Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 11, 2006 04:21 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 11, 2006 04:21 PM
California CoastWatcher, May 2005
California
CoastWatcher
May 2005
May 2005
California CoastWatcher is a monthly Internet publication regarding proceedings of the California Coastal Commission and news of protection and loss of coastal resources in California. CoastWatcher is a publication of the Sierra Club’s California Coastal Program.
The California Coastal Commission met at Stanford University on May 11-13, 2005.
Photo Tip of the Year: In March, Google went live with a website at www.maps.google.com that allows you to view overhead satellite photos of much of the California coast. A great complement to the oblique photos at www.californiacoastline.org
For pictures of the entire California coast, from the present going back over 30 years, go to www.californiacoastline.org
For staff reports, agendas, analysis of development proposals and information regarding the California Coastal Commission, go to www.coastal.ca.gov
For the California Coastal Act, go to http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ccatc.html
Del Monte Forest pictures. See many of the 18,000 Monterey Pine trees and entire forests that Pebble Beach Company (Monterey Co.) wants to destroy for new a golf course, driving range, resort rooms and facilities and 33 mansions at CoastWatcher’sDelMonteForestPics. Meanwhile, the PBC plan continued to take a beating from scrutiny in the national press this month, with the Sacramento Bee weighing in with http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/12867605p-13716933c.html
To examine the conservation voting records of the entire 12-member California Coastal Commission over the last five years, go to
2000CCCvotechart or
2001CCCvotechart
2002CCCvotechart
2003CCCvotechart
2004CCCvotechart
In order to join Sierra Club’s Great Coastal Places Campaign or to subscribe or review past issues of California CoastWatcher and learn more about projects up and down coastal California, go to www.sierraclub.org/ca/coasts.
QUOTES:
“Instead of saying, 'I'm the people's governor,' he's a politician taking big money from big special interests. And there's no way to mask that.”
-Bill Allayaud, State Director, Sierra Club California, in an L.A. Times article regarding the millions of dollars of campaign contributions that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger continues to accept from developers and polluters interested in weakening California’s environmental protection laws. In a complete reversal of his promises to protect California’s environment during his campaign for Governor, Schwarzenegger has accepted more than $225, 000 in just the last two weeks from developers and businesses interested in weakening the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For the story, go to latimes
“The policy on campaign contributions varies depending on what issues are considered timely by the governor's office.”
-Martin Wilson, an outside political aide who oversees the governor's fundraising, in a stunning admission regarding Governor Schwarzenegger’s apparent willingness to court donations from special interests seeking to dismantle California’s environmental laws. latimes
“The governor can't make time for everybody in California, but he does make time for people who give him $25,000 a pop. It certainly looks like he's in their pockets.”
-Ned Wigglesworth, www.TheRestofUs.org, L.A. Times. For a list of some of the larger developers from which Governor Schwarzenegger has collected more than $13.5 million since beginning his pursuit of the governorship, go to latimes
“I strongly oppose any new oil and gas leasing off California's coastline and any efforts to weaken the right of California, or other states, to protect their coastlines from the adverse impacts of offshore oil and gas drilling.”
-Cal. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, May 13,
2005, making his first statement to federal
regulators (not President
Bush) in support of protection of the California coast from offshore oil drilling. In a letter addressed to the US House of Representatives Energy Committee, Schwarzenegger also stated that he opposes the efforts of the Bush Administration to steal California’s regulatory authority over the siting of proposed liquid natural gas terminals along the California coastline. Unfortunately, in the same letter Schwarzenegger declared his support for LNG, despite acknowledging the dangers associated with it. For the story, go to latimes and http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21479~2876124,00.html
“The problem is that the federal push to take over control, the push is so strong, we are past the point of niceties. In order to persuade Congress, we need a strong governor to come out in the strongest possible ways.”
-Susan Jordan, Director, California Coastal Protection Network, commenting on meek tone of the Governor’s letter and the vigor with which the Bush Administration seeks to destroy California coastal resources. latimes
“The people most affected are children, both in Mexico and here. Kids are swimming in sewage. We don’t even know what’s in this water. We don’t know the long-term effects of this water on the people who surf and swim in it.”
-Serge Dedina, Director, Wildcoast, commenting on the worst pollution in the Tijuana River that anyone can remember. Beaches from Imperial Beach (San Diego County) south to the U.S.-Mexico border (including Border Field State Park) were closed from pollution 195 out of 212 days from October 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005. Read about it at http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050527/news_6m27sewage.html For more information on Heal The Bay’s 15th Annual Beach Report Card, go to http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/2961.html and http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/1576651.html and http://www.globalsurfnews.com/news.asp?Id_news=16888 and
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-beaches26may26,1,6589452.story?coll=la-news-state&ctrack=1&cset=true For the entire report, go to http://healthebay.org/
The Tijuana River Valley, c. 1972
Slow-Motion Disaster is Another Term for Shifting Baseline. Check out the new video short by Surfrider Foundation and learn how important the concept of “shifting baselines” is to long-term coastal protection. The video is at www.shiftingbaselines.org/videos/home_surfrider.htm
Geffen Accessway Open! This month, after twenty years, the beach accessway alongside the David Geffen estate in Malibu was opened to the public for the first time. You can see the trail at www.cacoast.org/3953 and www.cacoast.org/200405852. The path will be managed by the nonprofit organization Access For All. The story, with pictures and maps, is at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beach27may27,0,3312414.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines
More Geffen news at http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-morrison25may25,0,3223051.column?coll=la-home-headlines
The Geffen Estate, Malibu, California
Confused Woman Attempts to Drive Jet Ski Along Coast to Increase Public Awareness of Value of Coast. 56-year old professor Jana Usatin, from Carlsbad, is burning hundreds of gallons of gasoline, destroying kelp, interfering with Homeland Security and risking arrest in a bizarre attempt to raise public awareness for the coast by driving a jet ski from Canada to Mexico. She apparently hasn’t yet realized that numerous California coastal communities have banned the dangerous, loud and polluting devices. Nor has she recognized the ironic nature of her “destroy the coast to save it” methodology. Read about her adventure at http://www.skagitvalleyherald.com/articles/2005/05/26/recreation/rec01.txt
WEBSITES, NEWS BRIEFS & NOTES:
Desalination Workshop & Update- It’s Too Expensive and California Doesn’t Need it: Jonas Minton, a project manager and senior water policy analyst with Planning and Conservation League (PCL, on the web at www.pcl.org), provided the public and members of the Coastal Commission with a policy briefing and update on his efforts to monitor water usage, policy and desalination projects in California on May 11, 2005. Among other things, Minton explained to the Coastal Commission that California was expected to need an additional 3 million acre feet of water per year by 2030, related to an expected 12 million new residents (2 million acre feet) and necessary environmental restoration of 1 million acre feet. However, conservation strategies for California water through urban conservation, agricultural conservation and water recycling are expected to yield some 4.5 million acre feet of less water demand, thereby resulting in a net savings of water use. Urban water conservation plans are remarkably successful. Over the last twenty years, and even with dramatic population growth, southern California was experienced no net water usage increase. And those benefits were obtained with only minimal conservation. In the next 20 years, even more dramatic conservation techniques are expected to decrease urban water demand even further. What it all means is that the current fascination with privately owned municipal desalination, which seek to industrialize the coast and convert public resources to private profits, are unnecessary. Moreover, Minton explained to the Commission that to make even one gallon of fresh water, using conventional desalting techniques, the result is as much as 40 more gallons of water are needed to dilute the resulting toxic salty brine waste, which is then returned to the marine environment. Worse, the energy required to convert ocean water to fresh water is tremendous, and desalination requires fully one-third more energy than is required to move water through the entire Central Valley transportation system used to move water from northern to southern California. For more information regarding the water policy work of PCL, go to
http://www.pcl.org/pcl/pcl_waterforca.asp. For more on Jonas Minton, go to http://www.pcl.org/pcl/pcl_aboutus_jminton.asp And to confuse matters even worse, just as Minton spreads the word regarding misconceptions surrounding desal, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has announced they’re giving away $25 million dollars in order to promote desal in California! Read that story at
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050525005872&newsLang=en
California’s Largest Coastal Campground Has No Permits. Question: Which campground along the coast in California has over 1230 camping and trailer sites and no permits? Answer: Lawson’s Landing. Set right in along the water’s edge amidst some of the most fragile and sensitive dunes and one of California’s most important estuaries (Tomales Bay), Lawson’s Landing has maximized it’s “regulatory limbo” status for decades, all the while generating millions of dollars in profits as over 100 leaking septic systems (some no more sophisticated than a 50-gallon barrel with holes) line the bay front. Read about the efforts to protect the dunes and Tomales Bay, and the goal that someday Lawson’s Landing will clean up the mess, at
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/23/BAGU0CT0OJ1.DTL For photos of Lawson’s Landing, go to www.cacoast.org/12715 To learn more about the Tomales Dunes, and the organization dedicated to protecting them, go to the website of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, and support their efforts at http://eacmarin.org/
Lawson's Landing, 2002
Bush) in support of protection of the California coast from offshore oil drilling. In a letter addressed to the US House of Representatives Energy Committee, Schwarzenegger also stated that he opposes the efforts of the Bush Administration to steal California’s regulatory authority over the siting of proposed liquid natural gas terminals along the California coastline. Unfortunately, in the same letter Schwarzenegger declared his support for LNG, despite acknowledging the dangers associated with it. For the story, go to latimes and http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21479~2876124,00.html
“The problem is that the federal push to take over control, the push is so strong, we are past the point of niceties. In order to persuade Congress, we need a strong governor to come out in the strongest possible ways.”
-Susan Jordan, Director, California Coastal Protection Network, commenting on meek tone of the Governor’s letter and the vigor with which the Bush Administration seeks to destroy California coastal resources. latimes
“The people most affected are children, both in Mexico and here. Kids are swimming in sewage. We don’t even know what’s in this water. We don’t know the long-term effects of this water on the people who surf and swim in it.”
-Serge Dedina, Director, Wildcoast, commenting on the worst pollution in the Tijuana River that anyone can remember. Beaches from Imperial Beach (San Diego County) south to the U.S.-Mexico border (including Border Field State Park) were closed from pollution 195 out of 212 days from October 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005. Read about it at http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050527/news_6m27sewage.html For more information on Heal The Bay’s 15th Annual Beach Report Card, go to http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/2961.html and http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/1576651.html and http://www.globalsurfnews.com/news.asp?Id_news=16888 and
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-beaches26may26,1,6589452.story?coll=la-news-state&ctrack=1&cset=true For the entire report, go to http://healthebay.org/
The Tijuana River Valley, c. 1972
Slow-Motion Disaster is Another Term for Shifting Baseline. Check out the new video short by Surfrider Foundation and learn how important the concept of “shifting baselines” is to long-term coastal protection. The video is at www.shiftingbaselines.org/videos/home_surfrider.htm
Geffen Accessway Open! This month, after twenty years, the beach accessway alongside the David Geffen estate in Malibu was opened to the public for the first time. You can see the trail at www.cacoast.org/3953 and www.cacoast.org/200405852. The path will be managed by the nonprofit organization Access For All. The story, with pictures and maps, is at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beach27may27,0,3312414.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines
More Geffen news at http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-morrison25may25,0,3223051.column?coll=la-home-headlines
The Geffen Estate, Malibu, California
Confused Woman Attempts to Drive Jet Ski Along Coast to Increase Public Awareness of Value of Coast. 56-year old professor Jana Usatin, from Carlsbad, is burning hundreds of gallons of gasoline, destroying kelp, interfering with Homeland Security and risking arrest in a bizarre attempt to raise public awareness for the coast by driving a jet ski from Canada to Mexico. She apparently hasn’t yet realized that numerous California coastal communities have banned the dangerous, loud and polluting devices. Nor has she recognized the ironic nature of her “destroy the coast to save it” methodology. Read about her adventure at http://www.skagitvalleyherald.com/articles/2005/05/26/recreation/rec01.txt
WEBSITES, NEWS BRIEFS & NOTES:
Desalination Workshop & Update- It’s Too Expensive and California Doesn’t Need it: Jonas Minton, a project manager and senior water policy analyst with Planning and Conservation League (PCL, on the web at www.pcl.org), provided the public and members of the Coastal Commission with a policy briefing and update on his efforts to monitor water usage, policy and desalination projects in California on May 11, 2005. Among other things, Minton explained to the Coastal Commission that California was expected to need an additional 3 million acre feet of water per year by 2030, related to an expected 12 million new residents (2 million acre feet) and necessary environmental restoration of 1 million acre feet. However, conservation strategies for California water through urban conservation, agricultural conservation and water recycling are expected to yield some 4.5 million acre feet of less water demand, thereby resulting in a net savings of water use. Urban water conservation plans are remarkably successful. Over the last twenty years, and even with dramatic population growth, southern California was experienced no net water usage increase. And those benefits were obtained with only minimal conservation. In the next 20 years, even more dramatic conservation techniques are expected to decrease urban water demand even further. What it all means is that the current fascination with privately owned municipal desalination, which seek to industrialize the coast and convert public resources to private profits, are unnecessary. Moreover, Minton explained to the Commission that to make even one gallon of fresh water, using conventional desalting techniques, the result is as much as 40 more gallons of water are needed to dilute the resulting toxic salty brine waste, which is then returned to the marine environment. Worse, the energy required to convert ocean water to fresh water is tremendous, and desalination requires fully one-third more energy than is required to move water through the entire Central Valley transportation system used to move water from northern to southern California. For more information regarding the water policy work of PCL, go to
http://www.pcl.org/pcl/pcl_waterforca.asp. For more on Jonas Minton, go to http://www.pcl.org/pcl/pcl_aboutus_jminton.asp And to confuse matters even worse, just as Minton spreads the word regarding misconceptions surrounding desal, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has announced they’re giving away $25 million dollars in order to promote desal in California! Read that story at
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050525005872&newsLang=en
California’s Largest Coastal Campground Has No Permits. Question: Which campground along the coast in California has over 1230 camping and trailer sites and no permits? Answer: Lawson’s Landing. Set right in along the water’s edge amidst some of the most fragile and sensitive dunes and one of California’s most important estuaries (Tomales Bay), Lawson’s Landing has maximized it’s “regulatory limbo” status for decades, all the while generating millions of dollars in profits as over 100 leaking septic systems (some no more sophisticated than a 50-gallon barrel with holes) line the bay front. Read about the efforts to protect the dunes and Tomales Bay, and the goal that someday Lawson’s Landing will clean up the mess, at
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/23/BAGU0CT0OJ1.DTL For photos of Lawson’s Landing, go to www.cacoast.org/12715 To learn more about the Tomales Dunes, and the organization dedicated to protecting them, go to the website of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, and support their efforts at http://eacmarin.org/
Lawson's Landing, 2002
Environmentalists Win LA Elections! Antonio Villaraigosa is Mayor of Los Angeles. Bill Rosendahl has also defeated developer backed candidates to win Los Angeles’ coveted 11th coastal district on the LA City Council, which includes Westchester, Playa Vista, Playa Del Rey, Brentwood and Pacific Palisades. Both Villaraigosa and Rosendahl have been highly critical of the 2500-unit Playa Vista development proposed for the historic Ballona wetlands, as well as the proposed $11 billion expansion of Los Angeles Airport. Playa Vista backers and LA developers had heavily supported the opposition. Read about the environmental victory at dailybreeze and dailynews
Commissioner Scott Peters Announces Resignation. California Coastal Commission member and San Diego City Councilman, Scott Peters, announced this month that he would not seek reappointment to the Commission. Siting a desire to focus on San Diego civic matters, Peters said that he had informed Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez of his decision not to seek reappointment to the Commission. Peters’ appointment expires on May 20, although Nunez has 60-days thereafter in which Peters can continue to sit on the Commission. After that, Nunez will either have to make a new appointment (the new Commissioner must be a local elected official from San Diego) or the seat will go empty. Read the story at sandiegouniontribune Read about the potential successors at http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/05/21/news/top_stories/22_53_415_20_05.txt
Other Commissioners Fight to Keep Posts Despite Disappointing Pro-Development Voting Records. Meanwhile, two other local elected official members of the Coastal Commission are fighting hard to keep their posts, despite evidence of their pro-development voting records. Commissioners David Potter, a Monterey County Supervisor on the Commission for the last 7 years, and Toni Iseman, a Laguna Beach City Council member and Commissioner for the last 2 years, are both working to be re-appointed to the Commission. A news story regarding the Iseman appointment is at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-coastal22may22,0,4117266.story?coll=la-home-local
Pedro Nava Appointed to California Ocean Protection Council. Assembly member (D-Santa Barbara) and former Coastal Commissioner Pedro Nava has been appointed to the California Ocean Protection Council. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez appointed Nava, a strong coastal protection advocate, on May 4. On his appointment, Nava said, “The California coastline is 1,100 miles long, and they’re not making any more of it. There are tremendous pressures to develop along the coastline. Those pressures have to be carefully evaluated so that we don’t destroy that very quality of California that makes it special.” On the Council, Nava joins California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, State Senator Sheila Kuehl, Cal-EPA Secretary Alan Lloyd and a fifth member (as yet undesignated) from California State Lands Commission. For the story on Nava’s appointment, go to dailynexus For more information on the California Ocean Protection Council, go to
http://resources.ca.gov/ocean/copc/
Ann Notthoff Appointed to the Coastal Conservancy. Ann Notthoff, legendary coastal activist and longtime senior coastal policy expert with Natural Resources Defense Council (www.nrdc.org), has been appointed to the California Coastal Conservancy by Senate Rules Committee Chair Don Perata. For more information on the work of the Coastal Conservancy, go to http://www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov/index.htm
New Public Access in Fort Bragg. On Wednesday, May 17, 2005, the California Coastal Conservancy voted to approve a grant of $4.165 million in order to acquire 35-acres of parkland on the Georgia-Pacific Mill facility in Fort Bragg, Mendocino County. That acquisition, along with a 38-acre coastal corridor that G-P has agreed to dedicate to the City will insure permanent public access along 3.5 miles of shoreline in the City of Fort Bragg, marking a dramatic turnaround from 1999 when the City of Fort Bragg had no public beach access whatsoever. For the story of Sierra Club’s recent event in Fort Bragg, go to record-bee For the story on the Coastal Conservancy grant, go to http://www.advocate-news.com/Stories/0,1413,95~3977~2877867,00.html
Stornetta Ranch Dedicated, Open for Public Access. In yet another big conservation/public access achievement in Mendocino County, the 5-year, $8 million acquisition of over 1,000-acres and 2.5-miles of coastline just south of the Point Arena Lighthouse was dedicated this month. The property, which includes offshore islands, giant sinkholes, a 50-ft waterfall and much more, is well worth a visit. Or read about it in the sfchronicle
Orange County Road Builders Still Hoping to Pave Over San Onofre State Park. Incredible, but Orange County’s Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) is continuing its push to build a toll road through a State Park, across wildlands owned by a land conservancy and some of Orange County’s last open space. The road is unneeded and only proposed in order to facilitate construction of thousands of new homes inland. Meanwhile, TCA is bankrupt and has proven it is unfit to operate anything, much less a toll road. Read the latest at latimesopinion
San Mateo Finally Gets Its Tunnel. After 20 years of Sierra Club lawsuits and unrepentant coastal activism, this month CalTrans began construction of the Devil’s Slide Bypass Tunnel, which will be built following a successful citizen’s initiative to prevent construction of a six-lane freeway across the top of Montara Mountain and through McNee Ranch State Park. Read about the environmental victory at sanmateotimes and halfmoonbayreview and headlinenews
Carlsbad Still Has 50 Acres of Coast Left, So Why Pave It Over? The City of Carlsbad in San Diego was once known for agricultural products and flower fields and undeveloped coastline. Now almost completely degraded by unsightly suburban sprawl, Carlsbad officials recently “discovered” a tiny section of town- “Pontos” – located in the southernmost corner of the City. So what did they do? Hurry up and try to save a last bit of undeveloped coastline? Forget that. The Planning Commission has just approved a plan to build three hotels, a resort, restaurants, shops, apartments and condominiums on the land. Fortunately, the California Coastal Commission will have final say over the outrageous plan. Read the story at sandiegouniontribune Also, join neighbors who are now organizing to defeat the plans at http://www.pontoaction.com/
The Real Cost of Swimming. A new report authored by researchers from University of California Irvine is a first attempt to ascertain the costs associated with swimming in polluted California coastal waters. And it is more than $3.3 million a year. Of five million swimmers in Huntington Beach and Newport, in Orange County, between 1998 and 2000, nearly 1% (or about 80,000) became sick. For more on the story, go to environewswire and santamariatimes
Visit The OCEAN Project. A new nonprofit consortium of aquariums, museums, zoos and conservation organizations has announced an ocean conservation project (OCEAN- Ocean Conservation through Education, Action and Networking). You can read about The OCEAN Project and their work at http://www.theoceanproject.org/
Fight Plastic Debris! 60-80% of all marine debris comes from land-based sources. Plastics are a prime culprit of our ocean’s degradation. Now, for the first time, a conference is being held to examine the cause and effects, and solutions designed to reduce the debilitating effects of plastic debris in the ocean. The conference is scheduled for September 7-9, 2005 in Redondo Beach, California. You can find out more information at http://conference.plasticdebris.org/
Kelp is on the Way! The California Coastkeeper Alliance is hard at work on a multiyear effort to replant and restore kelp forests throughout Southern California. The project, which is being funded by the California Coastal Conservancy and NOAA, is starting to show results. Read about it at http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/1585886.html
Central Coast Sewage Woes. CW readers are familiar the decades old effort –so far unsuccessful- to establish a sewage treatment facility in Los Osos. Turns out Los Osos isn’t the only sewage embarrassment in San Luis Obispo County. Even worse is the City of Pismo Beach, where houses continue to sprout like weeds and sewer violations pile up like tourists at the beach on a hot weekend. Even tiny San Simeon and the California Men’s Colony (the prison…) are getting in the act, with hundreds of their own violations. Read about it at http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/11769343.htm
Lucy Dunn Using Taxpayer Dollars to Promote Development. For decades Lucy Dunn worked for private developers trying to build homes in the Bolsa Chica wetlands (yes, in the wetlands, where water now stands). Now, as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s State Director of Housing & Community Development, Dunn is continuing her anti-environment, pro-development work at taxpayer’s expense. Last week she could be found in Apple Valley, encouraging local elected officials to ignore a voter’s initiative limiting growth to one house per half-acre. According to Dunn, “Everything can’t stay the same, everything can’t be saved. We must plan for growth.” Read how your money is being spent at
http://www.vvdailypress.com/2005/111719932273279.html For a story detailing how Dunn had to resign as President of the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) in order to promote development from within government, go to
http://www.californiabuildermagazine.com/internal.asp?pid=86
Lucy Dunn
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
CONTENTS:
1. COMMISSION REJECTS OCEAN VIEW PLAZA DEVELOPMENT, AFFIRMING PROHIBITION ON PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DESALINATION PLANTS
2. WITTER HOUSE AT MAL PASO CREEK BEACH IS GRANTED FENCE, BUT COMMISSION PROTECTS FUTURE PUBLIC ACCESS
3. MONSTER HOUSES IN SAN MATEO- AGRICULTURE PROTECTED, ESHA SACRIFICED
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1. COMMISSION REJECTS OCEAN VIEW PLAZA DEVELOPMENT, AFFIRMING PROHIBITION ON PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DESALINATION PLANTS
Ocean View Plaza is a development proposal for Cannery Row in Monterey that has been fought over for a decade. Ocean View Plaza is large-scale development that would include 87,000-sq. ft. of retail development, a 30,000-sq. ft. restaurant, 38-condominiums, eight inclusionary housing units, 377-parking spaces and a public park, all of which would be served by a private desalination plant on a 3.5-acre parcel.
The Coastal Commission has never approved a private desalination plant for residential development. In contrast, the Commission has only approved desalination facilities for industrial uses and legally formed and constituted municipal services districts and other government agencies. The Commission’s policy is for the simple reason that reckless development of private desalination plants, and their subsequent failure, might create a public resource (i.e. fresh water) crises.
Lobbyists and lawyers for Ocean View Plaza told the Commission they were in a catch-22 situation in which their client had been abused according to the “no good deed goes unpunished” philosophy. Essentially the developer said that they want to form a legal community services district, but that LAFCO, whose approval is required, is unlikely to allow a services district for a vacant parcel. Thus, according to the developer, if the Commission will simply approve the project – “until we get your approval,” the developer said - then LAFCO will allow a services district to be formed and the development to commence.
Such a view puts the cart before the horse however and would turn long established Commission precedent on its head. Pursuant to the developer’s invitation, developers throughout California could now propose desalination facilities for residential projects based upon a vague assertion of the intent to mine the sea for water. Then they would rush to LAFCO and demand approval for creation of numerous micro-services districts designed to serve a single parcel or project.
Coastal staff recommended that the Commission affirm staff’s decision not to accept the application. The staff report is at oceanviewplaza
Commissioner Mary Shallenberger said that no benefit could be achieved by spending scarce time and resources reviewing development applications without water.
Commissioner Mike Reilly moved to deny the application pursuant to the staff recommendation and Commissioner Shallenberger seconded his motion.
Commissioner Reilly said a services district for an undeveloped parcel is an interesting idea, especially since a district must have a publicly elected board of directors.
Commissioner Sara Wan said that fresh water is a fundamental resource and a critical issue with respect to development along the California coast. The Commission has never approved a private residential desalination facility and that attempting to do a legitimate planning analysis while not knowing where the water will come from or who will manage and maintain it in future years would be impossible.
Commissioner Potter invited the City of Monterey to come forward, and the City then noted that the project developer wasn’t even on the list for future public water supply, if such water were ever to be available in perpetually drought stricken Monterey.
Commissioner Potter also referenced that were the Commission to decide in favor of Ocean View Plaza, it would represent dramatic new policy and precedent for the state of California.
The developer then asked to have the matter continued.
Commissioner Potter then said, “Couldn’t they just renew the request at any time in the future?” “I would just suggest that the applicant come back after some of this is clarified.”
“I think the project needs to be heard,” Commissioner Dan Secord said. “It might have to be denied, and it is incomplete at this time...but I will support the motion.”
After more discussion the Commission decided to support their staff and support staff’s decision to reject the filing of the application. The applicant remains free to resubmit their application at any time.
The vote was unanimous with Commissioners Peters, Iseman, Secord, Wan, Caldwell, Kruer, Potter, Shallenberger, Haddad, Reilly, and Wright all voting to reject the application.
2. WITTER HOUSE AT MAL PASO CREEK BEACH IS GRANTED FENCE, BUT COMMISSION PROTECTS FUTURE PUBLIC ACCESS
Carmel Highlands and spectacular Yankee Point Drive lie along the historic Old Coast Road Trail and provide access to a hidden beach and cove at Mal Paso Creek in north Big Sur, Monterey County.
The Witter house at 112 Yankee Point Drive and Mal Paso Creek beach are at www.cacoast.org/200402364
Mal Paso Creek, the Witter house, and public access trail, Monterey
The Coastal staff report is at www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/5-2005-W9a.pdf
The Witter’s, who own an existing home adjacent to the public trail down to the beach, sought this month permission to construct a new house and permits to construct a wood and wire low-rise fencing along the property perimeter- adjacent to the historic coast trail down to the beach – in order to provide additional privacy for themselves.
The property analysis also sought to resolve the existence of an unpermitted golfing green set amidst native landscaping at the existing home.
At the hearing, the Witter’s opposed the location of the fence as recommended by staff. The Witter’s wanted their fence on the public trail. Coastal staff, on the other hand, recommended placing the fence at least three feet above the trail, on the Witter’s property.
Commissioner Scott Peters said he supported coastal staff’s analysis that the fence should be set back three feet onto the private property, back from the public trail.
Commissioner Sara Wan was uncomfortable with leaving the putting green, and sought to clarify the nature of the resulting fence, and the adverse impacts to public access that might reverberate from future erosion of the public trail. Wan sought to insure that the fence would be required to be moved back if it was necessary to protect the trail in the future.
Commissioner Patrick Kruer said, “My big concern in looking at this trail is that once you create the fence it has the potential to adversely affect the trail in the future. The biggest challenge you have is that once you fix the fence line, you may lose the public trail. I think three feet may not be enough.”
Executive Director Peter Douglas then said that staff would take into account the concerns of the Commission, and that “the revised condition will require the movement of the fence to the minimal extent necessary to protect the public trail.”
Commissioner Mike Reilly requested that coastal staff make consideration of public coastal access trails and their future usage a priority in future development reviews. In other words, when public trails are established along the edge of bluffs, they must be made sufficiently wide so as to accommodate ever-increasing erosion along coastal California.
Commissioner Shallenberger asked if staff would consider a public access trail sign. Staff assured the Commission they would investigate the issue.
The Commission then voted to approve the project unanimously, with Commissioner’s Peters, Iseman, Secord, Wan, Caldwell, Kruer, Potter, Shallenberger, Haddad, Reilly and Wright all in support.
3. MONSTER HOUSES IN SAN MATEO- AGRICULTURE PROTECTED, ESHA SACRIFICED
Michael and Ana Polacek want to build 6,787-sq. ft. of residential development on an 18-acre farm along Bean Hollow Road. The coastal staff report for the Polacek project is at www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/5-2005-Th13a.pdf and you can see Bean Hollow State Beach at www.cacoast.org/6281
Bean Hollow State Beach
Keith and Cindy Waddell proposed to build 7,650-sq. ft. of residential development on a 153-acre ranch along Highway #1 at Tunitas Creek. The Waddell staff report is at www.coastal.ca.gov/nca/Th13b-5-2005.pdf and a 1972 photo of the Waddell property is at www.cacoast.org/7218028
The Waddell Property, c. 1972
In both cases, the proposed homes were more than
three times the size of the average existing home in this rural agricultural
part of the San Mateo County
coast.
The Commission’s decision-making process regarding the two proposals was marked by aggressive concern for protection of agriculture, aggressive disregard for imposing any limits on the size of mansions and the adverse impact those monster homes have on rural agricultural land values, and a flagrant decision to allow a private driveway through ESHA that is patently illegal under the Coastal Act.
The positive step taken by the Coastal Commission to protect agricultural lands on the California coastline required the use of affirmative, permanent agricultural easements that were required to be established to insure the long-term viability of the agricultural operations on the properties. Thus, even if Polacek and Waddell do not wish to continue farming themselves, they are required now, by law, to lease their lands to other farmers to insure the agricultural lands outside the residential building area on each parcel remain actively farmed. Such requirements had never been included in a coastal development permit before.
The second important step taken by the Commission was to require that all residential development on each property be contained within a 10,000 sq. ft. "development envelope" insuring that the vast majority of each farm will remain solely for agricultural purposes. The limited residential building envelope for agricultural lands was also a precedent established by the Commission that will enhance future protection of agricultural lands throughout coastal California.
The efforts to establish protections for agricultural operations were welcomed by most.
Commissioner Mike Reilly, a Sonoma County Supervisor, said that in Sonoma there are about one million acres of agricultural operations, and that nearly all of them in the coastal zone are in his Supervisorial District. Reilly also referenced his discussions with counterparts in Marin over the problems associated with wealthy individuals buying coastal agricultural parcels who do not wish to farm but instead desire trophy homes. “The challenge, to me, is that when people like this buy these properties, how do you continue to insure these lands are farmed. Staff has moved the ball way down the field here, in terms of affirmatively requiring future agricultural operations on the land, regardless of if the owner wants to do it or not. Second, staff’s use of the building envelope is very helpful in protecting the balance of the agricultural lands on the parcel. This will send a message to the economic marketplace that we intend to protect agricultural lands.”
Only Commissioner Dave Potter disagreed. Potter argued, “What are we doing here, requiring Mrs. Polacek to set up a roadside stand on Highway #1 and sell tomatoes and cucumbers?”
From there the Commission erred in at least two other crucial respects.
First, the Commission refused to impose any limits whatsoever on the size of the Polacek and Waddell homes, insuring that rural and agricultural areas throughout California will continue to be battered with proposals for mansions, private castles and vastly oversized trophy homes designed to impress passersby perhaps more than create functional living spaces. Despite the fact that local officials from San Mateo County admitted that they have no plans to limit the size of home proposals and that such limits are unlikely to be devised in the future, and despite the fact that it is well established that monster homes and their adverse economic impact on agricultural areas negatively affect farming values, the Commission decided to ignore their staff recommendations, farmers and environmentalists and align themselves instead with millionaires on house size. Coastal staff had recommended that the homes be allowed to be the average size of rural homes along this stretch of coast, which are 2500-sq. ft in size.
Commissioner Dan Secord, who is a Santa Barbara City Council member, argued that the Commission should never limit house size, and that house size is a matter better left to local government. Secord would have a better argument if any local government had ever adopted such a limit.
Coastal staff, and Commission General Counsel Ralph Faust, attempted to explain to Secord that both the Coastal Act and the San Mateo County LCP require and mandate that rural agricultural lands be protected, and that the pressures to convert such farms to large mansions not only eliminates the farm in question but also creates an economic dynamic which results in neighboring farms being driven from business as well.
Secord called the explanations “tangential.” Secord concluded that he could appreciate the usefulness in limiting development envelope size, but on limits on house size.
Brian Baird of the Resources Agency, who serves on the Commission as a representative for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, also criticized the attempt of coastal staff to limit house size and said that it would establish a precedent.
Executive Director Peter Douglas then said that if the Commission did nothing to stem the proliferation of monster homes, that that too would form a precedent- a bad precedent.
The Commission’s greatest blunder, however, was reserved for the Waddell parcel. The Waddell parcel is 153-acres that includes over 88-acres of extremely rare native coastal terrace prairie (CTP) grasses. Waddell sought permission to construct a 3,000-ft long private driveway through the CTP. CTP is dense, tall grasslands comprised of California oatgrass, purple needlegrass, rattail fescue, quaking grass, tall fescue and rattlesnake grass, as well as other non-grass species such as western rush, sun cups, soap plant, annual lupine, and California poppy, among others.
California has lost more than 99% of its native grasslands, mostly due to conversion of habitat for development and agriculture. Coastal staff therefore correctly identified the CTP on the Waddell parcel as environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), which by law is required to be protected.
Waddell’s 3,000-ft long private residential driveway across the entire parcel was proposed to go right through the middle of the CTP ESHA. Coastal staff suggested an alternate road route that would have avoided the CTP. Another possibility was that the house could have been moved closer to Highway #1.
The Commission would have none of it. Following the aggressive support and arguments in support of Waddell’s favored driveway, presented by Commissioner Dave Potter, the Commission voted to allow the road despite its adverse impacts on CTP and its designation as ESHA. The Commission's approval of a private residential driveway through ESHA was patently illegal. Commissioner Potter argued that it was preferable to put the driveway through ESHA rather than a steeper hillside area suggested by staff, but Potter lacked any legal, planning or Coastal Act justification for his position.
On motions of approval related to the two homes, Commissioner Secord moved to eliminate the 2500-sq. ft. house size limit.
Commission Chair Meg Caldwell said that coastal staff had clearly made a connection and legal nexus between house size and assessment values, and the resulting adverse impacts on agricultural lands. Caldwell said, however, that she wasn’t sure that 2500-sq. ft. was the right number. “I would have no problem imposing the 4000-sq. ft. limit, which includes over 88% of all the houses in the region,” Caldwell concluded.
Nevertheless, the Commission voted 7-3 to abandon any size limits on monster houses, with Commissioners Secord, Iseman, Haddad, Wright, Peters, Potter and
Reilly against limits, while Commissioners Shallenberger, Caldwell and Wan would have considered limits further.
Commissioner Secord then moved on the Waddell project to reject the staff’s preferred house location in order to allow the developer to choose house site. Commissioner Iseman stated that she too supported the developer since he had “invested lots of time to choose the location.”
Commissioner Iseman’s remarks drew rebuke from Commissioner Mary Shallenberger, who reminded the Commission that it is not the mandate of the Commission to protect the owner’s favored building location. Instead, the Commission is charged with protecting coastal resources. Commissioner Sharon Wright then said that since the owners wanted to place the house in the least desirable agricultural soils that the developer’s preferred house site was best. Coastal staff then reminded the Commission that the soils analysis provided by the developer was “not compelling” and that the entire property was prime agricultural soils.
On the placement of the Waddell house, the Commission rejected their staff analysis on a 6-4 vote, with Commissioners Peters, Caldwell, Wan and
Shallenberger supporting staff and Commissioners Potter, Reilly, Secord, Iseman, Haddad and Wright supporting the developer.
Commissioner Sara Wan, not willing to let the house size limits die, then motioned for a limit of 4,000-sq. ft. on the houses. Commissioner Potter challenged Wan and Caldwell to describe how such a limit would protect agriculture. Chairwoman Caldwell stated, “I’m basing my support for reasonable limits on staff’s analysis and the concern over the ramping up of land values in the area which undermines agricultural viability.”
As to the motion to limit house size to 4,000-sq. ft., Commissioners Wan, Shallenberger and Caldwell were in support and Commissioners Reilly, Secord, Potter, Iseman, Haddad, Wright and Peters voted against, and the motion failed 7-3.
On the crucial vote to ignore the Coastal Act and allow Waddell to construct a 3,000-sq. ft. long private residential driveway through CTP ESHA, only four Commissioners sided with the Coastal Act (Reilly, Shallenberger, Wan and Caldwell) while six Commissioners voted for the road (Secord, Haddad, Wright, Iseman, Peters and Potter).
See You Next Month,
Mark Massara
mark.massara@sierraclub.org
The Commission’s decision-making process regarding the two proposals was marked by aggressive concern for protection of agriculture, aggressive disregard for imposing any limits on the size of mansions and the adverse impact those monster homes have on rural agricultural land values, and a flagrant decision to allow a private driveway through ESHA that is patently illegal under the Coastal Act.
The positive step taken by the Coastal Commission to protect agricultural lands on the California coastline required the use of affirmative, permanent agricultural easements that were required to be established to insure the long-term viability of the agricultural operations on the properties. Thus, even if Polacek and Waddell do not wish to continue farming themselves, they are required now, by law, to lease their lands to other farmers to insure the agricultural lands outside the residential building area on each parcel remain actively farmed. Such requirements had never been included in a coastal development permit before.
The second important step taken by the Commission was to require that all residential development on each property be contained within a 10,000 sq. ft. "development envelope" insuring that the vast majority of each farm will remain solely for agricultural purposes. The limited residential building envelope for agricultural lands was also a precedent established by the Commission that will enhance future protection of agricultural lands throughout coastal California.
The efforts to establish protections for agricultural operations were welcomed by most.
Commissioner Mike Reilly, a Sonoma County Supervisor, said that in Sonoma there are about one million acres of agricultural operations, and that nearly all of them in the coastal zone are in his Supervisorial District. Reilly also referenced his discussions with counterparts in Marin over the problems associated with wealthy individuals buying coastal agricultural parcels who do not wish to farm but instead desire trophy homes. “The challenge, to me, is that when people like this buy these properties, how do you continue to insure these lands are farmed. Staff has moved the ball way down the field here, in terms of affirmatively requiring future agricultural operations on the land, regardless of if the owner wants to do it or not. Second, staff’s use of the building envelope is very helpful in protecting the balance of the agricultural lands on the parcel. This will send a message to the economic marketplace that we intend to protect agricultural lands.”
Only Commissioner Dave Potter disagreed. Potter argued, “What are we doing here, requiring Mrs. Polacek to set up a roadside stand on Highway #1 and sell tomatoes and cucumbers?”
From there the Commission erred in at least two other crucial respects.
First, the Commission refused to impose any limits whatsoever on the size of the Polacek and Waddell homes, insuring that rural and agricultural areas throughout California will continue to be battered with proposals for mansions, private castles and vastly oversized trophy homes designed to impress passersby perhaps more than create functional living spaces. Despite the fact that local officials from San Mateo County admitted that they have no plans to limit the size of home proposals and that such limits are unlikely to be devised in the future, and despite the fact that it is well established that monster homes and their adverse economic impact on agricultural areas negatively affect farming values, the Commission decided to ignore their staff recommendations, farmers and environmentalists and align themselves instead with millionaires on house size. Coastal staff had recommended that the homes be allowed to be the average size of rural homes along this stretch of coast, which are 2500-sq. ft in size.
Commissioner Dan Secord, who is a Santa Barbara City Council member, argued that the Commission should never limit house size, and that house size is a matter better left to local government. Secord would have a better argument if any local government had ever adopted such a limit.
Coastal staff, and Commission General Counsel Ralph Faust, attempted to explain to Secord that both the Coastal Act and the San Mateo County LCP require and mandate that rural agricultural lands be protected, and that the pressures to convert such farms to large mansions not only eliminates the farm in question but also creates an economic dynamic which results in neighboring farms being driven from business as well.
Secord called the explanations “tangential.” Secord concluded that he could appreciate the usefulness in limiting development envelope size, but on limits on house size.
Brian Baird of the Resources Agency, who serves on the Commission as a representative for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, also criticized the attempt of coastal staff to limit house size and said that it would establish a precedent.
Executive Director Peter Douglas then said that if the Commission did nothing to stem the proliferation of monster homes, that that too would form a precedent- a bad precedent.
The Commission’s greatest blunder, however, was reserved for the Waddell parcel. The Waddell parcel is 153-acres that includes over 88-acres of extremely rare native coastal terrace prairie (CTP) grasses. Waddell sought permission to construct a 3,000-ft long private driveway through the CTP. CTP is dense, tall grasslands comprised of California oatgrass, purple needlegrass, rattail fescue, quaking grass, tall fescue and rattlesnake grass, as well as other non-grass species such as western rush, sun cups, soap plant, annual lupine, and California poppy, among others.
California has lost more than 99% of its native grasslands, mostly due to conversion of habitat for development and agriculture. Coastal staff therefore correctly identified the CTP on the Waddell parcel as environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), which by law is required to be protected.
Waddell’s 3,000-ft long private residential driveway across the entire parcel was proposed to go right through the middle of the CTP ESHA. Coastal staff suggested an alternate road route that would have avoided the CTP. Another possibility was that the house could have been moved closer to Highway #1.
The Commission would have none of it. Following the aggressive support and arguments in support of Waddell’s favored driveway, presented by Commissioner Dave Potter, the Commission voted to allow the road despite its adverse impacts on CTP and its designation as ESHA. The Commission's approval of a private residential driveway through ESHA was patently illegal. Commissioner Potter argued that it was preferable to put the driveway through ESHA rather than a steeper hillside area suggested by staff, but Potter lacked any legal, planning or Coastal Act justification for his position.
On motions of approval related to the two homes, Commissioner Secord moved to eliminate the 2500-sq. ft. house size limit.
Commission Chair Meg Caldwell said that coastal staff had clearly made a connection and legal nexus between house size and assessment values, and the resulting adverse impacts on agricultural lands. Caldwell said, however, that she wasn’t sure that 2500-sq. ft. was the right number. “I would have no problem imposing the 4000-sq. ft. limit, which includes over 88% of all the houses in the region,” Caldwell concluded.
Nevertheless, the Commission voted 7-3 to abandon any size limits on monster houses, with Commissioners Secord, Iseman, Haddad, Wright, Peters, Potter and
Reilly against limits, while Commissioners Shallenberger, Caldwell and Wan would have considered limits further.
Commissioner Secord then moved on the Waddell project to reject the staff’s preferred house location in order to allow the developer to choose house site. Commissioner Iseman stated that she too supported the developer since he had “invested lots of time to choose the location.”
Commissioner Iseman’s remarks drew rebuke from Commissioner Mary Shallenberger, who reminded the Commission that it is not the mandate of the Commission to protect the owner’s favored building location. Instead, the Commission is charged with protecting coastal resources. Commissioner Sharon Wright then said that since the owners wanted to place the house in the least desirable agricultural soils that the developer’s preferred house site was best. Coastal staff then reminded the Commission that the soils analysis provided by the developer was “not compelling” and that the entire property was prime agricultural soils.
On the placement of the Waddell house, the Commission rejected their staff analysis on a 6-4 vote, with Commissioners Peters, Caldwell, Wan and
Shallenberger supporting staff and Commissioners Potter, Reilly, Secord, Iseman, Haddad and Wright supporting the developer.
Commissioner Sara Wan, not willing to let the house size limits die, then motioned for a limit of 4,000-sq. ft. on the houses. Commissioner Potter challenged Wan and Caldwell to describe how such a limit would protect agriculture. Chairwoman Caldwell stated, “I’m basing my support for reasonable limits on staff’s analysis and the concern over the ramping up of land values in the area which undermines agricultural viability.”
As to the motion to limit house size to 4,000-sq. ft., Commissioners Wan, Shallenberger and Caldwell were in support and Commissioners Reilly, Secord, Potter, Iseman, Haddad, Wright and Peters voted against, and the motion failed 7-3.
On the crucial vote to ignore the Coastal Act and allow Waddell to construct a 3,000-sq. ft. long private residential driveway through CTP ESHA, only four Commissioners sided with the Coastal Act (Reilly, Shallenberger, Wan and Caldwell) while six Commissioners voted for the road (Secord, Haddad, Wright, Iseman, Peters and Potter).
See You Next Month,
Mark Massara
mark.massara@sierraclub.org
Posted: Mon - May 30, 2005 at 12:05 PM