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
CoastWatcher July 2005
California
CoastWatcher
July 2005
July 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 Mission Beach, San Diego County, on July 13-15, 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
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.
COASTAL COMMISSION IS LEGAL!
The long awaited California Supreme Court decision in Marine Forest Society v. California Coastal Commission (to download the entire decision, go to http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S113466.PDF>) finally issued on June 23 and the result is a victory for California’s coastal protection program and resounding defeat for MFS, the Pacific Legal Foundation and a raft of developers and their lawyers throughout California who had argued since 2002 that the composition of the Coastal Commission was unconstitutional, that the Commission was required to be disbanded and that 100,000 past Commission decisions should be overturned.
The underlying case itself was rather simple. MFS had constructed an unpermitted artificial reef composed of old tires, plastic and concrete debris (i.e. junk) off Newport Beach during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. After working with MFS for many years to try to permit the structure, which, among other things, was not engineered and was too close to the Santa Ana sewage outfall to produce any edible seafood, the Commission determined in the late 1990’s that the reef would have to be removed.
Rather than take the trash out of the ocean MFS brought a lawsuit in Sacramento. Worse, rather than decide the matter on the merits, the Superior Court in Sacramento decided that the 30-year old Commission violated the California Constitution’s “Separation of Powers Clause” since 8 of 12 Commissioners were appointed by the Legislature which --according to the Court -- undermined the Governor’s ability to control and manipulate the Coastal Commission (which is why the public supports the Commission in the first place).
A stunning setback then occurred in 2002 when the Third District Court of Appeal (a giant, sprawling, inland, 23-county Court that ironically is at no geographic point closer than 100-miles to the coast) found that the Coastal Commission was indeed unconstitutional. While the Court specifically found that the Coastal Act itself was legal, the Court found that the composition of the Commission was illegitimate since, in theory, the 8 Legislative appointments could gang up on and control the 4 Gubernatorial appointments on the Commission. In the end, the Appeal Court suggested the Commission’s unconstitutionality could be cured by simply requiring that the 8 Legislative appointments to the Commission be provided with 4-year fixed terms, while the Governor’s appointments could continue to serve “at the will” of the Governor (meaning they can be removed at any time if they deviate from the Governor’s political agenda).
Governor Gray Davis and the State Legislature moved immediately to amend the Coastal Act to enact the Court’s suggestion, and the 8 Legislative appointments to the Commission became 4-year fixed terms in 2004.
MFS and some developers weren’t satisfied. They continued to argue that the only way to “cure” the Coastal Commission was to require that ALL Commission appointments be handed over to the Governor. Their attempt to consolidate control over the Commission into a single entity was never more than a thinly veiled attempt to convert the Commission to a more “developer friendly” entity and thereby thwart and undermine the will of the voters and majority of Californians.
In the end MFS was reduced to little more than a straw-man representative for a small group of people and businesses for whom the citizen-enacted Coastal Act will never be valid. The disgruntled property rights fanatics presumably will continue to bring new and creative legal challenges to the nation’s strongest and most successful environmental law, even while they continue to accrue record profits associated with their development projects in the California Coastal Zone.
During the Supreme Court’s hearing on the case in April 2005 it was apparent that MFS was in trouble. The Court was not impressed with their argument, and it was clear the Justices were not supportive of the notion that the composition of the Commission was unconstitutional. Chief Judge Ron George was explicit that the Commission was not engaged in any apparent ‘executive function’ (i.e. creation of California’s budget) and so, why would the Commission’s deliberations over local government land use decisions be “interfering” with the Governor’s executive privilege? Other Supreme Court Justices were just as skeptical.
The Supreme Court’s deliberations resulted in a unanimous decision written by Chief Judge Ronald George on June 23 rejecting all claims by MFS. The decision is a huge victory not only for the Coastal Commission but also for the ability of citizen’s in California to enact laws and policies that protect our coast from the ravages of unrestricted development. One doesn’t have to look far to see the development mistakes- they are present in nearly every town. Instead, it is what you don’t see on the coast that reflects the many successes of the Coastal Act. The open beach, healthy coastal wilderness, and the ability to access it all makes California special and is the most important factor in California’s internationally recognized economic strength.
Numerous press stories regarding the Supreme Court victory have been published. Check out the Metropolitan-News Enterprise and The Daily Pilot and Democratic Press and Pt. Reyes Light and San Francisco Chronicle.
QUOTES:
“This bill was written by a bunch of self-interested politicians with their eyes firmly fixed on the 2006 elections. Both Republicans and Democrats are completely paralyzed in addressing the nation's three big energy challenges - reducing our dependence on Middle East oil, reducing gasoline prices for consumers, and beginning to shift our economy to renewable energy technologies. On all three issues, the bill is a big fat zero.”
“Republicans will vote for it because it pays off their constituents in the oil, gas, coal, electricity and nuclear industries. Democrats will vote for it because they're afraid of Republican TV spots in next year's campaigns attacking them for voting against a bill labeled 'energy.'”
“Not one politician in Washington, from the President on down, believes this bill make any serious difference in foreign oil imports, gasoline prices or the use of renewable energy technologies. But they'll all puff themselves up and tell the American public the big lie: we finally have a new energy policy!”
-Brandon MacGillis, National Environmental Trust, commenting on Congressional approval of the Bush Energy Plan on July 26, 2005. For the story, go to Washington Post and USA Today
“The legislation is a disaster for states' rights and leaves local communities with no say over the location of LNG terminals. The Bush administration is completely two-faced when it comes to states' rights. It's 'states' rights' when it serves them, and not when they have a different agenda. These decisions should not be in the hands solely of the federal authorities because, frankly, they have not come up with an assessment of how many LNG terminals are needed, and they are basically letting any Tom, Dick and Harry rush through the door with a proposal. The states will have to live with whatever proposals the federal government approves.”
-Susan Jordan, Director, California Coastal Protection Network, referring to the Bush Energy Plan. Under the bill, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would be the final authority over the location of LNG terminals built on land. Now, states are able to review proposed terminals and object if the proposals fail to conform to approved state coastal management plans. The energy legislation, however, would prohibit states from blocking such facilities. The White House has endorsed the provision, saying LNG is an important energy source that could reduce American dependence on foreign oil and that federal agencies must be able to expedite the process for new terminals, no matter how devastating the economic and environmental impacts to individual states’ resources. Ventura County Star
“Texas isn’t picky like California.”
-Linda Raskin, resident of Corpus Christi, Texas, explaining why she doesn’t care that three LNG terminals have been constructed near her home and why people in Texas probably won’t oppose eight new proposals (3 more near Corpus Christi) for even more LNG terminals in Texas, despite the fact that they pose terrorist and accident threats. For the story, go to San Antonio Express-News
“You cannot build that thing in that way and be consistent with California's coastal protection law. The exemption based on the so-called terrorist threat is a backdoor way of achieving what they couldn't do legally. Now I guess in the name of security from terrorism, you can do anything you want. It is a monument to the politics of fear.”
-Peter Douglas, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission, referring to the Bush Administration and Republicans in Washington DC attempting to usurp California’s sovereignty and environmental protection laws in order to fulfill their vision of bulldozing mountains, filling wetlands, destroying protected endangered species and unique habitat in the Tijuana River Valley in order to construct a massive series of miles long fences and roadways along the US-Mexico border. In February 2004 the Coastal Commission unanimously denied the project, finding that numerous less environmentally damaging alternatives could achieve national security without the massive environmental damage. Rather than improve the project, politicians in DC instead initiated efforts to ignore and usurp California law. Read the latest at the New York Times.
“My appointments reflect my strong advocacy for protecting our coast, which is undeniably the crown jewel of our state. As stewards of our beaches, wetlands, and coastline, these commissioners will play a critical role in ensuring future generations will enjoy the beauty and splendor of our 1,100 miles of magnificent coast.”
-California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, announcing that Coastal Commissioner Dave Potter had been re-appointed to the Commission to serve an additional four years despite the strenuous objection of nearly ten thousand environmental activists in California, who had petitioned Nunez for more than a year to consider pro-coastal protection Commission candidates. Go here for Nunez's announcement For more information regarding the re-appointment of Potter, and the appointment of Chula Vista Mayor Steve Padilla, as well as Senate Leader Don Perata’s Commission’s appointments, see stories below.
“This seriously undermines the governor's claims to be a green governor.”
-State Senator Wes Chesbro (Arcata)
“The rhetoric remained in and the real environmental stuff got blue-penciled.”
-State Assemblyman John Laird (Santa Cruz).
“The loss of these positions is disappointing, especially coming from a governor who is supposed to be strong on coastal protection.”
-Peter Douglas, Executive Director, California
Coastal Commission.
“This is totally out of whack. The environment accounts for less than two percent of the total budget, yet a full one third of the governor's new cuts come from environmental programs that already are on life support.”
-Ann Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, Natural Resources Defense Council.
All the foregoing quotes regard California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s decision to cut from the state budget millions of dollars dedicated for environmental protection, including $1 million for coastal staff to review critical LNG and offshore oil drilling proposals, and another $500,000 to insure timely processing of development permits, which assists private property owners. For the story on the Governor’s fading environmental credentials, go here To ditch the environmental programs, the Governor had to ignore the advice of numerous California Environmental Organizations
“At Oceano, Sierra Clubbers, off-roaders and state agencies have been tussling over how much space to leave for the threatened western snowy plover and the endangered California least tern. As it stands, the off-roaders have 3,600 acres of dunes and beach to play on, with up to 1,720 off-road toys at a time. From March 1 through Sept. 30, rangers close some nesting areas. In early-morning chill, I scramble from sleeping bag to clothes, fire up a new log and stroll a bit toward the surf. In the stark, sideways light, I see all the tire prints in sharp relief, a vast pattern for 3-miles, a hundred yards wide, and snowy plovers hopping tread to tread…. One day in 10 or 20 years, the state or some judge will probably banish motorized vehicles from this beach, and the planet will be better off.”
-Chris Reynolds, LA Times, July 17, 2005, writing about California’s most crowded campground, the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area, a 3600-acre, 3.5 mile dune buggy free for all on the beach near Pismo, California. Despite being home to a large and beleaguered number of threatened and endangered animals (snowy plovers, least terns, steelhead trout), Oceano currently allows over 1 million campers annually, over 1,000 campsites per night, thousands of dune buggies per day in what is described as a chaotic, physically dangerous and environmentally destructive pastime. Read the story at the Modesto Bee.
“I'm on the front lines. When kids come in badly hurt and crying, what am I supposed to do? Treat them and ignore that there might be a bigger issue? I have an obligation as a physician, morally and professionally, to see if I can make it better -- to present ways of prevention.”
-Dr. Larry Foreman, who for the past 19 years has worked in the emergency room at Arroyo Grande Community Hospital, Foreman has treated over 500 children injured at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area, and is incredulous at the fact that kids aren’t even required to wear protective head and body gear. Foreman is advocating new laws to insure that OHV users protect their children. Read about his efforts in the San Luis Obispo Tribune.
“MTV needs to do more than wear sea turtle t-shirts. Endangered sea turtles are more than a fashion statement. We are calling for MTV to contribute to efforts to repair the damage they caused to the beach….”
-Dr. Robert Ovetz, Save the Leatherback Campaign Coordinator with the Sea Turtle Restoration Project, regarding a project by MTV involving a TV show called “The Gauntlet” at Turtle Beach in Tobago. 90 TV crew, equipment and trucks destroyed at least 8 turtle nests containing approximately 400 eggs. It is suspected that hundreds more eggs are now trapped beneath the densely compacted sand. Rejecting calls to move the film set or somehow mitigate for the damaging impacts MTV caused, executives instead offered to wear sea turtle T-shirts. For the story, go to Sea Turtle Beach For more information on the fate of endangered sea turtles and those working to save go to www.seaturtles.org and www.savetheleatherback.com
“Why should we, the taxpaying public, be responsible for this really, really arrogant act of lining up the buildings on a shoreline that’s well-known to be eroding and at a time that the sea level is rising? If they think it’s worth saving, then let them save it themselves with their money.”
-Dr. Orrin Pilkey, Director, Duke University Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, reacting to the news that the US Army Corps of Engineers is spending over $120 million dollars on “beach nourishment” projects along the Florida coast, where politics plays better than science. Storms, like the seasons, are sure to immediately remove the “new” beaches. For the story, check out Environmental News Network.
“It is unfortunate that a few companies are taking advantage of current oil prices to again endanger our coast. It is unconscionable in this day and age where the science and technology of renewable energy has advanced light years that these same companies continue to do business relative to the stone age.”
-Ventura Mayor Brian Brennan, responding to the announcement that Venoco Oil Co. is seeking to initiate new offshore oil drilling and exploration activities off Oxnard in Ventura County. For the story, go to Yahoo News For more information, go to Stop Offshore Drilling For a preview of Venoco’s evil plan, go to Venoco And who’s to blame for all the talk about new offshore oil drilling? Most of the wind buffeting the topic is coming from the White House, where Bush Administration officials don’t go to the beach and don’t value the nation’s coasts for anything other than oil drilling. For that story, go to here
“An interpretation of the relevant policies ... that would conclude that views of the coast from offshore are not within the scope of the applicable laws and regulations affecting development within the coastal zone defies
not only explicit language cited by the [Coastal Commission] but also common sense. It is clear to the Court that the beauty of a sunrise from a vantage point offshore is afforded the same protection as a sunset seen from land.”(Emphasis added).
- Schneider vs. Cal Coastal Commission CV040488 (San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, July 2005). The Schneider’s single-family home project on the Harmony coast south of Cambria challenged the Coastal Commission’s long-standing policy of protecting public views of the coast from sea. Schneider had sought to build in a visually prominent location on the property and opposed the Commission’s efforts to minimize the visual blight the large house would have insured.
WEBSITES, NEWS BRIEFS & NOTES:
Potter Re-Appointed to Commission. Choosing to ignore thousands and thousands of letters from coastal activists throughout California and across the United States, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (L.A.) last week declined to allow a open and public Coastal Commission appointment process and instead quietly reappointed Dave Potter, the Monterey County Supervisor who has a very poor conservation voting record, who is known for being aggressively pro-development and who has already endorsed the devastating proposal by Pebble Beach Company to chop down 17,000 native Monterey Pine trees for a new golf course and mansions in Monterey. Read the story in the Santa Cruz Sentinel
Chula Vista Mayor Appointed to Commission. In addition to appointing Potter, Nunez also appointed Chula Vista Mayor Steve Padilla to the Commission to replace outgoing Commissioner Scott Peters. San Diego coastal activists supported Padilla’s efforts to join the Commission and are hopeful that Padilla will help to reshape a Commission that recently has been too development oriented. You can read about the Padilla appointment in the San Diego Tribune and San Diego Tribune
Senate Appointments Too. The Senate Rules Committee, led by Senate Leader Don Perata was much more responsive to public interest in Coastal Commission appointments. Perata re-appointed pro-coast Commissioner Mary Shallenberger to a new 4-year term on the Commission. In addition, Perata responded to thousands of letters and removed pro-development Commissioner Toni Iseman from the Commission and then appointed Manhattan Beach City Councilmember Jim Aldinger to the South Coast elected official representative Commission position. Activists are hopeful that Aldinger will bring a much-needed pro-coast perspective to the current pro-development Commission. Both Shallenberger and Aldinger will serve on the Commission until May 20, 2009. Read about Aldinger in the Easy Reader
Schwarzenegger’s Ill-Timed Endorsement of Australian LNG Goes Over Big in Australia. Public relations officials for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have been falling all over themselves to distance the Governor from his “inadvertent” endorsement of the proposal by the Australian company BHP Billiton to construct an LNG terminal offshore of Malibu, but the Governor’s comments may have been purposeful. Predictably, the comments played big in Australian, where they were perceived as an indication that BHP has the project in the bag. The story showed up front page in Australia's The Advertiser At home the governor’s constituents weren’t so happy. They’d been hoping for a legitimate, genuine environmental review prior to any “endorsements.” That story was in the LA Times and The Press Telegram
Most Appeals EVER! The misguided effort of the Pebble Beach Company to chop down 17,000 native Monterey pine trees to build mansions and golf facilities in Monterey has resulted in an unprecedented 22 appeals to the Coastal Commission, challenging the projects obvious and insurmountable Coastal Act inconsistencies. Look for the project to go before the Coastal Commission for the mother of all Coastal Act battles sometime this winter. Read the latest in the Monterey Herald For more information, go to http://www.1hope.org/pbc.htm
This Forest for more Golf? Del Monte Forest, October 2002
California’s Massive Coastal Economy. Yet another study has been released showing once again that the California coastline is one of the world’s most powerful economic engines. According to the California Resources Agency study, California's "ocean economy" of fishing, shipbuilding, surfboard-making and sightseeing amounts to $42.9 billion annually and generates more than 700,000 jobs. For the story, go to here For the report, go to the Resources Agency or here In a bizarre twist, Del Mar Deputy Mayor Crystal Crawford declared that the study would help San Diego win more taxpayer dollars for beach nourishment projects. No word on whether San Diego intends to stop building miles of seawalls, prohibit blufftop mansions, refrain from constructing desalination plants, decide to finally protect canyons, creeks and public access or deal with a myriad of other coastal problems related to San Diego’s world famous sandless beaches. For that interpretation, go to the San Diego Tribune
Saving Salk Canyon. One of those endangered San Diego coastal canyons is Salk Canyon in La Jolla, currently threatened by a development proposal that includes roads, infrastructure, private athletic facilities and offices. To see pictures and join the effort, go to Friends of Salk Canyon
Salk Canyon, La Jolla
Ponto Project Gets EIR. Two weeks ago the Carlsbad City Council acknowledged a firestorm of public protest over plans to construct resorts and housing on 50-acres of some of the last undeveloped coast left in north county San Diego. The stories are here and here and here and here
New Book About California Coast. UC Santa Cruz Professor Gary Griggs and a host of other coastal experts and researchers have just released Living with the Changing California Coast. The book is a completely revised and updated edition of Living with the California Coast (1985), and features hundreds of new photographs and the latest data on human activity on the coast, on climate change, on rising seas levels, and on coastal erosion and protection. With dramatic photographs from California Coastline and mile-by-mile maps, Living with the Changing California Coast is a resource for people who live on the coast, for those who need specific information about various coastal regions or anyone who is interested in information about how California’s remarkable coastline has evolved. To obtain the book, go to UC Press
Get Your Coastal Access Guide. And for anyone who wants to visit the coast, the Coastal Commission’s California Coastal Access Guide remains the premiere text on coastal access in California. Read a review and purchase it here
Portable Whales? If British scientists have their way, up to 50 California Grey Whales could be “relocated” to Ireland in an attempt to “reintroduce” Grey Whales to the Atlantic Ocean and in order to generate tourism in fish depleted sea villages. For that story go to the LA Times
Ahmanson Ranch Is Open. After years of fighting off construction of thousands of homes proposed for 2900 oak studded acres, and finally a successful state buyout of $150 million, last week the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy held a ribbon cutting ceremony to announce the public opening of the new “Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve.” For the story, go to the The Acorn For more information and trail maps, go to LA Mountains.
Got Birds? Bird Central has information and pictures of nearly 500 of 600 birds found in the lower 48 states, and tons of other bird related information.
Caught Red-Handed? It seems that hundreds of “support” letters for proposals to establish LNG terminals in Southern California have been falsified. The companies pushing the unneeded, polluting projects now claim they didn’t try to game the system. Why doesn’t anyone believe them? And if you can’t trust the LNG pushers on the issue of their lack of public support, what does that say about their credibility when it comes to the critical public health and safety issues associated with the billion dollar boondoggles? Check out the latest at the Malibu Times
Santa Barbara Beaches Noted. Recent news reviews have highlighted the wilderness and open space to be found on several of Santa Barbara’s north county beaches. Read about them at CNN
Jalama Beach Park, Santa Barbara County, 1972
Santa Barbara County Mulls Split. If developer’s have their way, Santa Barbara Counties’ north county beaches won’t be part of Santa Barbara County for long. Read about the effort to split Santa Barbara County in half in the Florida Press.
Rigs to … Fish? Offshore oil drillers, always keen to avoid any expense having to remove their junk once the oil runs out, have long tried to convert the old rigs to prisons, resorts, housing or research facilities in order to avoid having to remove them. Now they are being touted as potential fisheries laboratories. Read about it in the North County Times and Rig Zone.
Commission Sues Broad Beach Homeowners. Unable to resolve the illegal dredging last month at Broad Beach in Malibu, the Coastal Commission this month initiated legal action to restore the beach and that it never happens again at Broad Beach or anywhere else. Read about it in the Malibu Times andBritish Papers.
Bulldozing Broad Beach, Malibu, June 2005
Offshore Oil Drilling Destroys Marine Wildlife. With the Bush Administration pushing to increase offshore oil drilling, it is interesting to note the catastrophic impacts such drilling would have on marine resources. The Ledger has covered that issue. As for the overwhelming public objection to offshore oil in California, see California just says “NO” to offshore oil drilling here. Join the campaign to just say “NO” to offshore oil drilling in California at Action. Check out Sierra Club’s efforts to stop offshore oil development here.
Plastic Debris Conference. Algalita Marine Research Foundation is hosting a conference in Redondo Beach on September 7-9, 2005, on plastic debris and ocean impacts. Learn how plastics are devastating the world’s oceans at http://plasticdebris.org/ For more information on the conference, go to conference.
Sharks Are Not Your Enemy. As reported at PhysOrg you have a much greater chance of dying in an automobile crash on the way to the beach, or dying of eating peanuts, than you do from a shark attack at the coast. For the story, go here. For more information on shark attacks, go to the International Shark Attack File.
Oceanside Considers Sale of Public Property in Harbor. In the past few weeks’ coastal activists have become aware of secret negotiations between City of Oceanside officials and owners of the 17-story Marina Tower condominium development that was allowed to be constructed on public land in the Oceanside Harbor in the 1970’s. The property is scheduled to revert to the public upon the expiration of the existing lease in 2036, which suits coastal activists just fine. However, the condo owners have other ideas and are encouraging the City to sell them the land. For the story, go to North County Times.
Marina Tower, Oceanside Harbor, October 2002
Humboldt County Planners Abandon Plover Protections in Face of Dune Buggy Advocates. In another great example of planners and public officials getting rolled over by off-road vehicle forces, Humboldt planners last week abandoned plans to restrict beach driving on Clam Beach during the breeding season of the western snowy plover, from March through September. The original decision- allowing fisherman, elderly and disabled people to drive on the beach- was abandoned after 250 car crazed residents showed up and denigrated the small, nearly extinct, birds. For the story, go to Eureka Times Standard. For the Sierra Club view, go here.
Off-Road Vehicle in snowy plover habitat, Clam Beach, October 2002
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
CONTENTS:
1. COMMISSION APPROVES SUNSET CLIFFS MASTER PLAN JUST IN TIME
2. LIFEGUARD GARAGE ON BEACH IN CORONADO APPROVED
3. LAS BRISAS SEAWALL DENIED
4. UCSB HOUSING APPROVED, COMMISSION REQUIRES PROTECTION FOR RAPTOR TREES
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1. COMMISSION APPROVES SUNSET CLIFFS MASTER PLAN JUST IN TIME
On Thursday July 14 the Coastal Commission took up review of the proposed Master Plan for the Sunset Cliffs Natural Park located in the Point Loma Peninsula Community Plan area of the City of San Diego LCP.
The goals of the Sunset Cliffs Natural Park Mast Plan include improvements to public access, protection of public views, drainage upgrades and erosion control measures throughout the park.
The plan covers 68-acres and 1.5 miles of shoreline that include scenic and dramatic undeveloped cliffs and expansive views of the ocean and coast in the Pt. Loma community near Ocean Beach San Diego. The boundaries of the park are located entirely within the Coastal Zone. The park is located adjacent to the 650-acre Pt. Loma Ecological Reserve, which includes the City Sewage Plant, US Navy operations and Cabrillo National Monument.
Sunset Cliffs Park, October 2002
The park is also adjacent to the private Nazarene University, and the growth and operations of the University have, over time, heavily influenced the quality of the park. In general, the University and students utilize public parking for University purposes. In addition, for decades the University has maintained a baseball field within the park, on a scenic vista overlooking the ocean. Use of the “natural park” for baseball fields is to be phased out under the Master Plan, and measures to control runoff and erosion as a result of maintaining the field are to be undertaken.
Nazarene University Baseball field in Sunset Cliffs Park, October 2002
In general coastal activists and most of the community supported the plan, and had worked toward its enactment for over 15 years. Some residents who use the baseball fields, and the University baseball coach and some players also objected to elimination of the baseball field.
Another issue that figured prominently in the Commission’s decision to approve the plan as submitted by the City was the fact that the Commission’s consideration of the plan was undertaken while a jury verdict was pending involving criminal charges against City Council member Michael Zucchet, the plan’s leading proponent.
The problem for the Commission was that Commission staff recommended several advantageous conditions that would have improved the plan, further protecting public parking, coastal access and drainage.
However, if the Commission were to approve the plan with the staff recommendations, then the plan would have to go back to the City of San Diego for further consideration. Given the chaos that characterizes the City of San Diego government, the plan could get held up and stalled for many years.
Therefore, the Commission decided to approve the plan as submitted by the City in order to avoid the potential that many years of work might be further delayed, or worse, lost altogether as the City of San Diego continues to experience an unprecedented meltdown.
And the Commission’s decision to approve the plan was prescient, given that Zucchet was convicted following the Commission meeting, along with another City Council member. That story is here and is closely linked to the resignation of San Diego’s disgraced Mayor Dick Murphy (small part of his story here) and efforts by surfer politician Donna Frye to introduce a measure of integrity to San Diego politics. Donna’s efforts are chronicled in Voices of San Diego.
Coastal Commissioner Mike Reilly was particularly adept at explaining the situation to his fellow Commissioners and urged them to approve the plan given the uncertainties associated with any further involvement by the City.
In the end Reilly successfully convinced the entire panel to certify the plan as submitted and the Commission approved the plan unanimously with Commissioners Reilly, Allgood, Potter, Wan, Caldwell, Kruer, Shallenberger, Aldinger, Secord, Haddad, and Neely all in support.
To download the Coastal staff report, go here. For the news story, see the San Diego Tribune.
2. LIFEGUARD GARAGE ON BEACH IN CORONADO APPROVED
On Friday July 15 the Coastal Commission reviewed a two-part proposal for beach development by the City of Coronado.
The first part of the application included demolition of an existing 30-ft high lifeguard tower and construction of a 35-ft high tower and a 790-sq. ft. restroom on the sandy beach at Central Beach and North Beach, San Diego County.
That portion of the project was no opposed and was approved by the Commission. You can download the staff report by double clicking the Coastal Staff Report.
When it came to public support for a proposal to construct a 2,574 sq. ft. “Lifeguard Service Building” however, it was another matter.
Central Beach, City of Coronado, October 2002
Numerous residents of Coronado attended the meeting to oppose placing the large building on the sandy beach. The lifeguard building staff report is here.
Among other things, opponents objected to construction of a truck garage on the beach that will be a 1/2-mile from nearest paved beach access way, meaning lifeguards will be driving through and across Coronado’s crowded “Central Beach.”
Not only will the driving lifeguards endanger public safety of sunbathers, opponents argued, but the building itself will block views of Coronado’s historic houses, views of Pt. Loma, views of Mexico, and will require bulldozing sand dunes, removal of beach vegetation and introduction of pollutants and contaminants and wash water onto the beach and into the sand.
Residents also said that the service building was simply a storage facility and offices on the beach. According to opponents, there were no operational requirements that facility be on the sand.
Neighbors also claimed the best location for the building was back at North Beach. Central Beach, they said, is often underwater in storms. Central beach is also the most popular beach in Coronado, and driving on Central Beach will create a virtual highway across the public sandy beach.
North Beach, City of Coronado, October 2002
Residents asked the Commission, “If there is an emergency, how will guards clear the people off the beach as they drive out of the garage and across the crowded beach?”
Representatives from the City told the Commission it was critical to have the equipment as close to potential victims as possible, and that moving the building even 30 seconds away could be the difference between life and death.
Proponents also claimed that the visual impacts would not be as severe as community activists claimed, since the building would only be 11-feet high. In total the building was proposed to be 2574-sq. ft., with one window and one door, and would have a 40 x 60 roofline.
The City also said that it had investigated an alternative location on land owned by the US Navy but that the Navy had declined to allow the facility on their beach.
Coastal staff said that the project was for public safety and that was sufficient for them to recommend approval. Staff said that while visual impacts are not eliminated, they are “minimized” as much as possible. Certainly putting the building further west out on the sand instead of up near the existing rock jetty would impact views even worse. In the end, the beach will remain a wide sandy beach even after the garage is constructed.
Commissioner Patrick Kruer moved the project be approved, and Commissioner Ben Haddad provided a second.
Commissioner Kruer said staff had done an excellent job. Kruer said the view impacts were indeed minimized, and that the building was less than 12-ft high, and sitting below the existing rock wall. If cars are parked along Ocean Blvd above the beach no view impacts will be apparent.
Kruer said, “These lifeguards need this equipment and these trucks, and this is the right place to keep them. Lifeguards have important operational requirements everyday, and they really need this facility here. Those important duties far outweigh the potential that someone may be run over.”
Commissioner Mike Reilly asked about photographs presented to the Commission showing heavy equipment removing vegetated dunes in the area. The City stated that heavy rains create “man made dunes” and that it is “typical, routine beach maintenance techniques” that the City does every year.
Commissioner David Allgood complimented both sides and asked about the existing rock seawalls throughout the town. “The view back from the beach toward town is dominated by riprap rock walls. My point is that the Commission wouldn’t ordinarily seek to protect a view of a seawall.”
Commissioner Sara Wan focused on the view that would be lost as the public descends an adjacent public access stairway at Central Beach. Wan also raised concerns about the City’s habit of destroying beach dunes.
Commissioner Mary Shallenberger asked, “Doesn’t the City need a permit to move dunes?”
Coastal staff tried to explain that often local authorities do not seek to comply with the Coastal Act in bulldozing dunes and that several high profile dune destruction instances have highlighted concerns.
Then the Commission voted unanimously to approve the lifeguard garage building, with Commissioners Kruer, Haddad, Shallenberger, Allgood, Potter, Reilly, Wan, Caldwell, Aldinger, and Neely all in support.
3. LAS BRISAS SEAWALL DENIED
Las Brisas Condos and Fletcher Cove Beach and Park, October 2004 (the paved parking lot at Fletcher Cove is planned
for removal in order to expand the park).
The Las Brisas Condominium Association consists of 36 condos perched 24-ft back of the bluff edge adjacent to Fletcher Cove Park in Solana Beach, San Diego County.
The owners of the Las Brisas condos and their seawall building agent Bob Trettin had hoped the Commission would grant them permission to build a 120-ft long, 35-high concrete seawall and random “sea cave fill” on the public beach. And they hoped to take the public beach for a puny mitigation fee of just $40,000.
When the project first came before the Commission in May 2005 the Commissioners were outraged that coastal staff would recommend approval of the taking of a public beach worth millions of dollars in exchange for just $40,000. The Commission directed staff to go back to the drawing board and devise mitigation bearing some market relation to the value of the beach being taken and to obtain realistic compensation for the need to repeatedly nourish the beach over the life of the seawall.
So coastal staff went back and retained an economist to evaluate various types of mitigation. The economist had begun the project but had not completed it when coastal staff ran into administrative time constraints requiring the Commission hear the project at its July 2005 meeting pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act.
At first coastal staff asked the condo owners to allow for the matter to be postponed so the economist could complete the mitigation work. When staff’s efforts to obtain a continuance failed, Commissioners asked no less than three times for Las Brisas’ owners to allow for the matter to be continued.
On behalf of his client, career seawall advocate Bob Trettin refused, saying that he didn’t want to incur liability for any delay in case the entire bluff slides into the sea while the mitigation reports were being concluded. Since no bluff in Solana Beach has ever slid 24-ft back in one event, Trettin’s liability excuse came across loud and clear as self-serving and disingenuous, nothing more than an effort to force the Commission’s hand.
Trettin hoped, unrealistically, that the Commission, backed against the wall (so to speak), would just approve his seawall with the paltry $40,000 mitigation fee rather than take the more difficult step and deny the outrageous project.
Trettin’s gamble went disastrously wrong.
Three times different Commissioner’s suggested and urged Trettin to agree to continue the matter. Each time Trettin declined.
Surfrider Foundation and Sierra Club argued that since the condos were well set back, that no immediate emergency existed, and that the project could easily be postponed for completion of economic mitigation analysis.
Supporting the position was the fact that even if the Commission approved the wall, no construction is allowed on the public beach during the summer anyway, eliminating the need to rush an approval prior to having appropriate mitigation information.
Lawyer Todd Cardiff of Surfrider Foundation referenced Coastal Act Section 30235, and said that the law requires the Commission to “eliminate or mitigate” the adverse impacts of seawalls, and that without adequate analysis and mitigation the project must be denied.
Cardiff said that based upon past beach nourishment on this beach, periodic sand replenishment mitigation would cost at least $2.9 million over the life of the seawall, and that sand often washes away soon after placement, especially when it is backed by a seawall.
Trettin attempted in vain to argue that the $40,000 mitigation fee was appropriate, despite being grossly inadequate and laughably puny.
Sierra Club submitted information regarding the value of homes in the area, and the fact that the fair market value of buying a .25-acre wide beachfront parcel in the area is between $2-4 million (with a home) and that houses with seawalls sell for, in general, more than a million dollars in excess of homes without seawalls.
Sierra Club also asked that the mitigation package be sufficient to purchase a new 120-ft long public beach without walls in the vicinity of the project, which would likely be several million dollars.
Trettin rebutted by saying the $40,000 mitigation fee was adequate. He then blamed erosion, seawalls and houses on the bluff edge on dams, and said that before the dams the beaches had sand on them. He failed to acknowledge that before the condos crowded the bluff edge there was sand on the beach as well.
“You have been approving these consistently. There is no evidence that additional mitigation is warranted,” Trettin said. Trettin then urged the Commission to simply approve the project and determine the mitigation later.
Commission Legal Counsel Ralph Faust said that Coastal Act Section 30235 requires mitigation for a seawall’s adverse impacts. But Faust cautioned the Commission against allowing mitigation to be determined in the future, and said instead that adequate mitigation is required at the time the project is considered.
Commissioner Sara Wan said that “appropriate mitigation” was the main question for the Commission. Wan said the state is spending millions of dollars on sand mitigation yet that mitigation money has proven to be inadequate. If millions aren’t enough, Wan asked, what makes Trettin think $40,000 is sufficient?
Wan then asked staff how long they needed to complete the studies on mitigation. Staff said they could complete all their work within 90-days, and that the project would likely come back to the Commission at the October hearing.
Staff reiterated that in this case there is no “imminent threat” of structures at risk and that no construction can take place on the crowded beach during the summer anyway.
Commissioner Wan continued: “I need to be fully informed. I need to know that mitigation is sufficient and adequate. If the applicant is unwilling to grant the extension this Commission can obtain sufficient time a variety of ways. The Commission can deny the project and allow the applicant to resubmit the project. I for one think that it is the appropriate response to this.”
Commissioner Mary Shallenberger asked about past sand nourishment projects in Solana Beach that washed away so quickly. Staff responded that, in part, the sand used in the project was too small and small size caused it to migrate even quicker.
“This is a good example of why I don’t have adequate information to find that the adverse impacts are mitigated. I said this last time (May 2005) and I have no new information today. In the absence of an extension I have no option but to find that the project be denied.”
Commissioner Patrick Kruer said, “I haven’t gotten any more information since May either. I was out there this morning and saw how the clean sand lense is visible and should be of concern. We’ve been doing this for years based on this fee, and this is typical of what we’ve been doing. This is “just around the corner” danger. There is definitely a problem there. Moving the building is not feasible. What does Dr. Johnson, our geologist, think about waiting longer on this project?”
Staff replied that there is some risk at the site but that the danger of erosion at this time is not imminent, nor is the situation an emergency. Yet even if a slide does occur, an emergency permit can be issued at any time.
Commissioner Kruer then asked the applicant yet again if they would prefer a denial or grant an extension?
Lobbyist Trettin then said that his engineers and lawyers advise that he not grant an extension, and that “there is liability.”
Commissioner David Allgood then also said to Trettin that it would be prudent to grant the extension, in the face of a denial.
Trettin then said that they would not allow an extension and voiced his opinion that only sand supply can be mitigated under the law and that acquisition of new beach space or public beach space unencumbered with seawalls was not legal mitigation under the Coastal Act.
Trettin’s opinion was not accepted by the Commission, nor was it an accurate reading of the Coastal Act. Commissioner Jim Aldinger, for one, said that mitigation is concept that allows compensation of many types for specific well-established impacts. Commissioner Wan referenced directly the need to do more than one-time beach nourishment. “You have to do it over and over and over,” Wan said.
Commissioner Mike Reilly moved for denial, and Commissioner Wan seconded the motion. Commissioner Reilly then recommended that the denial be without prejudice to submittal of a new permit application.
Commission Chair Meg Caldwell said that Professor Gary Griggs (University of California Santa Cruz) says that seawall’s “drown the beach” and that such “drowning” is directly related to mitigating sand supply under Coastal Act.
Commissioner Aldinger supported the denial and said that mitigations for sand supply can take many forms and aren’t necessarily tied to merely buying new sand for “taking the public beach.”
Commissioner Ben Haddad said that he was concerned the Commission was holding this project “hostage” and that he was concerned that the bluff might slide.
Commissioner Kruer agreed with Haddad and said that he too was concerned and that if there is a failure that it will dramatically increase the eventual cost of the seawall. “We are taking a risk here today. This is a preventative measure. We’re playing with time and it is a mistake.”
Then the Commission denied the project 6-3, with Commissioners Reilly, Wan, Shallenberger, Caldwell, Allgood, Aldinger against and Commissioners Kruer, Haddad and Neely in favor.
4. UCSB HOUSING APPROVED, COMMISSION REQUIRES PROTECTION FOR RAPTOR TREES
On Wednesday July 13 the Commission reviewed a proposal by the University of California Santa Barbara to construct the San Clemente Housing project, a much needed 315-unit, 976-bed development in a 380,000 sq. ft., 50-ft high housing complex, along with a 35-ft high parking structure designed to accommodate 622-automobiles and surface parking lots totaling 224-spaces as well as construction of new athletic fields.
The project area is approximately 11.5-acres on the Storke Campus, adjacent to El Colegio Road and Harder Stadium.
An immediate issue arose over the lack of sufficient parking for the project, especially in light of the existing traffic and parking nightmares at USCB and in Isle Vista compounded by the fact that Santa Barbara County is currently attempting to eliminate all public parking (3,000 spaces) in Isle Vista in favor of a preferential parking permit program.
USCB addressed the parking situation by first taking arguing that the 3,000 street parking spaces still exist, and that they have come to an agreement with Santa Barbara County regarding the cost and payment for traffic construction improvements on El Colegio Road in Isle Vista.
Another issue was the presence of wetlands on the development site. The Commission was impressed that UCSB officials had agreed to recognize wetlands located on the site, and to include buffers to those resources.
Not so impressive was the plan by University officials to chop down dozens of cypress and eucalyptus trees in order to move athletic fields to accommodate the new housing. The trees have been well documented since 1987 by the Center for Biodiversity as being roosting and nesting habitat for a variety of raptors, including white tailed kites, great horned owls, red shouldered hawks, cooper’s hawk, barn owls, sharp skinned hawks, loggerhead shrikes, northern harriers, peregrine falcons and merlin.
Sierra Club argued that the University’s plan to simply plant replacement trees was insufficient and would take decades to mitigate the immediate loss of important raptor habitat.
The Commission agreed. Commissioner Sara Wan moved that the project be approved but that no trees be cut down. Commissioner Mike Reilly seconded the motion.
Following a discussion amongst the Commissioners and their counsel Ralph Faust, the Commission decided that the University would be required to seek an amendment of their Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) in the future if they ever propose to chop down the trees.
The Commission then unanimously approved the project.
Stop The Bush Energy Plan!
Mark Massara, Director
Sierra Club Coastal Programs
mark.massara@sierraclub.org
“This is totally out of whack. The environment accounts for less than two percent of the total budget, yet a full one third of the governor's new cuts come from environmental programs that already are on life support.”
-Ann Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, Natural Resources Defense Council.
All the foregoing quotes regard California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s decision to cut from the state budget millions of dollars dedicated for environmental protection, including $1 million for coastal staff to review critical LNG and offshore oil drilling proposals, and another $500,000 to insure timely processing of development permits, which assists private property owners. For the story on the Governor’s fading environmental credentials, go here To ditch the environmental programs, the Governor had to ignore the advice of numerous California Environmental Organizations
“At Oceano, Sierra Clubbers, off-roaders and state agencies have been tussling over how much space to leave for the threatened western snowy plover and the endangered California least tern. As it stands, the off-roaders have 3,600 acres of dunes and beach to play on, with up to 1,720 off-road toys at a time. From March 1 through Sept. 30, rangers close some nesting areas. In early-morning chill, I scramble from sleeping bag to clothes, fire up a new log and stroll a bit toward the surf. In the stark, sideways light, I see all the tire prints in sharp relief, a vast pattern for 3-miles, a hundred yards wide, and snowy plovers hopping tread to tread…. One day in 10 or 20 years, the state or some judge will probably banish motorized vehicles from this beach, and the planet will be better off.”
-Chris Reynolds, LA Times, July 17, 2005, writing about California’s most crowded campground, the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area, a 3600-acre, 3.5 mile dune buggy free for all on the beach near Pismo, California. Despite being home to a large and beleaguered number of threatened and endangered animals (snowy plovers, least terns, steelhead trout), Oceano currently allows over 1 million campers annually, over 1,000 campsites per night, thousands of dune buggies per day in what is described as a chaotic, physically dangerous and environmentally destructive pastime. Read the story at the Modesto Bee.
“I'm on the front lines. When kids come in badly hurt and crying, what am I supposed to do? Treat them and ignore that there might be a bigger issue? I have an obligation as a physician, morally and professionally, to see if I can make it better -- to present ways of prevention.”
-Dr. Larry Foreman, who for the past 19 years has worked in the emergency room at Arroyo Grande Community Hospital, Foreman has treated over 500 children injured at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area, and is incredulous at the fact that kids aren’t even required to wear protective head and body gear. Foreman is advocating new laws to insure that OHV users protect their children. Read about his efforts in the San Luis Obispo Tribune.
“MTV needs to do more than wear sea turtle t-shirts. Endangered sea turtles are more than a fashion statement. We are calling for MTV to contribute to efforts to repair the damage they caused to the beach….”
-Dr. Robert Ovetz, Save the Leatherback Campaign Coordinator with the Sea Turtle Restoration Project, regarding a project by MTV involving a TV show called “The Gauntlet” at Turtle Beach in Tobago. 90 TV crew, equipment and trucks destroyed at least 8 turtle nests containing approximately 400 eggs. It is suspected that hundreds more eggs are now trapped beneath the densely compacted sand. Rejecting calls to move the film set or somehow mitigate for the damaging impacts MTV caused, executives instead offered to wear sea turtle T-shirts. For the story, go to Sea Turtle Beach For more information on the fate of endangered sea turtles and those working to save go to www.seaturtles.org and www.savetheleatherback.com
“Why should we, the taxpaying public, be responsible for this really, really arrogant act of lining up the buildings on a shoreline that’s well-known to be eroding and at a time that the sea level is rising? If they think it’s worth saving, then let them save it themselves with their money.”
-Dr. Orrin Pilkey, Director, Duke University Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, reacting to the news that the US Army Corps of Engineers is spending over $120 million dollars on “beach nourishment” projects along the Florida coast, where politics plays better than science. Storms, like the seasons, are sure to immediately remove the “new” beaches. For the story, check out Environmental News Network.
“It is unfortunate that a few companies are taking advantage of current oil prices to again endanger our coast. It is unconscionable in this day and age where the science and technology of renewable energy has advanced light years that these same companies continue to do business relative to the stone age.”
-Ventura Mayor Brian Brennan, responding to the announcement that Venoco Oil Co. is seeking to initiate new offshore oil drilling and exploration activities off Oxnard in Ventura County. For the story, go to Yahoo News For more information, go to Stop Offshore Drilling For a preview of Venoco’s evil plan, go to Venoco And who’s to blame for all the talk about new offshore oil drilling? Most of the wind buffeting the topic is coming from the White House, where Bush Administration officials don’t go to the beach and don’t value the nation’s coasts for anything other than oil drilling. For that story, go to here
“An interpretation of the relevant policies ... that would conclude that views of the coast from offshore are not within the scope of the applicable laws and regulations affecting development within the coastal zone defies
not only explicit language cited by the [Coastal Commission] but also common sense. It is clear to the Court that the beauty of a sunrise from a vantage point offshore is afforded the same protection as a sunset seen from land.”(Emphasis added).
- Schneider vs. Cal Coastal Commission CV040488 (San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, July 2005). The Schneider’s single-family home project on the Harmony coast south of Cambria challenged the Coastal Commission’s long-standing policy of protecting public views of the coast from sea. Schneider had sought to build in a visually prominent location on the property and opposed the Commission’s efforts to minimize the visual blight the large house would have insured.
WEBSITES, NEWS BRIEFS & NOTES:
Potter Re-Appointed to Commission. Choosing to ignore thousands and thousands of letters from coastal activists throughout California and across the United States, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (L.A.) last week declined to allow a open and public Coastal Commission appointment process and instead quietly reappointed Dave Potter, the Monterey County Supervisor who has a very poor conservation voting record, who is known for being aggressively pro-development and who has already endorsed the devastating proposal by Pebble Beach Company to chop down 17,000 native Monterey Pine trees for a new golf course and mansions in Monterey. Read the story in the Santa Cruz Sentinel
Chula Vista Mayor Appointed to Commission. In addition to appointing Potter, Nunez also appointed Chula Vista Mayor Steve Padilla to the Commission to replace outgoing Commissioner Scott Peters. San Diego coastal activists supported Padilla’s efforts to join the Commission and are hopeful that Padilla will help to reshape a Commission that recently has been too development oriented. You can read about the Padilla appointment in the San Diego Tribune and San Diego Tribune
Senate Appointments Too. The Senate Rules Committee, led by Senate Leader Don Perata was much more responsive to public interest in Coastal Commission appointments. Perata re-appointed pro-coast Commissioner Mary Shallenberger to a new 4-year term on the Commission. In addition, Perata responded to thousands of letters and removed pro-development Commissioner Toni Iseman from the Commission and then appointed Manhattan Beach City Councilmember Jim Aldinger to the South Coast elected official representative Commission position. Activists are hopeful that Aldinger will bring a much-needed pro-coast perspective to the current pro-development Commission. Both Shallenberger and Aldinger will serve on the Commission until May 20, 2009. Read about Aldinger in the Easy Reader
Schwarzenegger’s Ill-Timed Endorsement of Australian LNG Goes Over Big in Australia. Public relations officials for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have been falling all over themselves to distance the Governor from his “inadvertent” endorsement of the proposal by the Australian company BHP Billiton to construct an LNG terminal offshore of Malibu, but the Governor’s comments may have been purposeful. Predictably, the comments played big in Australian, where they were perceived as an indication that BHP has the project in the bag. The story showed up front page in Australia's The Advertiser At home the governor’s constituents weren’t so happy. They’d been hoping for a legitimate, genuine environmental review prior to any “endorsements.” That story was in the LA Times and The Press Telegram
Most Appeals EVER! The misguided effort of the Pebble Beach Company to chop down 17,000 native Monterey pine trees to build mansions and golf facilities in Monterey has resulted in an unprecedented 22 appeals to the Coastal Commission, challenging the projects obvious and insurmountable Coastal Act inconsistencies. Look for the project to go before the Coastal Commission for the mother of all Coastal Act battles sometime this winter. Read the latest in the Monterey Herald For more information, go to http://www.1hope.org/pbc.htm
This Forest for more Golf? Del Monte Forest, October 2002
California’s Massive Coastal Economy. Yet another study has been released showing once again that the California coastline is one of the world’s most powerful economic engines. According to the California Resources Agency study, California's "ocean economy" of fishing, shipbuilding, surfboard-making and sightseeing amounts to $42.9 billion annually and generates more than 700,000 jobs. For the story, go to here For the report, go to the Resources Agency or here In a bizarre twist, Del Mar Deputy Mayor Crystal Crawford declared that the study would help San Diego win more taxpayer dollars for beach nourishment projects. No word on whether San Diego intends to stop building miles of seawalls, prohibit blufftop mansions, refrain from constructing desalination plants, decide to finally protect canyons, creeks and public access or deal with a myriad of other coastal problems related to San Diego’s world famous sandless beaches. For that interpretation, go to the San Diego Tribune
Saving Salk Canyon. One of those endangered San Diego coastal canyons is Salk Canyon in La Jolla, currently threatened by a development proposal that includes roads, infrastructure, private athletic facilities and offices. To see pictures and join the effort, go to Friends of Salk Canyon
Salk Canyon, La Jolla
Ponto Project Gets EIR. Two weeks ago the Carlsbad City Council acknowledged a firestorm of public protest over plans to construct resorts and housing on 50-acres of some of the last undeveloped coast left in north county San Diego. The stories are here and here and here and here
New Book About California Coast. UC Santa Cruz Professor Gary Griggs and a host of other coastal experts and researchers have just released Living with the Changing California Coast. The book is a completely revised and updated edition of Living with the California Coast (1985), and features hundreds of new photographs and the latest data on human activity on the coast, on climate change, on rising seas levels, and on coastal erosion and protection. With dramatic photographs from California Coastline and mile-by-mile maps, Living with the Changing California Coast is a resource for people who live on the coast, for those who need specific information about various coastal regions or anyone who is interested in information about how California’s remarkable coastline has evolved. To obtain the book, go to UC Press
Get Your Coastal Access Guide. And for anyone who wants to visit the coast, the Coastal Commission’s California Coastal Access Guide remains the premiere text on coastal access in California. Read a review and purchase it here
Portable Whales? If British scientists have their way, up to 50 California Grey Whales could be “relocated” to Ireland in an attempt to “reintroduce” Grey Whales to the Atlantic Ocean and in order to generate tourism in fish depleted sea villages. For that story go to the LA Times
Ahmanson Ranch Is Open. After years of fighting off construction of thousands of homes proposed for 2900 oak studded acres, and finally a successful state buyout of $150 million, last week the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy held a ribbon cutting ceremony to announce the public opening of the new “Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve.” For the story, go to the The Acorn For more information and trail maps, go to LA Mountains.
Got Birds? Bird Central has information and pictures of nearly 500 of 600 birds found in the lower 48 states, and tons of other bird related information.
Caught Red-Handed? It seems that hundreds of “support” letters for proposals to establish LNG terminals in Southern California have been falsified. The companies pushing the unneeded, polluting projects now claim they didn’t try to game the system. Why doesn’t anyone believe them? And if you can’t trust the LNG pushers on the issue of their lack of public support, what does that say about their credibility when it comes to the critical public health and safety issues associated with the billion dollar boondoggles? Check out the latest at the Malibu Times
Santa Barbara Beaches Noted. Recent news reviews have highlighted the wilderness and open space to be found on several of Santa Barbara’s north county beaches. Read about them at CNN
Jalama Beach Park, Santa Barbara County, 1972
Santa Barbara County Mulls Split. If developer’s have their way, Santa Barbara Counties’ north county beaches won’t be part of Santa Barbara County for long. Read about the effort to split Santa Barbara County in half in the Florida Press.
Rigs to … Fish? Offshore oil drillers, always keen to avoid any expense having to remove their junk once the oil runs out, have long tried to convert the old rigs to prisons, resorts, housing or research facilities in order to avoid having to remove them. Now they are being touted as potential fisheries laboratories. Read about it in the North County Times and Rig Zone.
Commission Sues Broad Beach Homeowners. Unable to resolve the illegal dredging last month at Broad Beach in Malibu, the Coastal Commission this month initiated legal action to restore the beach and that it never happens again at Broad Beach or anywhere else. Read about it in the Malibu Times andBritish Papers.
Bulldozing Broad Beach, Malibu, June 2005
Offshore Oil Drilling Destroys Marine Wildlife. With the Bush Administration pushing to increase offshore oil drilling, it is interesting to note the catastrophic impacts such drilling would have on marine resources. The Ledger has covered that issue. As for the overwhelming public objection to offshore oil in California, see California just says “NO” to offshore oil drilling here. Join the campaign to just say “NO” to offshore oil drilling in California at Action. Check out Sierra Club’s efforts to stop offshore oil development here.
Plastic Debris Conference. Algalita Marine Research Foundation is hosting a conference in Redondo Beach on September 7-9, 2005, on plastic debris and ocean impacts. Learn how plastics are devastating the world’s oceans at http://plasticdebris.org/ For more information on the conference, go to conference.
Sharks Are Not Your Enemy. As reported at PhysOrg you have a much greater chance of dying in an automobile crash on the way to the beach, or dying of eating peanuts, than you do from a shark attack at the coast. For the story, go here. For more information on shark attacks, go to the International Shark Attack File.
Oceanside Considers Sale of Public Property in Harbor. In the past few weeks’ coastal activists have become aware of secret negotiations between City of Oceanside officials and owners of the 17-story Marina Tower condominium development that was allowed to be constructed on public land in the Oceanside Harbor in the 1970’s. The property is scheduled to revert to the public upon the expiration of the existing lease in 2036, which suits coastal activists just fine. However, the condo owners have other ideas and are encouraging the City to sell them the land. For the story, go to North County Times.
Marina Tower, Oceanside Harbor, October 2002
Humboldt County Planners Abandon Plover Protections in Face of Dune Buggy Advocates. In another great example of planners and public officials getting rolled over by off-road vehicle forces, Humboldt planners last week abandoned plans to restrict beach driving on Clam Beach during the breeding season of the western snowy plover, from March through September. The original decision- allowing fisherman, elderly and disabled people to drive on the beach- was abandoned after 250 car crazed residents showed up and denigrated the small, nearly extinct, birds. For the story, go to Eureka Times Standard. For the Sierra Club view, go here.
Off-Road Vehicle in snowy plover habitat, Clam Beach, October 2002
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
CONTENTS:
1. COMMISSION APPROVES SUNSET CLIFFS MASTER PLAN JUST IN TIME
2. LIFEGUARD GARAGE ON BEACH IN CORONADO APPROVED
3. LAS BRISAS SEAWALL DENIED
4. UCSB HOUSING APPROVED, COMMISSION REQUIRES PROTECTION FOR RAPTOR TREES
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1. COMMISSION APPROVES SUNSET CLIFFS MASTER PLAN JUST IN TIME
On Thursday July 14 the Coastal Commission took up review of the proposed Master Plan for the Sunset Cliffs Natural Park located in the Point Loma Peninsula Community Plan area of the City of San Diego LCP.
The goals of the Sunset Cliffs Natural Park Mast Plan include improvements to public access, protection of public views, drainage upgrades and erosion control measures throughout the park.
The plan covers 68-acres and 1.5 miles of shoreline that include scenic and dramatic undeveloped cliffs and expansive views of the ocean and coast in the Pt. Loma community near Ocean Beach San Diego. The boundaries of the park are located entirely within the Coastal Zone. The park is located adjacent to the 650-acre Pt. Loma Ecological Reserve, which includes the City Sewage Plant, US Navy operations and Cabrillo National Monument.
Sunset Cliffs Park, October 2002
The park is also adjacent to the private Nazarene University, and the growth and operations of the University have, over time, heavily influenced the quality of the park. In general, the University and students utilize public parking for University purposes. In addition, for decades the University has maintained a baseball field within the park, on a scenic vista overlooking the ocean. Use of the “natural park” for baseball fields is to be phased out under the Master Plan, and measures to control runoff and erosion as a result of maintaining the field are to be undertaken.
Nazarene University Baseball field in Sunset Cliffs Park, October 2002
In general coastal activists and most of the community supported the plan, and had worked toward its enactment for over 15 years. Some residents who use the baseball fields, and the University baseball coach and some players also objected to elimination of the baseball field.
Another issue that figured prominently in the Commission’s decision to approve the plan as submitted by the City was the fact that the Commission’s consideration of the plan was undertaken while a jury verdict was pending involving criminal charges against City Council member Michael Zucchet, the plan’s leading proponent.
The problem for the Commission was that Commission staff recommended several advantageous conditions that would have improved the plan, further protecting public parking, coastal access and drainage.
However, if the Commission were to approve the plan with the staff recommendations, then the plan would have to go back to the City of San Diego for further consideration. Given the chaos that characterizes the City of San Diego government, the plan could get held up and stalled for many years.
Therefore, the Commission decided to approve the plan as submitted by the City in order to avoid the potential that many years of work might be further delayed, or worse, lost altogether as the City of San Diego continues to experience an unprecedented meltdown.
And the Commission’s decision to approve the plan was prescient, given that Zucchet was convicted following the Commission meeting, along with another City Council member. That story is here and is closely linked to the resignation of San Diego’s disgraced Mayor Dick Murphy (small part of his story here) and efforts by surfer politician Donna Frye to introduce a measure of integrity to San Diego politics. Donna’s efforts are chronicled in Voices of San Diego.
Coastal Commissioner Mike Reilly was particularly adept at explaining the situation to his fellow Commissioners and urged them to approve the plan given the uncertainties associated with any further involvement by the City.
In the end Reilly successfully convinced the entire panel to certify the plan as submitted and the Commission approved the plan unanimously with Commissioners Reilly, Allgood, Potter, Wan, Caldwell, Kruer, Shallenberger, Aldinger, Secord, Haddad, and Neely all in support.
To download the Coastal staff report, go here. For the news story, see the San Diego Tribune.
2. LIFEGUARD GARAGE ON BEACH IN CORONADO APPROVED
On Friday July 15 the Coastal Commission reviewed a two-part proposal for beach development by the City of Coronado.
The first part of the application included demolition of an existing 30-ft high lifeguard tower and construction of a 35-ft high tower and a 790-sq. ft. restroom on the sandy beach at Central Beach and North Beach, San Diego County.
That portion of the project was no opposed and was approved by the Commission. You can download the staff report by double clicking the Coastal Staff Report.
When it came to public support for a proposal to construct a 2,574 sq. ft. “Lifeguard Service Building” however, it was another matter.
Central Beach, City of Coronado, October 2002
Numerous residents of Coronado attended the meeting to oppose placing the large building on the sandy beach. The lifeguard building staff report is here.
Among other things, opponents objected to construction of a truck garage on the beach that will be a 1/2-mile from nearest paved beach access way, meaning lifeguards will be driving through and across Coronado’s crowded “Central Beach.”
Not only will the driving lifeguards endanger public safety of sunbathers, opponents argued, but the building itself will block views of Coronado’s historic houses, views of Pt. Loma, views of Mexico, and will require bulldozing sand dunes, removal of beach vegetation and introduction of pollutants and contaminants and wash water onto the beach and into the sand.
Residents also said that the service building was simply a storage facility and offices on the beach. According to opponents, there were no operational requirements that facility be on the sand.
Neighbors also claimed the best location for the building was back at North Beach. Central Beach, they said, is often underwater in storms. Central beach is also the most popular beach in Coronado, and driving on Central Beach will create a virtual highway across the public sandy beach.
North Beach, City of Coronado, October 2002
Residents asked the Commission, “If there is an emergency, how will guards clear the people off the beach as they drive out of the garage and across the crowded beach?”
Representatives from the City told the Commission it was critical to have the equipment as close to potential victims as possible, and that moving the building even 30 seconds away could be the difference between life and death.
Proponents also claimed that the visual impacts would not be as severe as community activists claimed, since the building would only be 11-feet high. In total the building was proposed to be 2574-sq. ft., with one window and one door, and would have a 40 x 60 roofline.
The City also said that it had investigated an alternative location on land owned by the US Navy but that the Navy had declined to allow the facility on their beach.
Coastal staff said that the project was for public safety and that was sufficient for them to recommend approval. Staff said that while visual impacts are not eliminated, they are “minimized” as much as possible. Certainly putting the building further west out on the sand instead of up near the existing rock jetty would impact views even worse. In the end, the beach will remain a wide sandy beach even after the garage is constructed.
Commissioner Patrick Kruer moved the project be approved, and Commissioner Ben Haddad provided a second.
Commissioner Kruer said staff had done an excellent job. Kruer said the view impacts were indeed minimized, and that the building was less than 12-ft high, and sitting below the existing rock wall. If cars are parked along Ocean Blvd above the beach no view impacts will be apparent.
Kruer said, “These lifeguards need this equipment and these trucks, and this is the right place to keep them. Lifeguards have important operational requirements everyday, and they really need this facility here. Those important duties far outweigh the potential that someone may be run over.”
Commissioner Mike Reilly asked about photographs presented to the Commission showing heavy equipment removing vegetated dunes in the area. The City stated that heavy rains create “man made dunes” and that it is “typical, routine beach maintenance techniques” that the City does every year.
Commissioner David Allgood complimented both sides and asked about the existing rock seawalls throughout the town. “The view back from the beach toward town is dominated by riprap rock walls. My point is that the Commission wouldn’t ordinarily seek to protect a view of a seawall.”
Commissioner Sara Wan focused on the view that would be lost as the public descends an adjacent public access stairway at Central Beach. Wan also raised concerns about the City’s habit of destroying beach dunes.
Commissioner Mary Shallenberger asked, “Doesn’t the City need a permit to move dunes?”
Coastal staff tried to explain that often local authorities do not seek to comply with the Coastal Act in bulldozing dunes and that several high profile dune destruction instances have highlighted concerns.
Then the Commission voted unanimously to approve the lifeguard garage building, with Commissioners Kruer, Haddad, Shallenberger, Allgood, Potter, Reilly, Wan, Caldwell, Aldinger, and Neely all in support.
3. LAS BRISAS SEAWALL DENIED
Las Brisas Condos and Fletcher Cove Beach and Park, October 2004 (the paved parking lot at Fletcher Cove is planned
for removal in order to expand the park).
The Las Brisas Condominium Association consists of 36 condos perched 24-ft back of the bluff edge adjacent to Fletcher Cove Park in Solana Beach, San Diego County.
The owners of the Las Brisas condos and their seawall building agent Bob Trettin had hoped the Commission would grant them permission to build a 120-ft long, 35-high concrete seawall and random “sea cave fill” on the public beach. And they hoped to take the public beach for a puny mitigation fee of just $40,000.
When the project first came before the Commission in May 2005 the Commissioners were outraged that coastal staff would recommend approval of the taking of a public beach worth millions of dollars in exchange for just $40,000. The Commission directed staff to go back to the drawing board and devise mitigation bearing some market relation to the value of the beach being taken and to obtain realistic compensation for the need to repeatedly nourish the beach over the life of the seawall.
So coastal staff went back and retained an economist to evaluate various types of mitigation. The economist had begun the project but had not completed it when coastal staff ran into administrative time constraints requiring the Commission hear the project at its July 2005 meeting pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act.
At first coastal staff asked the condo owners to allow for the matter to be postponed so the economist could complete the mitigation work. When staff’s efforts to obtain a continuance failed, Commissioners asked no less than three times for Las Brisas’ owners to allow for the matter to be continued.
On behalf of his client, career seawall advocate Bob Trettin refused, saying that he didn’t want to incur liability for any delay in case the entire bluff slides into the sea while the mitigation reports were being concluded. Since no bluff in Solana Beach has ever slid 24-ft back in one event, Trettin’s liability excuse came across loud and clear as self-serving and disingenuous, nothing more than an effort to force the Commission’s hand.
Trettin hoped, unrealistically, that the Commission, backed against the wall (so to speak), would just approve his seawall with the paltry $40,000 mitigation fee rather than take the more difficult step and deny the outrageous project.
Trettin’s gamble went disastrously wrong.
Three times different Commissioner’s suggested and urged Trettin to agree to continue the matter. Each time Trettin declined.
Surfrider Foundation and Sierra Club argued that since the condos were well set back, that no immediate emergency existed, and that the project could easily be postponed for completion of economic mitigation analysis.
Supporting the position was the fact that even if the Commission approved the wall, no construction is allowed on the public beach during the summer anyway, eliminating the need to rush an approval prior to having appropriate mitigation information.
Lawyer Todd Cardiff of Surfrider Foundation referenced Coastal Act Section 30235, and said that the law requires the Commission to “eliminate or mitigate” the adverse impacts of seawalls, and that without adequate analysis and mitigation the project must be denied.
Cardiff said that based upon past beach nourishment on this beach, periodic sand replenishment mitigation would cost at least $2.9 million over the life of the seawall, and that sand often washes away soon after placement, especially when it is backed by a seawall.
Trettin attempted in vain to argue that the $40,000 mitigation fee was appropriate, despite being grossly inadequate and laughably puny.
Sierra Club submitted information regarding the value of homes in the area, and the fact that the fair market value of buying a .25-acre wide beachfront parcel in the area is between $2-4 million (with a home) and that houses with seawalls sell for, in general, more than a million dollars in excess of homes without seawalls.
Sierra Club also asked that the mitigation package be sufficient to purchase a new 120-ft long public beach without walls in the vicinity of the project, which would likely be several million dollars.
Trettin rebutted by saying the $40,000 mitigation fee was adequate. He then blamed erosion, seawalls and houses on the bluff edge on dams, and said that before the dams the beaches had sand on them. He failed to acknowledge that before the condos crowded the bluff edge there was sand on the beach as well.
“You have been approving these consistently. There is no evidence that additional mitigation is warranted,” Trettin said. Trettin then urged the Commission to simply approve the project and determine the mitigation later.
Commission Legal Counsel Ralph Faust said that Coastal Act Section 30235 requires mitigation for a seawall’s adverse impacts. But Faust cautioned the Commission against allowing mitigation to be determined in the future, and said instead that adequate mitigation is required at the time the project is considered.
Commissioner Sara Wan said that “appropriate mitigation” was the main question for the Commission. Wan said the state is spending millions of dollars on sand mitigation yet that mitigation money has proven to be inadequate. If millions aren’t enough, Wan asked, what makes Trettin think $40,000 is sufficient?
Wan then asked staff how long they needed to complete the studies on mitigation. Staff said they could complete all their work within 90-days, and that the project would likely come back to the Commission at the October hearing.
Staff reiterated that in this case there is no “imminent threat” of structures at risk and that no construction can take place on the crowded beach during the summer anyway.
Commissioner Wan continued: “I need to be fully informed. I need to know that mitigation is sufficient and adequate. If the applicant is unwilling to grant the extension this Commission can obtain sufficient time a variety of ways. The Commission can deny the project and allow the applicant to resubmit the project. I for one think that it is the appropriate response to this.”
Commissioner Mary Shallenberger asked about past sand nourishment projects in Solana Beach that washed away so quickly. Staff responded that, in part, the sand used in the project was too small and small size caused it to migrate even quicker.
“This is a good example of why I don’t have adequate information to find that the adverse impacts are mitigated. I said this last time (May 2005) and I have no new information today. In the absence of an extension I have no option but to find that the project be denied.”
Commissioner Patrick Kruer said, “I haven’t gotten any more information since May either. I was out there this morning and saw how the clean sand lense is visible and should be of concern. We’ve been doing this for years based on this fee, and this is typical of what we’ve been doing. This is “just around the corner” danger. There is definitely a problem there. Moving the building is not feasible. What does Dr. Johnson, our geologist, think about waiting longer on this project?”
Staff replied that there is some risk at the site but that the danger of erosion at this time is not imminent, nor is the situation an emergency. Yet even if a slide does occur, an emergency permit can be issued at any time.
Commissioner Kruer then asked the applicant yet again if they would prefer a denial or grant an extension?
Lobbyist Trettin then said that his engineers and lawyers advise that he not grant an extension, and that “there is liability.”
Commissioner David Allgood then also said to Trettin that it would be prudent to grant the extension, in the face of a denial.
Trettin then said that they would not allow an extension and voiced his opinion that only sand supply can be mitigated under the law and that acquisition of new beach space or public beach space unencumbered with seawalls was not legal mitigation under the Coastal Act.
Trettin’s opinion was not accepted by the Commission, nor was it an accurate reading of the Coastal Act. Commissioner Jim Aldinger, for one, said that mitigation is concept that allows compensation of many types for specific well-established impacts. Commissioner Wan referenced directly the need to do more than one-time beach nourishment. “You have to do it over and over and over,” Wan said.
Commissioner Mike Reilly moved for denial, and Commissioner Wan seconded the motion. Commissioner Reilly then recommended that the denial be without prejudice to submittal of a new permit application.
Commission Chair Meg Caldwell said that Professor Gary Griggs (University of California Santa Cruz) says that seawall’s “drown the beach” and that such “drowning” is directly related to mitigating sand supply under Coastal Act.
Commissioner Aldinger supported the denial and said that mitigations for sand supply can take many forms and aren’t necessarily tied to merely buying new sand for “taking the public beach.”
Commissioner Ben Haddad said that he was concerned the Commission was holding this project “hostage” and that he was concerned that the bluff might slide.
Commissioner Kruer agreed with Haddad and said that he too was concerned and that if there is a failure that it will dramatically increase the eventual cost of the seawall. “We are taking a risk here today. This is a preventative measure. We’re playing with time and it is a mistake.”
Then the Commission denied the project 6-3, with Commissioners Reilly, Wan, Shallenberger, Caldwell, Allgood, Aldinger against and Commissioners Kruer, Haddad and Neely in favor.
4. UCSB HOUSING APPROVED, COMMISSION REQUIRES PROTECTION FOR RAPTOR TREES
On Wednesday July 13 the Commission reviewed a proposal by the University of California Santa Barbara to construct the San Clemente Housing project, a much needed 315-unit, 976-bed development in a 380,000 sq. ft., 50-ft high housing complex, along with a 35-ft high parking structure designed to accommodate 622-automobiles and surface parking lots totaling 224-spaces as well as construction of new athletic fields.
The project area is approximately 11.5-acres on the Storke Campus, adjacent to El Colegio Road and Harder Stadium.
An immediate issue arose over the lack of sufficient parking for the project, especially in light of the existing traffic and parking nightmares at USCB and in Isle Vista compounded by the fact that Santa Barbara County is currently attempting to eliminate all public parking (3,000 spaces) in Isle Vista in favor of a preferential parking permit program.
USCB addressed the parking situation by first taking arguing that the 3,000 street parking spaces still exist, and that they have come to an agreement with Santa Barbara County regarding the cost and payment for traffic construction improvements on El Colegio Road in Isle Vista.
Another issue was the presence of wetlands on the development site. The Commission was impressed that UCSB officials had agreed to recognize wetlands located on the site, and to include buffers to those resources.
Not so impressive was the plan by University officials to chop down dozens of cypress and eucalyptus trees in order to move athletic fields to accommodate the new housing. The trees have been well documented since 1987 by the Center for Biodiversity as being roosting and nesting habitat for a variety of raptors, including white tailed kites, great horned owls, red shouldered hawks, cooper’s hawk, barn owls, sharp skinned hawks, loggerhead shrikes, northern harriers, peregrine falcons and merlin.
Sierra Club argued that the University’s plan to simply plant replacement trees was insufficient and would take decades to mitigate the immediate loss of important raptor habitat.
The Commission agreed. Commissioner Sara Wan moved that the project be approved but that no trees be cut down. Commissioner Mike Reilly seconded the motion.
Following a discussion amongst the Commissioners and their counsel Ralph Faust, the Commission decided that the University would be required to seek an amendment of their Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) in the future if they ever propose to chop down the trees.
The Commission then unanimously approved the project.
Stop The Bush Energy Plan!
Mark Massara, Director
Sierra Club Coastal Programs
mark.massara@sierraclub.org
Posted: Fri - July 29, 2005 at 12:56 PM