Letter to the Editor

Letter Response

I write to correct inaccuracies in a letter in the Palisadian-Post’s July 28 edition—and to set the record straight about public positions on the Friends Street trail.

A total of 66 individuals signed letters or submitted emails to the California Coastal Commission, expressing concerns about public safety and/or opposition to the Friends Street trail, including 60-plus residents/homeowners of the west rim neighborhood, one former resident and a number of residents of the El Medio Bluffs neighborhood (who described serious, long-experienced public safety problems related to the Asilomar Bluffs View Park, also maintained by the city).

While the resident who wrote the letter may have previously submitted a letter to Recreation and Parks, no letter from this resident, or any other resident of the west rim neighborhood supporting the Friends Street trail, can be found in the correspondence for this matter posted on the CCC website. The CCC maintains that all correspondence timely received related to an agenda item is posted on its website.

Rather, there is only one letter unconditionally supporting the Friends Street trail on the CCC website (from a non-west rim resident of the upper Marquez area). There is a conditional letter of support from a long-time Alphabet Streets resident (or his one- or two-person organization at the same residence address), stating that parking on Friends Street is not ample and that the trail should be approved only if a public parking lot is added to the location. And there is a third equivocal letter from a Highlands resident who expressed anger that the CCC approved the Highlands eldercare project several years ago and argued that the CCC must approve the Friends Street trail in order to be consistent (in his view) with its position on the eldercare project.

No resident of the west rim neighborhood testified at the July 14 CCC hearing in support of the Friends Street trail. None of the speakers in opposition claimed that “no west rim resident” supports the trail, nor made any misrepresentations to the CCC at all. The only speakers in support on July 14 were non-west rim residents (the Alphabets Street resident who had submitted the conditional letter, as well as two speakers on behalf of the Historical Society who are not west rim residents and had not previously submitted letters in support). The prior Post article about the hearing accurately reported on what was said by project opponent Jeffrey Spitz.

I respect principled efforts to increase access to coastal resources, but such access should not be at the expense of public safety (which the Coastal Act mandates must be balanced with the interest in access)—particularly when there is already public access to the resource, as will be the case with the park in Potrero Canyon.

Chris Spitz