide variety of coastal resource impacts
and they showcase the coordination
that our enforcement staff has with local governments
and also highlight some of the creative resolutions
that enforcement staff can negotiate.
We have a presentation for this item.
Oh, you've got it up, thank you.
Before we go into that review of Northern California cases,
I need to report on the status of a case
in which we've recorded a so-called notice of violation,
which I'll refer to today as Ain't Nova.
As you may know, under Section 308-12 of the Coastal Act,
after providing proper notice,
the Commission's Executive Director may have a nova recorded
on the title of a property
where unpermitted development occurred.
The recordation of novas is an important tool
that can ensure the buyers of the property
with violations on it are put on notice,
and it's an attempt to avoid any preventable problems
that might otherwise arise after the property's transferred.
While California real estate law already requires
that sellers notify buyers of any violations,
and while Coastal Act violations do run with the land,
regardless of the notification,
buyers can still often argue
that they're unaware of the violations.
So thus, when we can record notices of violation,
it helps to ensure that notice is provided
through the chain of title.
Anova is sometimes the result of formal hearings
before the commission,
and you may have seen them in order cases
that we've brought to you,
it sometimes is the result of a negotiated resolution.
In either case, we periodically are required
to review novas for case progress
to see if the violation is still existent
and to check on progress as provided
by the statute and our regulations.
In this case, shown on this slide,
a nova was recorded on several properties
within the Little River Estuary.
The violations included the placement
of a large amount of construction debris,
including roofing materials, drywall, rubble,
household trash, and several vehicles,
all placed within wetlands and along stream channels,
as well as the placement installation
of numerous materials, including concrete pieces,
plastic sheeting, and grading along the banks
of the Little River Inlet,
and the grading and installation of culverts
to create several stream crossings,
all of which were unpermitted.
Enforcement staff are working currently
with staff from Humboldt County,
the Regional Water Quality Control Boards,
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and others
to come to a resolution that can be brought to you
in one form or another as soon as possible.
The violations have not yet been fully resolved,
and so therefore the NOVA remains in place.
So unless there are questions about the NOVA
or a NOVA process, we can move to the rest
of the enforcement report, and I'll hand it off
to Ellie Oliver, who's our Northern California
enforcement supervisor.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
Thank you for that report, and it's disgusting
that that's having to be even dealt with.
Just to be clear, when you have a violation,
you recorded on title against the property.
Can you walk us through the process?
I think it's important that people know
that title reports mean something when they buy something.
I mean you move next to an airport,
you're gonna have airplanes.
So I just wanna make sure that everybody understands
and that we're all very clear on that also.
Thank you for that question.
And through the chair, 308-12 was added to the Coastal Act
to try to give innocent purchasers some notice
so that they didn't end up holding the bag
when they weren't expecting it.
There are a number of safeguards
and first we have to do, it's called a pre-NOVA letter,
so we warn the property owner
so that we would prefer them to resolve these things
informally and not have to record anything at all.
And only if they failed to do that
do we record something on the title.
And we don't do it for every case, we just do it,
Principally, if we think that a sale is imminent
or there's some other reason why
we want to put people on notice,
but we definitely think people should look at their title
because we try to make it as clear as possible.
And as an aside, permit conditions are also recorded
on title and people often don't look at that
and that's another problem.
That gives rise to violations as well.
So people really should take their permits
and their other legal obligations seriously.
And sellers should take it seriously
once they've gotten a notice.
That's a material piece of selling
or buying a piece of property
that you have a governmental notification.
I'm a lawyer that I never went to law school,
but I practice law.
And it drives Louise crazy and drives my lawyers crazy.
But that is something, I mean,
that you gotta disclose that.
You've gotten something from a governmental agency.
You're exactly right.
And it affects the value of the underlying property.
Absolutely, and so in fact in some cases we've had sellers and buyers
Negotiate a reduction in purchase price based on the violations and that's fine with us as it should be yeah as it should be
But you know buyer beware and seller beware also exactly. Yeah, exactly. Thank you so much for those questions
Thank you just to clarify it to for the record
Thank you. Thank you back to you. Miss sig
Ellie will take it away Ellie Oliver who is our Northern California enforcement supervisor
Thank you, Lisa. Can I get the slides back up please and go to the next one?
Before I get started, I just want to highlight and introduce the team that does this work at the district level for the northern parts
of the state. These are faces that you may rarely see but they have been behind the scenes working on district case resolutions as
well as doing all the initial investigations for the cases that come before you later as an order.
The Northern California District Enforcement Team oversees enforcement from the Oregon border through San Luis Obispo County and
On this map those northern counties where we work are all highlighted in green and their coastal zones are in blue
As you can see this is quite a large area to cover and there are four of us
Single enforcement officer in each district and me as their supervisor
Next slide, please and here we are
In the North Coast District. We have Josh Levine who is in the audience today Josh. Can you give a wave?
Thank you
this district includes approximately
490 miles of coastline
120 of that along Humboldt Bay and includes Del Norte Humboldt and Mendocino counties
Josh has been at the agency in this role for the last 11 years
In the North Central District which covers Sonoma, Marin, SF and San Mateo counties
There are approximately 258 miles of coastline,
and we have Joe Ginsberg.
Joe is also in person with us today.
Joe has been with the agency in some fashion since 1977.
First as a graduate student assistant to the librarian,
and then in a variety of other roles,
including librarian, coastal access guide editor,
and planner.
You may know that Linda Loughlin
is the longest serving commission staff member.
She has Joe beat by a matter of months.
Joe has worked in various positions over the decades
and she was the first ever dedicated enforcement staffer
when the commission first created such a role in 1999.
And then finally on my left is Kajal Gupta.
She has now been with the agency for one year
and she covers the Central Coast District
which includes Santa Cruz, Monterey and Slough counties
and spans nearly 300 miles of coastline.
Kajal will be presenting for our team today,
and this will be Kajal's first presentation
in front of the commission.
With such limited enforcement staff,
it is truly impressive what we can accomplish,
and it wouldn't be possible without close coordination
with the district planning staff.
Our enforcement officers in the districts
are part of the district teams,
and each of the cases that you will hear about today
also represents successful collaboration
with our planning counterparts.
Next slide, please.
We will go north to south today and start with a case
out of the North Coast District,
and I'll hand it off to Caudill
to present the next two cases for our team.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ellie.
Hello, commissioners.
This first case was resolved by Josh Levine,
who's in the audience right there,
and comes from Noyo Harbor,
seen here just below the town of Fort Bragg
in Mendocino County.
Next slide.
So actually, so it's, this is the slide,
seen here just below the town of Fort Bragg
in Mendocino County, next slide.
Here we can peek under and just over this Highway 1 bridge
and see a portion of the harbor
with Noyo River Estuary in the foreground.
Many of you may remember dining in the Noyo Harbor
when the commission last met in this area.
You can see that area just behind the bridge
in the upper left, next slide.
For context, you can now see that bridge in the background.
In August of 2023, enforcement staff were informed
by Mendocino County staff of the unpermitted removal
and replacement of dock decking.
As you can see in these photos,
with glimpses of the Nolio River shimmering below
in the photos on the right,
this work was done directly over the water.
Some repair and maintenance is exempt in some locations,
But here, due to the location of work right over the water,
as a potential for coastal resource impacts,
this work requires a coastal development permit.
Next slide.
Here, you can see the unpermitted pressure-treated wood,
both newly installed and in uncovered stacks
that are exposed to the weather.
As with many things,
our understanding of pressure-treated wood,
which is wood that has been injected with pesticides
and other chemicals that are known to be toxic
to the marine environment,
has grown over the years.
The Noyo River is a designated impaired water body
due in part to the presence of pollutants.
Historical use of creosote and pressure-treated woods
on docks and pilings,
including throughout the marina at large,
has led to an accumulation of chemical toxins in the harbor
that pose a risk of aquatic and sediment toxicity.
The pesticides in wood preservatives, particularly copper,
can adversely impact non-targeted aquatic species,
especially fish and invertebrates,
and may accumulate in underlying sediment.
Next slide.
Dissolved copper, which leashes from pressure-treated wood,
is highly toxic to a broad range of aquatic species,
such as those seen here.
Aquatic organisms in California
that are especially copper-sensitive include salmon,
trout, abalone, mussels, oysters, sea urchins,
dungeness crab, and certain zooplankton.
Juvenile and larval stages of fish and invertebrates
are particularly sensitive to copper.
For these reasons, the commission has made ongoing efforts
to reduce the overall amount of pressure-treated wood
permitted on the coast by imposing CDP conditions
to limit or reduce the use of this wood,
especially in sensitive harbors such as Noyo.
In this case, as the work was undertaken without a CDP,
the commission and staff were not able
to analyze the impacts ahead of time
or impose any such conditions.
After discussions with North Coast District staff
about the impacts, the property owner agreed to apply
for a CDP to remove all of the unpermitted
pressure-treated wood and replace it
with non-treated alternatives.
As I'll discuss in the next slide,
they also agreed to include a full resolution
of the violation within the CDP.
Here we see a very happy vengeance crab
and some northern steelhead trout
who were busy chatting when this photograph clearly interrupted their conversation, all
very thankful for the removal of pressure-treated lumber.
Next slide.
In addition to removing the unpermitted wood decking and replacing it with non-treated
alternatives through the CDP to address the full violation as well as the potential for
civil liabilities, the property owner agreed to pay for the removal of a derelict vessel
within Noyo Harbor.
The commission approved a CDP in July of this year for the replacement of the unpermitted
wood decking and included the payment to the Harbor District as a prior to issuance condition.
Derelict boats are an ongoing issue that the underfunded Harbor District is regularly dealing
with, as older boats are left rotting in the harbor, where they can sink and become untethered,
creating navigational hazards and often releasing hydraulic fluids and marine fuel.
Miss Smith was abandoned in 2022 when her owner passed away and the family abandoned
the vessel in the marina.
She was a 40 foot steel vessel and covered in trash.
She was also left with roughly 100 gallons of hydraulic fluid and fuel on board.
Next slide.
Additionally, these vessels can attract waste which can regularly leave the boat and enter
the river, creating a visual blight in the harbor.
Miss Smith in this photo has collected her share.
this boat sunk, as it eventually would have, it would have caused environmental damage
that would be much more expensive to address and remediate. Next slide. This shows Miss
Smith on her final voyage where she will be taken, scrapped, and salvaged where possible,
and all non-solvable pieces properly disposed of. This is often the most costly part of
the endeavor and what can prevent the removal of these derelict vessels. Again, we thank
the property owner for agreeing to the resolution. Next slide. Next we have a
case out of the North Central District. Next slide. Handled by Joe Ginsburg who
is actually in the audience right there waving. And the City of Daly City. This
case is located at Thornton State Beach shown here with the star. Next slide. In
this slide the orange star on the right marks a public parking area that visitors
used to access the bluff top trails with the ocean just to the left. You can see
the network of trails extending to the north which were blocked by an
unpermitted fence that you'll see in the next slide. This area is a very popular
site for dog walkers, hikers and other coastal visitors who come to enjoy the
ocean views. Many of you may remember this from all the prosthetic got at the
beginning of the year. Next slide. After receiving numerous complaints from
concerned citizens about a fence blocking historic public access to and
near Thornton State Beach in Daly City, enforcement staff conducted a site visit
and confirmed the presence of an extensive chain-link fence encompassing a
number of private parcels not owned by the violator and extending all the way
to the bluff top edge. Portions of the fence appear to be within the public
right-of-way along Olympic Avenue and portions also appear to be on state
parks property. Here you can see how trails were abruptly bisected by the
fence. Next slide. Staff also noted the presence of threatening signage, an
example of which you can see in this photo, complete with the drawing of a gun.
Staff also noted the placement of two RVs in artificial turf and vegetation
clearance in the areas around the RV. Next slide. Here is the fence heading
towards the Coastal Bluff. Staff coordinated with the city of Daily City and whose permit
jurisdiction this site is located. Both city and commission enforcement staff sent notice
of violation letters to the violator in an effort to get the violations addressed and,
in particular, to get the unpermitted fence removed expeditiously. Next slide. Oh, next
slide. Oh, I'm so sorry. Can you go back one more slide? The commission and city of
daily city staff found the violators to be uncooperative, and local law
enforcement became involved when threats to the public escalated. Shortly thereafter,
city staff removed the fence. Next slide. This slide shows the site after the
unpermitted fence had been removed. You can see there is an old low rope fence
with wooden posts which predated the unpermitted chain link fence, but there
There are openings in this fence that allow pedestrian access to bluff top trails, which
was not the case when the chain link fence was present.
You can also see some folks out and about on this sunny October day.
Next slide.
The site is now in the condition it was before the unpermitted fence was erected, and the
public is once again able to enjoy this popular coastal access spot.
This violation highlights the coordination that enforcement staff does with local governments
to address violations throughout the coastal zone,
even in areas where local governments
have primary enforcement authority.
We greatly appreciate our local government partners
and the close collaboration that can lead
to a speedy resolution of issues such as this one.
Next slide.
And now I'll turn it back to Ellie for the last case.
Thank you, Kajal.
Our final case today is from the Central Coast District.
Next slide.
This case is located in Morro Bay,
and in this aerial image you can see the city of Morro Bay on the right of the slide with
scenic Morro Rock on the left and the bay in the middle. The site of the violation is marked by a
star. Next slide. Here is a zoomed in view of the site in question which has a restaurant and a
commercial space fronting the bay. This image is from 2021 and the yellow arrow here points to the
gray roofed public viewing deck that was required by a 1991 CDP that authorized an expansion remodel
of the restaurant building to the south and the retail space
to the north. That CDP allowed this public viewing deck to be
screened from the elements, and specifically called out sea
otter viewing as an anticipated public use of the space. Next
slide. And here you can see a view from inside that structure,
which unfortunately, had been taken over as a private dining
space for the restaurant in violation of the CDP. Here you
can see one of the incredible views of Murrow Rock, a view
which was intended and required
to be public in this location.
You can also see the private restaurant tables.
This image was taken from an online review platform
and many customers highlighted watching otters play.
Next slide.
Here's another image showing the violation.
In the background, you can see the boats moored in the bay
and the sands fit beyond.
This violation was discovered when the owners came in
for a permit to do minor facade improvements,
reconfigure the fishing dock,
and construct a missing section of the Harbor Walk
on the base side of the site.
The proposed project was already an overall benefit
for public access, but enforcement staff was still able
to negotiate a resolution of the violation
by adding additional project elements,
which we'll see in a moment.
This is one of the ways that district staff can address
and resolve violations, which is to include a resolution
as part of a pending CDP rather than in a separate action.
We've found that resolving violations in this manner is more efficient and cost-effective
for the applicant, saves staff time, and ultimately benefits the coast and the public.
Next slide.
As a reminder, here's the before image of the site layout.
And here, the yellow dashed line indicates a gap in the Harbor Walk, which is a public
lateral axis way.
It's generally 10 feet in width on the base side of the Embarcadero businesses in Morrow
Bay.
It has long been a co-select and LCP goal for the Harbor Walk to provide a continuous
public lateral access experience, and projects along the Bayside of the Embarcadero are typically
required to provide this amenity.
This site, however, had one of the few remaining gaps, which forced the public to the street
side of the businesses instead of continuing along the bay.
Next slide.
And here that dotted line area has been filled in with new public Harbor Walk, which allows
you to traverse the entire site and connect to the up and down coast sections without
detouring inland.
Some of what you see here was also the area that was formerly the site of the privatized
dining, which had its walls and roof removed and is now clearly public and integrated into
the boardwalk.
The new Harborwalk connection was part of the project proposed by the applicant, but
enforcement staff negotiated that additional square footage of Harborwalk be added to what
was proposed in order to further improve public access here.
Next slide.
And now we'll see some other components of the violation resolution, which would not
have otherwise been required.
Here you can see two new interpretive panels, one about oyster farming in the bay and one
about women and fishing.
Next slide.
Here's one of the three new benches on the left.
And on the right is a bump out of the Harbor Walk that gets the public past a previously
constrained corner where the path was only five feet wide. This additional space makes
the harbor walk more user friendly for visitors of differing abilities and was also specifically
added to address the violation. Next slide. On the right are two additional new benches
and on the left is what remains of the fishing dock where the public can watch active fishing
operations. When this area is not in active use, it is also open to the public. Next slide.
And finally, here are some of the many new public access signs along this section of
Harbor Walk.
The commission approved this resolution through an immaterial amendment at the end of 2022.
But as you know, there is often a delay between project approval and implementation.
And it wasn't until more recently that staff were able to verify that construction had
concluded and all of the amenities were in place.
And we then closed the violation file.
Next slide.
And here's a little cutie that you might see next time you're in this part of the coast.
That wraps up our case discussion and I'll hand it back to Lisa.
Thank you, Ellie.
So, as you just saw, these cases showcase some of the work that our district enforcement
staff does to address and resolve violations short of formal orders coming to you through
coordination with local governments, collaboration with planning staff, and negotiating creative
resolutions with applicants.
They include violations involving water quality, public access, public views, the whole panoply
of things addressed under the Coastal Act.
And our resolutions are intended to both restore and enhance those same resources.
Thank you for your time today, and we're available to answer any questions you might
have.
I do have a question on the second one, the second case.
And if you knew who the egregious human was, did they pay for the removal and reimburse
the city or the county for removing the fence.
I do not believe that the city was reimbursed.
There was an arrest made at some point and then there was some subsequent
litigation so I'm I'm not sure the current status of all of that.
That's good enough for me.
Okay and I will say that the fence was just sitting you could see it it was
above ground so it was relatively inexpensive to remove the problem was
getting it removed without a confrontation so and we were able to do that are there any
public comments no great thank you any comments questions commissioner Wilson yeah I'm pretty
familiar with the situation on the Little River but I just what is it sort of the stat
I mean I paddleboard up there and it is it is a it is a disastrous mess and so I was
I was just wondering what the current legal framework is
because there is also, there's a landowner upstream
from this, from the, I mean there seems like
a couple landowners in here, can you help me out?
Updates.
Yeah, thank you for the question.
So there are a number of property owners
and a number of violations.
We are actively working on several of them
and the one in which we recorded the NOVA,
we are in regular discussions with other agencies involved
to try to move that one forward.
And then independently we're working on
some of the other violations in that area.
It is a mess currently.
Okay, great.
I mean, it involves other agencies.
Fish and wildlife, county health, I think, right?
Yeah, the water quality control board has been leading
some of the collaboration and coordination efforts.
And so there have been regular meetings for some time
on this particular property.
And they have taken some enforcement action, I believe,
through their board.
And so we're all trying to collaborate
to make sure that whatever the resolution ends up being,
it satisfies all the agencies involved, all of whom
are enforcing our own laws, and make sure that sort of everything
is made whole by the eventual resolution.
At least one of the property owners up there. This is not the only location that they have water quality violations
I think in the coastal zone. Am I
Correct about that or my game too deep here
No, we agree with you, although I
These are likely to come to you for action in the near future. So never mind. Yeah, I
Hear you. Sorry about that. No. No, I appreciate your interest and and
We're interested as well. All right. Thanks
Thank you. Okay. Thank you all very much. We really appreciate it and appreciate the work that you all do very much
Okay with that we will
Close today's agenda and to my colleagues. We're gonna go into closed session after this
Okay. Thanks everyone. We'll see you tomorrow