CoastWatcher

You can’t say they didn’t see it coming. Coastal Commissioners were repeatedly warned by their staff and the public last week at their meeting in San Diego that allowing AVP Pro Volleyball Tour, Inc. (a for profit, publicly traded corporation) to dramatically increase paid seating on public beaches would unleash a torrent of similar proposals across the entire California coastal zone.

I mean, who wouldn’t take over a public beach for free and then sell seats if it were allowed? It is certainly much cheaper than holding huge professional atheletic events in rented stadiums.

The AVP has been pestering the Coastal Commission to allow paid seating on public beaches for over a decade. Ten years ago the Coastal Commission capitulated and agreed to allow the AVP to charge for paid seating for up to 24.9% of seats per day, requiring that free access be allowed for 75% of the seating.

Apparently all those 50-ft high inflatible beer bottles and concession stands on the sand aren’t bringing in enough cash.

Last week the AVP came to the Coastal Commission to ask that they be allowed to increase paid seating at their 4-day (more than a week of set up and clean up) tournament in Hermosa Beach scheduled for July 19-22, 2007.

Some very famous players attended the meeting and told the Commissioners that they would like to make more money and would feel more respected if more people paid them more money. AVP executives said that they were allowed to charge whatever they want everywhere else in the United States and they make more money at those events.
Coastal staff urged the Commission to deny the request in order to protect free beach access in California and not cause other sporting and recreational beach events in California to also seek to rope off the beach and charge access fees. Arguing that the 24.9% paid fee was an agreement made years ago, coastal staff and the public urged the Commission not to bargain with itself.

Commissioner Larry Clark of Rancho Palos Verdes immediately moved to allow 75% paid admissions, thereby suggesting the long standing policy protecting free beach access be reversed to the benefit of the AVP. Commissioner Khatchik Achadjian from San Luis Obispo provided the second to the motion.

Commissioner Mike Reilly of Sonoma suggested a more reasonable 50-50% split.

Then things completely fell apart. Commissioner William Burke from Los Angeles, spoke at length about the nature of professional athletics, and his experience with international tennis at Wimbledon in England, and said that at the private Wimbledon Club only 10% of the seats were free to the public. Burke also cited an AVP photo, taken from a spaceship thousands of miles away, showing that the AVP events only take up a small portion of the public beach.
Commissioner Burke then asked that Clark amend his motion in order to establish a Wimbledon standard for California’s public beaches! Amazingly, Commissioner Clark simply shrugged and accepted the ‘friendly amending motion’ to allow the AVP 90% paid seating!

Then Coastal Commission then voted 6-5 to allow AVP to sell California beaches for private profit, with Commissioners Clark, Achadjian, Burke, Kram, Potter and Wright (who apparently only attended the meeting for that one vote) voting for the AVP and Commissioners Caldwell, Reilly, Shallenberger, Wan and Kruer voting ‘no’ to protect public beaches.

Now, less than a week later, comes news that the AVP has ‘convinced’ the Manhattan Beach City Council to increase their paid seating allowance for tournaments in that city. Can Santa Barbara be far behind? And while Coastal Commission staff views the Hermosa Beach disaster as an aberration, it is to be expected that surfing, baseball and a myraid of other beach events like concerts etc. will all soon request the same benefits as the AVP, leading to the entirely predictable result that California’s hard fought long standing free beach access policies will be diluted.
Daily Breeze Newspaper
Paid seating at MB volleyball events gains momentum
Association may be able to charge 90 percent of spectators at beach tournaments pending final approval.
By Andrea Sudano
STAFF WRITER
It took years of complaints of lost revenue and threats to bail out of South Bay tournaments, but the Association of Volleyball Professionals scored its second victory in a week when Manhattan Beach opted Tuesday to loosen its regulations over paid seating at beach events.

About a week after the California Coastal Commission permitted the association to charge admission to 90 percent of spectators at its Hermosa Beach tournament, the Manhattan Beach City Council followed suit and unanimously voted to amend its Local Coastal Plan — a set of guidelines for coastal development and use — to allow a similar set-up at its annual tournament.

But the AVP shouldn’t start printing tickets just yet.

The Coastal Commission first must approve the amendment change, and then the council will reconsider exactly how many spectators the association can charge at the Manhattan Beach Open. That probably won’t happen in time for this summer’s tournament.

But if the Coastal Commission is as generous with Manhattan as it was with Hermosa, the council would have the power to choose a paid admission figure anywhere up to 90 percent of attendees at future AVP events, Councilwoman Joyce Fahey said.

“What I’m interested in is the City Council taking control of the beach,” she said. “I don’t want the Coastal Commission to tell us how to run our beach. We’re the ones who need to make that decision.”

Councilman Mitch Ward, who is up for re-election next month, said he would never support the full 90 percent figure for paid seating.

The council also decided that admission fees would be charged only in the tournament’s grandstand and not in outside courts, as Hermosa’s deal allowed.

The AVP has long complained that both South Bay tournaments are financial stinkers, with officials reporting last year’s Manhattan Beach Open losses at about $509,000.

Charging admission to 25 percent of spectators was not enough to keep the company solvent, the association argued.

While a public company, the AVP has continually been reluctant to reveal financial details, instead directing the public to view its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“We are only looking to lose less money,” said Dave Williams, AVP’s director of market development. “We don’t even see profitability. We’re trying to keep this tournament in Manhattan Beach and not hemorrhage.”

But council members have required the association to prove its financial status to them in private before a decision is made about how many spectators can be charged admission fees.

Tuesday’s discussion brought a drove of people, including several professional players on the AVP tour, to encourage the council to work with the association or risk the company leaving town.

“It doesn’t have to be that Manhattan Beach is the epicenter of (beach volleyball),” professional player Carl Henkel said. “We need to embrace that.”

A handful of people spoke against the amendment, arguing admission fees exploited the coastline and discouraged people from coming to the beach.

“Cash registers and beaches just don’t go together, in my opinion,” Manhattan Beach resident Bill Victor said.

Regardless of what figure the council chooses, any changes will not likely go into effect until next year’s tournament, Director of Community Development Richard Thompson said.

The Coastal Commission likely won’t weigh in on Manhattan Beach’s proposal until September, about a month after the tournament has vacated the city’s sands.

andrea.sudano@dailybreeze.com

Find this article at:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/5984741.html

Sierra Club and coastal activists from throughout California are welcoming Steve Blank to the Coastal Commission.  Blank, who was appointed to the Commission by Governor Schwarzenegger to replace Meg Caldwell, will assume his new post on March 1, 2007.

Blank, who lives in coastal San Mateo County, is currently the Chair of the Board of Directors of California State Audubon Society (http://www.audubon-ca.org/board.htm) and has been a generous supporter of coastal protection efforts and nonprofit organizations (http://openspacetrust.org/pressrelease04-03.htm)

For the entire current membership of the Coastal Commission, go to

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/roster.html

Coastal activists in California were stunned last week when Governor Schwarzenegger suddenly fired popular Stanford Law School Professor Meg Caldwell, the Vice-Chair of the Commission.  Caldwell, who was highly respected amongst environmentalists, developers and fellow Coastal Commission members, had just completed two years as the Commission’s Chair.  Caldwell had been seeking reappointment to the Commission, and had just been elected Vice-Chair of the Commission two months ago.  Schwarzenegger provided no reason for the sudden firing, although speculation raged that developers were unhappy with Caldwell’s efforts to protect dwindling coastal resources.

Coastal panel member removed

By Terry Rodgers
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
February 15, 2007

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070215-9999-1n15coastal.html

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will not reappoint one of the state’s most respected environmentalists to the California Coastal Commission, his office said yesterday.

Meg Caldwell of Saratoga, a Republican who headed the commission for two years and is vice chairwoman, will be replaced March 1 by Steve Blank of Menlo Park, a Democrat.
Caldwell joined the commission in May 2004, when Schwarzenegger chose her for a two-year term. She has continued on the panel without a formal reappointment.

At a regularly scheduled commission meeting yesterday in San Diego, Caldwell said she was surprised by the governor’s announcement and didn’t know the reasoning for it. Schwarzenegger’s staff in Sacramento declined to explain.

Conservationists were quick to criticize the governor’s decision. “We’re disappointed and blown away that the governor would fire . . . the best environmentalist in the entire administration,” said Mark Massara of the Sierra Club.

Massara said he believes Caldwell is being dismissed because she irritated developers with her pro-conservation votes.

Blank, 53, is a lecturer on entrepreneurship and innovation at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Engineering. He’s also chairman of the California Audubon Society.

Bird and wetlands activists were shocked last week when Oceanside City Council approved a new resort on the shores of one of the most important last best coastal wetlands in California — thousands had signed petitions urging that Buena Vista Lagoon be protected.

For a photo of Buena Vista Lagoon, go to http://www.cacoast.org/200604139
For more information on the Lagoon, go to http://www.bvaudubon.org/ or

http://www.buenavistalagoonfoundation.org/about.html

Lagoon Resort Gets OK
Feb 15, 2007
Ed Joyce

A controversial plan to build a resort hotel-restaurant on land bordering a coastal lagoon was approved by the Oceanside City Council Wednesday night. KPBS Reporter Ed Joyce tells us the project likely faces another hurdle before construction starts.

Before a standing-room only crowd, the Oceanside City Council gave the OK for the Coastal Lagoon Hotel project on a 3-to-2 vote. The 82-room hotel would be built on four acres west of the Coast Highway and alongside the Buena Vista Lagoon. Mark Massara is the Sierra Club’s Director of Coastal Programs. He says the council made a bad decision.

Massara: We’re terrifically disappointed. It’s a lost opportunity for a critically important wetlands and estuary conservation efforts.

Massara says the decision will likely be overturned on appeal to the California Coastal Commission. Jim Bartell represents the property owner. He’s confident the project will survive any future challenges.

Bartell: Based on the fact that both the planning commission and the city council certified the environmental impact report.

Oceanside estimates the project would bring in $7 million in taxes over a 10-year period.

Ed Joyce, KPBS News. http://www.kpbs.org/news/local?id=7387

Oceanside approves hotel for Buena Vista Lagoon

By: DAVID STERRETT – Staff Writer

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/15/news/coastal/2_04_262_14_07.txt

OCEANSIDE — Plans for a controversial hotel project near the west end of the Buena Vista Lagoon were narrowly approved Wednesday by the Oceanside City Council.

The council voted 3-2, with Mayor Jim Wood and Councilwoman Esther Sanchez opposed, in favor of the Coastal Lagoon project.

Developer Oceanside Three plans to build a three-story, 82-room hotel, a restaurant and four condominiums on a vacant, 3.8-acre site on the southwest end of Oceanside.

“The developer followed all the rules,” said Councilman Jerry Kern.

More than 140 residents packed the City Hall for the three-hour hearing, and there were several emotional exchanges between supporters and opponents. Some residents held homemade paper-plate signs that read “Just say NO!” while others wore blue stickers saying, “Coastal Lagoon (Hotel) Yes!”

About 25 opponents of the project said it would harm the freshwater lagoon, block scenic views and be an eyesore in southern Oceanside. Eight supporters of the hotel development said it would not harm the lagoon and that it would enhance the area and generate business and tax revenue for the city.

Jerry Hittleman, the acting city planner, said the council’s decision could be appealed to the California Coastal Commission, a state agency with jurisdiction over areas near the beach.

Several residents said they would appeal the project to the state agency.

“We have a lot more fight left,” said resident Danny Di Mento, who has led the opposition. “Shame on the city.”

A consultant for the developer said coastal commission staffers have been notified about the project, and the developer said he expects the state staffers to recommend approval.

The Oceanside Planning Commission voted 6-1 to deny the project in October because of concerns about the design. But city planners recommended the council approve the project Wednesday.

The hotel will feature craftsman architecture and rooms costing at least $200 a night, and the 4,180-square-foot restaurant will be high-end, according to project representatives.

“We are giving you exactly what you asked for,” said Roxayne Spruance, a lobbyist for the project. “It’s all there and meets the requirements. We’re not hurting the lagoon.”

Kern asked that the developer be required to put in a stoplight at Eaton Street and Coast Highway, which is on the north side of the site, in addition to a light planned for the entrance to the hotel from Coast Highway.

Councilman Rocky Chavez requested that the project include a public art element and that the developer expand a public bike and walking trail from five feet to eight feet wide.

The path will be built on the south side of the site next to a 100-foot buffer area for the lagoon. Native plants will be preserved in the buffer area off-limits to people, according to the developer.

“If I believed (it) would impact the lagoon I would not approve it,” Chavez said. “It’s extremely important to protect the lagoon.”

But several environmentalists said the project will damage the lagoon that is home to 200 different species.

“This project hurts our lagoon,” said Dennis Huckabay, president of the lagoon’s Audubon society. “We want to save this land for open space, and we believe it’s in the best interest of Oceanside.”

Huckabay presented the council with a petition opposing the project with 2,500 signatures. Representatives of the developer said they had collected more than 1,000 signatures in favor of the project.

But many residents said the developer deceived people to get them to sign the petitions by not giving them accurate information and asking them if they support more jobs for Oceanside.

Council members Sanchez and Chavez said they were disappointed in the problems with the petitions.

Sanchez said she didn’t want to harm the lagoon, and she wanted the developer to “make a better project.” Wood said he voted against the project because environmentalists opposed the plans.

Councilman Jack Feller said he supported the proposal because “it follows all the rules.”

Hittleman, the acting city planner, said the project will generate more than $500,000 a year in tax revenue for the city.

Resident John Daley said “this is an excellent project and should be approved.” He said the developer has been prudent and tried to address concerns from nearby residents.

“The one thing that scares people a lot is change,” Daley said.

But resident Allyson Fellars said the site “is not the place for hotel,” and that the project would block residents’ views of the coastal area and hurt the neighborhood.

“The only thing it will do is bring more business to Carlsbad,” Fellars said. “It will add more congestion on the highway.”

Aharon Abada has owned the property for more than 30 years and has spent about eight years working on the hotel project, according to his consultants.

The staff report said the project originally proposed a 106-room hotel and seven condominiums but the owner reduced the size at the request of nearby residents.

Seventy of the hotel rooms will be sold as condominiums that owners could occupy 90 days a year and no longer than 29 consecutive days. At least 25 percent of the 82 hotel rooms will have to be available during the summer months under the projects plans.

Some residents and Sanchez said they didn’t want any of the rooms to be sold.

“There is no way to make everyone happy,” said Spruance, the consultant for the developer. “This project is the best compromise.”

– Contact staff writer David Sterrett at (760) 901-4067 or dsterrett@nctimes.com.

During the past few weeks, long simmering concern regarding efforts to buy and transport sand to beaches in San Diego has blossomed into an open discussion, with editorials in local papers and news stories, along with numerous letters in local papers. Below is a small sample:

Surfers vexed over massive San Diego sand-dredging project
Associated Press
SAN DIEGO – Surfers say a plan to dredge tons of offshore sand for use replenishing beaches could come with a cost – the loss of prized wave breaks.

The Imperial Beach project is awaiting authorization under the U.S. Water Resources Development Act. Over the years storms have gnawed at the shoreline and during winter months Imperial Beach is without sand up to most property lines.

Sand acts as a buffer against heavy storms, protecting land and property. The city estimates it loses about 6 feet of beach a year to storm damage and erosion.

“The beach is a very fundamental recreation area and an economic generator for the city,” City Manager Gary Brown said.

But surfers say the dredging could drastically alter waves, including at a legendary surf spot known as the Tijuana Sloughs. They worry it could stir up contaminated sand and harm water quality.

“There was no effort made to engage the surfing world,” said surfer Serge Dedina. “We want more information on the project and we want to be involved.”

The project will move an initial 1.6 million cubic yards of sand from the coastal floor to the Imperial Beach shore. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which will do the work, will replenish the sand every 10 years for 50 years.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/16729285.htm

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/11/perspective/20_28_402_10_07.txt

Nourishment alone will not bring back San Diego’s beaches

By: MARK MASSARA – Commentary

“A retreating shoreline without buildings is not a problem. A retreating shoreline with buildings is an erosion problem. Since buildings are clearly the cause, should public funds be used to solve a problem created by affluent beachfront property owners irresponsible enough to build next to an eroding shoreline? We say no. Let the buildings fall in or, even better, move them back or demolish them and the beach will be as wide and as usable as ever. And it will have a healthy ecosystem.”

—- Orrin Pilkey, professor of geology and director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, Duke University

San Diego’s sandless beaches are the product of decades of ill-conceived, shortsighted land use decisions involving dam and harbor construction, oceanfront and bluff-top development, flood control and the inescapable consequences of amaranthine sea level rise. Wise stewardship of our precious coastal resources —- now more than ever —- should not be left to the whim of a few privileged coastal property owners and their hired gun lobbyists and engineers who brazenly work to siphon limited public funds in a self-enriching, ill-conceived attempt to maintain their plate-glass ocean view.

It is time to account for the illusions being perpetrated by beach nourishment pressure groups. Artificial beach engineering is not a panacea. The evidence is in: The San Diego Association of Governments’ 2001 beach nourishment project, which cost more than $17.5 million, plopped 2 million yards of sand across 12 beaches and temporarily widened those shores by more than 25 feet. That sand is now gone from view, offering no added opportunities for public enjoyment, no recreational value, and, ironically, no added protection for eroding coastal bluffs and the opulent, fortified residential coastal properties that loom nearby. At the most studied of the beaches, Torrey Pines State Beach, where SANDAG dumped 330,000 yards of sand on 1,600 feet of beach in April 2001, the artificial beach sat for seven months of low waves, and then was entirely washed away within 12 hours on the first day of significant wave action on Thanksgiving Day, 2001. Gone in a single day!

Near-shore beach nourishment may have a bit role in particular, unique or specific instances, but the public is correct to question the wisdom of continuously devoting finite public funds at the behest of an incredulous few to safeguard their short-term economic interests. Sea levels are rising; our coastlines are retreating. We must brace ourselves and develop long-term plans for the benefit of the environment and public at large. Sacrificing our public beaches to private sea walls is clearly not the answer, and the science indisputable: SANDAG’s “restored” beaches and, indeed, artificial beaches nationwide, are better measured with a stopwatch than the sands of geologic time.

Without a coherent vision that includes dam removal, river restoration, sea wall prevention and removal, managed retreat and other less costly and more environmentally sound measures, artificial beach nourishment engineering projects are exorbitantly priced and exceedingly short-lived.

That beaches exist at all proves professor Pilkey’s argument that, given space, the sea’s timeless dance with the shore will continue to inspire our awe and rejuvenate our sense of wilderness for generations to come. In the end, tossing bought sand in front of sea walls is a foolhardy enterprise. Much more important and cost-effective are decisions regarding where we build and where we don’t —- where we move back and make room for the beach. That is our gift to our grandchildren and the ultimate measure of our forethought and wisdom.

For more information regarding the costs, impacts and science of beach nourishment, start with UC Santa Cruz professor Gary Griggs’ excellent book, “Living With the Changing California Coast” (UC Press 2005), and his follow-up article, “Understanding California’s Shoreline” (October 2006) at http://www.dbw.ca.gov/CSMW/PDF/LittoralDrift.pdf.

For more on professor Pilkey’s analysis of beach nourishment, go to

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/beachnourishment/html/human/dialog/index.htm.

San Francisco resident Mark Massara is an environmental attorney specializing in coastal pollution, protection development and beach-access issues, and is director of the Sierra Club’s California coastal programs.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/local?id=7414

Officials Call for Sand Replenishment Project to Save Eroding Beaches
Feb 20, 2007
Ed Joyce

Several San Diego County beaches are losing sand. The natural replenishing processes have been blocked by development. Local officials want state and federal help to fix the problem. KPBS Environmental Reporter Ed Joyce tells us the sand is vital for tourism and the survival of the beaches.

Bluffs in Encinitas and Solana Beach have been collapsing for seven years. The falling hillsides hurt beachgoers and actually killed one person in Encinitas. Both cities want to reduce bluff erosion by adding sand to the beaches. Adding sand would not only protect beachgoers it would replenish thinning beaches.

A pilot project six years ago piled sand on several county beaches. Now that sand is gone. Steve Aceti is the executive director of the California Coastal Coalition.

Aceti: The reason that’s happening is because the sand that used to reach the shoreline isn’t getting here anymore by natural processes. So we need to restore the sand through artificial means which is to find the deposits offshore that are out there, dredge the sand up, pump it onshore, bulldoze it around and rebuild the beach.

Aceti says a 2001 San Diego Association of Governments project that put sand on three county beaches reduced bluff erosion by preventing waves from pounding against coastal hillsides. But some of those beaches, like at Fletcher Cove in Solana Beach, are now dotted with cobblestones. The thinning beaches allow waves to pound the bluffs. Homeowners on those bluffs are reinforcing the hillsides with seawalls and other barriers to keep their homes from sliding onto the beach.

Not everyone thinks replacing the sand is the way to go. The coastal programs director for the Sierra Club is Mark Massara. He says sand replenishment is a short-term solution.

Massara: Bought sand tossed in front of mansions and seawalls is a very expensive, very short-lived industrial development.

Massara says dumping sand on beaches wastes public money if it’s not part of a major restoration plan.

Massara: Removal of dams and removal of seawalls and reform of the laws that allow seawall development and a managed retreat strategy whereby inappropriately sited coastal development is moved back over time. That’s inescapable. If you buy sand without that larger set of reforms, you’re wasting your money.”

Massara isn’t the only one who thinks sand replenishment is a bad idea. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the state Department of Fish and Game say too much of the sand would wash back into the ocean, burying offshore surf grass and reef habitats that are home to marine animals.

But the Cal Coastal Coalition’s Aceti disagrees. He says the recent project showed that most of the sand stuck around for nearly five years. Aceti says the added sand also brought more shorebirds to the beach, helping the marine environment. He’s working with several county coastal cities to find money for sand restoration projects.

California officials say tourists to state beaches spend more than $61 billion each year. While Solana Beach and Encinitas continue to wait for a long overdue Army Corps of Engineers study on beach restoration, the sand washes away from beaches vital to the state’s economy. Encinitas Mayor James Bond.

Bond: The draw is coming to the beach. People buying a house, I talked to someone yesterday saying “we were thinking about moving to Encinitas.” I say good, the property is a little pricey here, they say “but that’s all right, I want to be able to see the water.” Everybody wants to be able to see the water and get down to it.

Bond and other local officials are meeting today with the Army Corps of Engineers to help get the sand replenishment project back on track. In the meantime, the sand that was dumped on 12 San Diego County beaches in 2001 has washed away along with state funding. A state agency that funded the public beach restoration program did not request any money for the program in the new state budget. Ed Joyce, KPBS News.