South Kellogg Recycling Facility
|Summary||This CDP application was for an unpermitted concrete/asphalt recycling facility. As stated in the Commission Staff report, the facility began operating in 2010 but had not filed for a permit till December 2011. Commission Staff observed unpermitted development during an onsite visit in August 2013 with letters of violation sent to the applicant and property owner in October 2013, January 2014, August 2014, September 2014, and February 2015. Operations continued during this time, also while the permit application process was still underway. Commission Staff evaluated the riparian habitat bordering the property and found that it qualified as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.
As stated in the staff report, “…[It] is important that these kinds of facilities be sited appropriately in order to ensure that the environmental benefits of recycling do not come at the expense of coastal resources…[The] industrial use faces significant constraints from the nearby drainages and riparian ESHA.” Following an extensive debate about ESHA, and how the facility has been operating without permits, the Commission proceeded with the vote.
|Outcome Description||A vote of 9:2 resulted in the approval of the CDP for the facility. The Commission extensively debated the presence of ESHA habitat, the industrial activity in the area, and the current economic value of the property. Commissioners Shallenberger and Groom voted against the permit, taking into account the work of Staff and ESHA findings. Both Commissioners stressed additional work needs to be done to ensure that the ESHA is adequately protected; especially when considering how little ESHA remains in this particular area.|
|Why You Should Care||This project represents a disregard for the Coastal Act, and the authority of the Coastal Commission. This application for unpermitted work) requires significantly more scrutiny from the Commission. Not only did the Applicant falsely state that the Regional Water Board had granted permits, but the Applicant also flagrantly dismissed Staff letters of “notice of violations”, for years. Most importantly, considering the area lacks ESHA, the onus is on the Commission to protect what is left. The Commission’s own Staff Biologist determined that ESHA is present. Some Commissioners mentioned they stopped by the facility en route to the hearing and determined, through their own observations, sensitive habitat was not present – which overshadowed Commission Staff work.|
|Decision Type||After-the-fact Coastal Development Permit|
|Lobbyist/Agent||Al Rodriquez, United Paving, Inc.
James Johnson, Access Associates Randall Fox Alan Block
|Opposition to Project||Surfrider Foundation|
|Coastal Act Policies||Coastal Act Section 30240(b); Coastal Act Section 30231|
Voting Detail for South Kellogg Recycling Facility
|Mary K. Shallenberger|
View Meeting Page for the meeting where this issue was discussed/voted on.