ML: Basically,
the existing plan would allow for them to grade 40 feet deep behind the
seawall. There are even areas where they'd go down as deep as 80 feet.
We brought this up, and it has not been disputed.
CD: Do you feel this whole project is flawed?
CN: We think
that almost everything those guys are doing with this plan is good. I
mean, of course, we'd love to see this just left as natural land. But
they've been working with other groups on a conservation plan, and it
looks like they've got a good water quality plan. And to the developer's
credit, he does include beach access as part of his plan -- which is the
fair and excellent thing to do. Let's just get this revetment off the
beach. We feel like we're being reasonable, and the developer is claiming
that we're this extremist, fringe group that doesn't want our secret spot
exposed. He seems to have some idea that we represent all surfers. We
wish we did, but we don't.
The
View from the Ritz-Carlton
Photo: Dana Pt. Visitor's
Center
CD:
What is the next stage in the permitting process?
CN: They
haven't issued a coastal permit yet. In the dialogue I've seen with the
Coastal Commission, they say, 'what can you do to keep us from needing
to approve this revetment?' The developer's response has been, 'we need
this revetment to save the kelp.' I think up to now, it's been all or
nothing. If he doesn’t get the seawall, he claims his project is
infeasible.
CD: This
brings up the public versus private argument.
CN: Once
again, it goes to the public versus private value of the land and the
beach. The developer owns the land -- right. But there's a public beach
down there, and we don’t want to see a public good harmed to this
guy's benefit.
ML: Part
of the developer's argument is that this whole area is disturbed like
Salt Creek. He's saying, 'it's part of a larger system, who don't you
just let me do my thing?' We respond, well, yeah, a lot of this stuff
was put in before we knew the damage. This whole area is such a great
spot precisely because there is no development.
CD: He's
also saying that he can't make this work if he doesn't build right onto
the beach?
MC: But you
can keep this a friendly development with a retreat approach or scale
it back. We're saying don't build on the edge of harm's way and screw
the beach. You don't have to build this new seawall.
CN: I don’t
know the subtle details of finance and money, but it appears that the
relative scaling down, or pulling a row of homes off the beachfront, out
of a hundred homes total, seems a fairly small change.
CD: When
will the vote on this be?
CN: Later
this summer. We're continuing a dialogue with the coastal commission and
trying to educate the community in Dana Point about the potential impacts
of this project.
CD: I heard
that the city was threatening to build the bigger project with 400 homes
and the two huge hotels that was originally approved if they can't get
this one approved by the Coastal Commission.
MC: The city
of Dana Point wrote a letter to the Coastal Commission, saying 'this is
what's already approved, so if you don't approve this modification, we're
going to try and build this.' But they're not going to be able to build
the big project without the revetment, (ed's note: and without serious
endangered species concessions) So it's kind of a false argument.
CN: It's
so rare that we have the opportunity to move back. Usually someone has
their home on the bluff, and it's already collapsing onto the beach in
a place like Solana Beach -- and it becomes an ugly situation because
someone has to pay. Either their home goes, or they armor the beach. Here's
a case where we feel like there's an opportunity to step back. We feel
like this has a statewide significance. It could set a real precedent.
External
Links:
The
Surfrider Foundation's Dana Point Info Page and Seawall Petition
The
Sierra Club's Info Page on the Headlands
Add Comment