The first local review of a new proposal is met with support and objection.
A new proposal for a coastal access pathway and stairs at 7957 Princess St. has begun making its way through the local review process, with as many opponents as advocates.
The project would reopen beach access at the northern end of Princess Street at Spindrift Drive; at issue are the primary objections of current site owners Ure and Dianne Kretowicz as to whether such access would create a liability for them.
The design details
The scope of work calls for a five-foot wide stair structure made primarily of wood components, according to project lead Pam Heatherington, acting director of the Environmental Center of San Diego, in a presentation at the Sept. 17 meeting of the La Jolla Development Permit Review Committee.
DPR members did not take a vote, asking Heatherington to return at a future meeting with more information.
The California Coastal Commission will process a coastal development permit for the proposal in a separate action.
Because the location is “such a steep access point down to the state marine reserve,” Heatherington said, the staircase will have landings – seven total – after every few steps.
“It’s not the type of beach that you’re going to put a towel on and spend [an] afternoon,” she said, noting the stony beach and tide pools. “The idea is that people might … just want to look at the view.”
And as the trail is such a “visibly sensitive spot,” Heatherington said, the railings will be steel threads.
At the bottom, a “ship’s ladder” of steel will be anchored into the rocks at the base of the cliff, allowing for water to flow through the structure during high tide events.
The ladder design is the result of the design team’s meetings with divers and surfers, she said.
The structure will be wood where it is not steel and include a wooden bench and two signs.
The project will be “below the sight line” of adjacent homes, Heatherington said. “It’s nothing that you’re going to see from the street.”
The coastal access is an easement on the Kretowicz property, she said. “There’s a public right-of-way that is dressed as his driveway that we’re going to make sure that people are not using to turn around or drop people off.”
In creating the proposal, the design team undertook several studies, Heatherington said, from boundary surveys to topographical, animal, biological, archeological and geotechnical studies.
There will be an electronic gate unlocked from dawn to dusk, along with onsite cameras, she said.
That particular coastal access point has had a convoluted history, Heatherington said, with the trail closing in 1979 due to a previous landowner’s privatization of the trail.
The Kretowiczes, who bought the home in 1994, have been involved in litigation with government agencies over the easement condition since 1999; the Coastal Commission ruled in 2012 the gate was on public land and mandated its reopening.
“We have been working on this for so long,” Heatherington said.
The opposition
Attorney Lee Andelin, representing the Kretowiczes, cited “significant concerns” with the proposal, particularly with regard to liability.
Ure Kretowicz is worried “he could potentially become a defendant in a lawsuit for people’s injuries, and the city could be liable as well,” Andelin said.
“We’re covered by the state of California as a state park would be,” Heatherington responded. “We have to have a general liability policy. But if anything happens on the trail, the state covers it.”
In addition to problems with indemnity, “there’s so many things that could go wrong with this project,” said Mike Reynolds, son of trail-adjacent Princess Street resident Dave Reynolds.
Among the Reynolds’ concerns: traffic blocking emergency vehicles and neighbor egress on the street, injuries from the ship’s ladder design and worries of graffiti, trash and other features of public access, Reynolds said.
Public access will “destroy that place,” he added, citing the “sensitive habitat” and eroding cliffs.
In support
The beach access at that location has “always been open until a homeowner moved in and decided he didn’t want people walking by his house to use the access that they’ve used forever,” said longtime La Jolla resident Melinda Merryweather.
The project “is just returning an access to the public that’s always been there,” she said.
Reynolds disputed Merryweather’s claim but other members of the public confirmed there was public access they used as teens.
“You own a prime spot right there,” said George Heatherington. “You don’t own that path and you need to share that with the public.”
However, “there was nothing on the title report” indicating the trail was public, Ure Kretowicz said.
DPR committee comments
DPR members commended the use of materials in the proposal, with member Diane Kane noting concrete steps will deteriorate over time.
Kane also wondered if the design team had considered regulating the times of day for access or numbers of people allowed on the trail.
“The whole idea of opening this access point is to give people another appreciation of our coastline,” Pam Heatherington said, reiterating the Coastal Commission has mandated the trail be open dawn to dusk.
“I’m a big advocate for access,” said DPR member Brian Williams. “I also think homeowners have the right to privacy and no risk of liability.”
Williams asked for documentation on the easement.
In summarizing the rest of the committee’s requests, acting Chair Greg Jackson asked Heatherington to return with a “much more detailed sense of exactly how this is going to work and how it’s going to be built.”
He specified that indemnity and liability be detailed in the returned deliverables, along with a spelled-out timeline of access and ownership, “because clearly people’s recollections differ.”
© lajolla.ca
