A plan to build a beach access stairway at the end of Princess Street got support for the physical portion upon its return to the La Jolla Development Permit Review Committee this week, though the board said it had a heavy list of recommendations before it can support the project as a whole.

After an initial DPR hearing in September, the proposal to re-establish the beach accessway, which has been closed for 45 years, was considered again Nov. 19.

The project would build stairs running from the end of Princess Street off Torrey Pines Road on the bluff side to the ocean below. The stairs would be publicly accessible between two houses, and a locked gate that has been in place for decades would be opened.

The stairs would be about 5 feet wide, and the number would vary based on the length of the stairway between the landings. They would be made of wood and feature steel threads instead of handrails. There would be eight landings, some of which would have benches. There also would be stairs at the bottom that were previously referred to as a “ship’s ladder” between the last landing and the sand but now are being referred to as “steps to the beach” due to concerns about the stability of stairs with the ship’s ladder style.

Three new signs would be installed acknowledging the lands Kumeyaay history, explaining that the area is a marine reserve and offering safety precautions.

A rendering of proposed beach access stairs at Princess Street is presented to the La Jolla Development Permit Review Committee on Nov. 19. (Ashley Mackin-Solomon)

Pam Heatherington, acting director of the Environmental Center of San Diego, said efforts to rebuild the accessway have been in place since 2017 but the desire has been there for decades.

The stairs would be designed around the existing geological features, and those designs have to “pass muster with the [California] Coastal Commission, which will have the final say” on whether the project moves forward, Heatherington said.

She added that a management agreement with the Coastal Commission and California State Coastal Conservancy outlines the Environmental Center’s maintenance responsibilities.

The Environmental Center is a nonprofit that completed the study phase of the Princess Street project in 2022 to make determinations regarding marine habitats and hazards, archaeology, biological impacts, tsunami risk and other factors.

Objections and support

Some neighbors immediately adjacent to where the access would be formed a group called Residents for Responsible Access, with “significant concerns regarding the environmental implications” of the proposal, said group representative Chandra Slaven.

She argued that the increased access would “result in further degradation of vital biological resources, particularly the tide pools,” and that safeguards for the natural habitat should be in place before the project goes forward.

“This project appears to [be] a passion project that serves the interest of a limited group rather than prioritizing the broader community’s well-being,” Slaven said.

She said the Environmental Center should focus on repairing or improving existing beach accessways rather than building new ones.

Supporters of the project countered that increased access would create more awareness and appreciation of the area and inspire those who visit to protect it.

“I have concerns about unfettered public access, but … I think the hope is you can educate young people and expose them to these areas … and we can inspire future oceanographers who had access to spaces they didn’t formerly have access to,” said DPR board member Brian Williams.

Others said the increased access would result only in a minimal increase in usage and that most visitors would be locals already familiar with the area.

But resident Mike Reynolds argued that should the project go through, “you are opening up a pristine area to people that will not respect it. As soon as [tourists] see an access, they are going to take it. … You [would] open up a playground for people.”

Also, Reynolds said, parking is limited on the narrow Princess Street, which would be exacerbated with increased usage, and there are safety and privacy concerns.

“If you build it, they will come and they will do things they shouldn’t be doing,” he said. “I don’t feel confident that anything we questioned last time has been handled.”

Ure Kretowicz, who owns the property on which the easement is being recorded, said hes concerned about maintenance and repairs, trash, vandalism, loud partying and more.

“You are asking the homeowners there to be subject to the potentiality of parties,” he said. “There are so many items that are unanswered right now.”

DPR vote

While acknowledging the concerns stated at the meeting, DPR trustee Diane Kane said the boards role is to “look at the access and the constructability component of this and [whether] it meets code.”

She suggested creation of a tourism management plan for use of the accessway.

Trustee Angeles Leira said she wasnt willing to oppose the project because there will be some bad actors that will ruin it for everyone else.” At the same time, she added, “we should be conscientious of crowds coming that will be out of control.”

The La Jolla Development Permit Review Committee hears from Pam Heatherington (at the podium) about a proposed Princess Street beach access during its meeting Nov. 19 at The Bishop’s School. (Ashley Mackin-Solomon)

Heatherington noted that a tourism management plan is not required by the city of San Diego or the Coastal Commission.

“We have a management plan that has been signed off by the Coastal Conservancy and the Coastal Commission,” she said. “I don’t want to [be tasked with] something we are not required to do by the city. Everything the city has requested, we have given.”

The committee voted 7-0 that “while DPR has no issue with the physical plans as presented, we cannot recommend approval of the project as a whole until the following issues are well-thought-out, planned and funded: security, [including] access control, loitering, noise prevention; biological preservation [through] education and supervision; and a traffic study control plan.”

The project is expected to cost $2.3 million. The Environmental Center is seeking grants to pay for it.

“If we don’t have grant funding, we don’t have a trail,” Heatherington said.

The plan is expected to go to the La Jolla Community Planning Association once the applicant has addressed the questions.

The history

The beach accessway has been the subject of a four-decade effort by community members and the Coastal Commission to restore and protect the trail, which fishermen, divers and surfers had used since the early 1900s as a path to the beach.

The trail provided a point of entry to what is now known as the San Diego-La Jolla Underwater Park and the Matlahuayl State Marine Reserve. But in 1979, the accessway was closed via the locked gate when the property owner at the time built a house.

Since then, the Coastal Commission has requested that a public access easement be dedicated. Litigation by subsequent property owners arguing against it was denied in court.

As part of the Environmental Center effort, a plan was developed to have Native American oversight in case any artifacts were discovered during site visits. So far, none has.

Once the stairs are built, the Environmental Center would maintain and repair them as needed, Heatherington said.

The hope is to have a grand opening by the end of 2025, she said.

Next meeting

The La Jolla Development Permit Review Committee next meets at 4 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 10, at a location to be determined. The agenda will be posted 72 hours in advance at lajollacpa.org.