Board backs temporary path to block parking at Bixby Bridge, citing public‑safety risks

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors on May 19 directed county staff to begin a process to implement a temporary no‑parking restriction on State Route 1 at Bixby Bridge to reduce dangerous roadside parking and risky pedestrian highway crossings that residents and first responders say are worsening.

The action instructs staff to pursue an emergency Coastal Development Permit (ECDP) path or equivalent that would allow a limited‑term restriction while the county develops longer‑term access, parking and enforcement plans with the California Coastal Commission and other partners. County staff told the board an emergency coastal permit must be limited in time and accompanied by a commitment to pursue a follow‑up CDP process; the board asked staff to move ahead with that emergency path and accompanying county ordinance and to coordinate with Caltrans for necessary encroachment permits and signage.

Why the board acted: Board members and dozens of public commenters—ranging from volunteer firefighters to tourism and resident groups—described recurring scenes of vehicles stopped in the highway, people crossing SR‑1 to take photos, and near collisions that slowed traffic and delayed emergency responses. A CHP enforcement estimate presented to the board put weekend enforcement coverage at roughly $15,300 per month for a single officer to patrol key weekend days.

Public-safety testimony: Volunteer firefighters told the board they have experienced delayed responses when cars block the roadway and pedestrians cross unexpectedly at viewpoints; a Mid Coast volunteer noted medical equipment and rescue access are often impeded during high visitation. Residents and public‑safety personnel warned that the problem grows as visitor numbers rose after the reopening of Highway 1.

Legal and permitting constraints: Staff warned the board that any change in access or added signage on the state highway within the coastal zone is ’development’ under the Coastal Act and may require a coastal development permit. Staff outlined three near‑term options: processing an ECDP (limited term, not appealable to the Coastal Commission if the statutory findings are made), pursuing a regular CDP (appealable), or relying on enhanced enforcement-only measures. The board chose the ECDP route and asked staff to return with the permitting paperwork and enforcement plans.

Provenance: Board discussion and public testimony, Monterey County Board of Supervisors meeting (topic introduced SEG 4543; board directive recorded SEG 7159).

Ending: Staff will prepare the ECDP and related ordinance, work with Caltrans, CHP and the Coastal Commission, and return with implementation and enforcement plans for summer public‑safety coverage and long‑term access solutions.