Tourist Tuesday & The California Coastal Commission

This was an expansion of the oral statement Martha Diehl offered before the community meeting last Friday hosted by Supervisor Mary Adams for our Coastal Commission representative, Commissioner Groome. Martha spoke with Commissioner Groome at the pre tour meeting in the Highlands as Mary Adams requested. That one wasn’t filmed & had no audience so nobody except the invitees heard her. She was asked to give an overview of the LUP to set the scene for the driving tour before the community meeting. She also submitted this letter to the commissioner in this more expansive written format. Remember, the Coastal Commission’s purpose is to increase public access to our state’s coastal regions, which can sometimes be at odds with environmental protections and community needs. This is a long read, but well worth it. Thank you, Martha, for allowing me to publish this!


8 thoughts on “Tourist Tuesday & The California Coastal Commission

  1. Wow! Excellent, informative, powerful! Foundations clearly laid out, issues articulated in relation to the underlying agreements, collaboration very effectively sought! Bravo Martha! Anyone reading this will learn a tremendous amount, and the key is hidden somewhere in the Land Use Plan, a statement that visitor access to the Big Sur Coast shall be primarily visual, which Martha brings forth several times….it’s not about increasing physical access to the beach! Personally, I don’t understand when or why the Coastal Commission changed their “ Mission” to be providing access from what was largely understood at the time of its formation to be that of Protecting the land. I believe this occurred when they ousted the longtime leader, a conservationist, in a political coup, a decade or so ago. Maybe our current Governor can successfully re-direct their “Mission?!” Again, thank you Martha

  2. Kudos to Martha. I imagine this was not an easy speech to write.

  3. The reason the Coastal Commission has adjusted its mission to providing access is because high-net-worth individuals in places like Malibu have decided to try to illegally restrict access to the coast in order to create their own “private beaches,” trying to keep out the “riff-raff” who dare to intrude on what these landowners view as “theirs.”

    I agree 100% that, in the case of Big Sur, “access” ought to be defined as “access to the views,” as the reality that most of the actual beach, where it exists at all, is highly impractical to physically reach by land, and most of it ought to be protected habitat in any event.

    Besides, in the few places the beach is easily accessible, the view isn’t nearly as interesting as it is from atop the bluffs anyway!

  4. Joe, there is also another issue with the CCC that has to do with them approving our BSLUP then allowing organizations like Ventana to do “end runs” so-to-speak around the CCC approved LUP by allowing minor adjustments, or alignments, like converting the old Post Homestead, a local historical building, into a BBQ and/or Bakery with major new walls, paving, etc without local notice and review. CCC says it is minor, neighbors and local residents think it is major. Take the Big Sur pledge

  5. Kate,

    Fair enough, I was just responding to Susan’s specific question around access. For better or worse, the CCC is responding to statewide issues, and sometimes that results in a sledgehammer being used to swat a fly, so to speak. As usual, it’s the 0.1% (not even the 1%) ruining things for the rest of us.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.