CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
CONSERVATION VOTING CHART 2004
Prepared By:
Sierra Club Coastal Program, League for Coastal Protection, California Coastkeeper Alliance Surfrider Foundation
ANY AND ALL REPRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS ENCOURAGED AND FULLY PERMISSIBLE BY LAW IN THE INTEREST OF COASTAL PROTECTION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Dana Point Headland (Jan. 2004) All photographs courtesy of Ken Adelman, California Coastal Records Project
1
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART 2004 INTRODUCTION: This California Coastal Commission Conservation voting chart is a joint enterprise of the Sierra Club Coastal Program, the Surfrider Foundation, League for Coastal Protection (LCP) and the California Coastkeeper Alliance. These voting charts have been prepared for the last 18 years. The CCC voting chart for 2004 examines 32 votes. Votes analyzed were selected in consultation with coastal conservation activists based on their likely impact on coastal resources and their potential to set important statewide precedents. While the CCC reviews approximately 1000 projects each year and approves the vast majority of them, this Voting Chart is designed to highlight the most important votes, the votes where the stakes are high. In most cases, these are projects where the applicant has hired one or more highly paid agents to lobby Commissioners to vote in favor of the development project. Direct lobbying between agents and Commissioners is required by law to be recorded as ex parte communications, though many of the lobbying expenditures often are unreported. And, for the first time this year, we have included an issue that was raised for a vote but was withdrawn before the votes were cast. In October, the Commission had a lengthy deliberation regarding a proposal to build 379-houses within environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands in Huntington Beach (Orange Co.). Prior to a vote on the project, the developer withdrew it. Yet because individual Commissioners were so explicit in their criticism and/or support for the project, we have highlighted and included their deliberations in Appendix “A” (October 2004). However, while the decision is highlighted, because no vote was actually taken, it has not been included in the statistical analysis of voting percentages. Given the importance of this discussion, we have indicated which Commissioners spoke in favor or against the project or who failed to speak. A description of the issues affected by each vote, as well as a record of individual Commissioners’ votes and their alternates, appears in Appendix A. These votes have been compared with the official records kept by Coastal Commission staff. However, any errors are the sole responsibility of the preparers. For in-depth discussion of key votes on a monthly basis, the Sierra Club publishes a monthly newsletter, “California CoastWatcher”, that is available free by subscription at http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/coasts/coastwatcher.asp BACKGROUND The California Coastal Commission is an independent state agency created by the California Coastal Act of 1976 (http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ccatc.html). The mission of the Coastal Commission is to protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations.
2
The Commission itself is comprised of 12 voting members and 4 non-voting members. Of the 12 voting members, 6 are elected officials and 6 are drawn from the public. In order to ensure statewide representation, each of the following geographical areas is designated to have one ‘local elected’ seat: San Diego, South, South Central, Central, North Central, and North Coast regions. The Commissioners meet once a month in different coastal communities to deliberate the merits of proposed coastal development projects within the 1.5 million acre, 1100mile long California coastal zone. More information regarding coastal commission members, staff, staff analysis and upcoming meetings and agendas can be found on the Commission’s website at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ The independence, balance and integrity of the Commission is dependent upon its appointment process. California’s Governor, the Senate Rules Committee under the leadership of the President Pro Tem of the State Senate, and the State Assembly Speaker are each authorized to select four Commissioners. Each Commissioner may also have an alternate, subject to the approval of their appointing authority. Until 2003, appointments were normally made shortly after an appointing authority either assumed office (as in the case of the Governor), or a legislator ascended to the leadership of the Senate or the Assembly and all appointments served at the will of their appointing authority. However, in 2003, the law concerning terms was amended, and now all eight Legislative appointments (four appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and four appointed by Senate Rules Committee) are considered “tenured” appointments. That is, once a Commissioner is appointed, he/she will sit on the Commission for a fixed four-year term and cannot be removed until the expiration of the full appointment term. In contrast, the Governor’s four appointments still serve ‘at will’ and can be removed at any time. In addition to the twelve voting Commission members, there are also four non-voting members who are appointed by their respective agencies: Trade and Commerce, Resources, State Lands Commission, and Business, Transportation, and Housing. AN IMPORTANT NOTE: When reviewing this Voting Chart, it is important to remember that several Commissioners have only served on the Commission for a relatively short time, while others have served for many years. For example, Commissioner Sara Wan is in her 9th year on the Commission while Commissioner Dan Secord had served only one month when this vote tally was calculated. Similarly, Commissioner Mary Shallenberger replaced long-term Commission member Pedro Nava upon his election to the State Assembly and, like Commissioner Secord, she had only served for one month. In addition, Governor Schwarzenegger made three of his four appointments in June, so three out of his four Commissioners had served roughly half a year when these votes were tallied. To aid your review, we have included the number of votes that each Commissioner cast in addition to their overall Conservation voting score.
3
KEY FINDINGS • Since 1985, the California Coastal Commission’s voting scores have ranged from a low of 25% in the latter half of 1996 to a high of 76% in 1997. The average Conservation Voting Score for the Coastal Commission over the intervening 18 years is 50%. The overall Commission’s Conservation score for 2004 was 46%, a full 36 points lower than the all time high of 76% in 1997. The all-time high Commission Conservation score of 76% in 1997 is attributed primarily to the high visibility of coastal protection in the 1996 election, and the return of the Assembly from a Republican majority under Speaker Curt Pringle to a Democratic majority under Speaker Cruz Bustamante. Speaker Pringle’s appointments, at 6%, had the lowest Conservation voting score for any appointing authority over the last 18 years and were largely responsible for the Commission’s all-time low Conservation score of 25% in the latter half of 1996. The Commission’s 2004 overall voting score (46%) represents a 6-point decrease from the 2003 score of 52% Conservation voting scores also vary by appointing authority, but 2004 saw a brief but notable shift. In general, Senate Rules appointments have had the highest Conservation scores over the years, followed by the Speakers’ appointments, and then the Governor’s. In 2004, those Commissioners appointed by the Senate Rules Committee under the leadership of State Senator John Burton again earned the highest Conservation score (58%), Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson’s appointees earned a Conservation score of 38%, and Governor Gray Davis’ appointees earned a Conservation score of 47% placing them for the first time ahead of the Speakers’ appointments. This trend reversed when Governor Schwarzenegger’s appointees were seated; they earned a conservation score of just 29%. While none of Governor Schwarzenegger’s appointments have served a full 12 months, it should be noted that their overall conservation voting score is substantially lower than that achieved by Governor Gray Davis’s appointments. In 2004, Davis’s appointments achieved a Conservation voting score of 47%, while Governor Schwarzenegger’s appointments had a conservation voting score of 29% a gap of 18 points. There is a wide range in scores between individual Commissioners as well. Four Commissioners had Conservation voting scores in excess of 65%: Commissioner Wan (78%), Commissioner Shallenberger (75%), Commissioner Caldwell (75%) and Commissioner Nava (73%). Those Commissioners who received Conservation scores below 35% include Commissioner Iseman (34%), Commissioner McClain Hill (33%), Commissioner Kruer (33%), Commissioner Potter (25%), Commissioner Hart (20%), Commissioner Neely (8%), Commissioner Kram (0%), and Commissioner Secord (0%). Commissioners McClain Hill and Hart were Governor Davis appointments and no longer serve on the Commission.
• •
• •
•
•
•
4
•
Typically, ‘local elected’ Commissioners have lower Conservation scores than Commissioners drawn from the public-at-large and 2004 is no exception. Public members had a conservation voting score of 59%, while local elected officials who serve as Commissioners had a Conservation voting score of 34% - a gap of 25%. Of the 6 ‘elected’ members that served on the Commission during 2004, Supervisor Mike Reilly had the highest Conservation voting score at 43%, while Supervisor Dave Potter had the lowest voting score at 25%. Commissioner Secord, who had served for just one month with this chart was tallied, had a Conservation score of 0%. Of the 6 ‘public’ members, Commissioner Sara Wan had the highest Conservation voting score at 78%, while Commissioner Steve Kram (appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger in June 2004) had a Conservation score of 0% for the 7 months he was on the Commission. The most precipitous decline in a Conservation voting score for an individual Commissioner was observed for Commissioner Toni Iseman. In 2003, Commissioner Iseman had a Conservation voting score of 58%. In 2004, Commissioner Iseman’s score had dropped 24 points to 34%. A steadier decline was observed for Commissioner Dave Potter, a long time appointment to the Commission. Commissioner Potter was appointed by thenSpeaker Cruz Bustamante in 1997 and in his freshman year achieved an overall Conservation voting score of 62%. From his high Conservation voting score of 64% in 1999, Commissioner Potter had dropped 39 points to just 25% in 2004.
•
•
•
•
Bolsa Chica Mesa and Wetlands, Huntington Beach (Oct. 2004)
5
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING SCORES: 1985-2004
Year 1987 1988/89 1990/91 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 (1-5/96) 1996 (6-11/96) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Senate 71% 63% 89% 83% 65% 68% 79% Assembly 64% 50% 55% 59% 38% 43% 42% Governor 26% 14% 19% 30% 32% 31% 35% Commission 66% 60% 58% 53% 34% 38% 50%
85%
31%
21%
41%
87% 78% 66% 72% 59% 56% 64% 65% 58%
6% 87% 66% 62% 46% 35% 44% 45% 38%
20% 42% 24% 54% 42% 28% 44% 45% Davis: 47% Schwarzenegger: 29%
25% 76% 44% 64% 50% 41% 50% 52% 46%
OBSERVATION: Environmentalists began tracking the Coastal Commission’s Conservation Voting Record in 1987. The highest Conservation voting score for the Commission was in 1997 when the overall Conservation voting score for the Commission stood at 76%. Eight years later, that score had dropped 30 points to 46% in 2004.
6
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART 2004 RANKINGS BY APPOINTING AUTHORITY
Senate Appointments Wan Nava Shallenberger Reilly Iseman Assembly Appointments Burke Peters Kruer Potter 54% 40% 33% 25% 78% 74% 75% 43% 34%
Governor Appointments Nichols (Davis) Caldwell (Schwarzenegger) Woolley (Davis) Neely (Schwarzenegger) McClain-Hill (Davis) Kram (Schwarzenegger) Hart (Davis) Secord (Schwarzenegger) Average by Appointing Authority Senate Pro Tem John Burton Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson Governor Gray Davis Governor Schwarzenegger 58% 38% 47% 29% 60% 75% 58% 8% 33% 0% 20% 0%
OBSERVATION: Coastal Commissioners appointed by the Senate Rules Committee earned a Conservation score of 58%, Assembly Speaker appointees earned a Conservation score of 38%, and gubernatorial appointees earned a Conservation score of 47% for then-Governor Davis’s appointments and 29% for Governor Schwarzenegger’s appointments. This was the first time in 18 years that Assembly appointments (made by then-speaker Herb Wesson) had a lower score (38%) than the Gubernatorial appointments (47%) that were made by then-Governor Gray Davis.
7
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART 2004 OVERALL COMMISSIONER RANKING Overall Commissioner Ranking Commissioner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Wan Shallenberger Caldwell Nava Nichols Burke Woolley Reilly Peters Iseman Kruer McClain-Hill Potter Hart Kram Secord Average Voting Score: # of Mos 12 1 7 11 5 12 5 12 12 12 12 5 12 3 7 1 # of Votes 32 4 12 26 15 24 19 28 25 29 24 9 28 10 6 4 % 78% 75% 73% 75% 60% 54% 52% 43% 40% 34% 33% 33% 25% 20% 0% 0%* 46 %
OBSERVATION: There is a wide variation in conservation voting scores between individual Commissioners. Four Commissioners achieved a voting score above 65%, including Commissioner Wan (78%), Commissioner Shallenberger (75%), Commissioner Caldwell (75%) and Commissioner Nava (73%). At the other end of the spectrum are the Commissioners who scored below 35%, including Commissioner Iseman (34%), Commissioner McClain Hill (33%), Commissioner Kruer (33%), Commissioner Potter (25%), Commissioner Hart (20%), Commissioner Neely (8%), Commissioner Kram (0%) and Commissioner Secord (0%). It should be noted that length of terms in 2004 also vary widely with two Commissioners sitting for just one month (December), etc. For perspective, we have included the number of months Commissioners sat and the total number of votes cast during that time.
8
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART 2003 COMPARISON OF ELECTED & PUBLIC MEMBERS
Elected Members Woolley Reilly Peters Iseman Potter Hart Neely Secord Average Voting Score: 58% 43% 40% 34% 25% 20% 8% 0% 34%
Public Members Wan Shallenberger Caldwell Nava Nichols Burke Kruer McClain-Hill Kram Average Voting Score: 78% 75% 75% 73% 60% 54% 33% 33% 0% 59%
OBSERVATION: ‘Local elected’ Commissioners trail ‘public’ Commissioners by 24 points. Commissioners appointed from the public-at-large had an average Conservation voting score of 58% compared to only 34% for ‘local elected official’ Commission members.
9
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART 2004 COMPARISON OF 2003 VS 2004 Senate Appointments Wan Nava Shallenberger Reilly Iseman 2003 84% 66% 52% 58% 2004 78% 73% 75% 43% 34%
Assembly Appointments Burke Peters Kruer Potter
2003 50% 52% 42% 38%
2004 54% 40% 33% 25%
Governor Appointments Desser Nichols Caldwell Woolley Neely McClain-Hill Kram Hart Secord
2003 61%
2004 60% 75% 58% 8% 33% 0% 20% 0%
50% 45% 28%
Average by
Appointing Authority
Senate Assembly Governor Davis Governor Schwarzenegger
2003 65% 45% 45%
2004 58% 38% 47% 29%
Overall Coastal Commission Score:
2003: 52%
2004: 46%
OBSERVATION: The starkest decline in individual voting score for 2003-2004 was observed for Commissioner Toni Iseman. In 2003, Iseman had a Conservation Voting score of 58%. In 2004, Iseman’s score dropped a full 24 points to 34%. A longer-term decline has been documented for Commissioner Dave Potter who dropped from a high of 64% in 1999 to just 25% in 2004, a drop of 39 points.
10
Coastal Commission Conservation Voting Chart 2004 For More Information Call: Mark Massara, Sierra Club Coastal Program: 805-895-0963 Chad Nelsen, Surfrider Foundation: 949-492-8170 Mel Nutter, League for Coastal Protection: 562-432-8715 Linda Sheehan, California Coastkeeper Alliance: 510-770-9764
League For Coastal protection
11
Technical Notes: Overall Conservation Voting Score = Total Number of Pro Conservation Votes Cast Divided by Total Number of Votes Cast Commissioner Voting Score = Total Number of Pro Conservation Votes Cast Divided by Total Number of Votes Cast Votes by Alternates are counted as part of the Sitting Commissioner’s Conservation Voting Score Definitions: ALT – Alternate, meaning the Alternate Commission member cast the vote. ABS – Absent, meaning the Commission was not present at the time of the vote. Abstain- Meaning the Commission chose not to cast a vote. + Vote: Positive Vote for Coastal Conservation - Vote: Negative Vote for Coastal Conservation
Santa Cruz Boardwalk (April 2004)
US-Mexico Border Fence (Feb. 2004)
Harbor House Condominiums, Monterey (Oct. 2004)
Monterey Beach Hotel (March 2004)
12
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART JANUARY 2004
Dana Point Headlands Orange County 15-Jan DPT-MAJ-2-02 +(Alt.) + + Negative Vote Kwiatkowski Pacific Grove 14-Jan 3-03-29 + + Absent + + + Negative Vote Seabridge Findings Oxnard 14-Jan A-4-03-14 UTV + Absent UTV UTV + Negative Vote Goleta Beach Seawall SB Co. 14-Jan 4-02-251 Abstain Absent Absent Negative Vote
January
Commissioner Burke Hart Iseman Kruer Nava Nichols McClain-Hill Peters Potter Reilly Wan Woolley Outcome
Dana Point Headlands, Orange County: In voting 9-3 to allow development of a resort on one of Southern California’s last open coastal promontories, and a 2000-ft long seawall on Strands Beach solely to facilitate construction of new luxury homes, the Commission ignored their staff and numerous Coastal Act policies. Kwiatkowski, Pacific Grove, Monterey County: In voting 6-5 to approve construction of a home in Pacific Grove, the Commission allowed the developer to ignore Coastal Act policies requiring that development be set back of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA), in this case, Monterey Pine trees. Seabridge, Oxnard, Ventura County: In adopting findings for a massive housing and marina development, the Commission ignored evidence that a children’s swimming area proposed to be located within the new harbor would be contaminated and would make children sick, and approved it anyway, despite evidence that the developer would have no legal or financial obligation to insure safe water quality parameters. UTV= Unable To Vote (only Commissioners on the prevailing side on the original vote can vote on the findings). Postscript: The “swim area” condition was eventually deleted by the Commission after arguments by project opponents were finally accepted. Goleta Beach Seawall, Santa Barbara County: In approving a “temporary” 2-year 600-ft seawall to protect the lawn area of a county park, the Commission ignored a Coastal Act prohibition against seawalls for such purposes, and allowed a permanent seawall under the guise of a temporary project. Postscript: As of Feb. 2005 the wall has not been removed, but instead enlarged to over 1,000-ft, with no legitimate environmental or Coastal Act review of any kind.
13
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART FEBRUARY 2004
Border Fence San Diego 18-Feb CD-63-03 Absent + + Absent +(Alt.) + + + + + + + Positive Vote Sea World Mission Bay 18-Feb Revocation 6-01-129 Absent -(Alt.) Negative Vote BISC Ventura Harbor 19-Feb NID No. 104 + + Absent + + -(Alt.) Absent + + Negative Vote Trento Malibu LA Co. 19-Feb 4-99-169-A2 Kay Panorama Santa Monica Mts 19-Feb 4-03-69&70 Oceano Dunes SVRA SLO Co. 20-Feb 4-82-300-A5
February
Commissioner Burke Hart Iseman Kruer Nava Nichols McClain-Hill Peters Potter Reilly Wan Woolley Outcome
+ + + Negative Vote
+ + + Absent + + + + + + + + Positive Vote
Absent Absent +(Alt.) + + Absent Absent Absent + + + Positive Vote
Border Fence, San Diego County: In defending rare and endangered species habitat and wetlands located along the US-Mexico border, the Commission unanimously denied a proposal by the US Federal Government to construct a series of three fences, a paved road and clear habitat the width of a six-lane freeway, from the ocean inland for miles, in an attempt to reduce illegal immigration. The Commission found there were numerous other ways to build an effective barrier reduce without destroying the coast and coastal habitat. Sea World Revocation, Mission Bay, San Diego County: In allowing the amusement park to expand, the Commission ignored the case presented by California Earth Corps that the site on which the expansion is being built is a well known historic toxic waste dump. The Commission refused to revoke Sea World’s permits despite evidence that Sea World had deliberately failed to divulge damaging information regarding the hazardous waste dump, and despite the fact that Sea World still refuses to provide toxics information to the Commission. Boating Instruction & Safety Center (BISC), Ventura Harbor: On a 6-4 vote, the Commission upheld the Ventura Harbor Plan in voting to deny a development that would replace a public lawn and picnic area, including trees hosting a variety of birds, and the fact that the new commercial boating center would send novice sailors into an adjacent dangerous, congested large boat thoroughfare Trento, Malibu, Los Angeles County: As a follow-up to an earlier approval allowing construction of a mansion and guest house on top of an important Chumash archeological site, the Commission allowed further destruction of the cultural site and coastal resources in approving a 7,200-sq. ft. tennis court. Kay, Panorama Ranch, Santa Monica Mountains: In denying an after-the-fact permit for construction of roads, building pads and destruction of ESHA habitat on Castro Peak, the Commission found that the unpermitted work was unacceptable and would have to be removed and the mountain habitat restored. Oceano Dunes SVRA, San Luis Obispo County: In voting to send a letter to State Parks, the Commission supported efforts by environmentalists to try to convince State Parks to take minimal steps to stop the desecration of endangered species coastal dune habitat from off road vehicle (OHV) use at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreational Area (SVRA). Postscript: Although the Commission did send the letter, State Parks has so far refused to formally acknowledge or accept scientific research showing expanded protected areas would better safeguard snowy plovers, least terns and other plants and animals trying to survive amidst thousands of dune buggies.
14
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART MARCH 2004
Moro Bay St. Park Revocation San Luis Obispo 18-March A-3-03-43 + + Absent Absent Absent Absent + Negative Vote US-EPA Offshore Oil NPDES So. California 17-March CD-109-03 + Absent Absent +(Alt.) Absent Absent + + + + + Positive Vote Monterey Beach Hotel Bch Abandonment & Seawall 18-March 3-03-96 & 22 Absent Absent Absent Absent Negative Vote
March
Commissioner Burke Iseman Kruer Nava Nichols McClain-Hill Peters Potter Reilly Wan Woolley Outcome
Moro Bay State Park, San Luis Obispo County: In denying a motion for revocation (on a 4-3 vote) brought by the City of Moro Bay, the Commission sided with sister agency State Parks and allowed for a eucalyptus forest containing endangered species to be cut and cleared to allow paving to convert a car and tent camping area to a cement RV camping area. US-EPA Offshore Oil NPDES Permits, Southern California: In voting 7-0 against an attempt by US EPA to issue weakened discharge permits to offshore oil operations, the Commission acted to insure that legitimate discharge permits would be adopted that would protect California coastal waters, fisheries and swimmers against a variety of toxic, hazardous chemicals the companies were hoping to discharge into ocean waters. Postscript: As a result of the Commission’s action, and a lawsuit by environmentalists against EPA, stronger, more protective discharge permits have now been issued to the offshore oil derrick operators. Monterey Beach Abandonment & Hotel Seawall, Monterey County: In abandoning their mandate to protect public beaches, the Commission voted to give away a public beach in order to then vote to approve a 600-ft long seawall for the Monterey Beach Hotel, a private luxury seaside resort in Monterey County.
15
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART APRIL 2004
Schneider Harmony San Luis Obispo Co. 15-Apr A-3-00-40 + + + + + Absent +(Alternate) + + + + Positive Vote Reddell Harbor View Moro Bay San Luis 15-Apr A-3-03-81 Abstain + + + + Absent + + + + + Positive Vote Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk Double Shot Ride 15-Apr 3-04-14 Absent Absent -(Alternate) Negative Vote
April
Commissioner Burke Iseman Kruer Nava Nichols McClain-Hill Peters Potter Reilly Wan Woolley Outcome
Schneider, Harmony Coast, San Luis Obispo County: In significantly revising a proposal for an oceanfront home on 40-acres, the Commission voted to protect ocean views and habitat by decreasing the size of the home and significantly decreasing the length of the entrance road needed by moving the home inland. Reddell, Moro Bay, San Luis Obispo County: In denying a proposal to construct a housing and retail commercial project overlooking Moro Bay Harbor, the Commission sided with local residents, businesses and environmentalists in protecting coastal views, public parking and visitor-serving uses in Moro Bay Harbor. Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk: Voting to allow a 100-foot tall amusement ride, the Commission chose to ignore the project’s impacts on public coastal views and noise and night light impacts upon the adjacent San Lorenzo River and estuary.
16
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART MAY 2004
Black Santa Cruz Wetherell & Westbrook Del Norte 13-May 1-13-05 Absent Abstain + + Negative Vote McNamee Corona Del Mar 13-May CCC-04-CD-2 Absent + + + + Negative Vote
May
Commissioner Burke Iseman Kruer Nava Nichols McClain-Hill Peters Potter Reilly Wan Woolley Outcome
12-May 3-04-20-VRC Absent + + + + + + + + + Positive Vote
Black, Opal Cliffs, Santa Cruz County: The Commission acted to protect the public beach by denying a claim for vested rights (VRC) that would have allowed an unpermitted seawall comprised of rip-rap rocks to remain on the beach below Black’s house. Wetherell & Westbrook, Del Norte County: On scant evidence the Commission allowed additional rock excavation on the Smith River on a claim that the additional excavation would promote fisheries restoration, 1.5 miles downstream from Dr. Fine/Highway 101 Bridge, Smith River, Del Norte County. McNamee, Corona Del Mar, Newport Beach, Orange County: On a 6-4 vote, the Commission undermined enforcement of Coastal Act violations in finding that structures on the beach belonging to McNamee were illegal, but that McNamee could leave the structures on the public beach for years into the future while he makes subsequent permit applications to try to legalize the illegal structures.
17
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART JUNE 2004
Bel Air Bay Club Los Angeles 10-June-2004 A-5-02-162 Negative Vote
June
Commissioner Burke Caldwell Iseman Kram Kruer Nava Neely Peters Potter Reilly Wan Outcome
Bel Air Bay Club, Los Angeles County: In siding with a private luxury oceanfront club, and permitting the applicant to expand facilities and realign a seawall, the Commission allowed public views of the coast to be adversely impacted and the public beach to continue to be misappropriated by the Club.
Bel Air Bay Club, Pacific Palisades
18
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART JULY 2004
July
Commissioner Burke Caldwell Iseman Kram Kruer Nava Neely Peters Potter Reilly Wan Outcome
Mello Mendocino Co. 14-July-2004 A-1-03-62 + -(Alt.) Absent -(Alt.) Negative Vote
Mello, Mendocino County: In approving a new blufftop oceanfront home, the Commission failed to insure an existing public accessway, which is already of eroding, by permanently the trail via a floating trail easement. Instead, as the bluff erodes, the public access trail in front of the home will eventually disappear.
Mello Parcel and public blufftop trail, Mendocino County
19
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART AUGUST 2004
Stoney Heights & Meadowlands 13-Aug Los Angeles Co. 4-03-86 + + + Absent +(Alt.) + + +(Alt.) Absent Absent + Positive Vote
August
Commissioner Burke Caldwell Iseman Kram Kruer Nava Neely Peters Potter Reilly Wan Outcome
Stoney Heights & Meadowlands, Santa Monica Mountains, Los Angeles County: The Commission voted positively to deny a request to re-divide two lots (34.5 and 0.16acres into 14.8 & 19.8-acres) that would have resulted in additional development rights and entitlements adjacent to Corral Canyon Road, in the small lot subdivision at Searidge Drive, an area of sensitive environmental resources.
Corral Canyon and El Nido subdivision with Backbone Trail Santa Monica Mountains
20
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART SEPTEMBER 2004
Redland Co. Del Norte Co. 9-Sept A-1-02-152 + +(Alt.) +(Alt.) + Negative Vote
September
Commissioner Burke Caldwell Iseman Kram Kruer Nava Neely Peters Potter Reilly Wan Outcome
Redland Company, Del Norte County: In allowing Redland Company to divide 9.4acres into 4 lots, at 145 Redland Lane, Smith River, the Commission unnecessarily permitted new development entitlements in an area of sensitive environmental resources.
Smith River, Del Norte County
21
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART OCTOBER 2004
Holyoke Bolsa Chica Huntington Beach, Orange Co. 13-Oct. 5-04-192 + + No Comment Absent + + (Alt.) Absent + (Alt.) + Positive Outcome* Los Angeles Co. 13-Oct A-5-99-225 + + + Absent +(Alt.) Absent +(Alt.) + Positive Vote Harbor House Seawall #1 Del Monte Beach Monterey Co. 14-Oct 3-02-24 + + Absent + + + Absent +(Alt.) Positive Vote Harbor House Seawall #2 Del Monte Beach Monterey Co. 14-Oct 3-02-24 + + Absent + + + Absent -(Alt.)* Positive Vote
October
Commissioner Burke Caldwell Iseman Kram Kruer Nava Neely Peters Potter Reilly Wan Outcome
*Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach, Orange County: THIS DECISION WAS NOT COUNTED FOR PURPOSES OF THE VOTING CHART SINCE THE COMMISSION DID NOT ACTUALLY VOTE (THE DEVELOPER- HEARTHSIDE HOMES- WITHDREW THE PROJECT BEFORE THE COMMISSION COULD DENY THE PROJECT). However, we include the decision here in order to highlight it, as it involves one of the last, most significant wetlands in southern California. In addition, the Commission was very explicit in its criticism of a giant proposal to build 379-houses adjacent and within wetland and forest ESHA. Our conservation analysis, therefore, was based upon the written record of the meeting. Only Commissioners Potter & Neely voiced support for and moved for approval of the development. Commissioner Iseman, who is from Orange County, failed to join other Commissioners on the record opposing the project. Holyoke, Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles County: Once again the Commission denied a proposal to subdivide a 1-acre cliffside in an attempt to develop three homes, finding that public views of the ocean would be lost and the development of homes on an unstable cliff above a public park would likely create a dangerous nuisance. Harbor House Seawall #1, Del Monte Beach, Monterey County: In the first vote related to this proposal to build a 600-ft long seawall on Del Monte Beach to protect condos predating the Coastal Act, the Commission denied a motion by Commissioner Potter to dedicate mitigation funds to planning, rather than acquisition of new public beach for recreation. Harbor House Seawall #2, Del Monte Beach, Monterey County: In the second vote related to this seawall project the Commission voted to increase a suggested mitigation fee of $1 million to $5.3 million dollars (the highest seawall mitigation ever required in California), finding that anything less would be useless inasmuch as no new meaningful public beach could be acquired with the lesser amount. (*denotes the vote of alternate Commissioner Edward Albert, who opposed any seawall of any type, regardless of the size of the mitigation fund, and therefore will be counted as a positive vote in the final vote tally).
22
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART NOVEMBER 2004
LA World Airports Los Angeles Co. 17-Nov CC-61-04 Commissioner Burke Caldwell Iseman Kram Kruer Nava Neely Peters Potter Reilly Wan Outcome + +(Alt.) Absent + Negative Vote Doyle Redondo Beach LA Co. 18-Nov A-5-04-261 + + +(Alt.) + Negative Vote
November
Los Angeles World Airports Expansion (LAX), Los Angeles County: In approving a plan to dramatically expand Los Angeles Airport over the next two decades, the Commission missed an opportunity to promote restoration of coastal dune scrub habitat and require that buckwheat be planted at areas to be abandoned in order to attract the rare and endangered Hermosa Blue Butterfly. Only 3 Commissioners supported the habitat motion. Doyle, Redondo Beach, Los Angeles County: In approving an oceanfront residential expansion project, the Commission ignored pleas from the public and feasible alternatives and instead approved an expansion of the home that will block public views from inland streets used by tens of thousands of people weekly.
Hermosa Blue Butterfly habitat, LAX
23
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSERVATION VOTING CHART DECEMBER 2004
Sunridge Views Elkhorn Slough Monterey Co. 10-Dec A-1-04-23 + Absent + Absent + + + Positive Vote Pauli Reed Del Norte Co. Mendocino Co.
Hendrick Encinitas San Diego Co.
December
Commissioner Burke Caldwell Iseman Kram Kruer Shallenberger Neely Peters Potter Reilly Secord Wan Outcome
8-Dec A-6-04-81 + + Absent + Absent + Negative Vote
9-Dec A-3-04-54 + Absent Absent + + + + Positive Vote
10-Dec A-1-04-54 Absent Negative Vote
Hendrick, Encinitas, San Diego County: In approving a large home near the beach, the Commission failed to provide concerned neighbors with a full public hearing, instead approving the 5,000 sq. ft., twostory blufftop house at 736 Fouth Street by finding that substantial issues were present. Sunridge Views, Monterey County: In denying this project, the Commission supported an appeal by Friends, Artists and Neighbors of Elkhorn Slough and LandWatch Monterey County, who were opposed to a proposal to divide 25-acres into 10-residential lots and convert an existing strawberry farm to houses, at 250 Maher Road. Reed, Del Norte County: Ignoring evidence of bald eagles on this property, the Commission denied an appeal by Friends of Del Norte and approved construction of an RV park on the north side of Buzzini Road, off Lake Earl Drive. Pauli, Mendocino County: Some Commissioners sought on behalf of Pauli to delete conditions recommended by coastal staff regarding the siting of a proposed house in order to minimize view blockage and maximize habitat protection, at 45100 Chapman Road, Chapman Point, just south of the town of Mendocino. Fortunately, the effort failed on a 5-5 vote of the Commission.
24