California CoastWatcher, June 2005 



California CoastWatcher
June 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 in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, on June 7-10, 2005.

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 17,000 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.

Del Monte Forest News. On June 10 Monterey County formally notified and transferred to the California Coastal Commission documents related to their approval of Pebble Company’s proposal to cut down 17,000 trees for golf and mansions. Send your appeal to the Coastal Commission now (within ten days), and the read the latest news at Monterey Herald. For more information, call Dan Carl at the Coastal Commission at #831-427-4863.

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

To join Sierra Club’s Great Coastal Places Campaign or to subscribe or review past issues of California CoastWatcher or learn more about coastal destruction and protection in California, go to www.sierraclub.org/ca/coasts.


QUOTES:

“By the law of nature these things are common to mankind--the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore . . . ”
-The Justinian Institutes, A.D. 535. For a story on CoastWalk, and their efforts to encourage public beach access in California, go to MetroActive in Sonoma. For more information on CoastWalk, go to www.coastwalk.org



“I’m pleased to put this episode behind us. Now we can move on.”
-Bruce Russell, Ocean Colony Partners, announcing that the operators of the Half Moon Bay golf course (located adjacent to the Ritz Carlton Resort) had agreed to remove an illegal rock seawall and permanently move the 18th golf hole to avoid further ruination of the public beach. For the story, go to Coastsider. For more photos, go to www.californiacoastline.org

“There is no such thing as a private beach in the State of California.”
-Steve Hoye, Director, Access for All, announcing the official opening of the public accessway to Carbon Beach (aka “Billionaire’s Beach”), which had been obstructed by businessman David Geffen for two decades. The Geffen path marks the opening of one of Malibu’s most difficult to reach beaches, and is the only vertical entry point to the shore for a distance of 3.6-miles. Read the story in the Malibu Times

“In our society, people of ordinary sensibility should recognize, without intervention of a criminal proscription, that a public official is a trustee and that it is wrong for such a trustee to engage in self-dealing, including the contingent feathering of one's own nest.”
-Presiding Justice Judith McConnell, 4th District California Court of Appeal, in a decision involving former Coastal Commissioner David Malcolm, finding that Malcolm had violated conflict of interest laws by serving as a San Diego Port Commissioner while at the same time working for Duke Energy and securing for them long-term, lucrative energy contracts in the Port of San Diego. The story was covered in the San Diego Union Tribune.

“I’m speechless…I can’t believe the Commission is so impotent. I can’t believe we can’t move more quickly and that the public beach will be lost for the summer.”
-Coastal Commissioner Mary Shallenberger, expressing disbelief on June 10 at the action of homeowners along Broad Beach in Malibu following their bulldozing of the public beach. Shallenberger’s comments came after Coastal staff explained that it would be unlikely that any beach restoration would occur before the end of the summer, because environmental studies will now have to be conducted in order to avoid further damaging the beach with needed restoration efforts. (See story below in News Briefs. For more stories and lots of photos scroll down below CoastWatcher.)

“It's like one step forward and one step back. When are we going to get some consistency? Is he really green or not?”
-Bill Allayaud, Director, Sierra Club California, assessing the mixed environmental record of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who received an environmental rating of 58% from the California League of Conservation Voters in 2004 (www.ecovote.org). For the latest news story go to Infozine.


“Peter Douglas has consistently stood his ground. He's done it with great consistency and without deference to either political party. In the process, he has infuriated nearly everyone at one time or another. Yet he is still there.”
-Rusty Areias, former state assemblyman and Chair of the Coastal Commission from 1997-1999, referring to Peter Douglas, celebrating 20 years as Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission. Douglas, author of both the 1972 California Coastal Protection Initiative and the 1976 California Coastal Act, is the most renowned and experience coastal planner in the United States. Read about Douglas’s impact on coastal politics and protection in California and what developers think about it in the SD Union-Tribune.

“My visit to the Montage was deplorable.”
-Joel Widzer, MSNBC, explaining disappointments galore with his visits to several high-end oceanfront luxury resorts (including the Montage Resort in Laguna Beach), in Orange County, occasionally referred to by their owner’s as the “Pacific Riviera.” http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8221003/

“Just because the cellular companies are under tremendous market pressure from their consumers to provide a seamless network of cell sites quickly, that doesn't mean that they can ignore the legitimate concerns of the residents, the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission and their obligation to protect and preserve the California coastline.”
-Cris Armenta, an attorney for homeowners along Holyoke Drive in Pacific Palisades, who are fighting recent upermitted expansion of cellular towers in their neighborhood. Read about it in the Palisadian-Post newspaper.



WEBSITES, NEWS BRIEFS & NOTES:

Huge Earthquake Rattles Northcoast. On June 13 a 7.0 magnitude earthquake located 91 miles off Humboldt County caused fears of a tsunami and evacuations in Trinidad. More on the story in the Eureka Times Standard.

Massive Landslide Crushes Homes in Laguna Beach. On June 1 a devastating landslide in Laguna Beach’s Bluebird Canyon destroyed over 18 homes and required another 350 to be evacuated. For the story, photos and video news clips go to the LA Times. More news and commentary at Earth Times.

Broad Beach Snafu. Not content being upstaged by David Geffen and recent events involving new public access at Carbon Beach in Malibu, celebrity homeowners at Broad Beach last week began grading the lower beach tidal area, excavating a 1-mile long area of the lower beach, and piling all the publicly owned sand up onto the higher, privately owned beach area. It isn’t altogether clear why the homeowners undertook this unpermitted action, but it is without doubt that it was illegal, that it has dramatically affected public beach access, and that it caused massive destruction of environmental resources along the shoreline. Photos show grading in the surf zone, with an effort to scoop sand from the public zone and placing it in the privately owned area. Intertidal sand is habitat for a variety of organisms, while the upland rack is habitat for shorebirds and insects. In addition, Grunion runs at Broad Beach have also been impacted. Their eggs were destroyed during the grading, and their habitat has been ruined for the season. For one of many news stories, go to the SF Chronicle. For photos, and an LA Times story and editorial, scroll down about two feet.

Free The Beach! Did you know that before 1950 most beaches in Southern California were “white only” beaches where blacks and other people of color were unwelcome? And did you know that many restrictive beach access techniques persist today, and while designed generally to facilitate the private beach goals of wealthy neighbors, they tend to unfairly discriminate against low-income minority community beach access opportunities. When it comes to going to the beach, it is important to know your rights, and the Center for Law in the Public Interest (www.clipi.org) and Surfrider Foundation (www.surfrider.org) are seeking to help with their report on Public Access, Equal Justice and the California Coast at http://www.clipi.org/blog/archives/97 Typically, Malibu City officials whined that the report was unfair and incorrect. And Malibu Mayor Jeff Jennings, to whom numerous inflammatory comments against public beach access have been attributed, claimed that a reference to him in the report was also unfair. For that PR, go to the Malibu Times.

Commission Approves Border Sewer Upgrades. The Coastal Commission last week approved a plan by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) to expand and upgrade sewage treatment for the City of Tijuana and the Tijuana River. The plan is to build a second treatment plant that can take primary sewage from an existing plant, as well as treat other waste effluent to a secondary degree, with the discharge at the South Bay Outfall (on the US side of the border) being increased from 25 mgd to 59 mgd. It is hoped that the scheme will reduce beach closures in Imperial Beach and Coronado, which are among the most polluted beaches in the US. For the story go to the SD Tribune. To download the Coastal staff report, go to IBWC.



Sand Barge Offshore Ocean Beach, San Francisco, June 2005

San Francisco Begins Beach Nourishment Experiment. Over the course of the last couple of weeks the US Army Corps of Engineers and San Francisco Port authorities have dumped 300,000 cubic yards of sand in nearshore ocean waters off the SF Zoo in an effort to reduce erosion, restore sand dunes and eliminate the need for future seawalls. The sand, which comes from the dredging of shallow bars located three miles offshore, has for years simply been dumped far offshore. Scientists will now monitor the recently placed sand in order to determine the success of the project. For the story, go to the SF Chronicle.

Todos Santos Dunes Need Your Help. Coastal activists in Baja Sur, Mexico are asking for assistance with their fight to stop up to 75 homes proposed for some of the largest, most sensitive sand dunes on the Baja Peninsula. You can learn about the project, see photos and provide important help by signing a petition at http://www.todossantos.cc/dunedevelopmenttodossantos.html

Tell Gov. Schwarzenegger You Oppose LNG. Click here in order to send a message to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that you support development of clean energy resources and oppose industrialization of California’s coastal resources for new liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals.

Another Highrise Beach Hotel Proposed for Santa Cruz. Barely a month after defeat of the Coast Hotel in Santa Cruz, developers have unveiled a 7-story, 124-room hotel/conference center project called La Bahia Hotel. For the story, go to the Santa Cruz Sentinel, which immediately (even before the project was submitted to the City for environmental review) editorialized in favor of the project.



Opal Cliffs/41st Ave., Santa Cruz 1941 Covello & Covello Photography

Want To See Old Time Photos of Santa Cruz? If you want to see how Santa Cruz used to look, back before the coastline was lined with mansions, seawalls and tourist attractions go to http://covellocovello.com/gallery/historical Some really great pics!

San Diegans Rally to Save Ponto Beach. Less than a month after secret plans by City of Carlsbad officials to develop Ponto Beach became public, thousands of coastal activists are pulling together to defeat the ill-conceived plan to build more houses and hotels in north county San Diego. Join the effort to save Ponto Beach at http://www.pontoaction.com/index.aspx See photos and call to action poster below.



Middle Pontos, 2002 
 
 
South Ponto, 2002 




Coastal Photography Contest. Submit your favorite coastal photos for fun, fame and prizes. Deadline July 8, 2005. Read about the contest and all the rules at http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/localnews/ci_2774171 and www.coast4u@coastal.ca.gov or call 1-800-COAST4U.

Taxpayers Fight Bush Energy Bill. Taxpayers across are coming together to oppose the Bush Administration’s Energy Bill, a multi-billion dollar giveaway to oil and energy corporations. Join the fight at www.taxpayer.net

Ethics Training. This month Coastal Commission legal counsel Ralph Faust and Amy Roach presented members of the Coastal Commission with a lengthy, detailed workshop on conflict of interest, bias and ethics requirements. Those materials are now on the web at conflict workshop. Go learn the rules of the game.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

CONTENTS:

1. COMMISSION NARROWLY APPROVES UPZONING FOR 20 HOUSES IN ESHA IN SAN DIEGO
2. COMMISSION REJECTS REQUEST TO GIVE AWAY A PUBLIC BEACH TRAIL IN LA JOLLA
3. COMMISSION REJECTS PLOY TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT IN CAMBRIA; APPROVES PLAN FOR NEW WATER TANKS FOR FIRE FIGHTING WHILE PROTECTING MONTEREY PINES AND INSURING WATER CONSERVATION
4. COMMISSION SENDS FORGE HOTEL PROJECT IN MALIBU BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1. COMMISSION NARROWLY APPROVES UPZONING FOR 20 HOUSES IN ESHA IN SAN DIEGO

On June 8 the Coastal Commission deliberated a plan submitted by the City of San Diego on behalf of developers that would change the zoning of one of last wild canyons in the Mira Mesa area to allow for 20 homes.

The parcel, known as Sunset Pointe, is 37-acres in size and was zoned for just 3 homes. The canyon, which has been partially degraded and disturbed, is largely environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). ESHA is legally protected under the Coastal Act.

Coastal staff recommended the Commission approve an alternative development plan that would have allowed 9 houses.

After much discussion, Commissioner Mary Shallenberger challenged her fellow Commissioners to stop debating weather to allow 9 or 20 homes and instead to focus on their legal mandate- the need to protect ESHA. Why, Shallenberger said, aren’t we just allowing 3 houses?

Commissioner Scott Peters (a member of the San Diego City Council) moved for approval of the developer’s project (20 homes). Commissioner Patrick Kruer, also a resident of San Diego, seconded Peters’ motion.

Not all the members of the Commission were as comfortable with the project.

Commissioner Dan Secord said, “ESHA seems to have certain value in the Coastal Act, and housing has a lower value. We’re required to minimize the disruption of ESHA. 9-lots disturbs less, yet no development at all would disturb it even less. I’m having trouble finding a way to support building these homes…”

Commissioner Mike Reilly said, “The advice counsel has given us regarding ESHA is the same as last month when we approved the private road/driveway through ESHA. We haven’t done the analysis of ESHA and alternatives that would satisfy me that we’ve fully evaluated minimizing ESHA. If it is really that sensitive of an area, we need to look at all the alternatives.”

Commissioner Peters then addressed Commissioner Shallenberger’s concerns. “What we’re trying to do is minimize development of houses on every mesa, and minimize fragmentation of habitat. We are trying to clear the other mesa from building entitlements in order to protect ESHA. To do that we have to allow for the concentration of development on the other mesa. It will be impossible to explain why we approved the “highly visible” alternative if we approve the staff recommendation.”

Commissioner Shallenberger then responded that, “It strikes me that two of the Coastal Act policies we’re balancing here are visuals and ESHA. I believe that the protection of ESHA is a priority and must be given more weight in balancing. Even staff’s 9-lot subdivision balances better for ESHA than the developer’s 20-lot subdivision.”

Commissioner Sara Wan agreed. “I want to point out just the numbers on ESHA. You have a greater area disturbed by developers’ alternative and therefore greater ESHA edge effects that degrade more habitat. The protection of ESHA is paramount over views or the need or desire for more housing.”

Commissioner Patrick Kruer defended the project, saying “In regard to this project, after walking it, there is no question in my mind that staff’s 9-lot alternative will create houses pasted to the side of the canyon, cascading down, and will cause tremendous visual impacts and a water quality runoff nightmare. This isn’t even a close call.”

Commissioner Toni Iseman also supported the project. “We’re forgetting public safety. To drag people down a canyon and put people closer to wilderness creates danger. This fewer houses alternative (coastal staff’s recommendation) ultimately will have greater environmental impacts.”

Commission Dave Potter supported the project as well. “I’m going to support the motion; there is no disputing the fact that both alternatives have ESHA impacts. The 20-lot proposal does minimize risk to life and property by concentrating development, which also will reduce visual impacts.”

Commission Chair Meg Caldwell said, “Looking over the staff report and the findings it is clear to me that neither the 9-lot or 20-lot subdivision are most protective of coastal resources, and neither minimize impacts to ESHA. I can’t support either. It is obvious that some economic use of the property is possible, although that may not protect ESHA either. But I agree with Commissioner Reilly that we can’t make the findings on either of these proposals.”

With that the Commission voted 6-5 to approve the developer’s version of the project, with Commissioners Peters, Potter, Iseman, Kruer, Burke and Neeley in support of the most possible development and Commissioner’s Secord, Reilly, Wan, Shallenberger and Caldwell against.


2. COMMISSION REJECTS REQUEST TO GIVE AWAY A PUBLIC BEACH TRAIL IN LA JOLLA

After years of fighting off enforcement of numerous Coastal Act violations and the animosity of his neighbors, Ure Kretowicz finally found himself in front of the Coastal Commission last week.

Kretowicz owns an oceanfront palace at 7957 Princess Street in downtown La Jolla, overlooking world famous La Jolla Cove and La Jolla Cove’s Underwater Park. You can see the Kretowicz house front and center at www.cacoast.org/200407801



Kretowicz home, in middle on bluff edge, 2004

In the hearing, Kretowicz sought to resolve the Coastal Act violations by removing some of them, but also to win permission to expand his house further and to extinguish a public beach access trail that used to run alongside his home (until he blocked it off).

The Kretowicz beach trail is a vertical Accessway and the home’s south side, meaning it is one of the most rare, most valuable types of access, the kind that leads the public from public streets directly to the sandy shore. And in the Kretowicz matter, the accessway is even more important since it is the only way to reach the pocket beaches known as “Devil’s Slide” and “Pebble Beach.”

The controversy spans nearly 30 years.

A previous owner of the site won permission to build a home on top of a public viewpoint and beach access trail in 1978. That decision resulted in a lawsuit by La Jolla activists, in which the Court remanded the case back to the Commission for protection of beach access. Meanwhile, the owner built the house on top of the viewpoint anyway. Later the Commission ordered that an access trail be established an offer to dedicate (OTD) deed restriction protecting access be filed.

The owner never recorded the access trail easement and subsequently Kretowicz acquired the house. Today the house is valued in excess of $10 million dollars.

Kretowicz’s lawyer said that no legal public access exists on the site, since the property owner started building the house prior to the Commission ordering the trail be protected. The lawyer maintained that even if there were access, that it should be extinguished because it is too steep and dangerous. Kretowicz offered the Commission $10,000 to extinguish the multi-million dollar trail.

The lawyer’s testimony was then undermined by evidence showing that Kretowicz and his family and friends use the trail.

Commission General Counsel Ralph Faust scoffed at the suggestion that the public access trail does not exist. Faust said, “The property owner chose to build the house to build on top of the historic public access area before the Commission had concluded it’s deliberation of the matter. That was his choice…and his risk. The state Commission then found that an alternative accessway must be developed in order to mitigate the loss of the historic one. The current owner says it is too steep. Yet this Commission already concluded decades ago that public access could be provided safely at this location.”

Faust continued, “Those findings made 20 yrs ago are still valid today. The applicant back then did not challenge the findings and they are binding. All the arguments made today were made 20 years ago and rejected.”

Faust went on, “Private homeowners in Corona Del Mar and elsewhere create stairways in excess of 45 degrees, but that issue of safety doesn’t have to be resolved today. Under the circumstances either the property owner accepted the original permit by building and living in the house for decades or did not, in which case the entire house is unpermitted.”

Commissioner Dan Secord then said, “I believe attorney Faust’s explanation was thorough and persuasive and I move for staff.”

Commissioner Bonnie Neeley seconded Secord’s motion.

Commissioner Secord continued, “The question you must ask yourself is if you want to tear down vertical access and no one wants that.”

Commissioner Patrick Kruer went on, “Any vertical access is better than no access at all. Some of the improvements built already have created some of the problems. I think there is no way we can sit here as Commissioners and remove a vertical Accessway; they are all important.

Commissioner Sara Wan said, “The issue here is this is a vertical Accessway, those are the gems and we have so few of them. The legal record is clear, there was historical public access on this site and it would be really wrong for the Commission to extinguish this now. It is the reason we exist as a Commission.

Commissioner Mike Reilly asked staff, “If this was so important, what happened in terms of follow up? Why didn’t we do anything all these years?”

Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas told the Commission, “We do not yet have an accepting entity (The City of San Diego supported Kretowicz’s efforts to privatize the trail).

Commissioner Reilly then asked, “Do we have a legal accessway? Was the permit ever issued?”

General Counsel Ralph Faust replied, “It doesn’t make any difference…you can treat this either as an accepted permit by virtue of the owner building the house or an illegal, unpermitted home.”

Commissioner Reilly then asked, “What if it (the permit) expired?”

Deputy Attorney General Jamie Patterson then told the Commission, “The applicant was required to record the Offer To Dedicate (OTD) access before the permit would issue. He did not. You can view it as an illegal house.”

Commissioner Reilly then concluded, “I just don’t understand why this didn’t come up as a red flag issue earlier.”

Commissioner Mary Shallenberger then said, “I am concerned about this illegal house out there…this is a bigger concern.”

Commissioner Sara Wan then said, “All these issues are the result of and fault of the applicant.”

General Counsel Ralph Faust then addressed the Commission again, saying, “Any enforcement action the commission might take is a separate matter. The applicant has accepted the benefits of the permit, and has acknowledged in other proceedings that he has relied on the permit. The main issue here at this point is the access.”

Commissioner Wan then addressed the new development proposed by Kretowicz, and asked, “How close are the new developments to the public accessway? Will development of these items impede public access?”

Coastal staff informed the Commission that some of the blufftop development proposed by Kretowicz is just five feet from the historic trail. This caused alarm given that Kretowicz already complains about the public access and has blocked it off, yet continues to build ever closer to the trail.

Commissioner Wan continued: “You don’t even have a 10-ft. privacy buffer. Are we going to have future fencing and other requests? Why are we recommending new development in an area where the applicant already complains of privacy issues?”

Coastal staff then suggested that prior to issuance of any additional development that Kretowicz come back with plans showing the development and access, and perhaps even a split rail fence, and show the ultimate buildout plan.

Commissioner Wan concluded: “I am not prepared to vote for anything that might impact access.”

Commissioner William Burke then said, “I am perplexed here. Do I have a permit for a legal house or not. How can we approve additional development for a property where the original development is illegal? How can we justify that?”

Attorney Faust explained again the unique situation involving the Kretowicz property. “I advise that you handle this by saying that the applicant has accepted the benefit of the permit in fact. And now compliance is necessary.”

With assistance from staff, Commissioner Wan then moved to approve the project, and prohibit any development adjacent to the public trail. The Commission also required that prior to any development, Kretowicz file the long overdue Offer to Dedicate (OTD) public access across the bluff, and that it be shown on any future development plan.

The Commission then approved the project unanimously, with Commissioners Secord, Shallenberger, Neeley, Caldwell, Reilly, Kruer, Iseman, Wan, Burke, and Potter all in favor.


3. COMMISSION REJECTS PLOY TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT IN CAMBRIA; APPROVES PLAN FOR NEW WATER TANKS FOR FIRE FIGHTING WHILE PROTECTING MONTEREY PINES AND INSURING WATER CONSERVATION

The proposal by the Cambria Community Services District (CCSD) to build new water tanks for much needed new water storage capacity didn’t have to be so difficult. Everyone agreed that the small central coast seaside community set amongst spectacular but fire prone Monterey Pine trees needed new, bigger water storage tanks.

Yet because the CCSD insisted on unnecessarily building the new tanks in a Monterey Pine forest (“ESHA” habitat), on land already covered by a permanent deed easement requiring perpetual protection of the forest, and because the CCSD was insistent upon relaxing successful water conservation measures long in place, the small water project had become a political football, complete with lawsuits, injunctions, hysterical fire predictions and upwards of a million dollars spent on lawyers and lobbyists.

Over three years ago the CCSD was set to build the new water tanks, which would increase the water storage capacity for the town dramatically by replacing two existing 103,000-gallon tanks with two much larger ones.

Along the way however neighbors sued to prevent the tanks from being constructed in their vicinity and within their viewshed, so the CCSD decided to put them in the protected forest, against the wishes of forest owner Ralph Covell, who already had a permanent agreement with the The Nature Conservancy to protect it forever.

The CCSD also decided to make the tanks larger than necessary in order to help serve future growth and relax existing water conservation measures.

When the CCSD decided to go ahead in the forest without Coastal Commission approval (on an emergency basis) the State of California was forced to sue the CCSD and obtained a court ordered injunction preventing the CCSD from destroying Covell’s forest.

Yet no amount of negotiations could dissuade the CCSD from their plan to interfere with Covell’s forest, despite the fact there are numerous other, less environmentally damaging locations in which to place water tanks in and around Cambria.

Sierra Club, The Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo (“ECOSLO”) and property owner Ralph Covell all appealed the project to the Commission.

Coastal staff, unable to convince the CCSD to examine alternative locations for the tanks, was forced to hire an independent engineering firm to prove the feasibility of other locations.

The coastal staff report and analysis of the project and their recommendations is at www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/6-2005-Th10a.pdf

Essentially, coastal staff and the appellants argued that the CCSD’s preferred location, called Pine Knolls, could be utilized for the tanks if the tanks were only smaller, and that regardless there are other locations just as suitable throughout town. In any event, using Covell’s property and/or destroying Monterey Pine forest for the new tanks was unnecessary and illegal under the Coastal Act.

As to the size of the tanks, the CCSD sought two 550,000-gallon tanks, which would provide for 20% more water than needed and include a 50% greater water use for all existing and future users, what the CCSD called a “quality of life” increase, but one that could also fuel new development in the town.

Coastal staff recommended that the tanks store no more than 934,000-gallons of water, and that existing water conservation measures be kept in place.

Following the public hearing, Commissioner Mary Shallenberger said, “I am confident that staff has done good work here and that alternative sites exist which can protect the need to increase water storage capacity and protect ESHA. Similarly the project should be limited in size so as not to undermine water conservation efforts or fuel new sprawl and population increase. I agree with staff that the Coastal Act is very clear that we must protect ESHA where feasible. Nothing the district has said or presented here demonstrates that it is not feasible to protect the ESHA that here is threatened. Moreover, the mitigation proposed by the CCSD (which included a new conservation easement on Monterey Pine forest elsewhere) is not acceptable- taking ESHA covered by a conservation easement and simply putting a new easement on other forest ESHA still results in a loss of ESHA.”

Commissioner Toni Iseman opposed staff and supported the CCSD: “I come from Laguna Beach - “the community of disasters” - we fought over a water tank and delayed and had a fire. We now have the tank where it was originally proposed and environmentalists are blamed for the fire. We have 25,000 residents and 3 million visitors annually. For us to suggest that coastal communities encourage visitors yet not provide enough water creates an interesting situation. Maybe we have to close our communities to visitors. Yesterday we decided that houses would go along the road and not down the hill (“Sunset Point” San Diego, See Item No. 1, above). We always regret what happens when we get our pencils out and don’t leave design to the experts. I am ready to approve this – I am also sympathetic to the landowner but if we delay today it is our fault.”

Commissioner Patrick Kruer supported staff. “The experts tell us that alternative sites are feasible. Planning is a key problem here. Everyone recognizes the need to provide water for fire protection. Staff is offering a great deal of cooperation. The CCSD is getting a doubling of your capacity, a 450% increase in water capacity. This is a failure of long range planning and is self-inflicted. Why fight for 530% increase to 1.1 million gallons when we’ll give u so much already? These delays could be stopped and you could go forward if you would just be reasonable. I am supporting staff. We as a commission have a legal duty to protect that ESHA. Lack of planning and continued fighting will cause the problem to get worse.”

Commissioner Sara Wan agreed: “I have lived thru two bad fires in which my house was partially burned down in one. I am sympathetic, however ample evidence exists that you can do this project on the site without impacting ESHA.”

Commissioner Dan Secord responded, “I agree with Commissioner Kruer and I move to support staff.”

Commissioner Dave Potter then said, “None of us here are plumbers last time I checked. Would you have to re-pipe the town if you put the tanks elsewhere? “

A representative of the CCSD then said that the larger pipes in town currently go to the Pine Knolls site.

Commissioner Potter then continued, “re-piping would then have additional impacts on ESHA. For that reason I support the CCSD and oppose the motion.”

On the vote Commissioners Burke, Neeley, Reilly, Secord, Shallenberger, Wan, Caldwell and Kruer supported coastal staff, Sierra Club and protecting the ESHA. The prevailing Commissioners have now made it possible for the new, larger water tanks to be constructed. Ironically, Commissioners Iseman, Potter and Kram (who supported the CCSD) voted against any water tanks or construction, which (had they prevailed) would have allowed tank construction prior to the upcoming fire season.

The project was approved as modified to protect ESHA on an 8-3 vote.

A couple of local news stories in the San Luis Obispo Tribune can be found here and here

4. COMMISSION SENDS FORGE HOTEL PROJECT IN MALIBU BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD

Coastal staff began story with an understatement: “This project has a very long and somewhat tortured history.”

Called “Forge Lodge,” the project was ostensibly a proposal to amend an existing permit for a shopping center and parking garage to allow a 27-unit hotel, reduce parking to 94 ground level spaces and restore a previously required public access trail across the property.

But, alas, nothing in Malibu is ever quite what it seems.

The property is a strategic and spectacular site, located along Solstice Creek at 26025 Pacific Coast Highway, at the terminus of Coral Canyon Road. It lies below National Park Service property (for the next 3-miles up the creek) and above and adjacent to County Beach on west side.



Solstice Creek, 1972


Solstice Creek, 2004

Solstice Creek is historic steelhead creek, and over $2 million has been recently spent trying improving the creek, restoring habitat, repairing culverts and building a fish ladder under PCH. Solstice Creek is one of the few year-around streams in Malibu and up until PCH was constructed in the 1940’s, steelhead trout used to call Solstice Creek home.

In addition, Solstice Creek used to go right through the Forge property, where parking lot and restaurant are now located.

Previously a project was approved at the site for shopping center, a 117 car parking structure and restaurant in 1989. In addition, open space and a public access OTD, and a 50-ft setback for riparian buffer were required.

The permit was amended in 1990 from shopping center to 8-uint Bed & Breakfast. The restaurant was expanded. The parking structure was never built. Neither was the Bed & Breakfast.

Meanwhile, a host of other, unpermitted developments have been constructed on the site, including numerous sheds, trailers, and debris. Perhaps worst, the owners are operating an unpermitted livestock operation with approximately 100 goats, which have managed to destroy ESHA in a riparian area adjacent to the creek.

Further, sensitive archaeology and cultural sites on the property have been disturbed and destroyed.

Water quality issues also plague the property, as was abundantly clear when paints were poured down drains on the Forge property and flowed directly onto the beach.

Sierra Club has a lawsuit pending against the property and the numerous unpermitted developments on the property.

Coastal staff initially recommended approval of the project despite lack of a grading plan, a drainage plan, an archaeology plan or adequate parking. The staff report is at www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/6-2005-F7a.pdf. However, prior to the start of the meeting and in the face of numerous defects associated with the project, staff changed their recommendation and urged the matter be continued and put off.

Project proponents and opponents gathered at the Coastal Commission meeting on June 10 to argue the project. Malibu development advocates, as usual, did themselves no favors by disrupting the meeting with obscenities and reckless conduct, including battering environmentalists by pouring water all over them. Commission Vice-Chair Patrick Kruer was forced to stop the meeting and Deputy Attorney General Dan Olivas was able to intervene and restore order before members of the public had to resort to defending themselves.

Forge representatives said that they had started out seeking 32-units in 8 separate structures and had reduced the project to 27-units in just seven buildings, so that the Commission should welcome the project. They also said the project would result in a much needed re-alignment of the public access trail, which the Forge’s had deliberately put in the creek in 1989 in order to discourage public access.

Coastal staff said the project was also improved through riparian setbacks of 100-ft instead of the 50-ft originally recommended by Forge. However, Sierra Club was able to effectively argue through photographs that crucial riparian areas, including large sycamore trees on the property, were left unprotected by the project.

Although supporters complained, Forge had already pledged to the City to partially fund a new traffic light at PCH.

Commissioner Mike Reilly summarized the discussion by saying, “We need ESHA delineated; we need resolution of weather this is a hotel or a bed & breakfast because that will impact allowable grading on the site; the proposed project must cure all Coastal Act violations; the project must restore ESHA degraded by illegal activities on the site, and; archaeology and cultural studies need to be performed and we need to insure the development will not harm those sites, and; we need to insure the adequacy of grading and drainage plans.

Commissioner Sara Wan was even more specific: “What is the appropriate ESHA definition here? The question is not what is ESHA today but what was ESAH before the goats and other violations. How have these violations impacted ESHA? I am really disturbed about the goats. Another issue is water quality. Also archaeology -we should do these studies before construction. What if a phase III archaeology study is necessary? You cannot do a phase II study while you construct the project.”

Commissioner Mary Shallenberger continued: “I want more specifics… I want to know that there has been a governmental communication with Native Chumash Representatives. Wishtoyo Foundation representatives are here and they should be consulted. This must happen in an open and respectful manner.” (For more information, see www.wishtoyo.org)

With that the Commission voted unanimously to continue the matter in order that additional studies and analysis can be completed.

Enjoy July 4 at the Beach!
Mark Massara
mark.massara@sierraclub.org 

Posted: Fri - June 17, 2005 at 12:47 PM          

©