Pierpont Beach Public Works Maintenance Plan

Will dogs no longer be allowed on the City portion of

Pierpont Beach between San Pedro and Camden LN?

Here is the body of an email from Rich Rojas, CA State Parks Superintendent, to

Rosemary, PCC Beach Chairman.  It looks like the City and State Parks may

try to keeps dogs off the 40 feet wide parcel of city property that runs from San Pedro

to Camden LN.  Our dog owners are not going to be happy with this.

Rosemary-

Sorry for the delay in not responding to your questions regarding State Park rules and regulations

for the Pierpont Beach section of San Buenventura State Beach.  As you know, our State

Parks staff have been working with Ventura City and Coastal Commission staff in developing a

Sand Management Plan for this area and some of your questions may have an impact on the 

success or failure of what is currently proposed in the plan.

With regards to ownership and management of Shore Drive, I suggest that you refer to the Questions

and Answers posted on the City's webpage for Pierpont Beach.  Since abandoning Shore Drive as a

public street, the City and State Parks have managed the 40 foot section as a continuation of the State

Beach.  So the idea of promoting Shore Drive as a new dog park seems counter productive to that

practice and to the concept of stabilizing dunes and protecting the beach closest to privately owned homes. 

   Yes.  San Buenaventura State Beach includes the section of Pierpont Beach west from San

   Pedro to approximately Camden Lane.

   Correct.  Dogs are allowed in the developed picnic area, bike and walking paths and parking

   lots at San Buenaventura State Beach; on a leash, but they are not allowed on the sandy

   beach or dunes.

   Alcoholic beverages may be consumed at San Buenaventura State Beach by persons of legal

   drinking age.  Use of glass containers of any kind are prohibited from the use at the State Beach.

   Camping (overnight sleeping) and open ground fires are prohibited on the State Beach. 

   Camping in self-contained RV'S in the developed parking areas may be approved by

   Special Event permit. 

The normal hours of operation for San Buenaventura State Beach is 7:00 AM to Sunset. 

Please contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns regarding San Buenaventura State Beach. 

_________________________________

Article from the Ventura County Star 3-4-08

Click here to put in your comments on the Ventura CountyStar webpage .  We need your input!

Blog: Making Waves

Ventura County Star – Marie Lakin

March 04, 2008

Tsunami!

A GIANT WAVE of negative public sentiment hit the Pierpont Sand Management

Plan during a contentious public hearing tonight at City Hall.

The overflow beach crowd argued against the proposal in front of the plan's two biologist authors and representatives from the city, state, and the Coastal Commission, which all have jurisdiction over the plan.

"I think it's abhorrent," said Pierpont resident Dan Scully, bitterly complaining about the city's request that the beachfront owners pay to move the giant sand dunes which are encroaching on their houses. "How can you legally make any property owner clean up somebody else's property?"

One speaker called the plan "junk" and still others took issue with the science of the plan itself which calls for the creation and management of a natural dune environment with plantings which will abate the buildup of sand against the houses.

A geologist speaking at the forum claimed there was no guarantee the plan would work and many, such as Pierpont resident Rosemary Icardo, complained about the difficulties involved with maintaining the new dune plantings and roping them off from the public, thus eliminating an estimated 41 percent of the beach from public access.

"We didn't ask to be gardeners on state lands," Icardo said. 

__________________________________________

Beach residents grill officials on sand plan

Wednesday, March 05, 2008 - Ventura County Star,

By Kevin Clerici

Dozens of Pierpont Beach residents jammed a Ventura meeting room Tuesday to vent frustrations and ask hard questions about why city and state officials expect residents to pay to move excessive sand and build potential view-blocking dunes on public beaches outside their homes.

For more than two hours, residents questioned the science and logic behind a city-produced Sand Management Plan they cast as flawed, unfair and written without their input.

"This is sand on city property, not residents' property," said Don Scully, a resident on Winthrop Lane. "We have hundreds and thousands of visitors (come to the beach), why are they not being charged?"

A panel that included city officials and state and Coastal Commission scientists who authored the plan responded to questions as new details trickled out.

Ventura City Councilman Brian Brennan, who moderated the three-hour workshop inside Ventura City Hall, vowed to get back to residents on more than two dozen questions the panel couldn't answer on the spot.

Brennan acknowledged residents' frustration, and several times had to ask audience members to stop interrupting, booing or cheering. He said the panel welcomed the input. "We're not trying to sell you on this," he said.

Scientists who authored the plan said its intent is to introduce clear rules on how homeowners can move encroaching sand in a way sensitive to the beach environment.

Scientists describes the mile-long stretch of sand outside homes as a dynamic environment, home to rare dune habitat and sensitive species such as globose dune beetles and legless lizards that must be protected under the federal Coastal Act.

 While the state Coastal Commission has not formally designated the beach as a sensitive habitat, "that would be my determination," said Jonna Engel, a Coastal Commission ecologist and one of the plan's authors.

City officials said they had a responsibility to clear sand from drains and public stairways at the end of lanes, but acknowledged they had little money to do more than respond to complaints.

Residents walk on the beach and see fields of trampled sand, with trash and debris from illegal fires, and struggle to grasp the well-thread area as a sensitive habitat.

They complained much of what is now open beach would be covered with man-made, fenced off dunes that residents would have to pay to install and take care of.

"We've been asked to move tons of sand, put in irrigation systems, plant vegetation and even monitor the dunes --- on city property," Scully said. "That's abhorrent."

Said Judy Roach: "I find it ridiculous to be told as a private citizen to pay for improvements on public land."

Roach asked the panel how she was supposed to insure herself and who would be liable if someone were to get hurt on a dune she had to get a permit to build questions the panel couldn't answer.

City officials described a sand-covered road some 40 feet wide at the end of the lanes as a city-controlled easement with buried utility lines, but said the sand on top of it should be viewed as part of the state-controlled beach that doesn't allow dogs or fires.

Dave Hubbard, a coastal scientist on the panel, said there were less than 1,000 acres of sensitive dune habitat along California's coastline in 1990 and that number surely has dropped.

Sand issues, from debris to excessive buildup, stretch back decades outside homes in Pierpont. Up until the late 1990s, earthmovers and tractors were allowed on the beach each year to level sand driven onshore by prevailing winds. The Coastal Commission stopped that practice in 1989, officials said.

The current situation escalated in 2006 when a deluge of sand was driven high winds against properties and overtopped public stairways.

 The weight of the dunes buckled a homeowner's glass-paned retaining wall and damaged several fences outside homes. At least one homeowner has sued to recover his expenses. Homeowners in recent months have inundated city leaders with dozens of emails spotlighting sand-choked city drains and complaints of being left out of a process to write rules intended to get them relief.

"This is not the plan we want, and it should not be imposed on us," resident Colleen Reiner said.

Under the plan, residents who want to move sand encroaching on their property would need to apply for and pay for a city permit. By hand or using designated equipment, workers could move the sand 10 feet to 20 feet away from the owner's property line, depending on the distance the home is from the ocean.

The sand would have to be built into a mound sloped between 20 degrees and 30 degrees, with the backside of the slope planted with native vegetation to help stabilize the sand. The perimeter of the new dune ultimately would be outlined by a thin cable, similar to what is currently used on nearby state beaches. A qualified biologist would be required on-site during all work.

"I resent the city sticking their hand in my wallet," said Lisa Stern, who owns a one-story house at the end of Bangor Lane. Stern, like others, said she plans to fight, even if it takes legal action. She doesn't think it's fair to ask the community to pay to move sand on city property for something that ultimately would restrict public access to the beach.

"The dunes are going to grow and grow and grow," she said.

The Ventura City Council is scheduled to hear a presentation on the plan and other beach issues on Monday night. The sand management plan would go to the city's Planning Commission sometime later this year for adoption, if the council agrees to move forward, officials said. Any sand work would have to be performed between

Sept. 15 and May 15 to avoid affecting "visitors, grunion and potential nesting birds," the plan says.

VCStar Article

Save Pierpont Beach

Community Support is Needed

Amgen’s website for beach cleanup

Imagine loving the ocean so much that you move to the beach. You decide that putting up with the traffic and the vacationers is worth the trouble just to have the luxury of seeing your beloved ocean when you walk to the end of the street, or look out your window.  Wrong!  Pierpont Beach has been the victim of buckpassing over sand encroaching over the stairs and streets and to the point where it actually blocks the views of residents from the second stories of their windows.  Technically, one would think the city is responsible for pushing back the sand since they own the first 100 feet from the homes, but there are more bureaucracies than seashells down there.  Following is the response Rosemary Icardo recently wrote for one of the city's famous "Negative Declarations" where they declare there will be no adverse affects from one of their actions or inactions as the case may be:

February 4, 2008
To Whom It May Concern:

 Re:  Pierpont Beach (Sand Management Plan) SMP Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration

        Case EI 2496

 1)  Loss of  unknown acres of recreational land lost due to this process.

This will damage the public’s ability to access the beach and long-standing                  recreational uses of the beach will be impaired.  The walking area, Shore Drive, is to be restricted by native plantings.  This 40’ area in front of private property has long been the way people move from San Pedro to Marina Park.  In addition City and State vehicles used to(prior to about 2004) and should be using this area to move along the beach, maintain the beach and collect trash.  It is much safer for these vehicles to move in front of houses than beach face, where beach visitors are.  Persons with special needs are not able to scale the groins and therefore are restricted from free movement on the public beach when the 40’ area in front of private property is not kept clear.  In addition, for the entire time I have lived here, families with young children have used this are as a safe place for these children to play all the while being observed by their parents.  This area currently is hazadorous and would become restricted if planted.  People are only allowed legal dog walking in this 40’area.  That would end if this plan is put into effect.

2)  The project would create dunes where none exist and would damage view from the Pierpont Community.  Damage to, or impairment of, views is an environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act that has not been mitigated in the Negative Declaration (ND) or the SMP.  Since my residence is beach front, this is of grave concern to me.  I have placed several photos taken 2/02/08 that clearly show the encroachment , certain damage and loss of the major portion of my views at the end of this letter.  When my home was purchased in 1991, the ocean was visible from the first floor of my home.  Currently, I must stand on a chair on the second floor of my home to see the beach.  The current height of this wind blown sand hill is 30’ above sea level.  It is higher than the 2^nd floor of my home.  There is over 1,000 tons of sand that needs to be relocated,  moving slowly  to overcome my home.  I paid more for my home and have paid higher taxes through the years because of the supposed increased value of my property created by view shed.  In addition, before investing in my property, I ask the then City Manager about sand encroachment.  I was told that it was “no worry as the City had to maintain Shore Drive.”  I left that meeting with nothing in writing.  I unfortunately believed in the City Manager’s word. 

3)  Dangerous conditions at the end of lanes, turnouts, would continue.  The project does not require the sand hills at the ends of lanes to be removed, lowered and maintained.  The right of the public to have safe access to the beach is law.  This also is true of encroachment on to private property where sharp drops over or onto private property including over roofs creates hazardous conditions for public usage.  Wind blown sand has encroached and rests approximately one foot below the fence of my property in an ever widening area of my fence.  When beachfront fences were built, they were not built as retaining walls.  Children constantly slide down the sand using their bodies or boogie boards, running into a concrete fence.  Soon they will be able to roll over the wall and fall 4 feet onto a brick planter and brick walkway.  Serious injury will occur.  Many other residents have the same or similar hazardous conditions imposed upon them by sand from City property encroachment. 

4)  Biological issues:  Creation of and maintenance of man made “natural dunes” in a very heavily trafficked area could result in “take” of endangered species.  The created dunes will attract birds and legless lizards, which are at high risk due to predatory companion animals (cats and dogs), opossum and ground squirrels that reside here and the general traffic from the million visitors a year.  This area has visitors from all over Ventura County, adjoining Counties, other State and International travelers.  The City of Ventura’s LCP (Local Costal Plan) states the Pierpont Beach is a NON ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.)  Why does the SMP continually refer to the ESHA where there is none?

Keep in mind the SMP does not address the conflict with the Coastal Act (is not intended to promote a taking without compensation, including conditioning a permit u-on the exaction of land—this plan would result in local homeowners having to maintain a public beach in order to prevent property damage at their own homes.  This could be considered a “taking.”   In addition, Public Resources Code 30107.5 defines an ESHA (environmentally sensitive habitat area) as an especially rare or valuable habitat because of its “special nature” which “could easily be disturbed or degraded by human activity.”   Pierpont Beach is the most used beach in the County.  Combine this definition with Public Resources Code 30116: “sensitive coastal resource area.”  This definition asks the LCPs (Local Coastal Plans) protect and preserve these areas, defined as recreational areas, and significant visitor destination areas.  The Pierpont Beach is so heavily trafficked that it should be protected under 30116, not 30107.5. Does not the very definition preclude a heavily-trafficked beach as an ESHA?  In addition, 30221 requires protection of oceanfront recreational lands.  The Coastal Act was passed to protect public access to the coast, not restrict public use of public beachfront lands.

The SMP seeks financial funding from the private citizens who own beachfront private property.  The City and the State are the owners of the lands being targeted for maintenance, not private property.  These homeowners have paid an inequitable amount in taxation for the maintenance of public property already.  The escalated cost of this project is the sole responsibility of the City and State for abandoning the beach maintenance from 2000 through today.  In January 2007, the Pierpont Community Council had a meeting with Ron Caulkins and ask that the 40’ in front of private property known as Shore Drive be cleared of sand and that sand be recycled back to the ocean shore where it  could cover the hazadorous winter storm debris that the City fails to clean up.  Safe homes, safe public accesses and sand at the shore that can be walked on barefoot with out physical damage was the quest of the citizens of Pierpont Beach.  The pursuit of this as well as damage to private property escalating, has resulted in this creation of “natural dunes” and reference to Sensitive Habitats as the SMP.  I ask that these negative mitigated declarations be considered.

Yours truly,

Rosemary F. Icardo

Beachfront Homeowner

Chair, Beach Committee Pierpont Community Council

Chair, VCSB(Ventura Citizens for a Safer Beach) group of beachfront homeowner who have legal council(Kate Neiswender, Attorney)