California CoastWatcher, November 2005 


This month the California Coastal Commission wrestles with Channel Islands' Public Works Plan (PWP) compliance issues in Ventura, high density housing proposed for sensitive bird habitat in Santa Barbara, scenic bridge design in Mendocino, seawalls in Solana Beach, illegal habitat destruction in Laguna Beach, loss of the bald eagle recovery program on Catalina Island and marine acoustic noise.

1. COMMISSION TIME WASTED AS VENTURA COUNTY CONTINUES PURSUIT OF INAPPROPRIATELY SITED BOATING CENTER
2. COMMISSION APPROVES 5 HOUSES ON TWO LOTS ON EDGE OF ESHA AT MORE MESA PRESERVE IN SANTA BARBARA
3. COMMISSION STANDS UP TO CALTRANS AND REQUIRES SIDEWALK FOR REDESIGN OF HISTORIC MENDOCINO COUNTY BRIDGE AND COASTAL TRAIL OVER 10-MILE RIVER
4. COMMISSION REJECTS EFFORT BY NOAA TO ABANDON BALD EAGLES ON CATALINA ISLAND. 
5. COMMISSION REJECTS US NAVY AND PAID SCIENTISTS IN SUPPORT OF MARINE MAMMALS IN ADDRESSING ANTHROPOGENIC NOISE  
 

1. COMMISSION TIME WASTED AS VENTURA COUNTY CONTINUES PURSUIT OF INAPPROPRIATELY SITED BOATING CENTER
 


Channel Islands Harbor 

"I am troubled by this. It looks like an impending train wreck," Commissioner Dan Secord said, initiating the Commission's discussion of the latest twist involving the financial and environmental debacle known as the Channel Islands Harbor Boating Instruction and Safety Center (BISC).

CoastWatcher readers will recall the much fought over project as Ventura County's effort to place a boating development on top of a heavily used public park, within and immediately adjacent to large trees hosting heron nests which are likely to be disturbed by the new building, whose second story decks will be literally within few feet of the nests.

Coupled with the fact that endangered western snowy plovers and least terns nest and forage on the public beach a short distance from the development, and that alternative locations in the harbor make more sense from both an environmental protection and a boating safety perspective, members of the public and the Ventura County Supervisor whose district the project is located in- John Flynn- have long opposed the project.

Nevertheless, over the objection of Sierra Club, Beacon Foundation and Habitat for Hollywood Beach (HHB), the Coastal Commission earlier this year approved the project in the wrong location, but included 22 conditions, some critical for future habitat and park protection and public access.

What happened next no one could have predicted. Like an amendment to a Local Coastal Plan (LCP), the amendment to the Harbor Public Works Plan (PWP), when subsequently conditioned by the Coastal Commission, must be returned to the local government (in this case, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors), who in turn must approved the conditioned PWP in full as modified. For most local jurisdictions, this process is routine.

In this case, however, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors and their team of developers and lobbyists at the Harbor oppose any habitat or public parks protection. They are actively engaged in developing larger boat slips and more expensive, gentrified and luxury oriented facilities at Channel Islands Harbor. Small boat owners and lower income visitors are not welcome. So instead of formally adopting the Coastal Commission's modified PWP the Supervisors claimed they instead delegated the "acceptance" of the conditions to Harbor employees. The obvious intent with the "delegation" was to create ambiguities that the Supervisors could later rely on to disregard the conditions.

Fortunately local activists at Beacon Foundation and HHB, along with Supervisor John Flynn, caught the County red-handed, and the malfeasance was brought to the attention of the Coastal Commission last week with the help of public interest lawyer Frank Angel.

To try to keep the project moving forward Ventura County Counsel issued a legal opinion stating that the delegation of the authority to accept the conditions was legal, and that the County really had formally accepted the conditions. Numerous times during the hearing last week the County again promised to fulfill the conditions and to try to comply with the law in the future. They tried to portray the entire process as merely a mix-up involving a very unsophisticated, chaotic local government under much stress.

During the Commission's discussion of the local process (or lack thereof), Commissioner Sara Wan was able to confirm that Ventura County had no documentation proving either the Supervisors or random employees had formally accepted the conditions. Normally, such evidence would come in the form of a resolution duly adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. In this case, however, every time the BISC comes to any sort of public hearing, the public turns out overwhelmingly in opposition to the project. So understandably the Board didn't want to again have to address their own willingness to ignore the public in moving forward with the plan.

Other Commissioners then criticized Ventura County and concurred that the local approval process had clearly been flawed. Even with the last minute assurances from the County that they would indeed abide by the protection conditions, Commissioners were concerned that the abuse of the process would result in an inherently unreliable situation in the future if and when the County subsequently chose to ignore protection of the park and habitat , similar to the way they now seek to destroy the existing public park for BISC.

The Coastal Commission then went into a closed session with their attorney's in order to discuss the legal ramifications of any approval of the BISC PWP.

Upon returning from a closed session with counsel the Commission declared that they were providing the County of Ventura with a 1-month opportunity to pass a clear and unambiguous resolution confirming their prior acceptance of the complete set of 22 modifications and conditions included in the Commission's approval of the BISC PWP.

The Commission then voted unanimously 11-0 to approve the item, with Commissioners Caldwell, Potter, Allgood, Neely, Reilly, Clark, Wan, Secord, Shallenberger, Kram, and Kruer all in support.


2. COMMISSION APPROVES 5 HOUSES ON TWO LOTS ON EDGE OF ESHA AT MORE MESA PRESERVE IN SANTA BARBARA 



More Mesa, 1972 

Jack Maxwell is a Santa Barbara developer known for building the new Las Brisas subdvision, a 8-home development packed into the margin of More Mesa meadow and preserve, an open space coastal bluff of several hundred acres located between the City of Goleta and Hope Ranch in Santa Barbara County.

Maxwell's efforts to degrade More Mesa have been fought by the More Mesa Preservation Coalition (www.moremesa.org ), whose website documents and provides photos of the environmental resources located there.

Maxwell's latest project involves another Mesa edge property consisting of an older home on 2-acres, along with wetlands and a creek, large eucalyptus trees, a horse barn and fencing. Maxwell's idea is to keep (and triple the size of) the existing house and, in addition, subdivide the property to build four new homes (two 2-story and two 1-story) for a total of five large mansion style houses on the edge of More Mesa meadow and public trails.

More Mesa is best known as an important wildlife habitat and famous as a bird and raptor habitat with burrowing and short eared owls. White Tail Kites, a legally protected species in California that were almost extinct 20 years ago, are nest and forage at More Mesa. More Mesa is widely acknowledged to be the most important White Tail Kite habitat on the central coast.

In April the project first came before the Commission on appeal and the Commission found the project warranted additional work and sent the matter back to their staff with direction that staff consider ways to decrease development density and increase protection of environmental resources.

Instead coastal staff spent six months working with the developer and last week embraced the developers' original proposal once again (they had recommended approval of the project last April, which the Commission explicitly rejected) with no changes whatsoever, no reduction in development density and no additional protection of More Mesa or environmental resources.

Disheartened, activists tried once again to alert the Commission to the failing of their staff. Activists argued that More Mesa and the wildlife surviving there deserve more than maximum density development allowed under the zoning.

Coastal staff, unpersuaded, urged the Commission to shoehorn as many houses as possible into the edge of the mesa as possible.

Commissioner Dan Secord began the discussion by moving for approval of the project.

Commission member David Allgood then expressed concern about supporting a motion for approval of the project since Santa Barbara County is obviously not enforcing conditions and no agency appears to actively engaged in any sort of long term monitoring to protect wildlife and resources in the area. Coastal staff subsequently agreed that no condition compliance or monitoring occurs. Allgood went on to ridicule developer Maxwell for his failure to properly landscape and color the Las Brisas subdivision.

Developer Jack Maxwell then jumped up and said that he would welcome conditions and monitoring- fully aware that any such conditions and/or monitoring created on the fly during the meeting would be virtually useless. It was impossible not to get the impression that Maxwell would have embraced any condition so long as the Commission approved the project immediately and guaranteed him a multi-million dollar windfall.

Coastal staff then tried to create a condition to require a "neutral monitor" onsite to protect raptors and a landscaping conditioning to require a picture be taken in ten years to show that landscaping is alive and well.

New Commissioner Larry Clark then said he could not and would not support the project and found the project to be inconsistent with the environment and community surrounding the project area, notwithstanding the last second to develop conditions for the project.

Commissioner Patrick Kruer then addressed the issue of zoning, and stated that maximum build out under the zoning is not a right but that maximum build out is constrained by resource configuration. Kruer then asked what the height of the two 2-story houses would be?

But Coastal staff couldn't say what the maximum height of the two 2-story houses would be. And neither could Maxwell. Maxwell said that while he couldn't say how high the houses would be, they would be 21-ft high from the "finished pad" which they were seeking to grade 5-feet below the existing grade. This led to a discussion of how inherently unreliable the plans for the project were.

It also came to light that the two 1-story houses would be approximately 3600-ft in size and that the two new 2-story homes would be over 6,000-ft, meaning five VERY LARGE homes would be constructed.

Commissioner Sara Wan then addressed the sensitive nature of the immediate area- More Mesa. "The subdivision will allow addtional development. Proper landscaping is important, but the agencies lack people to follow through and you can talk all you want about monitoring, but over time it is the density of the development that will have the most impact on the future of the habitat. The project will also undoubtedly affect aesthetics and views."

Commissioner Mary Shallenberger raised concerns about the many other code violations in the area, but sought to focus on the project specific impacts and whether the project is consistent with the LCP. "I'm struggling with the impacts to raptors, and if that happens it is a huge loss. My big concern is whether the density will impact raptors."

Commissioner Dave Potter then spoke in support of the project, and said "I think we'll see compliance with the new monitoring condition. These make for a project I'm willing to support today."

Then the Commission approved Maxwell's project 7-4, with Commissioners Potter, Secord, Neely, Kram, Reilly, Shallenberger and Caldwell in support, and Commissioners Clark, Kruer, Allgood and Wan against.


3. COMMISSION STANDS UP TO CALTRANS AND REQUIRES SIDEWALK FOR REDESIGN OF HISTORIC MENDOCINO COUNTY BRIDGE AND COASTAL TRAIL OVER 10-MILE RIVER
 
The historic Ten Mile Bridge (aka 10-Mile River Bridge) on Highway #1 north of Fort Bragg is one of the California coast's most scenic and beautiful coastal river spans. It is also over 50 years old and in need of seismic upgrade. Like nearby bridges over the Noyo Harbor and at the Albion River, CalTrans ("California Dept. of Transportatio") is working on bridge re-design and replacement projects- and thank God they have the help of the public and the Coastal Commission. 
 
The first project CalTrans ("California Department of Transportation") proposed was the Noyo Harbor Bridge nearly ten years ago. Initially CalTrans objected to including any scenic character or pedestrian or bicycle or view considerations. Over many years, and with much involvement by the public and the Coastal Commission, CalTrans eventually was persuaded to include a sidewalk and scenic view railings on the Noyo Bridge, which opened to widespread praise this year. 
 
During the process and over the years, one man's work has had a profound positive impact on CalTrans' work- Vince Taylor. The immensely talented Mr. Taylor and his Dharma Cloud Foundation have chronicled their efforts to protect scenic bridges at www.bridgerailings.com , a website complete with documents and pictures.  
 
Unfortunately for the public, CalTrans continues to resist Vince Taylor's efforts and refused to work with him during the latest project to rebuild the 10-Mile Bridge. And it showed. When CalTrans showed up last week with a bridge design consisting of a two lane, 40-ft wide bridge with two giant "maintenance" lanes and no sidewalk or bike lane, Commissioners were aghast. Worse, CalTrans had rejected the scenic vertical rails used for the Noyo Bridge (called "ST-10") and instead proposed using a very ugly horizontal rail design (called ST-20) that would savage views of the ocean for vehicles traveling at highway speeds (which is why vertical rails are so much better). 
 
It was as if ten years of working with CalTrans to improve bridge designs were a complete waste. Incredibly, CalTrans had sought to include giant unnecessary maintenance vehicle lanes but not a sidewalk for a bridge that is the California Coastal Trail and the only safe way over the 10-Mile River for pedestrians.  
 
Commissioner Mike Reilly (from Sonoma County) began the Commission's discussion of the bridge by saying that he "couldn't disagree more with Caltrans" on the big roadway shoulders.  He said that given the remote, rural location of the bridge and the relative lack of traffic, no more than 4-ft shoulders were necessary, as specified  in LCP [Local Costal Plan].  "The only reason I would support an 8-ft shoulder is to put in a sidewalk later. This is clearly part of the coastal trail and I'd like to see future sidewalk  surveys in five and ten years." Reilly pointed out that Highway #1 both before and after the bridge has only 1-ft wide shoulders and that the effect of the giant shoulders proposed by CalTrans would be 4-lanes of traffic, and a dangerous condition as drivers attempt to pass on the bridge. 
 
Caltrans quickly agreed to monitor the bridge in the hopes of not having to actually build the sidewalk. 
 
Commissioner Bonnie Neely (from Humboldt County) then moved to approve the project for CalTrans, without the sidewalk.  
 
Commissioner Dave Allgood said that it was clear to him that horizontal railings block views while vertical  bars are scenic for moving cars. " What is the cost difference between ST-10 [the Noyo Bridge Railing] and  ST-20 [the ugly, 54-inch high combination railing]," Allgood asked? 
 
Without answering the question, Caltrans then said that they only have approval for ST-20 (the only rail they asked approval for). 
 
Commissioner Sara Wan then raised a number of concerns:  "I don't  understand why in this rural area why you need 8-ft shoulders.  Some  survey later doesn't get us a sidewalk.  This is the coastal trail- if you want to talk safety we need a sidewalk.  I will not support 8-ft  shoulder without a sidewalk.  And this rail issue, we have so much  background.  At Noyo, Caltrans told us there was no design for a see-through rail.  Vince Taylor worked with this Commission to create a committee  And the committee then worked with Caltrans for over a year and they were able to come up with a  see-through railing design at Noyo.  I am having a hard time understanding why we're not using what we worked so hard to get?   That statement again today that 'we don't have see-through rails' is the  same thing they said last time." 
 
Coastal staff then told the Commission that CalTrans would have to return to the commission in the future on the specifics of the bridge design and that the Commission could raise sidewalk and rail issues at that time. 
 
But Wan didn't go for it. "If we don't ask for these things now, we most certainly will not get them later when the project is even further down the development line.  Read the letter from State Parks, they express these same concerns regarding view impacts and the need for smaller shoulders."  
 
Commissioner Patrick Kruer said, "I'm sitting here today wondering how we  got here - years ago we were stronger on this. Vince Taylor has offered to help us, and I've been impressed with all the time he has invested.  I look at  this proposed rail and it doesn't have the appearance of something as  good as Noyo.  Noyo works, why change it?  I don't understand how we  got here."  
 
Coastal staff then tried to distinguish between Noyo and 10-Mile, and said that Noyo was more urbanized than 10-Mile.  
 
Commissioner Kruer was not dissuaded:  "The tremendous contributions by Mr. Taylor are dead  right on.  Why would he oppose this if it were so good?  This is the California Coastal Trail, why wouldn't we provide a sidewalk?  We can do all the  surveys we want in the future, but now is the time to build the sidwalk.  If you don't get the sidewalk now, the chances of getting it later are remote."  
 
New Commission member Larry Clark then said,  "I too am perplexed on the 8-ft  shoulder width.  This is the coastal trail.  This is not smart  coastal planning to retrofit later.  The time for a pedestrian  pathway is now."  
 
Chairperson Meg Caldwell was also concerned, "I am mystified by this rail.  I realize it is safe, but it is  DOG UGLY. How can we make the findings under the Coastal Act that this is aesthetic? Our own past letters to CalTrans on the Noyo specifically reject industrial ugly rails and it is clear to me that the Noyo design has some aesthetic relief.  I also agree with Commissioner Clark that we should include the path now." 
 
Commissioner Clark then offered an amending motion to Commissioner Neely's motion to approve the project. Clark proposed an  "Amending motion to certify the project but revise shoulder requirement to  include a 'pedestrian pathway' with 'separation from traffic,'" (meaning that scenic rails would be included). 
 
Then Caltrans' lawyer, clearly unnerved at the prospect of a sidwalk, interrupted. " We love the idea of a path but right now we have a seismic project and a path would be an unnecessary delay." 
 
Yet Commissioner Clark was adamant, "I want the path integrated now."  
 
Caltrans continued to argue that a sidewalk would require intense changes to the project and result in delay, cost inflation and safety risks. 
 
Fortunately the Commission didn't believe it. Even by CalTrans owe estimates, the bridge is going to take more than 3-years to build, providing plenty of time for a sidewalk and decent rail design.  
 
Commission Chair Meg Caldwell told CalTrans, "The Commission appreciates all of your concerns, but we want a separated path phased into the shoulder.  What would the phase-in look like?  You have said that you are going to do studies, what would the retrofit  NOW look like?"  
 
Caltrans responded that,  "It may result in 2-3 year delay.  What if you approve the project today and we'll agree to allow this sidewalk discussion at the time of the issuance of the CDP [Coastal Development Permit]? That would 'protect' the project schedule."  
 
Commissioner Sara Wan then was able to determine through questioning CalTrans that they would continue to oppose the sidewalk even at later hearings, and that CalTrans would be even more reluctant to add a sidwalk later. 
 
By this time Coastal Staff could see that the Commission wanted a sidwalk. "We hear the Commission saying that you want the pedestrian path and that Caltrans must acknowledge that the 8-ft shoulder is going to disappear.  CalTrans has to decide if they can live with that. " 
 
Caltrans again argued against the sidewalk,  "The department feels strongly we need 8-ft shoulders for a variety of  reasons.  We cannot accept a finding requiring a sidewalk.  We would  be happy to try to convince you later for no sidewalk.....We feel very strongly about 8-ft shoulder."  
 
Chairwoman Caldwell then said,  "I'm thinking that your future surveys (regarding sidwalks) aren't going to be very  helpful - if you wanted to keep the 8-ft shoulder you'd have to augment the entire bridge with a sidewalk. Hang it off the side or something." 
 
Commissioner Mary Shallenberger then said, "My read is that we have a strong majority who want a path and separation.  If my read is correct, it is a  huge mistake and a disservice to Caltrans not to state that fact now and to incorporate it now. It isn't going to get any easier later to redesign the bridge."  
 
The Commission then tried to vote on the amending motion to approve the bridge replacement with the condition to include a pedestrian path and  scenic rails.  
 
Yet CalTrans tried once more to avoid the inevitable. CalTrans lawyer said, "We have several ideas on rails, separation and shoulders. Scenic rails could be incorporated now, separation could be phased.  But on the maintenance shoulders we won't give. Anything less will destroy the project." 
 
The Commission then voted to protect the sidewalk and public views 7-4, with Commissioners Clark, Wan, Shallenberger, Secord, Kruer, Kram and Allgood in support and Commissioners Neely, Caldwell, Potter and Reilly against. to include the conditions on shoulders and separated pedestrian path. 
 
POSTSCRIPT: Although the Commission attempted to characterize the vote as an approval of the CalTrans "consistency determination with conditions," CalTrans subsequently notified the Commission that they consider the vote to be a denial, which may place CalTrans and the State of California in position to lose federal funding necessary for the project. CalTrans could also appeal the Commission's decision to the federal government, although it is difficult to imagine the federal government trying to overturn the California for asking for a sidewalk on the Coastal Trail. Most observers hope that once CalTrans has a chance to regain their composure they'll again that a sidewalk and decent rails for the Coastal Trail are not too much to ask for and in fact will dramatically improve their project. 

4. COMMISSION REJECTS EFFORT BY NOAA TO ABANDON BALD EAGLES ON CATALINA ISLAND.

When the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) came to the Commission for approval of the Montrose Settlement Restoration Program (MSRP) Final Resolution Plan (FFP) related to severe DDT pollution offshore and underwater off Palos Verdes (LA County) the Commission had a few surprises for them.

First, the various Commissioners, including Meg Caldwell, David Allgood, Mary Shallenberger and Sara Wan, strongly objected to NOAA's plan to abandon the Bald Eagle protection program on Catalina Island. Bald Eagles, once common on Catalina and the other Channel Islands, have been wiped out because of DDT poisoning, and the fact that DDT results in a thinning of the lining of Bald Eagle eggs. Despite recovery of the species from DDT, eggs continue to fail to be hatched at Catalina due to the thinning. NOAA wants instead to concentrate on Bald Eagle populations on Santa Cruz Island and shut the Catalina program down.

Yet several Commissioners pointed out that some scientists believe that if the Catalina efforts are continued, perhaps within a few generations Bald Eagle eggs will strengthen and recover. If that is the case, the Commission wants NOAA to stay on the job and continue to fund the program.

Commissioner Allgood also noted that the warning signs throughout Los Angeles telling people not to eat White Croaker fish need to be in many languages and not just English, since Mexicans, Vietnamese, Chinese and many other foreign language speaking fisherman frequent piers and beaches in the area. NOAA also admitted that other fish are also polluted and that the signs need to be improved.

Commissioner Clark, from Palos Verdes, said that the DDT pollution continues to pose a grave threat to residents and visitors and that NOAA needs to do more to protect the public and coastal resources.

After additional discussion, NOAA agreed to withdraw the plan and return to the Commission with a new and improved plan protecting Bald Eagles and the public soon.

 
5. COMMISSION REJECTS US NAVY AND PAID SCIENTISTS IN SUPPORT OF MARINE MAMMALS IN ADDRESSING ANTHROPOGENIC NOISE  
 


 
On Thursday the Commission considered a request by their staff to send comments to the US Marine Mammal Commission's Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals that would put California on record as recognizing that human-generated sound in ocean waters, which is largely unregulated, is a form of ocean pollution that can deafen, disturb, injure and kill marine life. Staff further recommended that the Commission urge the MMC to adopt a system for managing the effects of sound on marine mammals to include risk assessment, permit and authorization processes, mitigation tools, monitoring and enforcement elements.

The US Navy, the world's largest underwater noise maker, and their paid scientists at the University of California San Diego and Scripps Instituted of Oceanography urged the Commission not to make any statement, and to allow them to "work with" the Commission before the Commission makes any statements regarding noise or marine mammals. They were joined by representatives of the California Resources Agency and Governor Arnold Schwarzenneger, who admitted that they had come "loaded for bear" to try to derail Commission staff.

In a bizarre letter one of the senior administrators of Scripps, John Orcutt, argued that the Commission should not comment to protect marine mammals because that would be like arguing the theory of "Intelligent Deisgn" as opposed to theory of "Evolution" and that science is "inherently uncertain" and which, "by it's very nature, cannot promote or provide certainty." Orcutt appeared to be arguing that if the Commission raised concerns that marine noise impacts mammals, that they would be elevating religion over science, but the letter was, on its face, inarticulate and incorrect. In fact, the Commission, in acknowledging that underwater noise impacts mammals WAS relying on science. Orcutt, and the US Navy, by trying to deny reality, were the epitomy of fraudulent thinking.

Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Heal the Bay, California Coastal Protection Network and other organizations, acitivsts and scientists all asked the Commission to comment on the need to protect marine mammals from anthropogenic noise.

Across the board Commissioners supported the proposed comments and marine mammals. In particular, Commissioner David Allgood lashed out at the US Navy, Scripps and UCSD for their blatant efforts to try to dissuade the Commission from doing the correct thing. Calling their lobbying "junk science" Allgood urged those officials to send their own comments and quit trying to silence the Commission.

The Commission then voted unanimously to send the comments to the MMC. Commission staff told the Commission that as soon as the comments are submitted they will be posted on the Commission's website. For more information on marine noise, check out "Toxic Tones."

Have A Happy Thanksgiving!
Mark A. Massara,
markmassara@coastaladvocates.com







 
 




 

Posted: Wed - November 16, 2005 at 10:26 AM          

©