Coastal Commission says San Clemente homeless site may violate Coastal Act
San Clemente city officials say they are “confused and vexed” by a discussion at a California Coastal Commission meeting regarding the likely need for a coastal development permit for the homeless campsite at the city-owned maintenance yard.
Prompted by a group from Santa Ana’s Elder Law and Disability Rights Center, speaking at the commission’s Sept. 11 meeting in Newport Beach, the discussion included a request for punitive action against the city.
Jack Ainsworth, executive director of the coastal commission, suggested San Clemente will need a coastal development permit from the commission to keep the campsite operating.
“We have been investigating the actions by the city and believe a permit is required for this campground they created,” Ainsworth said. “We’ll follow up with a letter.”
The campsite was established at the Avenida Pico property after the San Clemente City Council issued an emergency ordinance in May requiring all homeless people camping in the city to move to the city yard. The council took the action because of the growing number of homeless encampments at North Beach and their potential affect on the public safety and health of residents, the public and the homeless community.
The effort also was undertaken to comply with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Martin vs. Boise, which requires alternative housing options be available for homeless people before anti-camping laws can be enforced.
On Sept. 11, the Santa Ana law group expressed concern about the campsite to the commission and demanded action be taken, including maximum fines, until the campsite is permitted or the city opens an indoor shelter.
Speakers said they are worried about the campsite’s proximity to local bodies of water, including around the San Clemente pier, and what a rainstorm could mean for run-off from campsite port-a-potties.
“We’re very concerned about the ongoing action in San Clemente,” said Brooke Weitzman, co-founder of the law group. “We’re seeing if left unchecked the city is continuing to take additional steps. We hope that the commission will investigate and take the appropriate steps … to meet the requirements of the Coastal Act.”
Weitzman said since June 28, when her group filed a petition on behalf of the Emergency Shelter Coalition over the city’s violation of the Coastal Act, that city officials have changed laws on who has access to the campsite.
She also said there have been an increasing number of spiders and snakes at the site. “We need to pay attention to see if (animals) are protected,” she said.
San Clemente city officials, however, questioned whether the commission is unfairly targeting their city. They cited an action in December, in which the commission waived requirements for a permit for a temporary facility that houses 154 homeless adults and youths in a Venice lot owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
“It’s inconsistent for commission staff to determine that the Venice temporary homeless shelter project qualifies for a waiver and San Clemente’s campsite would not,” said Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, San Clemente’s community development director, adding that the Venice center has a much higher use than the San Clemente site.
At its peak, more than 70 homeless people lived at the maintenance yard campsite. Now, there are 27 people at the site, after the city required proof of San Clemente residence.
“The temporary campsite in no way impedes coastal access, required no removal of vegetation, has no impacts to sensitive habitat, and does not block blue-water or coastal views,” Gallardo-Daly said. “Also, the temporary individual tents do not exceed the height of the zone and are not incompatible with the size and scale of surrounding structures.”
At the commission’s Sept. 11 hearing, Ainsworth said gathering all the facts and “figuring out what’s going on down there (San Clemente) was difficult.”
Yet, San Clemente city officials say they have been in constant contact with the coastal commission regarding the urgency ordinance. Gallardo-Daly said in every phone call she asked the commission’s district director if staff had all the information needed to make a determination.
“At no time did commission staff express to us any concern about their access to facts or other information regarding the temporary campsite’s operation,” she said.
Ainsworth added at the meeting that the commission was investigating other activities related to the campsite that could trigger a permit.
“That’s news to us,” said Gallardo-Daly. “Never once has commission staff told the city that they were looking into other activities that could trigger a permit. This is vexing.”
from https://ift.tt/eA8V8J Orange County Register https://ift.tt/2n4I4dm
Comments
Post a Comment