Tag: Big Sur

Fire at Sand Dollar Beach

246F7E3C-0A91-4A90-9394-C84B572059940FB7A3D9-49E8-40B8-90C5-5326BA755741D17D7735-6883-4BB2-8973-585D99F792689D32E8B1-46D5-45EC-99BB-A815D02D5469

From Susan Perry of Pacific Valley School:

“I had just signed out from work at 11:35pm, was walking through the school’s K room to use the b-room b4 my long drive home, and saw huge, tall, flames just to the right of my view of the school’s wooden fence enclosed recycling yard.  I couldn’t tell if the fire was on the east or west side of the highway, but immediately ran down to the lower buildings to confirm that no one was aware of the fire, or at least not trying to extinguish it.  On the way down there I was able to see that it was across the highway and appeared to be right by the entrance to the Sand Dollar day use parking area, possibly under or in the cypress trees by the gate.

I ran to Carl’s room (the southern-most lower classroom, where he sleeps), banging on his door as I unlocked it and woke him up with my laryngitis frog throat screaming as loud as I could to wake up and call 911 so I could run to the office and call Joel & Brooke and then round up our school’s fire hoses.  I ran up the ramp while screaming across the creek to wake up Parks Management staff.  I then ran around looking everywhere I could think to look for those hoses, but never found them.

I gave up looking for the hoses and ran back towards the fire just as several trucks with Parks Management staff pulled up outside the day use parking area.  It was then that I could see that the lot’s gate shack was totally engulfed and that there were no trees or bushes involved, just the structure.  One staff member told me that she had locked the gate shack earlier in the evening, after placing the American flag that hangs outside the shack during the day, inside it for the night.  […It appears that] the fire …[may have been] started intentionally because the flag had been removed from the shack before the fire started and placed into the hole in the top of an orange traffic cone 15 to 20 feet away from the shack.

Brooke and Joel showed up at the fire a few minutes after I had returned from the office with my phone so I could take some pictures.  It was then that someone noticed that the large wooden Parks Management sign had been cut free from its posts near the shack and removed, perhaps tossed into the shack to be burned.

Two off duty USFS staff members then showed up in their personal vehicles, still in PJ’s, to attack the fire with the shovels that Brooke & Joel and thought to bring with them.  The USFS staff said that, even though Carl had reported our physical address to 911 and gave them the name of the school and the Sand Dollar Day Use Area, they never got a call from anyone.  They only learned of the fire when a tourist driving by saw the fire and drove into the Pacific Valley USFS Station and woke them up to report the fire in person.   They first called Monterey Dispatch and then their fire captain, who is out of town, and he told them not to use the engine but to call him if the fire threatened to head toward wildland (to the east) and he would return for duty, and to command the engine.  Monterey dispatch apparently had not called out anyone to respond and asked the USFS guys who they should contact to respond to the fire.  (DUH!)  “Call Big Sur Fire” was their response to the dispatch person, of course.

At some point, while we watched the fire, Joel claimed that he heard what sounded like someone shooting a 22 to the north of us, somewhere along the cliffs or the fields along the bluffs.

Obviously, we were lucky with this one, but why didn’t dispatch place a call out?  Why couldn’t I find the school fire hoses?  What will we do on the south coast if no one responds to a wild fire that starts here?  Thank you to Brook, Joel, Caleb and Mike Handy (I think it’s him, maybe Luke?) for getting training to fill that gap, soon, I hope!

Feel free to share this accounting of this event with whomever you wish, wherever it needs to be shared.

———————-

Susan Perry, Administrative Assistant

Big Sur Unified School District & Pacific Valley School

Here is this morning’s photo by Paolo Gonzalez:

89FB2AC2-3432-4BA1-9688-8D16DC57A4BD

 

 

 

Palo Colorado Road Closure date changed

C9BECB78-2A22-4D78-8B90-A548EA7C8120

The above link to the County Website can be found here

Sink Hole starting at Rocky Creek, 5/9/18

This is from the CHP website, I have no additional information at this time:

ent:  00152   Type:    Traffic Hazard   Location:   SR1 N / ROCKY CREEK  Loc Desc:  NB JNO    Lat/Lon:  36.378889 -121.902500   
Detail Information
10:55 AM 4 [10] 1039 DOT
10:48 AM 3 [5] 1/4 MILE JNO ROCKY CREEK BRDG
10:47 AM 2 [2] 1/4 MILE BRIDGE NR 55 MPH SIGN
10:46 AM 1 [1] SINK HOLE STARTING NR ROCKY CREEK BRIDGE
Unit Information

 

Succulent Poaching, 5/9/18

Given Saturday’s incident regarding visitors who are poaching our native plants, today’s post is important, but I had to bump it from yesterday’s Tourist Tuesday to today, due to the critical nature of the article I published yesterday.  This issue has already received quite a bit of attention since Jade Davis first contacted me on Saturday afternoon, but you will be seeing more and more of these posters along our coast so that we can become the eyes and ears for protecting Mother Nature just a little more. There is much to do, but each small step we take can be the one that turns the tide. Never give up. Never stop. Continue to care and protect Big Sur.

FEECCECE-69AA-4B0A-B62E-7617603F176A

And from Instagram, a Big Sur local says: “mimihaddad123NATURE IS NOT A COMMODITY: Just because it is in the wild does not mean is up for grabs. Stealing California Native plants is a crime.😡Do not take what is not yours! Grow your own. Think nature over profits.” Be like Mimi. Post this on your instagram account, twitter, FB, or whatever social media you engage in.

Tourist Tuesday, 5/8/18

Surprise: Global Travel is a Huge Contributor to Climate Change

This article excerpt is from KQED, published yesterday. The two articles linked within this one are crucial reading. I urge everyone to take the time to read them. They also directly relate to our situation. Has anyone made the effort to measure the effects of carbon emissions in Big Sur Valley? Or in Monterey Peninsula lately? Are we smothering ourselves in pursuit of more and more tourism? Critical questions.
San Francisco welcomed a record total of 25.1 million visitors in 2016, an increase of 2.3 percent from 2015, according to the San Francisco Travel Association. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Researchers warn that the surge in global tourism is outstripping the “decarbonization” of tourism-related technology.

In the first study of its kind, researchers found that carbon emissions from world travel contribute about 8 percent of all carbon emissions, four times more than previously estimated.

New Record CO2 Measures Show ‘Humans Are Overwhelming Nature’

That rate is expected to grow 4 percent annually, outpacing the footprints of many other economic sectors, according to the study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The study takes a sweeping look at the environmental impact of  global tourism by examining the entire supply chain, from flights, dining, to shopping purchases. High-income countries account for the majority of this footprint, with the U.S.  topping the list followed by China, Germany and India.

“Our analysis is a world-first look at the true cost of tourism — including consumables such as food from eating out and souvenirs — it’s a complete life-cycle assessment of global tourism, ensuring we don’t miss any impacts,”  said senior author Arunima Malik, who teaches sustainability at the University of Sydney.

For the rest of the article, see: https://www.kqed.org/science/1923609/surprise-global-travel-is-a-huge-contributor-to-climate-change

Photo Sunday – Grey Slip, 2002, 5/6/18

Copyright (C) 2002-2018 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, www.Californiacoastline.org Used with permission.

Thanks to Barbara for finding this for me.

FB061166-45EC-4211-84AD-80964DCA633D

Mud Creek Contract and other oddities, 5/5/18

Yesterday, I finally had the time to go through the Mud Creek contract first awarded to Madonna Construction on 1/19/17.  I’ve pulled out a few bits of information, took some screen shots, sent off emails to Cal Trans for comments, and otherwise started research and analysis. There is still much to discover and understand, but given that no one at Cal Trans has thus far responded, I decided to publish what I have today.

The original contract provided for removing slide material, installing rock nets, and restoring facilities to enable reopening the highway. This contract was awarded 1/19/17 and signed 3/17/17. It was for 30 days at a cost of $2,500,000. It is a public works contract specifically excluded from 2 CCR § 547.59. (California Code of Regulations.) It is exempt from public bidding as explained in the State Contracts Manual (SCM) §5.80 (A)(3) which states: “As noted in section 5.05, competitive bidding is required unless there is a legally authorized basis for bid exemption. Key exemption categories are identified below. A. Statutory Exemptions: 3. Emergency contracts. The work or service is for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, safety, or protection of State property (PCC §§ 1102, 10340).”

On 4/6/17, the original contract was modified to increase the contract from $2,500,000 to $9,500,000 an increase of 3 and 1/2 times the original amount and added 80 days for completion, for a total of 110 days. After the BIG slide on 5/19/17, The Contract was again modified two months later on 7/18/17 to $12,000,000 and another 60 days was added to the contract for a total of 170 days. Two more modifications, one on 9/20/17 for an additional amount of $32,000,000 and an addition of 150 WORKING days (30 weeks) for a total of 320 days, and another on 9/18/17 of total amount of $56,000,000 (previously awarded, PLUS the requested additional $32,000,000) would then take the contract to the end of April 2018.

D13D1E24-161A-4FBA-A6E1-588888080E12

B4642B53-C192-4AAD-8A15-3EB699BEEC1C

By my calculations, the time and the $56,000,000 award ran out on 4/18/18 although the first page reproduced above says “end of April” so the contract has been renewed or is in the process of being renewed. I asked for the extension on this contract, but have yet to receive it. I will discuss it when received and will follow-up on that next week.

Besides the contract itself, I also inquired about the excavation going on at Grey Slip, a few miles south of Mud Creek, to obtain fill material. Grey Slip is another area of prior road issues.  I asked Cal Trans to comment on this yesterday, but so far have not received any response. One local was told that they had originally started excavation on the west side, but after some movement, moved to the east. I have not been able to confirm this, as Cal Trans did not respond to my questions. I looked through some of my photographs to see if I could find an older one to show any prior issues at this point, but haven’t been able to locate one. Rock Knocker put all his old photos in a storage unit in Paso/Templeton, so no help there. If anyone else has a photo of Grey Slip in prior years, I would love to see it.

This is what is happening at Grey Slip currently:

B6C4E6B6-12F4-475D-A467-369357D3C59CDC90ABA3-1C5F-4EF6-AA8F-0C20571382E5

 

 

Tourist Tuesday, 5/1/18

8BB6EA72-76B0-423A-8487-AD374307AAC3

Venice poised to segregate tourists as city braces itself for May Day ‘invasion’

Metal barriers aimed at separating visitors and locals on key routes into Venice are expected to be put to use on 1 May despite protests by locals against the controversial measure

692066A8-E303-44CA-BB1A-71064BB54583
”I am standing on Venice’s Bridge of Sighs on a Sunday morning … or at least trying to: a tsunami of tourists is flooding towards the Piazza San Marco (St Mark’s Square): people wielding umbrellas or gripping plastic pints of Aperol Spritz, bossy tour guides shepherding cruise-ship passengers, backpacking millennials and many others. So far, so typical, except this weekend – a four-day bank holiday that began on Saturday 28 April and runs to Tuesday 1 May – the city, already straining under the weight of mass tourism, is anticipating record visitor numbers.”
…
“There needs to be a long-term, organised programme to inform tourists how to behave before they arrive and that should be the responsibility of hoteliers, airlines, cruise ship operators and travel agents. People need to understand and respect the little things that are so important in Venice’s daily life: keeping to the right when crossing bridges, not stopping on the raised walkways to take pictures during Acqua Alta, not littering and not sitting down for lunch on someone’s doorway.”
For the rest of the Article, see:

STRs – Carmel Valley Letter

The issues and concerns are similar. I suggest that each of you interested in this issue for Big Sur write to the county so concerns are recorded. The Carmel Valley letter does not address the issue of shared private roads and/or easements, which is filled with potential litigation.

CVA Letter to County Supervisors and Planners Regarding Short Term Rentals

Date: April 20, 2018

To: Supervisors, Planning Commissioners, Monterey County RMA Staff
From: Carmel Valley Association
RE: Short Term Rental Ordinance

The following is a supplement to our previous correspondence to you regarding Short Term Rentals:

The Carmel Valley Association strongly recommends that within the Carmel Valley Master Plan area, short-term rentals (STRs) be limited to “home stays.”  “Home stays” are defined as short-term rentals that are owner-occupied and managed. No absentee owners, property management companies, corporations, or LLC’s would be permitted. The owner would be required to be a permanent year-round resident, and the home would be his or her primary residence. The owner would be required to live in and be present on site during the short-term rental period.  Owners would be limited to no more than one STR.

This requirement would minimize the impact of STRs on the housing supply, discourage the conversion of long-term rentals to tourist use, and help address the shortage of affordable, decent, safe, long-term housing for people of all income levels in Carmel Valley.

Residentially zoned areas traditionally permit non-intrusive business activity. Examples of such permitted activities are home offices, bookkeeping services, and music instruction. Such services are conducted by owners or residents who live on the property and generally have a minimal impact on neighborhoods. Allowing non-owner-occupied STRs, which are, in essence, hotels in residential areas, would be inconsistent with residential zonings and would risk significant disruption of quiet neighborhoods.

Many California cities have dealt with this problem.  San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Bishop, West Hollywood, and Santa Monica, among others, have passed ordinances limiting STRs to home-stays. The opinion of the 6tth District Court of Appeal in a case involving the City of Carmel is especially applicable to STRs where the resident owner is not present:

“Such rentals undoubtedly affect the essential character of a neighborhood and the stability of community. Short-term tenants have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry. They do not participate in local government, coach little league, or join the hospital guild. They do not lead a scout troop, volunteer at the library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor. Literally, they are here today and gone tomorrow — without engaging in the sort of activities that weld and strengthen a community.”(Ewing v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1579.)

In addition to our recommendation that STR’s be limited to home stays, for the peace and safety of residentially zoned neighborhoods, we urge that parking at STR’s must be provided off-street for both visitors and residents, fires must be limited to existing barbeque pits, and STRs must be spaced at least 1000 feet from each other.

Finally, we wish to point out that STR’s must, of course, be counted as Visitor Serving Units (VSU’s), as defined in the Carmel Valley Master Plan (CVMP).  When STR’s are added to other VSU’s, the combined total must not exceed the caps for VSU’s of the Carmel Valley Master Plan. The vast majority of such permissible VSU’s have already been allocated.  A count by the organization Host Compliance states that as of April 9th there were “143 unique rental units that fit the STR definition” within the Carmel Valley Master Plan area, 120 of which were “entire homes.”  Most, if not all, are unpermitted.  This number far exceeds what remains of the Carmel Valley Master Plan VSU allowance. Limiting STRs to home stays would help to bring the number of VSU’s under the Carmel Valley Master Plan limits, which must be done. The Carmel Valley Association requests that the Short Term Rental Ordinance being developed by Monterey County, to be consistent the Carmel Valley Master Plan, include this proposal.

We appreciate your consideration of our proposals.

Sincerely,

Pris Walton
President, Carmel Valley Association

It is very important that residents of Carmel Valley express their thoughts to the Planning Commissioners.  The draft ordinance and correspondence relating to this discussion can be found by going to the County Website.

Here is the County’s Current Policy (July 2015)

Map of Carmel Valley STRS as of February 2018

Road Widening between Bixby & Rocky?

Anyone seen this sign and know what is going on? Sent to me by Ken Ekelund:

1F3E836D-0F4D-444F-A9EC-81CD20352C90

Here is the original project description document:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist05/projects/hurricane_point.pdf