Interesting results from the Herald poll.
Poll ended 6/12 (134 total votes):
Should the free-flowing turn from Carmel Valley Road onto northbound Highway 1 become permanent?
Yes — 67 votes, or 50%
No — 67 votes, or 50%
Thanks to all of you who took the time to vote. CV and Big Sur/Highlands are tied. Next, attend the meeting Monday, if you can.
This next week, during the once-in-a-decade US Open, the TAMC is experimenting with allowing “free-flowing” right hand turns from CV Rd. unto Highway One, north. This “experiment” may continue for some time, up to a couple years, until a second lane is added between Rio Rd and Carmel Valley Rd.
While Carmel Valley residents are pleased with this idea, those who live (and work) in Big Sur or the Carmel Highlands, are not. Many of us remember the back-ups on Highway One going into town, that sometimes snaked all the way past Point Lobos, and through the Highlands. Big Sur’s concerns are primarily two-fold: One, is the delay in response times for emergency vehicles; the second is discouraging traffic down the coast, given the nightmare that can be the return trip.
One can read the full article from The Herald here.
You can express your views in several ways, one of which is writing the following people:
TAMC
55B Plaza Circle
Salinas, CA 93901-2902
info@TAMCMonterey.org
and copy Dave Potter, our County Supervisor
Monterey Courthouse
1200 Aguajito Rd., Ste. 1
Monterey, CA 93940
district5@co.monterey.ca.us
Call TAMC at 775-0903
Call Candace Ingram at 373-3609 – she really wants to hear from us
ingramgp@ix.netcom.com
There is a public meeting this Monday:
Carmel Valley Road Committee scheduled for Monday, June 14th 11-12:30. I think that meeting will be held at one of the Hacienda Carmel meeting rooms, but a call to TAMC can confirm the exact location.
Also, the “Question of the Day” on The Herald front page (at the bottom on the left) is about this plan. Do take the poll, as the “powers that be” do pay attention to these online newspaper polls. Find it here-Herald online poll Currently the poll is showing 20 to 14 in favor of allowing the “free” right hand turn, so vote, if it matters!
I rarely write opinion pieces, but I am drawn to do so because of a couple of controversies here in Big Sur, currently engendering much discussion and thought. In that vein, I offer the following:
There seems to be a current trend in Big Sur to view the individual or the individual community as a) incapable; b) unqualified; or c) uninformed when it comes to making decisions about its own sustainability and future. What is best for the common good, and how is that obtained? Who makes the decisions? Big Sur has two such controversial projects going on currently, and I see them as related, if one looks at the larger view of the common good. Whose decision is it, anyway? Both projects are discussed below.
The common good is a notion that originated over two thousand years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, the contemporary ethicist, John Rawls, defined the common good as “certain general conditions that are…equally to everyone’s advantage”. (The Common Good Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer.)
In Big Sur, we currently have two controversial projects which demonstrate this principle, and on which people are significantly divided, some being for one and not the other, however, they represent the same goal of what is for the “common good” and who is included in he “common?”
The first project is the Andrew Molera Proposed Wilderness Area. Tom Hopkins, President of the Ventana Wilderness Alliance recently posted on the advocacy page of the VWA website, in part:
“Our challenge now is to demonstrate to Assemblymember Monning that the majority of Californians in his district, and throughout the central coast, support permanent wilderness preservation of the wild backcountry of Andrew Molera State Park.” (Tom’s complete post here)
As I read Bill Monning’s letter regarding his decision to withdraw his proposal this year, he encouraged VWA to work “with” the local Big Sur Community to come to a consensus or compromise on this issue. (Original letter here.) Instead, if I understand Tom Hopkins’s position correctly, it appears he is seeking to make an “end-run” around the local community, where his support is controversial for this project, and inundate Bill Monning’s office with support from outside the Big Sur community for the wilderness project.
Personally, I am not against this project, I think both “sides” to this issue can come to an agreement. What I am against is the manner in which it is being pursued. I wondered about the project, and why it was even necessary, but it did not upset me, until I read the above. Rather than work with the notoriously difficult Big Sur Community, VWA prefers to work outside the community.
The second “project” is the purported sale of an unidentified piece of private property on Partington Ridge to TPL for eventual turn over to the USFS. Some Big Sur residents are upset and vocal about this prospect, and feel the local community has a right to say to whom and under what conditions a private property owner may sell their land, if the eventual owner is a public agency. The justification for the public input into a private decision is the oft-cited “common good.” Big Sur’s community thinking on this appears to stem from the “loss” of community supported by housing and employment that private property might provide for such necessary endeavors to keep “community” alive in Big Sur.
Big Sur, by its actions and words, is conveying to the private property owner that his or her decision is not just his or hers, that many others have an interest in such a sale. So, is it an individual decision or a community one?
VWA implies, by its actions and commentary that the Big Sur Community is incapable of taking care of its resources, specifically the wilderness, and the “common good” is best served by taking the decision out of the hands of the local community. So, is it an individual decision of the local community, or a decision by the larger Central Coast community?
Both problems present essentially the same question, just a matter of scale. When the Big Sur community is told by the larger community what is best for it, and rebels, is it any wonder that individual land owner may also feel put upon? It reminds me of VWA’s objection to creating a firebreak by taking flora down to bare dirt, but VWA when it restores trails does just that – it is just a matter of scale. (see here, for example: Ventana trail work photos
It might seem that since all citizens benefit from the common good, we would all willingly respond to urgings that we each cooperate to establish and maintain the common good, but there are a number of obstacles that hinder us, as a society, from successfully doing so.
In the face of pluralism, efforts to bring about the common good can only lead to adopting or promoting the views of some, while excluding others, violating the principle of treating people equally. Moreover, such efforts would force everyone to support some specific notion of the common good, violating the freedom of those who do not share in that goal, and inevitably leading to paternalism (imposing one group’s preference on others), tyranny, and oppression. (Common Good, supra.)
One problem encountered by attempts to promote the common good is that of individualism. Our country’s historical traditions have always placed a high value on individual freedom, on personal rights, and on allowing each person to “do his or her own thing” and no where is that more apparent than in Big Sur.
Whether “common good” can ever be achieved, or should be achieved in Big Sur is a huge question. This community was established by individualists, propagated with individualists, and has always drawn even more individualists to her bosom. It is who we are. It also challenges us to view ourselves as members of the same community and, while respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, “. . . to [also] recognize and further those goals we share in common.” (The Common Good, supra.)
These two controversial examples provide us with the opportunity to examine how we respect the individual rights and opinions of others while promulgating our shared values and opinions into actions which provide for the “common good” of our community both small and large and present us with the further opportunity to creatively come together for solutions.
For example, on the Proposed Wilderness Area, we could achieve the goals of most, if not all, parties by encouraging Assemblyperon Monning to introduce a different bill which assures that the eastern portion of the State Park be held in perpetuity as state park lands, that it have a different designation than others, but not wilderness, and that it never be included in any future listing of possible sales of state lands. (This just an example, not a proposal.)
I am convinced we can work together to protect community, wilderness, individuality, and property rights, without destroying any of that which makes us and our place on this planet so unique.
Amazingly, there is much interest in this topic, and it seems so timely in light of the Coppenhagen Global Climate meetings being held and the proposal by our own Regional Water Agency. There was an article in the LA Times today about how Moscow proposes to engage in weather modification (“cloud seeding”) to cut down on the amount of snow it gets, by seeding the clouds OUTSIDE of town, so the snow dumps there, instead. Must make the neighbors happy, huh?
From global to local … I have also posted a link to the Impact Statement filed by the staff of the local water agency regarding their weather modification plans. Seems it is time for all of us to be tuned in, and to educate ourselves. Here are the links:
Here is a chilling quote from that article:
“You shouldn’t overstep the threshold over which the weather would change globally,” Danilian says. “We’re trying to look for that threshold in a very careful way.”
And here is our local impact statement on weather modification:
I am particularly confused by plans to do it on the WEST side of the Santa Lucia Mtns. (an error, I hope) and the “tiggering” events that will cause it to be called off, because some of them are completely dependent on the voodoo we call weather predictions. (To NOAA and Charles Bell, you know I’m kidding, right?) But even NOAA has to admit that the “science” of weather prediction has an “art” component.
Our own local agency is proposing to do what Moscow does – control the weather, and for the same reasons – financial. And I think it fascinating to look to global ramifications when discussing local issues.
When do we learn that Mother Nature understands her processes much better than we ever will? Isn’t our arrogance and greed what got us into this Global Warming mess in the first place? And yet, here we are, doing it again — or should I say still doing it.
On 12/12/09, Tom Hopkins, President of the Ventana Wilderness Alliance, sent this around:
“And this excerpt from the Forest Service Manual:
FSM 2300 – RECREATION, WILDERNESS, AND RELATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 2320 – WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT
2323.45 – Weather Modification Over Wilderness
Do not permit long-term weather modification programs that produce, during any part of successive years, a repeated or prolonged change in the weather directly affecting wilderness areas. See FSM 2323.04 for approvals.
Approve wilderness as a target area for weather modification only when:
1. The proponent can provide scientifically supportable evidence that the activities will not produce permanent, substantial changes in natural conditions.
2. The proposal includes no feature that will visibly alter or otherwise impact the wilderness environment.
3. The proposal includes no feature that is likely to reduce the value of wilderness for recreation, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, or historical use.
Short-term weather modification activities that produce only occasional, incidental, temporary, or transitory changes in the weather with carryover ground effects that last only a few days beyond the actual cloud-seeding period may be permitted.”
RE: MCRWA’s proposed cloud seeding proceeding on the basis of a negative mitigation report without benefit of a full environmental impact report (EIR).
Statement to be included in Board Packets, as suggested.
This is part of what I posted, straight off my blog:
(See prior post on this subject, a few posts below)
In addition to the above, I would like to stress that there are over 200 registered voters who live on the South Coast of Big Sur, outside of the somewhat transitory Esalen population (and at least an equal number who don’t register, for whatever reason), in isolated rural pockets who are stakeholders in the proposed action.
All of us were completely unaware of the proposed action by this board which directly impacts our lives, our properties, and our livelihoods until Friday, December 4th in the late afternoon. I would hope that the Board consider its decision carefully, and develop a full and complete Environmental Impact Report before allowing this project to proceed.
This EIR should take into consideration those concerns I expressed above, as well as those we, who will be impacted, may not have yet realized. I suggest that this EIR be developed before this board takes any action on this proposal, and that time for the scars of the Basin Complex Fire and the Chalk Fire to heal, which the BAER report indicated would be five years, or 2013, also be considered in the EIR. I would also hope that this board consider acting with more transparency to impacted communities in the future by broader dissemination of proposed actions so that the public comment period can be a meaningful one, not just a rote rendition to satisfy compliance requirements.
I plan to be at the December 21st meeting, if weather and road conditions allow, to address you personally. If there is any further information you require of me before that date, please feel free to contact me by using any of the means provided below.
(Ed. Note – I am reading all sorts of scientific articles on cloud seeding, attempting to educate myself.)
XT has posted an article here: Cloud Seeding Article
about a cloud seeding program being proposed by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. I have confirmed his story independently. The earliest the seeding would begin would be the end of January. Seeding, while controversial, has the potential to increase rainfall by 20%.
These are the concerns I have voiced so far:
Obviously, I have some serious concerns about this as we on the South Coast, seem to be directly in the path. Of course, the road up Chalk Peak has always been fragile, to say the least, and after the Chalk Fire last year, only a lot of faith and hope has held it up. Chalk Peak is the only way in or out for at least 12-15 people. Plaskett Ridge Rd. is in dire need of repair. It hasn’t been graded since 2000, and the storm of October 13th took a horrible road and turned it into a nightmare. The Hermitage is also in jeopardy, although I know they have been working hard to shore things up, so-to-speak. At Limekiln State Park, the damage from the Chalk Fire has not even been repaired, yet. Mud flows and debris flows could permanently close that park with the current fiscal situation in the State.
Additionally, there are at least three Cal-Trans projects down here currently going on that could be significantly impacted, if not stopped altogether by any decision to seed the clouds, and I think the appropriate Cal-Trans staff should be consulted, as well. XT reports that no EIA or EIR is being prepared, simply a negative mitigations report, which should have to take into consideration the horizontal drain project 1 mile north of Ragged Point; the rockshed at Rain Rocks; the bridge at Pitkins Curve; and the Gambo Tieback project just south of Packard Beach, as well as the damaged hillsides from the Chalk and Basin Fires.
The water situation in the Salinas Valley Ag community is reaching critical stages, Lake San Antonio is at 33% capacity. Lake Nacimiento is at 13%. I know their concerns, and why they would want both Lake San Antonio and Nacimiento to be at their fullest levels by the end of the season, but at what costs?
Frankly, this is a frightening possibility for the South Coast, particularly for those in or near the footprint of the 2008 Chalk Fire, and for the entire Big Sur Coast that sits in the footprint of the Basin Complex Fire.
From XT: “A hearing, at which the MCWRA Board will be asked to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, rather than a full Environmental Impact Report, will be held on December 21 at 1:00pm at 893 Blanco Circle, in Salinas.”
I’ll add the Big Sur Multi-Agency Advisory Council notes here later today, as my notes are in the car. In the meantime, here is Betty’s report from the California Coastal Trails Meeting with Bill Monning.
California Coastal Trails, Big Sur Segment:
“Yesterday’s meeting went well, although it was unbelievably cold inside the Grange hall.
Present were representatives from State Parks, County Parks, TAMC, County Planning, USFS, Coastal Commission, Coastal Conservancy, and four representatives from the Trail Committee, chaired by Bill Monning.
We began reviewing comments made by agencies and going into the first stages of a collaborative approach. A working vocabulary of terms used in planning will be developed, so that we are clear about concepts needed in order to secure support and funding.
Lee Otter has found a lot of funding sources for the trail besides the Coastal Conservancy.
Some very positive comments were made about the Community Proposal.
I felt very good about being able to see a future of interaction with the various parties using a feeling of teamwork.
We will be calling on other groups to participate as the plan proceeds, and doing public outreach for collaboration within work groups.”
NEWS RELEASE: WILD AND SCENIC RIVER LEGISLATION
INTRODUCED 11-6-09
Congressman Sam Farr (California 17th District) today introduced critical legislation to assure the protection of biological and recreational resources on federal lands in the Ventana Region and Big Sur Coast. The Big Sur Forest Service Management Unit Act (HR 4040) would implement multiple measures to protect public lands in the northern Santa Lucia Mountains, including:
o Designation of over 90 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers including portions of the Arroyo Seco, San Antonio and Carmel Rivers, as well as Big Creek;
o The designation of the Horse Canyon and Horse Pasture additions to the Ventana Wilderness Area, along with several technical boundary adjustments resulting in a net increase of approximately 2,000 acres of federally designated Wilderness;
o Establishment of the Big Sur Management Unit (BSMU), which would replace the Monterey Ranger District and provide greater management and budgetary autonomy necessary to address concerns unique to the disjunct northern unit of Los Padres National Forest;
o Conversion of the closed Arroyo Seco – Indians Road to the Arroyo Seco – Indians National Recreational Trail, a public thoroughfare offering unparalleled opportunities for hiking, equestrian use, bicycling and other forms of non- motorized recreation;
o Establishment of the Jeff Norman Botanical Area, a plant community rich in endemic maritime chaparral on National Forest lands immediately south of Pfeiffer Beach;
o Designation of the BSMU as a Wildland Urban Interface Special Study Area with the requirement that a Fire Management Plan be created within one year, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
For maps, text of the bill, and additional information, see this link:
I usually don’t like to post so many in one day, but the weather posts below are important, and the Highway One issues meeting for tonight just posted their agenda, for those interested or thinking about attending.
Posted by Ann Hobson and Carissa Chappellet, Co Chairs Hwy One Committee
Meeting today 5 pm Big Sur Lodge – Cottage by pool
667 2025 or 667 3100
DRAFT AGENDA FOR Big Sur Meeting Thursday November 5, 2009
Highway One Big Sur Cyclist and Litter Issues
Litter:
Volunteer clean-up days
Trash Cans/possibly where Emergency Phones are located
Ban Plastic Bags from Monterey County
Temporary reflectors on Hwy
Voluntary fee at station at beginning and end of 90 mile
corridor
Signage issues
Cyclists:
Road Improvements
Share the Road Signs
Cyclist Information about Cycling Hwy 1
Restrooms/Doggie Bags
California Coastal Trail
Road Sensors
Road Closure Days
Fiber-Optic benefit under bike path
Old Coast Road
Issues at Pfeiffer State Beach
Surfrider Chapter for clean-up efforts
Condors
Nature Signs or information
IIf you don’t live in Big Sur, or even if you do, but aren’t interested in Land Use Planning, skip this post. It is rather boring, though I do try to lighten it up, a tad. I had written a very factual report, but even I could not stand to read it!
South Coast LUAC (Land Use Advisory Committee or Council or Cuckolds (I’m kidding here, I’ve never been clear on which) meetings are generally pretty boring. We are supposed to “advise” the County Planning and Building Commission about building projects. Typically, only Cal-Trans is going through the process. Gorda does whatever it wants, whenever it wants, without regard to the rules or repercussions. (of which I have seen absolutely zilch.) This is the South Coast, after all.
Anyway, there are five of us on this LUAC: Jerry Provost, President; Harry Harris, Secretary; and general members – Robert Willett, Ken Harlan, and yours truly. Most have been on this LUAC for decades. I am a newcomer. Most of the time, Jerry has to talk one of the three general members into coming, so he can get a quorum. This meeting, I had planned to attend, so Ken and Robert were off the hook. Jerry, Harry, and I show up for an 11:15 am meeting. It starts at 11:50. This is Cal-Trans, remember.
Anyway, there are 4 items the Planning Department and Cal-Trans wants to discuss. Two are minor changes. But two, are significant. Cal-Trans wants to take away the office trailer to free up that space for a 7th residence, and build a new office down below. Granted, this has been in the plans for about 25 years, and the State of California is drowning in debt, and it is not likely to be funded. (If they do, I’ll be asking why it is I can’t get paid for the $$ the state is making me front, and all the work I am not getting paid for!!) But it is a significant change from the status quo. One that deserves some thought. What’s wrong with the current office?? I’ve been in it many times. It is nice.
But, the kicker is, in order to accomplish the building of the new office, of course, the County wants CT to get the designation changed from “viewshed/watershed” zoning to Gorda Rural Community Center zoning. Cool, now Cal-Trans can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, just like Gorda. (I’m sorta kidding here, I think.) CT claims that the County said it was left out of the contentious General Plan (I think it is #5, now?) by accident, and should have been changed with the CP. Of course, the CP hasn’t been adopted, yet, because there have been so many difficulties and fighting factions.
Sure, it doesn’t matter that Cal-Trans has been at this same location since the mid-30’s or over 70 years, now they need to change the zoning on this historical place. (I used this time to let them know if they tried to tear down the original bunk house, I would come after them!) As to “grandfathering” in this old location, there is a reason it cannot be done, but I’ll be damned if I understood it.
Being the new kid on the block, and being an attorney who engages in argument just for fun, I don’t want to “rubber-stamp” the project, as I have seen done at all the prior LUACs I have attended, few though they may have been. I want to ask questions, seek answers — engage in dialogue. I think this change in zoning requires some dialogue. I suggested that a public meeting be held down on the South Coast, with adequate notice, so that South Coasters can be involved, if they want to be. At least they should have the opportunity. What could it hurt? A little time wasted, right? Probably no one gives a hoot and wouldn’t attend. We all love CT down here. They keep the road open for us, fer gawd’s sake. That’s serious business to us South Coasters. Really serious. We’ll give them whatever they want. Always have, always will. But could we talk first? (hm … reminds me of some partners I have had.)
Apparently not. Jerry & Harry voted to advise the County to approve the zoning change without further input, while I voted against. Democracy in action. You know, I probably would vote to give my blessing, eventually, after I was confident that this was not going to bite me in the ass sometime in the future. I just don’t think we had enough information to make an informed decision. But when has that stopped us? Americans prefer ignorance.
Sometimes, ignorance is bliss. That’s how this damned state got in this mess in the first place, in my opinion. Voters voting for short term, without thinking of long-terms repercussions and possible solutions. That’s tough and requires thinking, which is work. Please, lord, don’t make me think!!
Okay, this is one of my rare (hopefully) rants, and I thank those of you who bothered to take the time to read it. For the rest of you, who aren’t reading this anyway, I’ll go back to some visuals soon, or reporting on local events, or doing what you’ve come to expect from me.
Bigsurkate, 6/23/09
