You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘California Coast Politics’ category.
After reading Where The Road Begins, I wonder why I’ve never seen on cars of Big Sur residents’, bumper stickers protesting, “To Hell With Ansel Adams!”
The author of Where The Road Begins, Peter Gray Scott, is a resident of the Oakland Hills, born and raised in Berkeley, and educated at Stanford. Mr. Scott is an architect who wrote this three-part book, Where the Road Begins: The Saga of Big Sur’s Pioneer Families, and Environmentalism in America.
The first part provides the history of American settlement in Big Sur, initiated by English-American William Brainard Post and his Ohlone-Rumsen wife, Maria Anselma Onesimo. The second part focuses on the building of the coast road through the Sur in the 1930s, and the effects once the world rushed in and “discovered” Big Sur. The third part, with only two short chapters, is about the new people in Big Sur, “. . . who were financially secure or whose income came from somewhere else. They may have come for the beauty of the place, but they had no essential dependence on the land.”
Mr. Scott details a “Golden Age” on the south coast of about 70 years, from the 1870s to the 1940s. This Golden Age grew out of an American idealism of individualism, self-reliance, and the pursuit of frontier and wilderness as one’s destiny. The early settlers considered land stewardship their obligation to community: “Protect the water supply, mitigate erosion, avoid uncontrolled fires, handle waste appropriately, tend the essential plantings, and ensure the livestock had enough to eat without destroying the pasture.”
The Golden Age was an insular time when few outsiders passed through, and those who came and went, were provided food and shelter at a ranch, so long as they worked for their supper and bed.
The highway creation itself was a State-managed project, with no environmental impact reports and no strategic planning. Promises were made to residents of culverts and bridges, and promises were broken. Rights of way weren’t paid to residents, yet the residents’ were paying the taxes that went to the road being dynamited through their land.
Once the highway was built, the Sur opened to the world. With the highway construction completed, the Big Sur economy changed from a dependence on the land, to a tourism economy, now comprised of serving meals and providing lodging for the many post-World War II automobile travelers. ”The highway that brought the tourists was also the breach in the fortress-like geography that had protected Big Sur for nearly a century. The dead-end residential road morphed into a link in the State’s transportation system.”
The obligations remain the same, though, ”Protect the water supply, mitigate erosion, avoid uncontrolled fires, handle waste appropriately, tend the essential plantings, and ensure the livestock had enough to eat without destroying the pasture.”
“Save Big Sur? From what? For whom?”
And then came Ansel Adams. Ansel was one of the directors of the Sierra Club in the mid-sixties when he moved to Carmel Highlands. Ansel was never a resident of Big Sur, nor did he ever ask the opinion of any of the 800 Big Sur residents, but Ansel decided that the Sur needed saving and proposed the “Big Sur National Scenic Area.” A National Park like Cape Cod, except that Cape Cod National Seashore, with its 40 miles of wide sandy beaches, eleven nature trails, and three acre residential lots, isn’t like Big Sur. Imagine a one acre parking structure, built ten stories high, in Big Sur, and, if truly emulating Cape Cod National Seashore, then include picnic areas, comfort stations, shuttle buses and additional parking lots. Also, carve out a municipal airport. All these amenities were to accomodate an anticipated twelve million annual visitors*.
How did the Sur escape such a fate? Buy Where The Road Begins: The Saga of Big Sur’s Pioneer Families, and Environmentalism in America.
Henry Miller Library
Nepenthe’s Phoenix Shop
Amazon
*Current estimate is about three million annual visitors.
According to page 5 of Exhibit A of San Mateo County’s Director of Public Works “Executive Summary, Vegetation Management Plan,” there are “only a handful of people” asking for San Mateo County to begin a Mow Only Program with only very minimal use of herbicides to manage unincorporated San Mateo County roadsides.
“Recommendation #24 Hire facilitator to work with staff and citizens to improve communication - low prioritization ‐ Cost: $25.000 ‐ $30,000 – This could be considered in the future. However, we believe several other communication enhancements are an appropriate first step, especially in light of the fact that there are no more than a handful of residents who have expressed concern in this area.”
This Tuesday, March 13, at 9:00 a.m., the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, will vote Yes or No on the following statement found on the last page of San Mateo County’s Director of Public Works, “Executive Summary, Vegetation Management Plan,” which is posted on the internet at: To view the Executive Summary, click on:
http://sanmateo.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=76&doctype=AGENDA
then click on REGULAR AGENDA #12:
PUBLIC WORKS 12. Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to supplement current vegetation management practices through the implementation of a program enhancement plan.
then click on the PDF link in the right-side window.
“NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the San Mateo County Department of Public Works continue to manage roadside vegetation through a combination of mowing and spraying, but supplement its practices with the enhancements identified in the Department’s program enhancement plan.”
This statement does not establish Just Say Mow (with minimal use of herbicide spray), as more than a handful of residents have requested. Over 600 unincorporated county residents have asked the county to cease and desist the use of spraying herbicides within the La Honda ~ San Gregorio Creek Watershed. For about ten years, Pescadero Creek Watershed roads have functioned just fine with a mow only program and without the county spraying any of its roads.
The county sprays herbicides along the roadsides of county-managed roads as found on the map posted as page 16 on the above-referenced Executive Summary.
CalTrans District 4 uses broadcast herbicide spray along Highway 84, but not along Highway 1 due to the population of human residents and the agricultural uses of fields that border the highway. CalTrans does not use broadcast herbicide spray along Highway 92 due to the amount of human activity/traffic impeding a safe time when to spray.
The statement to be voted upon above, asks that DPW be allowed to continue to use herbicide spray. This will then allow CalTrans to continue its use of herbicide spray along Highway 84.
The supplemental practices, the enhancements to the mow/spray program, are detailed on pages 1 – 8 of Exhibit A of the above-referenced Executive Summary.
Of the 34 Enhancements and Recommendations, all but one Recommendation support the continued use of Herbicide Spray for roadside vegetation management. Only Recommendation #11 received a Pro/Con Comment of “No downsides.”
“Recommendation #11: Continue to investigate on an on‐going basis, alternative herbicide products, including organic and natural products – high prioritzation ‐ discussed but not specifically presented among the Baefsky report recommendations. TBD. Work towards achieving greater efficiencies, cost savings and greater program effectiveness. Comment: No downsides.”
All the other 33 Recommendations are Pro-Spray, and, even if a Recommendation is proposed as No spray – Pro Mowing, the Recommendation is negated in the Pro/Con Comment, such as:
“Recommendation #27 Upgrade and Replace Old Mowers: one every two years - medium prioritization ‐ Cost: $100,000 annually – We will create long term mower replacement plans. However, a new mower is approximately $135,000 and we do not believe the program could absorb such costs every one to two years.”
Why would a new $135K mower need to be replaced every one or two years?
You can read all the 34 Recommendations on pages 7 – 14 within the above-referenced Executive Summary.
Sign the Just Say Mow Petition at:
Directly write your San Mateo County BOS asking them to please not vote Yes to this statement on Tuesday, and instead to require the SMC Department of Public Works to open itself up to the possibility of an Herbicide-Free Coastal Zone:
SMC Board of Supervisors to contact :
President Adrienne Tissier <atissier at co.sanmateo.ca.us>; phone: 650-363-4572
Vice Pres. Don Horsley <Dhorsley at co.sanmateo.ca.us>; phone: 363-4569
Supervisor Dave Pine <Dpine at co.sanmateo.ca.us>; phone: 363-4571
Supervisor Carole Groom <cgroom at co.sanmateo.ca.us>; phone: 363-4568
Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson <RoseJG at co.sanmateo.ca.us>; phone: 363-4570
The Baefsky Report on San Mateo County’s Roadside Vegetation Management can be found on page 7 at:
http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachments/bos/pdfs/Environmental%20Quality/2012/EQAgenda_20120117.pdf
Tuesday the 21st in Sacramento the State Water Resources Control Board voted 5-to-0 to ban septic tanks, effectively changing the way Malibu handles the effluent of the affluent. This unanimous vote upholds the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board proposed prohibition on new septics and a phase-out of current septics in the Malibu Civic Center area while the City of Malibu pursues a permanent solution.
Did you catch that last part?
“…while the City of Malibu pursues a permanent solution.” Huh? You mean, we’ve banned the only sewage treatment we’ve got, before we’ve made a decision on a shared sewage treatment solution?
Isn’t that a donkey before the cart scenario? Shouldn’t the solution to Malibu’s septic situation be analyzed and realized before banning the current septic situation?
Here is what is proposed: In 4 years, all commercial establishments in the civic center area of the City of Malibu must no longer use their current septic system. In 9 years, all residences must then comply.
With this approach, there is nothing to step onto. IF, in 4 years, a sewage treatment plant is not built, then what? Read the rest of this entry »
