Sonoma County supervisors approve updated coastal protections

Sonoma County supervisors unanimously approved a revised Local Coastal Plan on Monday that adds new protections for the Sonoma Coast, including one they hope might help stave off a large hydropower project recently proposed for the Fort Ross area.

It was one of hundreds of measures included in the amended plan, a nearly 1,000-page document designed to safeguard coastal values and keep pace with changing concerns and conditions. Last updated in 2001, it must now be approved by the California Coastal Commission.

Other new policies include a prohibition on desalination plants, except where necessary to preserve public health and safety in existing communities, and language designed to forestall new, industrial-scale wastewater or stormwater discharges into the ocean.

After a daylong hearing that packed the board chambers, supervisors also agreed to retain or revise key policies targeting coastal communities with specific protections tailored to their needs and vulnerabilities.

The so-called “parcel-specific” provisions were among the items highlighted by speakers who lined up to address the board, pleading almost unanimously for the tightest restrictions possible on new development along the 55-mile Sonoma Coast — particularly its remote, northern reaches.

“Our coast is the edge of our continent,” longtime conservationist and organizer Dee Swanhuyser told supervisors. “It’s not our coast. It’s the coast of the continent.”

The assembled crowd included environmental champions who have worked for more than 60 years to safeguard the coast’s natural resources, scenic beauty and public access, including retired Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, who was instrumental in creation of the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary off shore.

Many referred to the region’s legacy of coastal guardianship, beginning with defeat of nuclear power plant planned for Bodega Head in the early 1960s, followed by permanent protection of access to ocean beaches when The Sea Ranch was built.

Awareness of Sonoma County’s role as cradle of the California Coastal Act, under which Local Coastal Plans are required, was widespread.

“Sonoma County has a beautiful coast,” a Sebastopol man said via Zoom. “We should not just assume it happened that way.”

Woolsey lauded supervisors for their effort to defend the coast and “some of the most pristine waters in the world.”

But “with praise, comes responsibility,” she said.

Swanhuyser lamented the “fading away” of the planet’s natural life support systems and called on supervisors to seize the moment and “look across landscapes, through generations, change the course and use environmental, cultural and economic wisdom to guide our decisions.”

But supervisors often wrestled over policy details and the risks of unintended consequences, working to devise language that was broadly protective of land identified as an “environmentally sensitive area” under the Coastal Act while still allowing ranchers to maintain and repair livestock fencing necessary for agricultural operations.

There was debate over how or whether to mark still undetermined public access points for the sensitive Estero Americano tidal estuary along the Marin-Sonoma county line. Officials wanted to symbolize their intent to pursue new access points without promoting trespassing on nearby private property. There also remains a dispute about access through the Bodega Harbour subdivision on a county trail there.

Many speakers were critical of language proposed and ultimately approved for a section of the plan prohibiting uses of pesticides in new developments where it could degrade environmentally sensitive habitat areas, coastal water quality or wildlife. The section was changed to take in all kinds of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc., in an effort to diminish the use of all such substances in sensitive coastal areas.

But the revised measure left open what some deemed a glaring “loophole,” by allowing what Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner Andrew Smith viewed as language necessary to ensure that some pesticides could be used to eradicate invasive pests subject to federal and state quarantines if nonchemical methods were infeasible. Smith has cited as an example insects that might cause mass deforestation.

Among the “parcel-specific” provisions, most of them revised versions of existing policies, are rules requiring that any development in Bodega Bay be consistent with the town’s “historic character,” with priority for commercial fishing and fishing related facilities.

Others include guidance that encourages new campgrounds and overnight accommodations in Duncans Mills, to offset coastal campgrounds that eventually will be lost to sea level rise; restrictions on development in Orange Cove related to bluff-top erosion and public safety concerns due to pedestrian crossings on curving Highway 1; and, requirements that development in Valley Ford and Jenner be contingent on available water supply and wastewater treatment capacity.

Perhaps most pointedly, supervisors retained provisions limiting expansion of the Timber Cove Inn to improve parking and public access.

Representatives for the inn had lobbied for removal of the restrictions, given the business’s desire to add 12 detached guest cabins, a reception and spa building, a sauna room and pool on the 13-acre site, igniting fierce discussion over the provisions generally.

Permit Sonoma staff had argued protections in the coastal plan were sufficient to prevent such development, even without the community-specific policies. Some environmentalists believed the initial language in some measures invited more development than was desired, by “allowing” projects that could meet certain conditions.

A majority of supervisors ultimately voted to change the language so those measures “ensure” any development meet certain objectives — wording deemed less permissive.

You can reach Staff Writer Mary Callahan (she/her) at 707-521-5249 or mary.callahan@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @MaryCallahanB.