quick thing I found

PING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ENERGY, OCEAN RESOURCES AND FEDERAL CONSISTENCY 455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421 VOICE (415) 904-5200 WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV Th8b CD-0004-19 (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Trinidad) April 16, 2026 CORRESPONDENCE 1 J. Bryce Kenny Attorney at Law P.O. Box 361 Trinidad, California 95570 Telephone: (707) 601-1581 Email: jbrycekenny@gmail.com April 8, 2026 Re: Coastal Commission Meeting of April 16, 2026 Item: 8b Dear Coastal Commissioners, Please see the below stated comments submitted on behalf of the Humboldt Alliance for Responsible Planning. 1. THERE IS NO CURRENT CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION BY THE BIA FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONCUR WITH As it stands, the record is insufficient to support the staff’s recommendations to “conditionally concur” with the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) determination that the plans for the five plus story hotel on the shores of Trinidad Bay are now fully consistent with the enforceable policies of the California Coastal Act. That is because there is no federal concurrence letter issued subsequent to the Humboldt County Superior Court’s 2024 order to hold a new hearing on the issue of the adequacy of fire protection services in the vicinity of the proposed hotel. The record for the August 2019 hearing before the Commission includes both the original and an amended consistency letter from the BIA with respect to the proposed hotel, but neither of them mention fire protection services at all. (Administrative Record “AR” 01-022) 1 Accordingly, the question arises, exactly what is there for the Commission to concur with, conditionally or unconditionally? As the staff report notes, the Code 1 This reference is to the administrative record in Humboldt Alliance for Responsible Planning v. Cal. Coastal Commission (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 704. 2 of Federal Regulations specifies the circumstances under which the Commission may conditionally concur. Federal regulations state that a federal agency’s “consistency determination shall … include a detailed description of the activity, its associated facilities, and their coastal effects, and comprehensive data and information sufficient to support the Federal agency's consistency statement.” 15 C.F.R. §930.39(a) (emphasis provided). How can the Commission concur with a consistency determination that is incomplete because it does not even mention fire protection? The Trinidad Rancheria is not the BIA, and its efforts cannot take the place of a BIA approved consistency letter of determination. Indeed, the presentation by the BIA of a consistency determination to the Commission on the issue of fire protection starts the 60-day clock under which the Commission must take action or it is presumed that it concurs with the federal agency. The BIA has had plenty of time to submit such a letter since the writ issued in this case. The Rancheria is proceeding as if it represents the United States, as the BIA does. But the Rancheria clearly does not and cannot represent the United States government. It is clear that by not participating in this matter since 2019, the BIA has withdrawn its request for a concurrence under the Coastal Zone Management Act for this project. The Commission is also required under both the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and the Coastal Act to give the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze and comment on its proposed actions, before they are taken. HARP is prejudiced by the present state of affairs, because without the inclusion of an up-todate letter of determination from the BIA, the public cannot comment on its adequacy, or be assured that its government agency is playing by the rules. The Commission must “proceed in the manner required by law.” It appears that the BIA has withdrawn its request for a concurrence by the Commission, and the Rancheria cannot act as its surrogate. On that basis alone, the Commission must object to the proposed hotel because the application before it is procedurally and substantively incomplete in a material aspect. 3 As an additional reason to refrain from a conditional concurrence, the regulation that allows for it goes beyond what is stated in the federal CZMA. The drafters of the regulations have noted that the actual statutes do not mention conditional concurrence. Under the latest case law, the actual text of a statute is the most important feature of it, and regulations that go beyond what is allowed by the text are not enforceable. 2. THE RANCHERIA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO ENTER INTO A “SCHEDULE A” AGREEMENT WITH CAL FIRE The Staff Report states that the Rancheria plans to negotiate and pay for a “Schedule A” agreement with CAL FIRE, which would require it to keep a crew at its Trinidad station even when there is a general call out to a fire in other parts of the state during fire season. It points out at footnote 9 that: California Public Resources Code § 4141 – 4145 authorizes, in part, the CAL FIRE Director, with Department of General Services approval, to enter into cooperative agreements with local entities (cities, counties, districts) for fire prevention and suppression. This includes both Amador agreements and Schedule A agreements. Amador agreements are typically lower-cost agreements designed to provide local fire protection services during the non-fire season, while Schedule A agreements typically offer year-round, more comprehensive services. The Trinidad Rancheria is not a “city, county, or special district,” as specified in PRC section 4142. Nor is it an “other subdivision of the State of California,” or “person, firm, or corporation,” as specified in PRC section 4144 (a). Therefore, a Schedule A agreement, as proposed by the Rancheria, would not be lawful, and cannot be the foundation for a conditional concurrence by the Commission. Moreover, there is no indication as to how much such an agreement would cost per year. It would not be reasonable to expect the other stakeholders to contribute to the costs of such agreement, because there is no legitimate reason to have one single five-story building all by itself that needs special fire apparatus in an otherwise generally rural setting that includes only one- and two-story structures. Could the Rancheria even afford to pay for such an arrangement all by itself, and still make the hotel profitable, after spending $800,000 on a second hand fire 4 truck? It is well known that the tribal gaming market in Humboldt County has diminished greatly since the collapse of the “green rush” cannabis market years ago. The proposed hotel is an example of disorderly growth, something the Coastal Act and the Commission is supposed to deter. A forty-foot hotel, as originally called for by Commission Staff, would not need a special ladder truck and all other stakeholders could reasonably contribute to the effort to attain adequate regional firefighting services. A deal with a state agency that exceeds its lawful authority cannot constitute substantial evidence. 3. THE COMMISSION MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A CONDITIONAL CONCURRENCE CANNOT BE ENFORCED IF THE RANCHERIA DECIDES NOT TO FOLLOW IT In the HARP litigation, it was argued to the Court of Appeal that an authoritative interpretation of the conditional concurrence regulations by the agency responsible for drafting them, was that any concurrence by the state agency, conditional or not, ends its involvement in the process and the agency cannot take any further action to enforce the conditions it had imposed. But an objection protects that agency’s ability to use the courts to enforce its authority in the future, if necessary. The Court of Appeal did not disagree with that statement, but instead pointed out at page 21 of the Decision included as Exhibit 6 to the Staff Report that the federal agency also said that ‘"[s]ome States still prefer conditional concurrences, presumably as a more positive response to an applicant or Federal agency’ and that ‘States have a choice of choosing either option on a case by case basis."’ This Commission must carefully consider whether it wishes to trade the political convenience of a conditional concurrence for the ability to absolutely insist on reasonable fire-protection by objecting until an application is submitted that includes accomplished measures that cover that issue, not that again talks about what is intended to accomplish in the future. What we have now is hardly different from what the court previously rejected. There is nothing in the record showing a commitment from CAL FIRE to enter into a Schedule A agreement with the Rancheria. This is after seven years of time has gone by. The Court of Appeal noted: 5 “Even if CalFire was equipped and willing to fight a fire at the hotel, the Tribe only represented that ‘[wle have preliminary agreements, verbally, with CalFire.’ … The Tribe further acknowledged that ‘[w]e haven't circled back to CalFire.’Although we do not doubt the sincerity of the Tribe's representations or intentions, this vague assertion of a preliminary, verbal agreement with CalFire simply does not constitute substantial evidence of adequate fire protection services.” Because the Rancheria submits now the same kind of promises that were already rejected by the court, approval is barred by the legal doctrine of the law of the case. The Chairman of the Rancheria said at the August 2019 hearing, “I’d like you to know that while we want a concurrence….we are going to go forward anyway, so regardless of what, so.” (AR 3619:9-11 emphasis provided) If CAL FIRE will not sign a Schedule A agreement, because the Rancheria is not a California public agency, or for any other reason, and the Rancheria makes good on its threat to build its hotel anyway, the Commission will deeply regret not protecting the people of the State of California by strictly enforcing the Coastal Act. An objection would not end the project, because the BIA can reapply when all necessary steps have been taken and the Rancheria has a signed Schedule A agreement with CAL FIRE in hand, or its volunteer fire department is up and running to the extent necessary to operate the required ladder truck. 4. SECTION 30250 REQUIRES THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT BE IN AN AREA THAT ALREADY HAS THE REQUIRED SERVICES AVAILABLE Public Resources Code (PRC) section 30250 (a) provides in relevant part as follows: “New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas 6 are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources.” The hotel is new development, and any other finding would go against the rule that the Coastal Act is remedial and must be interpreted liberally to carry out its stated purpose. The Staff Report concedes that the hotel is new development. Section 30250 (a) means that if the developed area where the hotel is proposed, ie: on the Rancheria’s main parcel next to is casino, does not now have a fire department capable of handling a five-story hotel fire, the hotel must be sited in an area that does have such a fire department, and siting the hotel there will not have individual or cumulative effects on coastal resources. The Staff Report concedes that: “At present, however, fire protection planning for the proposed hotel is on-going and incomplete, and additional commitments are necessary to ensure adequate fire protection services will be provided to the hotel site during both construction and operation.” A conditional concurrence will unlawfully allow the Rancheria to bring the needed facilities to the proposed location, the exact opposite of what the statute requires. The plain language of section 30250 requires that the facilities must already be available in the developed area, or a different location must be chosen that does have the needed services available. 5. WITH RESPECT TO FIRE PROTECTION, THE HOTEL SHOULD BE BUILT TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS THEN IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF ITS FINAL APPROVAL The Staff Report at pages 14 and 20 indicates that the proposed hotel will be built to the standards found in the 2018 version of the International Building Codes and National Fire Protection standards. They are now eight years old, and may not afford the same level of protection as the current standards. This illustrates one more reason why the conditional concurrence procedure should not have been used for the hotel. It can allow a project to grandfather itself in under standards that have long been replaced by the time the project is finally built. 7 Since the hotel is not actually being approved at this hearing, and may not yet be fully approved for many years when a hearing on the satisfaction of conditions is held by the Commission, the hotel should be built to the standards that are then in effect, or at a minimum to the 2026 standards. That would ensure that the safest and latest standards are utilized. CONCLUSION A critical procedural step is absent from this proceeding. The BIA has withdrawn its involvement in this process by not submitting an updated concurrence letter for seven years. What has been done with the “preliminary agreements” that the Rancheria claimed it had with CAL FIRE seven years ago? If the Commission approves the project now, it will not be proceeding in the manner required by law. When a state agency is required to follow federal procedures, they become just as important as the substantive law of the Coastal Act. The statutes that staff submits as allowing CAL FIRE to enter into a Schedule A agreement with the Rancheria are only open to state agencies, persons, firms, or corporations, none of which the Rancheria qualifies as. Thus there is no substantial evidence to support a finding that the Rancheria is taking meaningful steps to achieve fire preparedness for its planned hotel. There is no reason to abandon the approach to conditional concurrence that the Commission adhered to for decades, as stated at page 5 of the publication Federal Consistency in a Nutshell, which is still on the Commission’s website. That option should be reserved for minor issues that cannot be resolved within the relatively short timelines of the Coastal Zone Management Act. How a project will impact fire protection in a given area, as the past decade has shown, is not a minor issue given the severity of wildfires that now appear to be part of California life, even on the coast. Accordingly, a conditional concurrence would be an abuse of the Commission’s discretion, because no reasonable person would accept the Rancheria’s assertions about what it will do in the future without confirmation from CAL FIRE that it will sign a Schedule A agreement. A brand new five story hotel should not be built in a coastal region of existing oneand two-story structures unless adequate fire service is already available. It creates a hardship for the fire agencies-- and the taxpayers that fund them--who would not 8 otherwise have to deal with such an example of disorderly growth. The Commission misinterprets PRC section 30250. Finally, if the proposed hotel is to be conditionally approved, it should be built to the building and fire safety requirements in effect at the time of its final approval, if and when that occurs. For the foregoing reasons, the Humboldt Alliance for Responsible Planning respectfully requests that the Commission object to the project with instructions as to what changes would allow it to be approved upon resubmittal. Very truly yours, J. Bryce Kenny Attorney for HARP Outlook Trinidad Rancheria Item CD-0004-19 (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Trinidad). From stevemadrone@icloud.com <stevemadrone@icloud.com> Date Mon 4/13/2026 10:39 AM To Energy@Coastal <EORFC@coastal.ca.gov> Cc mwilson@co.humboldt.ca.us <mwilson@co.humboldt.ca.us> You don't often get email from stevemadrone@icloud.com. Learn why this is important The staff report states that: The County of Humboldt (County) employs a mutual aid model for fire protection services, wherein multiple local fire protection agencies respond to suppress fires. This model ensures that adequate personnel respond when needed in an area that is largely served by small, volunteer fire departments. The County also has an agreement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) under which CAL FIRE provides year-round fire services in the region. Trinidad Rancheria currently receives fire protection services through both of these mechanisms. This information is not accurate. While the County of Humboldt does employ a Mutual Aid Agreement approach for fire services in the area, the Trinidad Rancheria is not currently a signatory entity to this agreement. Further, the Agreement that the county has with Cal Fire is not year round. It is an Almador type agreement that only covers the “off season” which is less than a half year typically. There is no agreement covering the fire season and in fact there have been times that Cal Fire gets called away to assist with fires in other regions leaving the Trinidad Station closed unless local VFD can cover. The Trinidad Rancheria does not pay for the Fire services provided by Cal Fire. The Rancheria has contributed funds for a Fire Service study currently underway in the area. Cal Trans has stated that to guarantee year round fire services provisions that it would cost $1,000,000 or more. Even if the City of Trinidad and the Trinidad Rancheria contributed to a year round contract with Cal Fire (which they currently do not) funds raised from an assessment of parcels at over $200 per year would only raise some $300,000 or so for that cost. The Trinidad area has a long way to go to figure out how to afford year round fire services and local Volunteer Fire Departments are already stretched beyond their means to provide limited services. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to continue to add to the areas fire hazards with a 5 story hotel in the area. Sincerely, Steve Madrone, 5th District Supervisor Humboldt County From: Elaine Weinreb To: Energy@Coastal Subject: Comment on Application #CD-0004-19, Date: Thursday, April 9, 2026 10:59:14 AM You don't often get email from elainejw@protonmail.com. Learn why this is important This letter addresses a hearing on Application #CD-0004-19, which will be heard on April 16, 2026. As a resident who lives less than five miles away from the proposed project, I have a lot of concerns about the safety of this proposed hotel from fire. As the only five-story building in a 20-mile radius, it poses problems which our local fire departments (including Calfire) are completely unequipped to deal with. The area surrounding it is heavily wooded. Calfire's mission -- and equipment -- is to protect forest lands, not privately-owned hotels. The town fire departments are tiny, sometimes staffed by one or two volunteers, and do not have the type of equipment that would be required for a big fire. And water is always questionable in this area. The proposed "Section A" agreement between Calfire and the Trinidad Rancheria seems to conflict with the California Public Resources Code, which says that Calfire is responsible for protecting State Responsibility Areas. However, Section 4127 of the code states that state responsibility areas do not include lands owned or controlled by the federal government or any agency of the federal government. That would seem to exclude the Rancheria, which is funded and controlled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, a branch of the federal government. Nearly all of the other requirements for consistency determination depend upon some future set of activities, which may or may not come to pass. The law, to the best of my knowledge, does not permit possible future actions, which may or may not occur, to be the basis of a factbased decision. So I do not see how the Rancheria could meet the conditions described in Coastal Commission's staff report, Application Number CD-00419. Elaine Weinreb POB 427, Trinidad CA 95570 Sent with Proton Mail secure email. EDWARD C. PEASE, PHD BRENDA K. COOPER, PHD 446 Mill Creek Lane/PO Box 996 Trinidad, California 95570 707-677-5222; 707-502-5806 TO: California Coastal Commission FR: Edward Pease & Brenda Cooper RE: Proposed Trinidad Rancheria Hotel (CD-0004-19 Bureau of Indian Affairs, Trinidad) April 9, 2026 Dear Commissioners: This is to endorse the letter from J. Bryce Kenny on behalf of the Humboldt Alliance for Responsible Planning (HARP) in opposition to the Commission’s conditional concurrence regarding issues of fire protection and Bureau of Indian Affairs loan guarantees for the proposed Trinidad Rancheria hotel. Clearly, high-level fire protection would be essential for the proposed hotel and we welcome the project proposers’ consideration of public safety. As we read the documentation, however, the project planners have no actual measures in place to guarantee effective fire protection in the case of fire at a five-story high-rise hotel on Scenic Drive south of Trinidad. The project planners plan to complete purchase of a ladder truck capable of fighting fire in a five-story building; such equipment does not currently exist in Humboldt County, just as no structures that tall exist here (per the CA Coastal Act regulations). Access along Scenic Drive for safety equipment and fire crews will be a concern. The project planners plan to create a volunteer fire department. The project planners hope to contract with CalFire for assistance in firefighting. The project planners also hope eventually to obtain a sufficient and reliable water source both to operate the proposed hotel and to fight fires if they occur. None of these conditions currently exist, so the Commission’s conditional concurrence seems improper at this point. Consideration should wait until these are more than hopes, plans and proposals. All these issues aside, the larger fact remains that while many local residents would welcome some kind of low-impact hotel at the Trinidad Rancheria, most oppose the current proposal — an airport-style five-story high-rise completely in conflict with the pristine coastline and existing environment of the Northern California coast. We would hope that the Commission will revisit, review and reject the entire hotel plan as proposed, which we believe is a poor plan for the Trinidad Bay coast in its current form, violating both the practice and regulations regarding coastal construction and protections here. Thank you for your consideration. From: Gregory Daggett To: Energy@Coastal Subject: Public Comment on April 2026 Agenda Item Thursday 8b - CD-0004-19 (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Trinidad). Date: Friday, April 10, 2026 8:28:34 AM You don't often get email from modernfineart@gmail.com. Learn why this is important To: California Coastal Commission and Commission Staff Re: STAFF REPORT – REGULAR CALENDAR, Application No. CD‑0004‑19 (Trinidad Rancheria, Five‑Story Hotel) Subject: Fire Protection Adequacy Under Coastal Act §30250 – Request for Explicit NFPA 1710 Compliance Requirements Dear Chair, Commissioners, and Staff: I am writing regarding the remanded consistency determination for Application No. CD‑0004‑19, in which the proposed action would enable the Trinidad Rancheria to construct and operate a five‑story hotel. As the Staff Report notes, the central Coastal Act issue in this remand is the adequacy of fire protection services under Section 30250, which requires that new development occur where it can be served by adequate public services, including fire and emergency response. Given the height, occupancy load, and life‑safety profile of a five‑story hotel, I respectfully request that the Commission and staff explicitly require that the staffing and deployment planning referenced on pages 9–10 of the Staff Report Th8b be demonstrated to meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 standards for high‑rise structures. These standards are not aspirational—they are the nationally recognized minimums for safe, timely, and effective fire suppression and rescue operations in multi‑story buildings. NFPA 1710 Requirements Relevant to This Project For high‑rise structures, NFPA 1710 requires: • First-arriving unit within 4 minutes travel time; and • Full effective response force (ERF) of 43 firefighters within 8 minutes travel time. These thresholds reflect the realities of vertical firefighting: extended hose stretches, stairwell operations, search and rescue on multiple floors, ventilation challenges, and the need for rapid deployment of a full complement of personnel to prevent flashover, structural compromise, and loss of life. Regional Capacity Does Not Currently Meet These Standards The Staff Report acknowledges that the nearest fire service provider with aerial apparatus is Humboldt Bay Fire, located approximately 25 miles south in Eureka. The next nearest ladder‑equipped agency is Fortuna Fire, even farther away. Neither distance is compatible with NFPA 1710’s 4‑minute first‑arrival or 8‑minute full‑complement requirements for a high‑rise incident. This is not a theoretical concern. On January 2, 2026, a major fire in downtown Arcata demonstrated the limits of Humboldt County’s fire‑service capacity even for a two‑story commercial structure. That incident required every ladder truck in Humboldt County and drew mutual aid from nearly every agency in the region, including: • Arcata Fire District • Humboldt Bay Fire • Samoa Fire • Kneeland Fire • Westhaven Fire • Loleta Fire • Ferndale Fire • Fortuna Fire • Fieldbrook Fire • Blue Lake Fire • Rio Dell Fire • Arcata–Mad River Ambulance • CAL FIRE Trinidad • CAL FIRE Weott Approximately 80 fire‑suppression personnel and 20 support personnel were deployed. Engines, ladder trucks, recalled off‑duty staff, and chief officers were mobilized through the countywide mutual‑aid system. As the fire spread under strong southerly winds, crews were forced onto rooftops to extinguish embers and protect adjacent blocks, including the historic Minor Theater, which was experiencing direct heat and ember exposure. Ultimately, interior operations had to be abandoned due to structural instability and collapse hazards. This event—occurring in a two‑story building—required the full mobilization of countywide resources. It is therefore unreasonable to assume that a five‑story hotel in Trinidad could rely on mutual aid to meet NFPA 1710 high‑rise deployment requirements, particularly given the travel distances involved. Request for Explicit Conditions in the Consistency Determination To ensure compliance with Coastal Act §30250, I respectfully request that the Commission require the applicant and relevant fire‑service providers to demonstrate, with specificity and verifiable operational plans, that: 1. First-arriving unit travel time will not exceed 4 minutes, measured from the station of the primary responding agency. 2. Full effective response force of 43 firefighters will arrive within 8 minutes, consistent with NFPA 1710 high‑rise standards. 3. Aerial apparatus capable of high‑rise operations will be available within NFPA‑compliant timeframes. 4. Staffing levels, training, and deployment plans are not dependent on countywide mutual aid, which has already been shown to be insufficient for timely high‑rise response. 5. Any approval is conditioned on maintained, funded, and enforceable fire‑service capacity, not on future or speculative improvements. Without these explicit conditions, the proposed development would not be served by adequate fire protection services, and therefore would not meet the requirements of Coastal Act §30250. Conclusion The January 2, 2026, Arcata fire demonstrated the limits of Humboldt County’s fire‑response system under far less demanding conditions than a high‑rise incident. The Commission has a responsibility to ensure that new coastal development does not outstrip essential public‑safety services. Requiring explicit NFPA 1710 compliance is the only way to ensure that the proposed five‑story hotel can be safely served. Thank you for your attention to this critical public‑safety issue and for your continued commitment to protecting California’s coastal communities. Sincerely, Gregory Daggett Arcata, California Letter of Comment To: California Coastal Commission From: Dr. David Hankin Subject: Consideration of Fire Protection at the Proposed Trinidad Rancheria’s Hotel on Trinidad Bay (Item 8b, CD-0004-19 (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Trinidad), CCC Agenda for 4/16/26) Date: April 9, 2026 Dear Commissioners: This letter of comment endorses the letter submitted by Bryce Kenny, on behalf of the Humboldt Alliance for Responsible Planning (HARP), in opposition to the staff report’s recommendation that the Commission issue a conditional concurrence regarding the issue of fire protection for a proposed hotel on Trinidad Bay to be constructed by the Trinidad Rancheria (TR hereafter). In addition to the issues raised in Kenny’s letter, it baffles me that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which had originally agreed to give the TR a guaranteed federal loan for the proposed hotel, has neglected to reassert its intention to provide funding for the proposed hotel. It is my understanding that the BIA’s loan guarantee program is proposed for elimination in the 2026 budget. This is yet another “hypothetical” that would seem important for the CCC to review de novo before issuing a second conditional concurrence for the proposed hotel. I have read the staff report of 3 April 2026 concerning this agenda item. As I read the report, my impression is that the staff recommends “conditional concurrence” because the TR “hopes” to establish a mutual fire protection agreement with the local Trinidad CalFire office; “hopes” to establish its own volunteer fire department; has made a downpayment on an $800K used ladder truck and “hopes” to be able to pay for the rest of the truck; “hopes” that it will be able to adequately train its volunteer fire department to operate this ladder truck by itself or with cooperation from CalFire; and that together these several “hopes” will mean that the proposed hotel will have adequate fire protection in the event of a fire. And, of course, the “hope” for eventual adequate fire protection also requires that the TR is successful in its quest to secure an adequate water supply via a mainline extension from the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District. The fact that the TR did not have an adequate source of water for its proposed hotel is what caused the CCC to issue a conditional concurrence for the proposed hotel project in 2019. And finally, the TR hopes that the BIA will continue to honor its loan guarantee for construction and operation of the proposed hotel. Until today, I have struggled to find an appropriate analogy to the staff report’s recommendation for the Commission’s action on this item. Project proponent proposes a new nuclear power plant on the CA coast. CCC asks project proponent: “What are you proposing to do with the radioactive waste that remains after the useful lifetime of the nuclear plant is over?” Project Proponent Answers: “We hope to find a solution to the disposal of radioactive waste before the lifetime of the pant has expired. We are already exploring several alternatives”. If the project is issued a conditional concurrence, then it proceeds with development of further plans to construct the proposed nuclear power plant. When it is time for the construction to begin, the power plant proponent once again consults with the CCC. By this time, the proponent confidently declares that “they have developed several promising options for disposal of the radioactive waste” and “they feel confident that one of these options will prove feasible by the time the power plant is ready to be mothballed”. NOW what does the CCC do? Rather than issuing a conditional concurrence assuming so many hypothetical actions having positive outcomes, it seems more prudent for the CCC to postpone deliberations on this issue until there is some real evidence, not just hypothetical speculation, that adequate fire protection will be available for the proposed hotel. It is no small task to organize and staff a fire fighting force that is fully capable of successfully fighting a serious fire in a 5+ story hotel in a small rural community when mutual aid from larger communities (Arcata, Humboldt Bay) could not respond within an adequate period of time. Finally, I urge the commissioners to revisit the consistency of the proposed 5+ story hotel with the Coastal Act. The 2019 decision-making process was extremely confused and it was not even clear that commissioners all understood just what they very voting for. It was abundantly clear that a majority of commissioners at that time believed that it was appropriate to make an exception to the usual practice of requiring that proposed new development along the coast be consistent with surrounding development. The 5+ story hotel, if built, will stick out as a totally “out-of-place” object in an otherwise stunning rural setting with no structures over two stories tall. This ruling would seem to have established a precedent for similar “out-of-place” development along other rural areas of the California coastline, hardly an appropriate precedent for the CCC to have established. Residents of the Trinidad area would be 100% supportive of a more modest 2+ story hotel which would reduced water and firefighting needs and would be in keeping with the local landscape and existing development. Many thanks for the opportunity to submit a comment on this matter. Dave Hankin 756 9th Ave Trinidad, CA 95570