Coastal Erosion

Greetings!

Nigerian coastal erosion.

Gregory

Sonoma County Iron Ranger Letter to the Board of Supervisors

Greetings!

Here is a letter sent to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors opposing the instalation of iron rangers on the Sonoma coast.

June 12, 2013

Sonoma County Board of Supervisors

575 Administration Drive, Room 100 A

Santa Rosa, CA 95403

RE: State Parks appeal regarding Iron Ranger placement at the Sonoma Coast

Dear Chair Rabbit and Supervisors:

Coastwalk California, a 30 year old statewide 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization, was initially founded to support public access to our coastline as called for in Proposition 20 and the California Coastal Act.  The first "Coastwalk" was actually a protest march along the Sonoma coast with a goal of calling attention to coastal public access issues. This first "coastwalk" was so much fun that the participants decided to hold "coastwalks" every year, inviting the public on coastal camping expeditions that would educate participants about coastal preservation and public access.  In keeping with our commitment to public access we feel compelled to express our concern about State Parks permit applications  for installing "iron rangers" at various sites along the Sonoma Coast.

Coastwalk is a big supporter of State Parks and the State Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR). We consider State Parks to be one of our most important partners.  We understand that State Parks has been directed to identify revenue sources that will help restore its fiscal health and long term sustainability.  So, we do not want to seem obstructionist when it comes to supporting the agency's path to financial redemption.  However, from a long term policy perspective, we believe that State Parks should be reversing the trend toward ever higher fees, particularly in the coastal zone, and moving back toward policies that will eventually make State Parks properties, which are owned by the public, more financially accessible.  Specifically, the Coastal Act calls for free access to the coast and the substantial parking fees facilitated by the installation of "iron rangers" negate free access.   Perhaps, given the State's current fiscal situation, fees may be a short term remedy, but current policies should be set with an eye to the long  term goal of ensuring free access.  Ever rising parking fees have been implemented in Southern California, pricing many people off the beach.  Setting the president of charging fees in Sonoma County, where fees for State Beaches have never been charged in the past would seen to establish a trend that goes in the wrong direction.

Coastwalk believes that parking fees are a very real barrier to public access, particularly to the large population of low income residents living in inland areas. This is a social justice issue and a public access issue. Public transit to coastal beach destinations is very  limited.   The primary viable method for arriving at the beach is the automobile - so, charging to park at the beach is, in effect, charging to access the beach.

Parking fees are in reality a very regressive tax.  Lower income individuals, and the middle class, are paying a much higher proportion of their income to access public property (the beach) than those who have greater means. Additionally, in most area of California,  those of greater means are more likely to live near the beach and therefore will not need to use parking facilities. Parking fees, in effect, ensure that lower income people do not go to the higher income neighborhoods where many beaches are located. The parking fees charged in recent years, which can no longer be called "modest", ensure that the beach has ceased being a "low cost visitor serving facility".

Parking fees also place an undue burden on surrounding neighborhoods, municipalities and jurisdictions.  When fees are high at State Beach lots, many beachgoers choose to park on side streets and elsewhere.  This creates a cost to local government for law enforcement  and a nuisance to homeowners.  Business owners may also be negatively  impacted by beachgoers monopolizing  customer parking. Environmental damage will likely occur from people parking on the road in rural areas and walking through sensitive habitat to access the beach.  Local government is very short on resources.  There simply are not enough county personnel to adequately police the areas impacted by the predictable changes in coastal user behavior should these fees be implemented.

The word "fee"  implies that it is offsetting a specific cost.  Are parking "fees" actually tied to the cost of capital investment in parking lots and facilities, or to the operation of the parking lots.? Are the fees offsetting the cost of restrooms or the availability of lifeguards?  Fees are being charged indiscriminately regardless of amenities available at a site.  Additionally, if the fees are actually levied to support amenities other than parking, then the few  beach-goers who are able to use transit to arrive at the beach  are not shouldering their proportion of the burden of operating these amenities, so therefore the fees are arbitrary in nature. Coastwalk hopes to see these issues examined by the new Parks Forward Commission as it works to develop policies that will sustain our Parks System while hopefully enhancing access for all of the public.  In the Parks Forward Commission's  mission to make our Parks system more relevant to California's changing demographics, the issue of financial barriers to access must be addressed.

In the long run, significant parking fees may be needed to motivate beachgoers to forgo using their cars and motivate them toward using transit in the future.  We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions as is called for by State policy.  However,  motivating beachgoers toward transit requires that an affordable and viable transit system be available.  Viable transit means that beachgoers be able to get to the beach from inland areas in a reasonable amount of time.  Affordable and viable transit is not available along the coast in most areas of California at this time.  Until a robust affordable transit system exists, significant parking fees constitute a substantial barrier to coastal public access since there is not a reasonable alternative to accessing the beach without an automobile.

The people of California voted for the Passage of Proposition 20 in 1972 largely in support of beach access. They envisioned free access to their public property, our beaches and coastline.  Taxpayers expect access to the properties and amenities that their taxes have paid for.  Access to free recreation is vital to our health, both physical and mental, and creating financial barriers to it gives rise to more costs than savings in the long run.  Beach access is a huge positive economic driver.  State Parks deficit is small relative to the State's as a whole AND relative to the economic activity generated by access to our coastline and the recreation opportunities provided by the State Parks system. Public support of common infrastructure does generate private economic benefit therefore publically owned assets need not be treated as profit centers that must generate fee based revenues since their positive economic effect is realized in private economic activity and its resulting tax revenue.

For all of these reasons, we find it totally unacceptable for these collection devises to be installed.  Please uphold Sonoma County's long tradition leadership of supporting coastal public access by just saying no to iron rangers! 

Thank you so much for considering our comments.

Sincerely,

Una J. M. Glass

Executive Director,  Coastwalk California

Google CCT Map Project

Greetings!

Several years ago, I promised Don Nierlich that I would carry on his dream of improving Coastwalk's Online California Coastal Trail (CCT) Maps. Almost 500 detailed maps had been created, identifying the locations of public access points for the CCT, and including photos and information related to public amenities. Visually stunning at the time of their development, current challenges are to add more content, improve their quality, and make them more accessible online.

Innovations by Google in Google Maps and Google Earth have provided an opportunity to link our map database to customized presentations residing on our website and blogs, and to utilize the information within our current program to support the California Coastal Trail Association.  Using the public access points as the online homes of important content all along the Trail, we can support the efforts of CCT activists in local government, Coastwalk California chapters, and the general public.

The Prezi embedded below describes the online architecture of our initial structure of the data and its presentations.  We encourage your thoughts through this post's comments feature on how we might improve the project's design.

California Local Coastal Planning

Greetings!

California County Local Coastal Plan activities will be posted on the following blogs:

Del Norte
Humboldt
Mendocino
Sonoma
Marin
San Francisco
San Mateo
Santa Cruz
Monterey
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Ventura
Los Angeles
Orange
San Diego


Here is a report on the Status of California's Local Coastal Plans from the Coastal Commission:

Local Coastal Plan Update Advocacy

Recently, two members of Coastwalk California's Advocacy Committee provided comments to local planning bodies working to improve their Local Coastal Plans.  

Stan Bluhm testified on March 27th before the Marin County Board of Supervisors in favor of continuing to explore a possible water crossing (on-call ferry service) across the mouth of Tomales Bay and Bolinas Lagoon, both of which are necessary to realize a continuous CCT through Marin County.  The update to the Plan moves the CCT to alongside Highway 1 along the east side of Stinson Beach, and we were pleased that the Board agreed to wording which indicates that the north county trail alignment along rural roads is a "interim route".  Video of the hearing can be seen at: http://marin.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=33&clip_id=6135 , and Stan's public testimony can be read at: ·       http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/pdf/planning/coastal/Letters/Coastwalk_3-27-2012.pdf.

Nancy Graves provided comments to the North San Luis Obispo County Coastal Trail Master Update Planning Hearings (http://www.slocoastaltrail.com).  Here is her letter:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Northern San Luis Obispo County Coastal Trail Master Plan. Alta Planning has done a fine job of integration within this multifaceted area. I was happy to see the plan come together using the wealth of documentation available, and appreciate the difficulty of creating the Master Plan that will guide the future of this magnificent coastline.

I am going to limit my comments to those areas where I believe Alta may have missed some opportunities for sensitive planning of the California Coastal Trail. While I understand the reluctance to show beach routes as viable hiking trails, I think it is important for planning purposes to include them as planned loop trails along with the designated sidepaths and bluff top trails shown.

Considering how people will use this natural recreation area: most will arrive by vehicle, leave their vehicles parked in a staging area and plan to access the sandy and tidal beaches for the day. Providing loops with controlled vertical accesses to the beach can be the most protective of the sensitive resources in the marine terraces. These vertical accesses need to be clearly identified in the plan. For hikers and families with children, a walk along the beach with a return to the staging area by a sidepath or bluff top trail can be the most valuable and educational natural experience we can provide. Therefore, the vertical accesses become a important component for planning this use. For long distance hikers, the opportunity to leave the beach at specified accessways and walk on unpaved surfaces is a welcome relief. We are drawn to the beach, people will continue to access the beaches, especially the sandy ones. Without controlled vertical accesses, volunteer trails through sensitive habitats will become the norm. By planning the walking routes with loops back to staging areas, peoples’ experience will be enriched while keeping sensitive areas free of volunteer trails.

I have not done a complete study of specific loop trails within the Study Area, but some obvious areas for envisioned loop trails would include Segments 2, 3 and 6. Segment 6.  Estero Bluffs is already in use in this way. While the draft Master Plan addresses those volunteer and overused vertical accesses in Segment 6, it does not address the concept of the looped beach trail. In Segments 2 and 3, within the Hearst San Simeon acquisition, there is an excellent opportunity for integrating staging areas, sidepaths, beach and bluff routes with short, midrange and long distance loops.

There is this unspoken fear, especially from land managers, that we must shield people from the natural world and at the same time, schizophrenically, teach them to protect and respect the natural world. I believe the famous saying that we only cherish that which we can experience. This can only be accomplished by allowing access to that which is precious, dangerous and awesome.

As a coastal hiker, I and many in the Coastwalk family are well aware of blowing sand dunes, rocky shores, tidal headlands, seasonal creeks, biological and cultural resources and endangered species that can complicate and enrich a direct lateral beach route. These things are generally not deterents, and more often add to our respect for the natural experience. In the journal of the Coastal Trail Expedition in 2003, which can be found at the Coastwalk website, www.coastwalk.org , these challenges are what made the experience so rich.

I would encourage Alta Planning in cooperation with State Parks and the County of San Luis Obispo to include careful planning for beach routes within the Administrative Draft of the Northern San Luis Obispo County Coastal Trail Master Plan.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment, I look forward to the next draft document.

Nancy Graves

SLO County Trails Advisory Cmte.

SLO County Transportation Advisory Cmte

Board Director, Coastwalk California

 

We're on Google+

The First 70 Film Project

The First 70 Film Project


The Project

Last May, California announced plans to close one quarter of their 278 parks, a devastating move that is intended to save the state a mere $22 million per year. The closure list includes thousands of acres of park land, recreation areas, wildlife reserves, and 50% of the state's historic parks. By July 2012 Californians will be bereft of 70 magnificent natural parks. The media has done little to disclose the ongoing closures or emphasize their impact.

Not wanting to miss the chance to see these places before they were gone forever, we decided to make our way across California in a converted airport shuttle bus, shooting as many parks and people as possible. Individuals we met along the way were concerned about the closing of their local parks, but no one had a collective firsthand experience of the overall picture. As we connected dots on a map, a pattern emerged. No one knew exactly what the conditions of closure would be, nor could they see how the state would ultimately benefit.

The First 70 is a short film about Californians banding together to enact change and develop solutions in the face of a glaring bureaucratic oversight. Volunteers have been forced to lend even more of their time and effort to support the already grossly underfunded state park system. Independent organizations and nonprofits have become obligated to step up to the challenge of keeping parks open, supporting them financially while working within the state's guidelines.

View the film: