1977 and 1981 The California State Coastal Commission requires John J. and Ida Bower to execute Offers to Dedicate Easements (OTDs) for the Gualala Bluff Trail (GBT) as a condition of approving their permit application for the development of the Surf Supermarket and other properties. These offers provide for a 25-foot wide easement from the daily bluff edge for pedestrian access and use along and adjacent to the bluff.
1992 The Surf Supermarket is constructed closer to the bluff edge than allowed by permit #80-P-75, encroaching on the easement. A retaining wall is conditionally approved to protect the easement and the market with the condition that the retaining wall be maintained for the life of the development on the site.
October 1994 Redwood Coast Land Conservancy accepts the offers to dedicate public access easements for the Gualala Bluff Trail and begins work on planning for the trail.
May 1997 Mendocino County issues Coastal Development Permit 22-96 approving Phase One of the Gualala Bluff Trail.
1998 RCLC builds the first phase of the trail, a 500-foot landscaped path which runs along the bluff behind the Sea Cliff and the Surf Motel with spectacular views of the Gualala River and the ocean.
1998 – 2003 Phase Two Planning is completed for extending the trail from the Surf Motel to the south end of Oceansong restaurant (now Bones).
May 2003 The Gualala Municipal Advisory Committee (GMAC) votes unanimously to write a letter in support of the trail to Mendocino County.
October 2003 RCLC receives the signed document for a grant from the California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) for up to $38,500 to construct Phase Two.
January 2004 A management plan for Phase Two of the Gualala Bluff Trail is finalized and signed by RCLC, the California Coastal Commission (CCC), and the SCC.
October 2004 Mendocino County issues a building permit for county approved CDP #23-03 to construct the second phase of the trail.
November – December 2004 At two GMAC meetings John H. Bower discusses long term plans for his property adjoining phase two of the trail and his view that the trail easement is an obstacle to these plans. RCLC is advised by the CCC that the easement belongs to the people of the state of California and RCLC cannot agree to move or reduce its size.
February 25, 2005 John H. Bower of Bower Limited Partnership (BLP) files a lawsuit against RCLC and the CCC contesting the legitimacy of the easement and attempting to stop construction of the trail.
July 8, 2005 Judge Leonard LaCasse of the Mendocino County Superior Court rules on the case and denies Mr. Bower’s request to bar construction of Phase II. He orders him to remove all obstructions placed in the way of the trail.
October 27, 2005 The SCC authorizes an additional amount up to $105,000 to RCLC to construct the second phase of the trail.
November 4, 2005 After “No Trespassing” signs appeared in September 2005, Judge Leonard LaCasse rules that Bower and his employees cannot withhold reasonable access to the easement during construction of the trail. He states that materials can be brought in and RCLC volunteers, contractors and their employees can pass over the Bower property and park on the easement in order to work on the trail.
February 3, 2006 The retaining wall at the south end of the Surf Supermarket is washed away in heavy rainfall, taking part of the GBT easement with it making permanent construction of the trail in this area impossible until the retaining wall is replaced.
May 2, 2006 CDP #23-03 is now vested and does not need to be renewed because sufficient work on the trail has been performed by RCLC volunteers in their weekly work parties.
November 15, 2006 A settlement conference is held in Ukiah. Mr. Bower agrees that the easements are valid, that he will abide by the 1999 survey markings of the easement, and that the trail can be built as designed in the permits. He agrees to pay a fine for violation of the Coastal Act for failing to maintain the retaining wall and failing to remove obstructions from the easement and CCC attorney’s fees.
December 2006 Judge Leonard LaCasse awards RCLC $39,000 for attorney fees and court costs.
April – May 2007 With most of the work on the southern portion of the trail now completed, work proceeds on the northern portion of the BLP property. Large boulders are placed for the landscaping mounds and soil added. Plants and a watering system are added to the mounds, a bench installed, and bollards and chains to keep cars off the easement. Trail work on the rest of the Bower property waits on a decision from the Coastal Commission about replacing the failed retaining wall.
November 2007 Mendocino County Coastal Permit Administrator approves CDP No. 55-2006 submitted by BLP August 2006 for the construction of a 285-foot concrete block retaining wall and drainage improvements west of the GBT. This wall is to connect with the replacement for the failed wall submitted to the CCC as an amendment to a previous permit.
November 2007 Local groups: California Native Plant Society, Environmental Commons, and the Friends of the Gualala River appeal the BLP application to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. They site CEQA project segmentation, significant environmental impact, insufficient botanical study, growth inducement, and violation of the local coast program Sec. 20.500.020, Geologic Hazards - Siting and Land Use Restrictions as the reasons for the appeal.
February 2008 Mendocino County Board of Supervisors denies the appeal of this application and modifies the CDP by approving an alternative Geoweb® design submitted by the applicant late January 2008.
February 2008 CCC staff member Tiffany Tauber writes to Rau and Associates, agents for the Bower CDP, repeating their concerns written to the County dated January 8, 2007 regarding whether any retaining wall, even the new more aesthetically pleasing Geoweb®, is permissible at the site. Specifically, Commission staff believes that the proposed bluff retaining wall on APN 145-261-13 is, in part, inconsistent with Land Use Policy (LUP) 3.4-12 and Coastal Zoning Code Section 20.500.020(E)(1) regarding limitations on the development of seawalls, revetments, and retaining walls.
March 2008 CCC receives three appeals to the Board of Supervisors decision alleging that the approved CDP is inconsistent with Mendocino County’s certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP). In the staff report dated March 28, 2008 Tiffany S. Tauber, coastal planner, outlines six significant issues that are potential grounds for appeal: 1) limitations of construction of retaining walls, 2) limitations of bluff face development and landform alteration, 3) siting and designing development to minimize geologic hazards and to avoid the need for shoreline protective devices, 4) protecting public access and visitor serving facilities, 5) protecting environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and 6)special protections for special neighborhoods.
April 2008 CCC finds substantial issue that the application does not conform to the LCP and sets aside the approval of CDP No. 55-2006. A de novo (new) hearing will be held at an undetermined future date.
Completion of the trail awaits Coastal Commission action on replacement of the failed retaining wall and the de novo hearing on the Bower Coastal Permit No. 55-2006.