Marines’ Plan for Beach Housing Rejected

When word spread that the U.S. Marines planned to build officer housing on the bluffs above the legendary, untouched Trestles surfing beach in northern San Diego County, surfers rose up en masse.

And on Wednesday, the wave riders edged out the Marines--at least in the first battle of the war. The California Coastal Commission voted 7-5 to reject plans for 128 townhomes on Camp Pendleton overlooking the beach, instead asking the Marine Corps to study alternatives.

The vote came as a pleasant surprise to some environmentalists, who were braced for a pro-development vote from the panel’s new Republican majority. Surfers were ebullient, describing Trestles as one of the surfing capitals of the West.

“It really is a Yellowstone of surfing and a Yellowstone of coastal wild lands,” said Pierce Flynn, executive director of the Surfrider Foundation, the environmental group that led the fight.

Surfers and other opponents collected 7,000 signatures on petitions. Others wrote letters or attended Wednesday’s meeting in Los Angeles.

A Marine official said afterward that the Corps has not yet given up and will continue discussions with the commission.

“We’re disappointed for our young lieutenants and captains. That’s fewer houses available to them,” said Col. Wayne A. Spencer, assistant chief of staff for facilities at Camp Pendleton.

The issue may come before commissioners again as early as September, when they meet in Eureka, at the other end of the California coast from Trestles.

What appeared to hinder the Marine proposal the most was the sheer size of 125,000-acre Camp Pendleton. Why, some commissioners wondered, did the 40-acre project have to rise near the coast when the Marines have so much other land? Spencer told them that planners had scrutinized the remainder of the camp, and that sites are limited because of training areas, topography or environmental concerns. Other suitable sites already are earmarked for housing, he said.

And in a surprise development, a representative of the state Resources Agency, Craig Denisoff, drew applause from surfers when--minutes before the vote--he urged further review.

“I think this is a real solid project,” said Denisoff, deputy assistant secretary for resources. But, he added, “I think there’s still a question about alternatives analyses. . . . We’re talking about one of the Yellowstones of coastal areas.”

In addition, the project provoked concerns at the state Department of Parks and Recreation, where Director Donald W. Murphy wrote the commission urging the selection of another site.

“The site, located adjacent to Trestles, a world renowned surfing beach, is one of the few remaining vacant parcels along the coastline in Southern California,” Murphy wrote.

Both the Marines and the Surfrider Foundation served up lengthy presentations to bolster their positions at the commission meeting at a hotel near Los Angeles International Airport. They presented schematic drawings or slides of what the townhouses would look like, the Marine version showing buildings shrouded by trees, the Surfrider version depicting townhouses covering the bluff. Surfrider representatives also suggested a possible alternative site.

Commissioners who sided with the Marines said that at a time of military consolidations and base closings, they wanted to ensure that the military still can build housing.

“You’ve made this, considering the location, a very sensitive development,” Commissioner Byron Wear said.

But more than a dozen environmentalists and other area residents spoke against the project.

Sierra Club spokesman Mark Massara told the commission: “You shouldn’t be afraid to stand up for the coast in this instance. . . . This is going to be beachfront property which I’m sure goes to the top 100 guys on the base who want a view of the ocean.”