.
Feedback

Coastal Advocates Sue City of San Francisco

Dispute over erosion work at Ocean Beach.

A nonprofit is suing San Francisco over what it calls years of illegal dumping of rocks and debris on Ocean Beach in an effort to halt
erosion.

The lawsuit, filed Aug. 9 by the California Coastal Protection Network, argues that the city has been dumping rocks and other materials on sections of Ocean Beach without permits from the California Coastal Commission since around 1997, in violation of both state law and city policy.

The lawsuit seeks the removal of the debris and the development of long-term plans to protect the area.

The city has placed rock, concrete, steel poles and sand at the southern end of the beach over the years in an effort to protect Great
Highway and a sewer tunnel from erosion. Most recently, after heavy storms over the 2009/2010 winter season closed Great Highway south of Sloat Boulevard for months, the city placed a 425-foot rock wall on the beach in April 2010 and removed 1,000 tons of debris from the beach, according to information from the Department of Public Works.

The problem, according to the lawsuit, is that the city never
obtained the necessary permits to do the work, or in some cases violated the terms of the emergency permits that it did obtain.

Furthermore, the debris used to shore up the beach impedes access to the beach and creates a hazard to beach users.

When San Francisco sought after-the-fact authorization for several
of the projects from the California Coastal Commission this July, as well as permission to add more rock to the beach, the commission unanimously rejected the request.

In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the work violates city policy. In 1999 a city resolution prohibited the use of further city funds for shoreline armoring at Ocean Beach, and called for the rocks to be
removed, the complaint states.

Attorney Mark Massara, a San Francisco resident and long-time advocate for coastal issues, called the debris piled on the beach by the city "pollution" and said it was dangerous to beach users.

"There's rebar and sharp rocks, there are metal poles stuck in the
sand along the shoreline that surfers have to surf around," Massara said. "It looks like a post-apocalyptic war zone."

Attorney Vic Otten said fines to the city if the lawsuit is successful could run as high as $15,000 a day for each violation, and the lawsuit alleges multiple violations.

"You're looking at $20 million in potential fines, depending how you calculate it," Otten noted.

Department of Public Works spokeswoman Gloria Chan said she could not comment on the lawsuit, but noted that a long-term planning process for Ocean Beach is being led by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. A call to SPUR this afternoon was not returned.

Matt Dorsey, spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the
city was reviewing the lawsuit and did not have any comment at this time.

To receive news feeds about Half Moon Bay and the unincorporated Coastside between Montara and Pescadero, visit Half Moon Bay Patch on Facebook and "like" us here. Follow us on Twitter here.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Half Moon Bay Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jon DeLong May 18, 2013 at 06:45 pm
With so many good Mexican restaurants in the area, why bother?
Cid May 17, 2013 at 06:14 pm
I enjoy an occasional Taco Bell, but in the same shopping center as Happy Taco with far better,Read More authentic LOCAL Mexican food! Nah! I do enjoy the Combo locations that have KFC & TACO BELL. (Face it, Americans like to have choices!). With no drive-through, perhaps it will be better than the average suburban stores along the El Camino. As for another chain restaurant in Half Moon Bay...What did you expect? Demographics will continue to dictate that we can still expect to keep our "Fast-Food-Free-Zone" between Linda Mar and HMB while "City Councils or Planning Departments in the Cities will attract them....for their tax base.
Dee May 15, 2013 at 08:07 pm
Seriously? Taco Bell? Next to New Leaf? How did this happen? Not happy about this addition and notRead More looking forward to seeing Taco Bell trash all over the place. Not sure about KFC ... we already have a fast food chicken place at Popeyes so we certainly don't need another. The high school students will probably frequent Taco Bell the most and keep it in business but I will not be going there that's for sure.
Carol Wexler May 18, 2013 at 02:42 pm
I would consider volunteering at the California State Parks but dogs are not allowed and I wouldRead More need to bring my dog.
pae May 18, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Misha, I understand where you're coming from, but that's what we don't want to do. One reason thatRead More all dog owners are being discriminated against is those few who don't follow the rules. It doesn't matter that there are bicyclists and horseback riders who don't follow rules, they're "OK," it's the dog owners who pay the price. We want an area where our dogs can exercise freely and legally, where we won't be bothered by people who are afraid of dogs or dislike them, and where they're not at risk from horses who spook. For those of us who live surrounded by Rancho land especially, we don't want to have to drive miles to a small, fenced lot with crowds of others seeking to exercise their dogs in the same small area. We're paying for this open space with our tax dollars, and we want to have access to it. There's plenty of room for everyone.
Misha Flores May 17, 2013 at 09:35 am
To be honest I would probably just let my dog run around without a leash anyway, except there's soRead More much darned poison oak around these hills. I don't want her to get contaminated and then I hug her and trouble ensues.
Anne Martin May 16, 2013 at 04:29 pm
I don't own a dog now but empathize with the dog owners who have been deprived of the right toRead More allow their dogs to run free in the national recreation area that we as taxpayers own. As a taxpayer, I want to know the rationale for this policy. If it is to protect horses from being frightened by dogs what is the basis for that? How many horses use the open space? It appears that dozens of people who have been able to enjoy walking with their dogs in the open space adjoining their neighborhood are now being grossly inconvenienced because some faceless bureaucrats are creating rules that may have no basis in reality.