Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 11, 2006 04:21 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 11, 2006 04:21 PM
California CoastWatcher April 2005
California CoastWatcher
April 2005
California CoastWatcher is a monthly Internet publication regarding proceedings of the California Coastal Commission and news of protection and loss of coastal resources in California. CoastWatcher is a publication of the Sierra Club’s California Coastal Program.
The California Coastal Commission met in the City and County of Santa Barbara, on April 13-15, 2005.
Tip of the Month: Last month Google went live with a website at www.maps.google.com that allows you to view overhead satellite photos of just the California coast and just about anyplace. A great complement to the oblique photos at www.californiacoastline.org
For pictures of the entire California coast, from the present going back over 30 years, go to www.californiacoastline.org
For staff reports, agendas, analysis of development proposals and information regarding the California Coastal Commission, go to www.coastal.ca.gov
For the California Coastal Act, go to http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ccatc.html
Del Monte Forest pictures. See the forest Pebble Beach Company wants to destroy for new golf and resort facilities at http://www.coastwatcher.org/delmonte/DelMonteForest%20web%20pages.html
To examine the conservation voting records of the entire 12-member California Coastal Commission over the last few years, go to
2000: http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/coasts/2000_votingchart.pdf or
2001: http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/coasts/2001_votingchart.pdf
2002: http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/coasts/2002_votingchart.pdf
2003: http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/coasts/2003_votingchart.pdf
2004: http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/coasts/2004_votingchart.pdf
In order to join Sierra Club’s Great Coastal Places Campaign or to subscribe or review past issues of California CoastWatcher and learn more about projects up and down coastal California, go to www.sierraclub.org/ca/coasts.
QUOTES:
“The shores of the sea are common to all mankind”
-Byzantine Emperor Justinian, 530 A.D.
“The unrestrained development of Orange County has soured me on it.”
-Novelist Elizabeth George, on her decision to flee Huntington Beach for Whidbey Island, Washington. http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/books/04/14/books.elizabeth.george.ap/
“The photograph which I put up in front of the committee is an LNG facility, an LNG tanker, coming into Boston. This shot is being taken right from Boston harbor. In the background right over the tanker you can see East Boston High School. You can see the people who are now living out on the docks of Boston. There are millions of people who live within a very short distance from where that LNG facility is presently located. Now the reality is, that if there was a successful terrorist attack at that [LNG] tanker or the facility where it will unload its payload, there is no question that it would be a catastrophic event that would match a nuclear power plant meltdown...”
-Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass.), explaining to House Republicans why they should refrain from an effort to steal the jurisdiction and sovereignty of individual state’s throughout the country with respect to review and siting of proposals for LNG terminals across America. Reason didn’t sway the Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly to ignore the states and give all authority on LNG terminals to FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) a federal agency dedicated to the corporations proposing LNG terminals. The FERC maneuver on LNG is now part of the Bush Energy legislation. Read about the federal assault against California at http://www.lbreport.com/news/apr05/enbil2.htm
“The proposed energy legislation is a threat to our state's environmental autonomy and coastal stewardship. Another concern to Californians is the federal government's effort to strip the state of the ability to determine the siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. The state should be able to play a meaningful role in determining the appropriate location of any gas terminal within the state's boundaries.”
-California Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante, in a March 23 letter to Congress, urging them not to steal California’s jurisdiction over LNG terminal review and siting authority. Despite the effort, House Republicans voted on April 12 to allow FERC, whose members know little of California’s coastal resources or communities, to make the decisions on where LNG terminals will be located. http://www.lbreport.com/news/apr05/enbil2.htm
“This is a wholesale attempt to allow FERC to override any state objections to the agency's decisionmaking authority on LNG facilities. The provision takes aim squarely at a lawsuit now in the 9th circuit between FERC and the California PUC.
As you know, the California Public Utilities Commission current litigation with the FERC concerns a proposed LNG facility at one of the busiest ports in the world: the Port of Long Beach...This administration's lack of attention to the issue of security at our nation's ports should give us all pause as we consider the size and potential impact of these facilities... I know that California's dismal experience with FERC a few years back might color my perception. We all remember too well when the agency sat on its hands while out of state power companies robbed our state blind. Based on this record I'm very skeptical about giving them exclusive jurisdiction over the siting of these proposed terminals...”
-Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara), urging House Republicans on April 12 to respect California’s state sovereignty, which they chose to ignore. http://www.lbreport.com/news/apr05/enbil2.htm For more news on the federal attack on California, go to http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8162150 and http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/local/11483115.htm For the latest, check out President Bush supporting the LNG lobby over state’s rights at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-energy28apr28,1,4035949.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
“There is blood in the water and now the sharks are circling. The oil lobby got a victory in the Arctic and now they are confident, I am sure, to open up the California coast.”
-Dan Jacobson, Environment California, describing the latest push from industry and the Bush Administration to initiate new offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling activities in California. For the story, go to http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2005/04/13/news/news3.txt
“No new drilling. That’s been the governor’s stand from day one.”
-Sandy Cooney, California Resources Agency, reiterating Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s opposition to the Bush Energy plan. The California Coastal Commission plans hearings on the Bush Administration plan to extend 37 oil and gas leases located offshore of California this June 2005. http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2005/04/13/news/news3.txt
“This is a tremendous power grab by the federal government. Instead of the governor offering an informed judgment, some nameless person in a federal agency will make that decision.”
-Rep. Jim Davis (D-Fla.), April 22, following a vote of the House of Representatives approving the Bush Energy Plan, which provides new incentives for offshore oil drilling and prohibits coastal states from submitting information related to the damage that oil spills will have on coastal tourism and recreation economies. Read it and weep at http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050422-100902-7558r.htm For more information on the legislation’s many devastating elements, go to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D89K9GTG0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down and http://ydr.com/story/business/66120/ and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7459-2005Apr21.html and http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/2005-04-22-10.asp For a scorching opinion regarding the energy boondoggle from normally conservative USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-04-21-energy-edit_x.htm and http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0504220141apr22,1,741532.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
“The moral of the story is: Don't go out there and do it. We're going to be watching you.”
-Lt. Don Kelly, Cal. Dept. Fish & Game, issuing a warning to would-be abalone poachers in California. Kelly was addressing the case of Yiting Zhu, caught red-handed last year with 20 abalone stashed inside a Hello Kitty backpack in San Mateo County. Zhu could have been fined up to $40,000. Instead, San Mateo County Judge Clifford Cretan let Zhu off easy with a $5,130 fine, permanently revoked his sport and commercial fishing privileges, placed him on a three-year probation for search and seizure, as well as confiscated Zhu’s 1995 Mitsubishi Gallant automobile. Read about the crime at http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/localnews/ci_2652041
WEBSITES, NEWS BRIEFS & NOTES:
California Supreme Court Hears Coastal Constitutionality Challenge: On April 6 the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Marine Forest Society’s challenge to the constitutionality of the California Coastal Commission. The case has been kicking around the California court system for many years, since the Coastal Commission ordered MFS to remove an unpermitted artificial reef made of old tires, concrete and plastics off Newport Beach in the 1990’s. MFS believes the Coastal Commission is unconstitutional because the state legislature has 8 of 12 Commission appointments (4 each for the Senate Rules Committee and the Assembly Speaker) and the Governor has only 4 appointments, despite the fact that the Coastal Commission is an agency within the executive branch of state government. This, MFS believes, violates the California Constitution’s Separation of Powers Clause. The Justices were not impressed. Justice Joyce Kennard was the most direct, telling MFS that the California Constitution imposes no restrictions on legislative appointments to executive branch commission’s, that in 150 years the Supreme Court had never found such appointments to be unlawful and that no other state court that had ever reviewed the question had found the legislative appointments to be legally unfounded. Kennard concluded, “This is your hurdle and you have not met it.” For stories on the case, go to
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/11313608.htm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050405-0007-ca-coastalcommission.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/05/MNGM6C3CB11.DTL For some editorials supportive of the Commission, go to
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/living/11392399.htm For the perspective of the bad guys, go to http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/April/17/edit/stories/03edit.htm
http://www.theksbwchannel.com/news/4356936/detail.html For good background on the case, go to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050406-9999-1n6coastal.html
Coastal Appointments Discussed: Pursuant to the new law passed by the legislature last year and signed into law by Governor Gray Davis as a result of the MFS case, the terms of four current members of the Coastal Commission expire on May 20. Three of those Commissioners are local elected officials: Dave Potter (Monterey County), Scott Peters (San Diego) and Toni Iseman (Laguna Beach). A fourth Commissioner, Mary Shallenberger, is a public appointment to the Commission. Recent stories regarding the appointments are at http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/11373602.htm and http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/April/15/local/stories/02local.htm Join the appointment process now and participate by sending your own letter to the Speaker of the Assembly at http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/ccc
California LNG Legislation Will Do California Good. Despite the federal government’s attempts to steal California’s jurisdiction over the planning and siting for LNG terminal proposals, California agencies and legislators are moving forward with critical review procedures. Hearings are underway in Long Beach regarding Mitsubishi’s proposal for an LNG terminal within the Port of Long Beach, and the story is at http://www.gazettes.com/lng04072005.html and a recent article regarding the efforts of Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) and environmentalists to craft legislation to oversee the LNG review statewide in California through SB426 is found in a great article called “Race Without A Road Map,” at http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_3713173,00.html
California Officials Fight Back Against Offshore Oil Threat. Despite the efforts of the federal government to ram offshore oil drilling down our throats, California politicians and officials stand united in opposition to further drilling. Read about the efforts of State Assembly member Leland Yee (D-S.F.) to introduce resolutions in Sacramento opposing offshore oil drilling at http://www.pacificatribune.com/Stories/0,1413,92~3247~2801700,00.html
Rincon Bridges: The decade long effort of the Coastal Commission to protect Rincon Creek took a turn for the worse last week when coastal staff revealed that CalTrans had already chopped down at least 17 “native” trees along the creek in order to “replace” two bridges along the creek. CalTrans lacks any permits whatsoever and is moving ahead with the project based upon an “emergency” declaration they conveniently granted to themselves. Meanwhile, lawful permitting and review are underway in both Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. (The bridges are located on the county line. Santa Barbara has approved the bridge replacement project (which Sierra Club has appealed to the Coastal Commission). Ventura County is expected to follow with their planning review shortly. At the heart of the process is the Commission’s attempt to protect habitat along Rincon Creek, including numerous giant old oaks trees that CalTrans has wanted to chop down for at least 15 years. Several times during the last decade the Commission has steadfastly and adamantly refused to condone the tree massacre, which CalTrans desires in order to straighten the historic, rural road in order to increase driving speeds. The Commission, meanwhile, has squarely come down in favor of protecting the rural character and coastal habitat of the area. The pretext of CalTrans’ latest assault is “winter rains” which “damaged” the existing bridges. Coastal staff tells the Commission that they are working to insure the roadway and bridges are not “expanded” although it still is not clear if the two-lane roadway will remain that way. Perhaps a bad omen could be staff’s revelation that CalTrans had removed the first 17 trees “to prevent birds from nesting in them during the spring nesting season.” Stay tuned.
Geffen Accessway at Carbon Beach in Malibu is Open: The famed Geffen public beach access trail on Carbon Beach in Malibu is now open. On Wednesday, April 13, billionaire entertainment mogul David Geffen provided keys to the public trail (pictured at www.cacoast.org/3953), and starting on Wednesday morning April 14 Steve Hoye of Access For All opened the gates pursuant to an approved operations and maintenance plan which will provide critically needed public beach access from dawn to dusk…forever, to one of Malibu’s most difficult to access public beaches. The news comes on the heels of Geffen’s 22-year effort to thwart public beach access to the area, featuring locked gates, relocation schemes and a string of legal courtroom losses for Geffen. When it became apparent that Geffen was about to get clobbered in an upcoming trial with Hoye and the State of California, Geffen relented, and turned over the keys and has agreed to pay $300,000 in attorney fees to Hoye and the State. Geffen will now also dismiss his lawsuits. By turning over the keys and avoiding the trial, Geffen was able to avoid millions of dollars of fines and penalties and the public obtained beach access perhaps years sooner than a trial and subsequent appeals would have allowed. For some of the stories, go to http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3252667a1860,00.html and http://www.latimes.com/business/la-me-geffen16apr16,0,7917189.story?coll=la-home-headlines and http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=674466 and http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1461931,00.html
Check Out Earth Alert. Environmental writer and activist Janet Bridgers’ website at
http://www.earthalert.org/Heroes%20of%20the%20Coast.html has a great feature called “Hero’s of the Coast” featuring a piece of former Coastal Commissioner and “Queen of the Coast” Ellen Stern Harris. Bridgers has also written numerous editorials regarding the value of coastal protection in California, including a new one regarding the Geffen case called “Beach Access Case Proves Commission’s Value” in the Ventura Star at http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_3724629,00.html
Rodenticides Killed LA Mountain Lions: California Department of Fish & Game authorities have now determined that the two mountain lions found dead in the Santa Monica Mountains last December (out of a total population thought to be eight) died as a result of ingesting common rodenticides associated with poisons used to kill rats, mice, ground squirrels and other rodents. The poisons employ anticoagulants that prevent the blood from clotting, and following ingestion of the prey the mountain lions bled to death internally. Now Assemblywoman Fran Pavley has introduced legislation (AB1548) that would allow California counties to ban the sale of rodenticides. For more on the story, go to http://www.canyon-news.com/artman/publish/AB1548.php and http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2775116,00.html
Sierra Club Files Suit Over La Jolla Buoys Decision: Sierra Club’s San Diego Chapter has filed suit against the Coastal Commission for their decision in January to approve a claim of vested rights for the City of San Diego that allows the private La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club to continue to place swim buoys offshore directly in front of the resort. The buoys serve only one purpose: create a private swim area for club members, in effect privatizing the ocean. To approve the vested rights claim, the Commission had to allow the city to “step into the shoes” of the Club since the Club tried and failed to make the claim for themselves. Granting vested rights to a municipal government is unprecedented and opens the door for rogue city entities to merely adopt illegitimate practices of private property owners along the coast. The Commission also had to ignore the recommendation of their staff and the State Lands Commission, as well as Sierra Club and other environmental organizations to approve the application. You can catch up on the case at http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~23170~2790321,00.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050328-9999-1m28buoys.html
Pebble Beach Co. Proposal to Chop Down 17,000 Monterey Pine Trees Decried: Monterey County has now approved (unanimously) the proposal by Pebble Beach Company to chop down 17,000 Monterey Pine trees to build golf facilities, resort accommodations and mansions, and both Sierra Club and Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment (HOPE, www.1hope.org) have filed lawsuits to stop the slaughter. Read about the HOPE lawsuit at http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/local/11391979.htm Next scheduled stop for the devastating project is the Coastal Commission. Meanwhile news of the atrocious proposal continues to dribble out across the globe. Read the latest at
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11249061.htm and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1543054,00.html
Listen to the NPR radio broadcast story at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4576599
For the complete audio of the Monterey Co. Supervisors approval of the project, on March 15, go to www.co.monterey.ca.us and on the left hand side of the home page look for “Audio of Past Board Meetings.”
Bulldozers Rolling & Destroying Habitat at Dana Point Headlands: With lawsuits pending, and wasting no time, Sanford Edward and his band of bulldozer driving builders have begun to destroy ESHA habitat at the Dana Point Headlands and the public has the Coastal Commission to thank for their approval of the project. Read the latest at http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/04/19/sections/news/news/article_486668.php and see the story below (Contents, item no. 4, below).
Crystal Cove Cottage Renovation Underway: Good things are happening at Crystal Cove State Park, and hopefully the public will be allowed to stay in the historic cottages now being restored within a year. Read about the progress at http://www.dailypilot.com/front/story/9159p-12603c.html
Resort Developers Target Oceanside for Million Dollar Handout: It was less than two years ago that the Coastal Commission denied a 12-story resort tower complex at the pier in the City of Oceanside (San Diego County). So the City Council went back to the drawing board and last week their City staff recommended…a new proposal for a slightly less obnoxious seven-story tall resort, including 72 time share units which would violate Coastal Act policies against developing housing in visitor serving zones. Worse, the developer is asking for a $10 million handout from the City to build the project. This on top of the millions the City spent lobbying the losing 12-story high Manchester Resort, and the $2.2 million the City ended up paying Manchester to simply go away. You would have thought Oceanside had learned its lesson. What is this project going to cost when it is denied? Shouldn’t someone from Oceanside consult with the folks in Santa Cruz who just defeated the Coast Hotel resort project, wherein the City of Santa Cruz City Council offered up to $60 million of taxpayers hard earned cash as a handout? For the latest in Oceanside, go to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20050408-9999-1mi8hotel.html For the cleanup operation underway in Santa Cruz, go to www.scrp.us
Oceanside City Council Has Approved Massive Seven-Story Tall Resort. Late breaking news at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20050422-9999-1mi22ohotel.html
Los Osos Sewer Wars Rage On: Concerned Citizens of Los Osos lost another round in there battle to stop construction of a new sewer plant in the little coastal community when the Coastal Commission denied their petition for revocation of permits earlier approved on April 14, but they may be close to winning the war. Two of the five directors of the Los Osos Community Services District already oppose the plant, and a recall election is underway to remove the other three. Read the latest regarding the Los Osos sewer wars at the CASE (Citizens for Affordable and Safe Environment) website: http://www.case-environmental.org/
Tourists Shocked to Learn OC has coastline. A new public opinion poll commissioned by Orange County resort owners shows that most people in the United States have no idea that Orange County has 42 miles of coastline, and most don’t know that Huntington Beach, Newport, Laguna and other signature OC city locales are even within the County. Using something called “branding science” the resort owners hope to profit and cash in on the tens of millions who visit Disneyland every year by urging them to spend a day or two at the beach. And who says a healthy coast isn’t money in the bank? For latest scheme to sell California beaches via high priced hotels, go to www.theOCeanfrontca.com The news story regarding this particular business scheme is at http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/04/16/sections/news/focus_in_depth/article_483931.php
Commission’s Diablo Canyon Access Program Moving Forward. It is true that with the approval of the Coastal Commission last year PG&E will likely be storing dangerous nuclear waste for thousands of years at Diablo Canyon, but one can take small consolation in the fact that three miles of new coastal access north of the nuclear plant will soon be open for hiking. Read about the progress toward new access to some of the state’s most beautiful coastline, and a few of the detractors who have all kinds of reasons why the public shouldn’t be allowed to see our coast at http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2005/04/13/news/local/news04.txt and http://www.ksby.com/home/headlines/1462887.html
Want to Know How Polluted Fort Ord in Monterey is? Go to Seattle. You won’t read it California newspapers, but after 10 years of working to clean up toxic waste along four miles of the central coast, the military has cleaned only 5% of Fort Ord and it may be another 20 years before Fort Ord State Beach is opened to public access. Read it here http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002238661_bases12.html
State Official Dangles Desal & Toxic Ocean Discharge to Riverside Home Builders: Perhaps he made a mistake, but he did say it. Pete Silva, who is Vice-Chair of the California State Water Resources Control Board appeared to be telling inland developers that they could expect to use desalted ocean water in the future as a way to artificially sustain new sprawl and inland development. Worse, Silva praised efforts by Riverside & Chino to desalt cow manure and pump the toxic stew into the ocean. See it at http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/11496193.htm
Take A Hike. California’s premiere coastal hiking outfit, CoastWalk, has a bunch of spring hikes planned for Malibu and points south in Southern California. So get out there and enjoy your coast! For more information, go to http://www.coastwalk.org/Hikes/dayhikes.htm#LA For a NorCal version of “use it or lose it” CoastWalk hikes, go to http://www.pacificatribune.com/Stories/0,1413,92~3247~2838956,00.html
Perhaps You Saw the Butterflies? Hundreds of millions of painted lady butterflies made their way up the California coast this month, part of an annual migration from Mexico and southern California to Oregon. Read about it at http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/local/11275494.htm
Get Excited About Sewage. Did you know that 37 offshore sewage disposal poopline outfalls exist in California, ranging in length from 0’ to over 5-miles? Some 44% of those pipes dump sewage into the “surf zone” or in water less than 50-ft deep. Together they dump over 1.5 billion gallons of sewage per day and over 44 billion tons of sewage sludge per year into our ocean. These amazing facts and more are the work of Hillary Hauser and Santa Barbara’s Heal the Ocean. You can find their report, Ocean Wastewater Discharge Inventory at www.healtheocean.org
Baja’s Amazing Whales. Read the story and watch the video as Ken Weiss of the LA Times goes to San Ignacio for an encounter with “friendly” Gray Whales, perhaps the only place on the planet were these giant animals are petted, hugged and kissed by visitors. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-whales23mar23,0,3993048.story?coll=la-home-headlines
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
CONTENTS:
1. EAGER TO SATISFY DEMANDS OF HEARTHSIDE HOMES, COMMISSION WILLINGLY SACRIFICES ARCHEOLOGY SITES AND RAPTOR BUFFERS AT BOLSA CHICA
2. COMMISSION TO REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ON SANTA BARBARA’S MORE MESA
3. ISLE VISTA PARKING PLAN ROUNDLY CRITICIZED
4. COMMISSION RUBBER STAMPS DANA POINT HEADLANDS DEVELOPMENT OVER OBJECTION OF THE STAFF AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS – AND WITHIN A WEEK DEVELOPER BULLDOZES DISPUTED ESHA ON THE PROPERTY.
5. COMMISSION TAKES INITIATIVE AND HOLDS TELEVISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ON LNG
6. COMMISSION ACTS TO PROTECT MONTEREY PINE TREE HABITAT THREATENED BY PROJECT TO INSTALL WATER STORAGE TANKS IN CAMBRIA
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1. EAGER TO SATISFY DEMANDS OF HEARTHSIDE HOMES, COMMISSION WILLINGLY SACRIFICES ARCHEOLOGY SITES AND RAPTOR BUFFERS AT BOLSA CHICA
CONTENTS:
1. EAGER TO SATISFY DEMANDS OF HEARTHSIDE HOMES, COMMISSION WILLINGLY SACRIFICES ARCHEOLOGY SITES AND RAPTOR BUFFERS AT BOLSA CHICA
2. COMMISSION TO REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ON SANTA BARBARA’S MORE MESA
3. ISLE VISTA PARKING PLAN ROUNDLY CRITICIZED
4. COMMISSION RUBBER STAMPS DANA POINT HEADLANDS DEVELOPMENT OVER OBJECTION OF THE STAFF AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS – AND WITHIN A WEEK DEVELOPER BULLDOZES DISPUTED ESHA ON THE PROPERTY.
5. COMMISSION TAKES INITIATIVE AND HOLDS TELEVISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ON LNG
6. COMMISSION ACTS TO PROTECT MONTEREY PINE TREE HABITAT THREATENED BY PROJECT TO INSTALL WATER STORAGE TANKS IN CAMBRIA
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1. EAGER TO SATISFY DEMANDS OF HEARTHSIDE HOMES, COMMISSION WILLINGLY SACRIFICES ARCHEOLOGY SITES AND RAPTOR BUFFERS AT BOLSA CHICA
The Bolsa Chica wetlands in the City Huntington Beach, Orange County, are some of the most ecologically valuable wetlands, and fought over real estate, in all of California.
Over the last thirty years developers (using a variety of names and entities, Koll Company, Signal Hill Oil Company, California Coastal Communities and Hearthside Homes among them), Orange County politicians and the California Coastal Commission have tried time and again to approve projects ranging from 5700-homes and an oceanfront marina to the current project for 349-homes proposed by the current developer.
In each and every case it has been local residents, wetlands lovers and environmental organizations like Bolsa Chica Land Trust, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, Surfrider Foundation and Sierra Club that have had to repeatedly bring lawsuits against the Coastal Commission to keep them from sacrificing coastal resources at Bolsa Chica in dogged pursuit of profit.
That is why the Coastal Commission’s deliberations over the latest development proposal for Bolsa Chica, on April 14, felt like déjà vu. Same old story - men in suits asking for permission to build luxury housing on top of ecologically unique habitat. Same old result - Coastal Commissioners trying too hard to invent new theories to rationalize the desire to fight for houses and not the coast.
Bolsa Chica wetlands can be seen at www.cacoast.org/8491
Throughout a combination of judicially mandated disallowed projects and through expenditure of over $100 million in public funds, 1479-acres of Bolsa Chica (once part of a much larger 2300-acre wetland at the turn of the century) have been permanently protected.
This month the Commission deliberated the most recent development proposal: 349-homes on 68-acres (if you are looking at the picture, the development is to be located on the “upper mesa” in the upper left hand corner of the photo).
Both pro-development Commissioners and the developer’s lobbyists took credit for the fact that “96%” of Bolsa Chica had “already been saved” but didn’t mention it was despite their rapacious efforts, not because of them.
In fact, Hearthside Homes, the developer, took credit for every single environmental protection effort ever undertaken at Bolsa Chica, regardless of the fact they are the sole threat to Bolsa Chica.
On April 14 the project returned to the Commission after the Commission explicitly rejected a proposal by Hearthside last fall that would have allowed 379-houses in a gated community with inadequate buffers for raptors onsite and would have permitted a host of unacceptable uses within the buffers, such as parking lots, fire clearance and other development related infrastructure.
This time the project had been improved - it is no longer a private gated development, streets are public, parks within the development are public, roads and other development have been removed from the environmental buffer area, some buffer areas were expanded and a previous proposal to build an artificial bluff over the wetlands to create more building pads was eliminated.
And while Coastal Commission staff took careful account of the improvements, as they explained the project to the Commission, they were clear that the improvements were not sufficient for the project to achieve Coastal Act consistency. In particular, staff biologist John Dixon, working with other bird and biology experts, had determined that buffers for environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) consisting of eucalyptus trees in which hawks and white tailed kites are nesting should be 100-meters (328-ft) in size, not the 150-ft suggested by the developer.
In particular, staff had discovered that a pair of legally protected white tailed kites were nesting, and had given birth, in a grove of three trees not previously designated as ESHA. Buffers for white tailed kites can be as much as 300-meters, yet coastal staff was willing to accept a much smaller buffer of 100-meters. The developer, on the other hand, sought a buffer of just 150-ft. The staff report is online at www.coastal.ca.gov/lb/4-2005-Th7a.pdf
Dozens of concerned citizens and longtime wetlands activists traveled from Orange County to Santa Barbara for the hearing.
Shirley Dettloff began the public portion of the hearing. Dettloff, a former Coastal Commission member, Huntington Beach Mayor and spokesperson for the Amigos de Bolsa Chica urged the Commission to do the obvious thing: support their staff. Dettloff was followed by Mel Nutter, another former Coastal Commission member and spokesperson for League for Coastal Protection. Nutter also praised the Commission staff for efforts to improve the project.
Dettloff and Nutter were followed by numerous other coastal activists, all urging the Commission to support their staff analysis and not cave in to the developers’ efforts to expand the building envelope of the project.
Among other things, the Commission was told that raptors are nature’s pest control. They work silently and efficiently and never send a bill, one scientist told the commission. “ESHA’s must be protected to be valid. Buffers protect ESHA.”
Sandy Genis of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust told the Commission that the 100-meter buffer is a compromise, and not a new concept. The Commission has long noted in this project, and at least since 2000, the Commission has found that without adequate buffers the trees will not provide genuine habitat for raptors. Recall, Genis stated, that the project itself will eliminate 68-acres of open space grasslands used for hunting now and replace it with houses.
The developer, Hearthside Homes, Inc., concluded by asking the Commission one last time to ignore their staff and approve the project with the smaller eucalyptus buffers, allowing houses to be within 150-ft of the white tailed kite nests.
Coastal staff reiterated that the larger buffers were needed, not just to protect raptor habitat but also to protect several critically important archaeology and ancient cultural sites on the Bolsa Chica mesa. If the buffers are reduced, the archaeology sites will be destroyed, staff explained to the Commission.
Finishing the staff report, Commission biologist John Dixon reiterated that buffers should not be established by using “exceptionally tolerant” birds but rather sensitive species, in order to insure their survival.
Commissioner Sara Wan began the Commission’s deliberations by saying that the project now includes irrigation, mowing and fire clearance within the first 150-ft of the buffer area, and sought to insure that those activities would not degrade the ESHA.
Wan emphasized that the project is one of the most important ever to come before the Commission. Wan said however, that the question is not how much improved the project is today but whether the project is consistent or not with the Coastal Act. Wan didn’t understand the rationale for reducing the burrowing owl ESHA from 50 to 46-eters. And why, Wan said, would some grading occur within the owl buffer? “Clearly, grading within a wildlife buffer for residential purposes is not consistent with what we’ve done in the past,” Wan said.
Wan continued, “One hundred fifty-foot buffers with the first 50-ft cleared for fire is not appropriate for an important ecosystem like this. These raptors are there, they need adequate nesting and foraging habitat. Given the substantial $65 million public investment to protect the lower mesa, it is incumbent upon us to insure adequate buffers and foraging.”
Commissioner Patrick Kruer immediately cast doubt upon the proposed environmental protections. “If we require the larger buffers, this is a very good plan from what it was – this is a win-win”, he said. “The public purchase has allowed for the project to be improved in this way. The larger buffers will have an adverse impact by taking out the larger 6000 square foot house lots, eliminating the diversity of the project. Reducing housing and increasing grading can cause environmental damage. Is this fair? Do we really need to have a larger buffer? If so, we have to start over, and redesign the project with new lots, streets, and an entirely new design,” Kruer concluded.
Commissioner Mary Shallenberger continued. “It doesn’t matter that this project is better than others. How much has been given up by the developer is not relevant to our quasi-judicial role of upholding the Coastal Act. The burden of proof is not that the Commission needs to prove buffers are necessary to save the birds, but the other way around - that a smaller buffer will absolutely not have any adverse impact on the ESHA. This is not a balancing test, it is a mandate. I have not heard any evidence from the developer satisfying this mandate today,” said Shallenberger.
Commissioner Mike Reilly then said, “We’re playing a poker game here. We required nine acres last year for conservation. We’re asking for another eight acres for increased buffers today. At some point we’re jeopardizing the project.”
Commissioner Steve Kram commended staff and said, “I agree with Commissioner Kruer that to change the buffer means the project will have to be redesigned. What does the applicant say about the value of the lower bench?”
At that point the developer got up and embarked on an extremely prejudicial and self-serving story regarding the fact that the company felt the “lower mesa” portion of the property was worth “at least $160 million” but they had agreed to sell it (unbuildable wetlands property) to California for “just $65 million.” As if it were a philanthropic undertaking that should inspire the Commission to now allow the company to ignore appropriate environmental buffers.
Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas tried to steer the conversation back to the Coastal Act and told the Commission that the sale was based upon state approved official appraisals, not the estimate of the applicant.
Then Commissioner Dan Secord began to weave his own theory. “I was interested in the issue of the buffer in relation to the lower bench. It sounds like the buffer has increased as a result of the sale of the lower bench? I have been at this for five months, but it seems this project is the result of the burden and benefit, and compromise.” Then Secord said, “If this buffer could retract to its former state I would feel better about it.” Secord was saying that if the buffer could be just as the developer wants, he would like it better.
Then Secord had the developer confirm that according to the developer’s opinion, the white tailed kites nesting in the three eucalyptus trees were unlikely to nest there next season, since white tailed kites often establish new nests in subsequent seasons.
Commissioner David Allgood then said, “I believe we have to protect ESHA as the Coastal Act requires. It strikes me that the buffer will have a dramatic impact for trees and ESHA that are unlikely to host these birds and the nest next year.”
Commissioner Reilly then moved per staff, with Commissioner Bonnie Neely providing the second.
Then Commissioner Reilly moved to amend the ESHA designation to ELIMINATE the three trees in which white tailed kites are currently nesting and adjust the buffer boundary accordingly. Meaning that once the ESHA is deleted (as if the birds didn’t exist) the trees could be ignored and the buffer would no longer be necessary.
Commissioner Allgood asked what impact that would have on the archaeology site. Staff replied that the archaeology site would be covered by development without the staff recommended buffer.
Then the Commission voted to eliminate the white tailed kite ESHA, as if the birds and their nest did not exist. On the amending motion the Commission voted 10-2 to delete the existence of the white tailed kites, with Commissioners Iseman, Kram, Kruer, Neely, Potter, Reilly, Secord, Wan, Caldwell and Burke voting for the houses and Commissioners Allgood and Shallenberger voting for the birds.
Commissioner Wan then moved that the minimum sized buffer throughout the rest of the project be at least 200-ft, not the 150-ft suggested by the developer.
Then, for the first time in the hearing, Commissioner Toni Iseman (who is from Orange County) spoke. She called the 200-ft buffer “vague” and asked the developer if protecting 200-ft of wildlife habitat would help his project? Not surprisingly, the developer said that the greater buffer would indeed translate into less number of houses (i.e. less profits). Not willing to stand for any diminution in profits, Iseman said she would refuse to consider any improvement over the developer’s own suggested buffers, thereby insuring the greatest private profit possible from the project regardless of the adverse impact to coastal resources.
Yet Iseman couldn’t have done it without the help of other Commissioners.
Commissioner Wan then insisted on a vote to require a minimum buffer size of 200-t. “150-ft is just too close,” Wan said. Commissioner Reilly, apparently having had enough, provided the second.
Commissioner Kruer also apparently had decided the developer had been given enough and said, “I think Commissioner Wan’s suggestion is something you can work with.”
Commissioner Iseman wasn’t done. She said she did not support 200-ft buffers and that “we don’t know where we’re going.” As if only the developer knew where to go.
Then, in a critical vote, the Commission voted 6-6 on the 200-ft buffers and the motion failed for lack of a majority, leaving only the developers profit oriented (“bucks over birds”) buffers. How they voted: Commissioners Wan, Kruer, Allgood, Reilly, Shallenberger and Caldwell for the birds. Commissioners Kram, Neely, Potter, Iseman, Secord and Burke against.
On a subsequent vote to formally reject the staff’s 100-meter buffer (already a foregone conclusion) the Commission voted 7-5, with Commissioners Reilly, Wan, Shallenberger, Caldwell and Allgood in support of staff and Commissioners Potter, Kram, Iseman, Secord, Burke, Neely and Kruer for the developer.
On the final vote, the “main motion” the Commission voted to approve the entire project 11-1 with Commissioners Neely, Reilly, Potter, Shallenberger, Burke, Iseman, Kram, Kruer, Caldwell and Wan in favor and Commissioner Allgood opposed.
The rabidly pro-development Orange County press, led by the Orange County Register, couldn’t wait to celebrate the development victory in print at story http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/04/16/sections/local/local/article_484022.php although they couldn’t resist being sore winners and in their grossly inaccurate Editorial at http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/04/17/sections/commentary/editorials/article_483198.php
2. COMMISSION TO REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ON SANTA BARBARA’S MORE MESA
More Mesa is a much-prized 340-acre blufftop, oceanfront open space habitat area in Santa Barbara County that is sandwiched between Hope Ranch and the City of Goleta. Known for raptors, white tailed kites, blue herons, wetlands and native grasses, it is a favorite for birders as well as beach lovers. Most people who love hiking and going to the beach at More Mesa probably don’t even realize that it is privately owned and zoned for up to 70-houses.
People who love More Mesa have established the More Mesa Preservation Coalition and you can learn about their work and see great photos at http://www.moremesa.org/
You can see a great overhead photo of More Mesa at http://maps.google.com/maps?q=more+mesa,+city+of+goleta&ll=34.422376,-119.794600&spn=0.012102,0.021350&t=k&hl=en An oblique photo of the mesa is at www.cacoast.org/3195
Jack Maxwell is a developer who specializes in building houses along the edge of More Mesa. Maxwell recently built the “Las Brises” subdivision, adjacent to both mesa and the latest proposed development. Las Brises (visible in the overhead photo as the western most spur road and subdivision under construction in the upper-middle right hand corner), in which the Santa Barbara County permitted Maxwell to construct numerous single-story unscreened yellow stucco homes, now features houses selling for $2 million each. To say the houses blight the public trails and natural habitat of the mesa is an understatement.
By Maxwell’s next project the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors had changed dramatically, and is now characterized by a 3-2 pro-development majority. Therefore, they approved Maxwell’s idea of taking an existing home on a 3.5-acre parcel (legally two parcels) and allowing the parcel lines to be “adjusted” so that the house was left on 1.1-acres and the remainder parcel, which would be 2.4-acres, would then be subdivided to allow four more new houses. Yet another feature of the plan was to strand a wetland and creek on the parcel into it’s own parcel. And not done yet, Santa Barbara County also approved making two of four new houses two-story, so as to maximize private views of the mesa at the expense of the public’s views of the mountains from adjacent public hiking trails.
Thus, Maxwell convinced Santa Barbara County to allow at least five houses, four new ones, on just two parcels with a wetland alongside the More Mesa environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). A nice trick when you can get away with it.
Going into the hearing before the Coastal Commission Maxwell had a nice chit in his favor. Coastal staff, without noting the existence of only legal parcels, recommended that the Commission not hear the appeal filed by More Mesa Preservation Coalition and just approve the project. The staff report is at www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/4-2005-W14a.pdf
Santa Barbara Supervisor Susan Rose attended the hearing and along with the More Mesa Preservation Coalition urged the Coastal Commission to hear an appeal of a proposal to subdivide and develop the property. They urged the Commission to restrict development to one house per legal parcel, for a total of two houses, and to require that any new construction be limited to a single story.
Maxwell contested the appellant’s request that he only develop single story houses, and said the only reason he did it at Las Brises was that he did so “voluntarily.” It wasn’t clear if he would voluntarily build single story houses in the new project or not.
Commissioner Mike Reilly moved for approval of the appeal, which was seconded by Mary Shallenberger.
Commissioner Reilly said that appellants had raised issues sufficient for appeal, with respect to community character as it relates to viewshed protections. Reilly said, “By my calculation, these homes could easily be done on one story. We should take the time to satisfy ourselves on conditions.”
Commissioner Sara Wan followed. “The visual impacts raise competing representations, and that causes me to want to take a closer look at the project,” Wan said. “More Mesa is an important area to the community and to the state, and deserves our attention. Subdivision is not an automatic right, and to the extent new entitlements are created, it calls out for us to review it,” Wan concluded.
Commissioner Dave Potter agreed with Wan and was supportive of the appeal.
Commissioner Dan Secord said, “For the record, this project has been reviewed and approved by Santa Barbara County. There may be some defects related to vegetation and views but it is my view that given the county has a certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the project has been reviewed and found consistent, I am against appeal.”
The Commission then voted 8-2-1 to accept the appeal, with Commissioners Burke, Iseman, Potter, Allgood, Reilly, Shallenberger, Wan and Caldwell in support and Commissioners Neely and Secord against (with Commissioner Kram abstaining).
3. ISLE VISTA PARKING PLAN ROUNDLY CRITICIZED
Isle Vista c. 1972
Isle Vista is a very congested oceanside college
town adjacent to the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) famous for
Halloween parties. You can see the town at http://maps.google.com/maps?q=isle+vista,+california&ll=34.411240,-119.864009&spn=0.024204,0.042701&t=k&hl=en
IV, as it is known, is comprised of about 20,000 people, most of whom are UCSB students. The town, however, is less than one-square mile in size and is often said to be the most crowded coastside community in California. Due to the expanding student population and severe lack of affordable housing, students often live four to a room, and some students live in closets. Landlords typically are not able, and do not, provide onsite parking for all the people seeking tenancy.
Parking, or the lack thereof, is another thing IV is famous for. There exist in IV approximately 3000 public street parking spaces, all available to anyone on a first come, first serve basis.
This makes IV a perfect place to park if you happen to be one of the 20,000 people who work at UCSB (which charges entrance and parking fees). So do the math. If you take 20,000 IV residents and you add 20,000 career commuters, and they all are vying for 3000 parking spaces, what do you have? You have no public beach access parking. That is what you have.
Santa Barbara County, on the other hand, had another idea in submitting their IV Parking Plan for Coastal Commission review. They want to provide parking for IV residents, pure and simple. Sell residents an annual parking permit and raise revenues, and give parking tickets to everyone else and raise even more revenues.
Knowing that the Coastal Commission would be interested in public beach access parking, Santa Barbara County sought to dress up their proposal with three parts. First, the county sought permission to establish 135 short term, metered downtown parking spots, in order to address the concerns of local merchants. Second, the county sought to restrict parking in over 2700 of the remaining street parking spots, and make them available only to residents who purchase permits. Lastly, the county tossed the public a bone in providing that 106 parking spaces would be “designated” for public beach access.
Santa Barbara County was pleased with their proposal, which would restrict every single parking space in the entire town, including parking to at least five separate beach access ways, numerous public parks and a bunch of surf spots.
Coastal staff did the math too, and their analysis is at www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/4-2005-W15d.pdf What coastal staff did was take account of the existing 3000 public parking spaces, acknowledge that the county plan would result in 106 public parking spaces, and determine that 97% of the public beach access parking in IV would disappear under the plan. Considering that 93 of the 106 public spots would prohibit parking in the evening hours, the county plan would virtually eliminate night time beach access.
Then Coastal staff took account of the fact that if Santa Barbara County can’t effectively police parking in IV now, how in the world will they prevent workers and residents from parking in those few 106 beach spaces if the plan were approved?
In the end, it was obvious that the county plan would end all beach access parking in IV.
Santa Barbara County insisted their plan would have no adverse impacts whatsoever on beach access.
Coastal staff tried to suggest another approach. Staff suggested that the county only limit public parking on public streets during the night time hours and initiate a monitoring plan to evaluate long-term strategies to deal with parking demands in ways that do not unfairly impact public beach access parking. Staff said that rather than adopt draconian measures now, why not start slow and add additional measures as required.
More than 50 speakers addressed the Commission, including students and dozens of surfers opposed to the plan.
Santa Barbara County lobbyists argued that most members of the public never visit the beach and that the most people they’d ever “measured” visiting IV Beach was 75. Thus, the county concluded that106 spots were more than enough for beach access.
Surfrider Foundation representatives supported Commission staff and argued that beach access parking in IV is an important public resource since there are no off-street parking facilities. Thus, if you go surfing in IV you park on the street. Meanwhile, public parking outside of IV is limited to Goleta Beach, which serves many miles of coast already, and is also filled up with UCSB workers avoiding paying the university to park.
Meanwhile public parks in IV, funded by Coastal Conservancy and taxpayers, are only accessible via street parking. Moreover, the parking problem only exists during the school year, and is generally much worse at night, not during the day. Yet the Co. program did nothing to address those realities.
Surfers Carry Penneman, Bob Keats and Scott Bull told the Commission that the coastal staff proposal was better in seeking to protect beach access parking while allowing a restrictive program to be established and revenue to be raised in order to address long- term solutions such as establishment of off street parking facilities.
Dian Cohn of Citizens for Goleta Valley supported the county plan, and said that while she is supportive of beach access, she is more concerned about students and UCSB staff parking for free in IV, and that pressure is increasing because UCSB is expanding. “UCSB commuters will out compete beach users even more in the future,” Cohn said. “Surfrider is not looking at the big picture or to the future. The open summer is a thing of the past as the school goes year around. Am I the only environmentalist who knows that oil and gas usage is killing our oceans? If we don’t start to change the car culture all our coastal protection work will be for naught. We have 25,000 people commuting to UCSB everyday, we’ve got to get them out of their cars.”
At the conclusion of the public hearing Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas addressed the Commission and emphasized that one of the most fundamental tenants of the Coastal Act is the mandate that the Commission protect and maximize public beach access. “The county used the term ‘uninvited guests’ to describe beach visitors, and that derogatory term is ‘indicative’ of this proposal’s flaws”, Douglas said. And while the growth of UCSB is a positive development, they bear at least in part the burden of working to solve the parking nightmare in IV. “It shouldn’t be taken out on the back of beach visitors,” Douglas concluded.
Commissioner Mary Shallenberger moved approval of the project, and recommended a “no” vote. Commissioner Mike Reilly seconded the motion. Commissioner Reilly, sensing that the Commission might deny the plan, sought to specify in the motion that the county be able to work with coastal staff and return within six months with a new plan pursuant to the Commission’s comments.
Commissioner Shallenberger continued, “I hear a concern on both sides regarding enforcement. There is little enforcement now, and while there is a wish for enforcement in the future that seems unlikely. Until we enforce restrictions in place today, I am uncomfortable with new, more restrictive measures. Most important. the problem is UCSB. The problem should be resolved between IV & UCSB, not on the back of the public. There is no way you can enforce this plan. How do you know if a person using a public spot goes to the beach or class? Our staff’s solution is better. The county program will not address the issue.”
Commissioner Reilly then said, “I was hoping that UCSB would, like a good neighbor, rush into the breech and resolve the issue by offering parking. I have a problem with a year-round plan for a seasonal parking issue. I am less concerned with free/pay parking as with insuring beach goers have an opportunity to go to the beach.”
Commissioner Toni Iseman stated, “I believe there probably isn’t a solution. I live this problem (in Laguna Beach) and know it well. I worked at a college and saw fights over parking. Free parking means no parking. You must restrict parking in order to have it. It costs $31,000 to develop each new parking spot in Laguna Beach. Residents deserve to have a place to park, and I don’t want the Commission to say that people who live in a place can’t park there. We can’t ignore the effect of the university and free parking.”
Commissioner Sara Wan said, “There is no question this is a major problem, created by a number of factors. The reality today is that beach visitors have just as much opportunity to park as do residents. It isn’t great, but at least there is a chance. Under the county plan, the public loses 90% of their chance.”
Commissioner Dan Second then made a new motion to continue the matter, which was seconded by Bonnie Neely. “This is a thing to be negotiated rather than a battle to be won,”Secord said. “We should preserve the staff work we have now rather than start over.”
Commissioners Neely and Potter voiced support for a continuance. Commissioner Potter referenced the experience in his community of Monterey, where numerous parking facilities and a “vicious” parking enforcement program insure beach access parking. Commissioner Potter also referenced his worst nightmare, his hometown of Hingham, Massachusetts. In Hingham, Potter said, if you don’t live in the town you don’t get to go to the beach at all. “You have to have a sticker for everything,” Potter said.
Commissioner Dave Allgood then said, “Coastal access is not free parking. We often have a linear equation that parking equals Coastal Commission. I would like to see a broader suite of options. Not everyone is going to be able to get to the beach via car in the future and we need to think about that.”
Commission Chair Meg Caldwell then asked if they had a preference as to whether the Commission denies or continues the matter.
Director Douglas replied that a denial would send the matter back to the county to start over with a new planning effort. If the Commissioner were to continue, on the other hand, the Commission retains jurisdiction over the project and can insure that the county incorporates the Commission’s concerns regarding the project. Douglas said it is a really a timing issue. “Studies are necessary. In addition, an IV LCP is in the works, which would be an appropriate vehicle for pursuing a suite of solutions.”
Commissioner William Burke then said, “I support continuance, we owe them that courtesy. However, this isn’t a county problem, it is a university problem. They know what they did, and they got a free ride. They need to be part of the solution.”
Commission Chair Caldwell agreed with Burke, saying, “I work for a university, and I too believe that the university is at the heart of the solution and moving in the direction of parking rate increases is a move in the wrong direction.”
Commissioners Secord, Neely, Kram, Burke, Wan, Caldwell, Potter, Iseman, Allgood, Reilly then voted 10-0 to continue the matter.
4. COMMISSION RUBBER STAMPS DANA POINT HEADLANDS DEVELOPMENT OVER OBJECTION OF THE STAFF AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS – AND WITHIN A WEEK DEVELOPER BULLDOZES DISPUTED ESHA ON THE PROPERTY.
Dana Point Headland (c. 2002) - Currently Being Scrapped For Resort/Housing Development
If the Commission wasn’t convinced that they were dealing with a scoundrel of a developer at the Dana Point Headlands by now, there is certainly no further convincing needed. On the heels of the Commission’s ill-advised decision on April 13 to deny an appeal filed by Surfrider Foundation, the developer’s henchmen bulldozed the ESHA habitat that is at the heart of a lawsuit involving Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation and that same developer over the Commission’s approval last year of LCP amendments designed to allow for development of the area.
And the Coastal Commission can certainly be blamed for their role in the environmental discretion, for they easily could have prevented it at numerous stages along the way had they not been so zealous for resorts and mansions at the Headlands.
Instead, the Commission on a 7-4 vote denied Surfrider Foundation’s appeal on the specifics related to construction of the resort and 125 houses (50 in what is called The Bowl, and another 75 that will cling to an eroding bluff face). Apparently the Commission couldn’t even be bothered with the responsibility of having to insure that the conditions promised in the development will be fulfilled. They couldn’t even be bothered to have to provide a public hearing or any public analysis on any of the specifics involved in one of the more ecologically important, more complicated and controversial projects ever constructed in the Orange County coastal zone. They couldn’t even be bothered having to insure that the millions of yards of grading associated with the project, and construction of one of the longest seawalls in California history is properly conditioned.
They couldn’t be bothered with any of the issues raised in their staff’s analysis and report, which is for all the world to see at www.coastal.ca.gov/lb/4-2005-W24a.pdf
So no one should be surprised when this ill-advised project leads to nothing but regret and unfulfilled expectations in the future. Everyone should merely recall that the Commission couldn’t be bothered, and also that the developer and a boatload of lobbyists assured them it would all be okay.
Commissioners Iseman, Secord, Kram, Potter, Reilly and Burke didn’t need to hear any more.
Commissioners Wan, Caldwell, Shallenberger and Allgood supported staff and would have allowed public hearings on the massive development. (Commissioner Kruer was absent).
News story at http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~23170~2826575,00.html
5. COMMISSION TAKES INITIATIVE AND HOLDS TELEVISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ON LNG
Facing at least four separate proposals for liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals on the California coast and concerned about the lack of any state or federal oversight or coherent planning with respect to the onslaught, the California Coastal Commission began its own series of hearings on April 14. In order to share the information with other governmental agencies and a concerned public nationwide, the Commission also broadcast their proceedings, and the proceedings were carried live and are available in web-video format online at the Commission’s website at www.coastal.ca.gov and http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html In addition, the Commission has pledged to post the various studies sited and materials presented during the hearings on their website as well.
The initial workshop focused on hazard and safety issues. Paramount in crafting the workshop was an effort to insure objectivity and an arms length distance from the LNG industry and proponents, who live in a perpetual state of denial regarding the propensity for catastrophic accidents and explosions associated with LNG transportation, regasification and distribution.
The Commission first heard from Mike Hightower, a civil engineer from Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico and author of a risk assessment study on LNG accidents. Hightower referred people to the California Energy Commission. Hightower is a consultant to the US Dept. of Energy. Hightower soon appeared to be way too dependent and involved in the business of LNG to be able to offer an objective view.
Hightower said the first LNG terminal in the world was established in 1969 in Alaska, as a way of dealing with gas byproducts, which were considered to be waste. LNG is still being manufactured in Alaska; unfortunately, from the beginning all the LNG from Alaska has been exported to Asia!
Meanwhile, Hightower explained that the LNG industry is so excited about prospects for new LNG terminals they have already ordered 50-60 new ships that are being constructed around the world right now. These are very large ships over 1000-ft long, are 150-ft wide, and the equivalent of an aircraft carrier. The tankers, called “Bubble Tankers” based on the way they look, cool LNG to -260 degrees.
Each tanker carries three billion cubic feet of natural gas.
Hightower said the tankers have a good safety record to date, with only eight accidents in 30 years and no huge fires or explosions yet. Hightower said he worries more about security issues, not accidents.
According to Hightower, “LNG is becoming fuel of choice worldwide.” Sliding into an LNG advocate’s role, Hightower then said, “We will import 20-30% of our LNG in next 30 yrs. We will need four to eight new ports in the US, distributed along coasts. Four currently exist now. We will likely need two to three new LNG terminals on west coast. California will be asked to address this need at some point.”
Next the Commission learned why advocates think LNG is so great. LNG can be imported and transported to the United States at $5/btu or per cubic foot, compared with typical gas cost of $6-7.
So let’s get this straight: Gas, currently at all time price highs, is only $1 cheaper per unit than LNG. And that makes LNG desirable?!? And to think that the LNG price gouging hasn’t even begun yet.
Hightower failed to acknowledge the security risks and costs associated with development of LNG terminals but did claim that LNG development is good for port economics. “Development of offshore LNG terminals would be less beneficial for ports”, he said.
Arriving at the point of the exercise, Hightower said the appropriateness of any given site for LNG development is a site-specific analysis.
A very peculiar and complicated discussion ensued regarding the dangers from LNG accidents and explosions. The size of the explosion, and the number of fatalities and injuries, it turns out, is related to the size of the accident.
Aside from learning that most existing planning studies and information is virtually useless, the Commission learned that there is a high probability of fire associated with tear and hole events in a tanker since they provide their own ignition source.
A weird formula was repeatedly referred to as being associated with high fatalities: 35kW/m2. Apparently when you have that formula you have major damage.
Fortunately you can walk away at 5 kW/m2.
Damage to humans will usually always happen if they are within 700 meters of an accident, although other studies show injury as far away as 17-30 miles. Hightower, however, didn’t believe that more cautious studies are credible.
Hightower suggested that in general the range is .5 mile (700 meters) for catastrophic injuries from an LNG accident.
For intentional or terror attacks major damage could be expected to radiate out 500 to 1500-meters.
For a cascading damage attack, which is a really successful and severe attack, Hightower said still there would only be a one-mile area for spill over water.
Hightower’s primary recommendation to the Commission was that they “move LNG terminals away from people, improve security and emergency response. “
Hightower apparently didn’t realize that by moving LNG away from population centers you necessarily increase damage to coastal resources. In fact Hightower never once mentioned anything to do with LNG damage to natural resources, one of the Commission’s fundamental mandates.
Nor did Hightower mention the cost of security, nor who pays for it.
Commissioner Dan Secord finally jumped in and asked that Hightower try to maintain some consistency amongst his use of complicated formulas, feet, btu’s, cubics, miles, meters, kilometers etc.
Finally, everyone agreed that 1600 meters is a mile. 500 meters is a quarter mile.
Other Commissioners began to also jump in. What if the risk is too great for LNG on our coast? How do those risks compare with other sources of energy? What effect can conservation have on our need for LNG?
Hightower remained vague: “Our need for LNG could be reduced by efficiencies, conservation and things like solar, but we have no data on that.”
Commissioner William Burke disputed the validity of modeling and suggested that so-called “cascading effects” are underestimated.
Commissioner Brian Baird of the California Resources Agency assured the Commission that the California Ocean Protection Commission opposes any weakening of CZMA or any federal attempts to pre-empt state authority over energy, oil and or LNG issues.
The next expert to address the Commission was Tom Spicer, another one of the country’s leading experts on LNG. Spicer immediately objected to and disputed Hightower’s claims and cast further doubt on whether modeling for LNG accidents provides any useful information whatsoever.
Then some United States Coast Guard employees talked about their ability to board and escort LNG tankers, but did not address the question of who pays the tab for the security measures.
Commissioners then expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of useful data, the nonexistent state or federal planning schemes to deal with the threat of LNG, and the lack of information regarding who pays for necessary security costs.
6. COMMISSION ACTS TO PROTECT MONTEREY PINE TREE HABITAT THREATENED BY PROJECT TO INSTALL WATER STORAGE TANKS IN CAMBRIA
Late in the evening on April 14 the Commission took up an application from the Cambria Community Services District (CCSD) known as the Pine Knolls Water Tanks project.
The project consists of a plan to remove two existing 103,000-gallon water tanks and construct two new 550,000-water gallon tanks at the terminus of Manor Way (988 Manor Way) in the Pine Knolls neighborhood of Cambria.
The objectionable part of the project, and the reason that the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO), Sierra Club and landowner Ralph Covell appealed the project, was that the CCSD proposed, as part of the project, to expand the project area 6,100 square feet into Covell’s property. Covell’s property, to be taken through eminent domain, happens to be great quality Monterey Pine Forest habitat (ESHA) that is covered by a perpetual conservation easement held by the Trust for Public Lands. Thus the project called for development of Monterey Pine ESHA covered by a conservation easement.
On behalf of the CCSD, Cambria developers and firefighters insisted they needed new, larger water storage tanks.
Yet as coastal staff said, no one disputed that. While coastal staff was concerned about the obvious growth inducing impacts associated with dramatically increasing the water storage capacity for a town with a water shortage induced growth moratorium, staff felt those impacts could likely be mitigated with carefully crafted conditions. The main question was why had the CCSD not looked at alternatives that would not destroy Monterey Pine ESHA habitat?
The staff report is at www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/4-2005-Th11a.pdf
Moreover, it was readily apparent that there were many other, less environmentally sensitive alternative locations where the tanks could be placed without jeopardizing the ESHA habitat or the conservation easement’s validity. It appeared as though the tanks were being placed in the trees merely to avoid interfering with a neighbor’s view, which wouldn’t suffice as a reason to destroy Monterey Pine tree habitat.
CCSD challenged staff’s finding that the Monterey Pine habitat was ESHA. Representatives for the CCSD said that tree cutting and non-native plants and vegetation could be found within the conservation easement area.
Coastal staff responded that, “there is no question in our mind that this is ESHA.”
Commissioner Mike Reilly chided Sierra Club, and said “conservation easements, while inviolate from almost any other action, are subject to incursion for purposes of public safety infrastructure.”
Commissioner Sara Wan said, “We need to take a hard look at alternatives.”
Commissioner Bonnie Neely moved for approval of the project as proposed by the CCSD. Commissioner Dan Second seconded Neely’s motion. Commissioner Neely said, “It is a difficult situation but the district has done the best they can.”
Commissioner Dave Allgood asked again, “Is staff absolutely certain this is ESHA?”
Commission biologist John Dixon then reiterated, “The large contiguous unfragmented forest of Monterey Pine trees mean the burden is for the CCSD to demonstrate it is not ESHA. Some of the trees have pitch canker and variation of tree density and existence of non-native plants. Old logging doesn’t invalidate an ESHA. Nor do old land insults. Edge effects by themselves shouldn’t invalidate ESHA- all ESHA has an edge and if that edge can be developed the cumulative effect is the end of the ESHA.”
Commissioner Allgood then asked, “Are you satisfied with the veracity of these applicants who told us this is absolutely not ESHA?”
Commissioner Director Douglas responded, “That is the reason we are not changing our recommendation. That is what you could look at if you determine a substantial issue exists with respect to this appeal.”
Commissioner Patrick Kruer voiced some concern, saying, “The difficulty for me is the current lack of water storage. I don’t know of any place with less water. They must have to refill these tanks 10 times a day to keep the water flowing. What if there is a fire?”
Commissioner Wan responded, “If you don’t find substantial issue you can’t even look at alternatives. No one is saying they shouldn’t have adequate storage and fire fighting capabilities. They have other land and there are alternatives.”
Then the Commission voted 2-9 to uphold the appeal and require additional analysis. Commissioners Secord and Neely voted for the CCSD. Commissioners Wan, Allgood, Reilly, Shallenberger, Burke, Iseman, Kram, Kruer and Caldwell voted to try to save the trees.
With the appeal certain, Commissioner Mary Shallenberger moved to continue the matter in order to allow coastal staff and the CCSD an opportunity to evaluate less environmentally damaging alternative sites. Someone even suggested under grounding the water tanks. Commissioner Patrick Kruer provided the second.
The Commission then voted unanimously to continue the item.
7. A MOST UNDESERVING SEAWALL
On Friday, April 15 the Commission deliberated a proposal by the Pebble Beach Company (PBC) to build two seawalls to protect a golf hole tee and green at Pebble Beach Golf Links in Monterey County.
The seawalls, both for the inappropriately sited bluffside 5th hole, were proposed for the Tee (83-ft long, 43 to 46-ft high, with 24-ft of buried wall on the beach) and Green (160-ft long, 14-22-ft high with 22-ft of buried wall on the beach) above Stillwater Cove Beach, one of the most beautiful beaches at Pebble Beach and in Central California.
You can see the 5th hole and Stillwater Cove at www.cacoast.org/200402267
Stillwater Cove Beach, Where PBC Proposes A 243-Ft Llong Seawall On A White Sand Beach
IV, as it is known, is comprised of about 20,000 people, most of whom are UCSB students. The town, however, is less than one-square mile in size and is often said to be the most crowded coastside community in California. Due to the expanding student population and severe lack of affordable housing, students often live four to a room, and some students live in closets. Landlords typically are not able, and do not, provide onsite parking for all the people seeking tenancy.
Parking, or the lack thereof, is another thing IV is famous for. There exist in IV approximately 3000 public street parking spaces, all available to anyone on a first come, first serve basis.
This makes IV a perfect place to park if you happen to be one of the 20,000 people who work at UCSB (which charges entrance and parking fees). So do the math. If you take 20,000 IV residents and you add 20,000 career commuters, and they all are vying for 3000 parking spaces, what do you have? You have no public beach access parking. That is what you have.
Santa Barbara County, on the other hand, had another idea in submitting their IV Parking Plan for Coastal Commission review. They want to provide parking for IV residents, pure and simple. Sell residents an annual parking permit and raise revenues, and give parking tickets to everyone else and raise even more revenues.
Knowing that the Coastal Commission would be interested in public beach access parking, Santa Barbara County sought to dress up their proposal with three parts. First, the county sought permission to establish 135 short term, metered downtown parking spots, in order to address the concerns of local merchants. Second, the county sought to restrict parking in over 2700 of the remaining street parking spots, and make them available only to residents who purchase permits. Lastly, the county tossed the public a bone in providing that 106 parking spaces would be “designated” for public beach access.
Santa Barbara County was pleased with their proposal, which would restrict every single parking space in the entire town, including parking to at least five separate beach access ways, numerous public parks and a bunch of surf spots.
Coastal staff did the math too, and their analysis is at www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/4-2005-W15d.pdf What coastal staff did was take account of the existing 3000 public parking spaces, acknowledge that the county plan would result in 106 public parking spaces, and determine that 97% of the public beach access parking in IV would disappear under the plan. Considering that 93 of the 106 public spots would prohibit parking in the evening hours, the county plan would virtually eliminate night time beach access.
Then Coastal staff took account of the fact that if Santa Barbara County can’t effectively police parking in IV now, how in the world will they prevent workers and residents from parking in those few 106 beach spaces if the plan were approved?
In the end, it was obvious that the county plan would end all beach access parking in IV.
Santa Barbara County insisted their plan would have no adverse impacts whatsoever on beach access.
Coastal staff tried to suggest another approach. Staff suggested that the county only limit public parking on public streets during the night time hours and initiate a monitoring plan to evaluate long-term strategies to deal with parking demands in ways that do not unfairly impact public beach access parking. Staff said that rather than adopt draconian measures now, why not start slow and add additional measures as required.
More than 50 speakers addressed the Commission, including students and dozens of surfers opposed to the plan.
Santa Barbara County lobbyists argued that most members of the public never visit the beach and that the most people they’d ever “measured” visiting IV Beach was 75. Thus, the county concluded that106 spots were more than enough for beach access.
Surfrider Foundation representatives supported Commission staff and argued that beach access parking in IV is an important public resource since there are no off-street parking facilities. Thus, if you go surfing in IV you park on the street. Meanwhile, public parking outside of IV is limited to Goleta Beach, which serves many miles of coast already, and is also filled up with UCSB workers avoiding paying the university to park.
Meanwhile public parks in IV, funded by Coastal Conservancy and taxpayers, are only accessible via street parking. Moreover, the parking problem only exists during the school year, and is generally much worse at night, not during the day. Yet the Co. program did nothing to address those realities.
Surfers Carry Penneman, Bob Keats and Scott Bull told the Commission that the coastal staff proposal was better in seeking to protect beach access parking while allowing a restrictive program to be established and revenue to be raised in order to address long- term solutions such as establishment of off street parking facilities.
Dian Cohn of Citizens for Goleta Valley supported the county plan, and said that while she is supportive of beach access, she is more concerned about students and UCSB staff parking for free in IV, and that pressure is increasing because UCSB is expanding. “UCSB commuters will out compete beach users even more in the future,” Cohn said. “Surfrider is not looking at the big picture or to the future. The open summer is a thing of the past as the school goes year around. Am I the only environmentalist who knows that oil and gas usage is killing our oceans? If we don’t start to change the car culture all our coastal protection work will be for naught. We have 25,000 people commuting to UCSB everyday, we’ve got to get them out of their cars.”
At the conclusion of the public hearing Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas addressed the Commission and emphasized that one of the most fundamental tenants of the Coastal Act is the mandate that the Commission protect and maximize public beach access. “The county used the term ‘uninvited guests’ to describe beach visitors, and that derogatory term is ‘indicative’ of this proposal’s flaws”, Douglas said. And while the growth of UCSB is a positive development, they bear at least in part the burden of working to solve the parking nightmare in IV. “It shouldn’t be taken out on the back of beach visitors,” Douglas concluded.
Commissioner Mary Shallenberger moved approval of the project, and recommended a “no” vote. Commissioner Mike Reilly seconded the motion. Commissioner Reilly, sensing that the Commission might deny the plan, sought to specify in the motion that the county be able to work with coastal staff and return within six months with a new plan pursuant to the Commission’s comments.
Commissioner Shallenberger continued, “I hear a concern on both sides regarding enforcement. There is little enforcement now, and while there is a wish for enforcement in the future that seems unlikely. Until we enforce restrictions in place today, I am uncomfortable with new, more restrictive measures. Most important. the problem is UCSB. The problem should be resolved between IV & UCSB, not on the back of the public. There is no way you can enforce this plan. How do you know if a person using a public spot goes to the beach or class? Our staff’s solution is better. The county program will not address the issue.”
Commissioner Reilly then said, “I was hoping that UCSB would, like a good neighbor, rush into the breech and resolve the issue by offering parking. I have a problem with a year-round plan for a seasonal parking issue. I am less concerned with free/pay parking as with insuring beach goers have an opportunity to go to the beach.”
Commissioner Toni Iseman stated, “I believe there probably isn’t a solution. I live this problem (in Laguna Beach) and know it well. I worked at a college and saw fights over parking. Free parking means no parking. You must restrict parking in order to have it. It costs $31,000 to develop each new parking spot in Laguna Beach. Residents deserve to have a place to park, and I don’t want the Commission to say that people who live in a place can’t park there. We can’t ignore the effect of the university and free parking.”
Commissioner Sara Wan said, “There is no question this is a major problem, created by a number of factors. The reality today is that beach visitors have just as much opportunity to park as do residents. It isn’t great, but at least there is a chance. Under the county plan, the public loses 90% of their chance.”
Commissioner Dan Second then made a new motion to continue the matter, which was seconded by Bonnie Neely. “This is a thing to be negotiated rather than a battle to be won,”Secord said. “We should preserve the staff work we have now rather than start over.”
Commissioners Neely and Potter voiced support for a continuance. Commissioner Potter referenced the experience in his community of Monterey, where numerous parking facilities and a “vicious” parking enforcement program insure beach access parking. Commissioner Potter also referenced his worst nightmare, his hometown of Hingham, Massachusetts. In Hingham, Potter said, if you don’t live in the town you don’t get to go to the beach at all. “You have to have a sticker for everything,” Potter said.
Commissioner Dave Allgood then said, “Coastal access is not free parking. We often have a linear equation that parking equals Coastal Commission. I would like to see a broader suite of options. Not everyone is going to be able to get to the beach via car in the future and we need to think about that.”
Commission Chair Meg Caldwell then asked if they had a preference as to whether the Commission denies or continues the matter.
Director Douglas replied that a denial would send the matter back to the county to start over with a new planning effort. If the Commissioner were to continue, on the other hand, the Commission retains jurisdiction over the project and can insure that the county incorporates the Commission’s concerns regarding the project. Douglas said it is a really a timing issue. “Studies are necessary. In addition, an IV LCP is in the works, which would be an appropriate vehicle for pursuing a suite of solutions.”
Commissioner William Burke then said, “I support continuance, we owe them that courtesy. However, this isn’t a county problem, it is a university problem. They know what they did, and they got a free ride. They need to be part of the solution.”
Commission Chair Caldwell agreed with Burke, saying, “I work for a university, and I too believe that the university is at the heart of the solution and moving in the direction of parking rate increases is a move in the wrong direction.”
Commissioners Secord, Neely, Kram, Burke, Wan, Caldwell, Potter, Iseman, Allgood, Reilly then voted 10-0 to continue the matter.
4. COMMISSION RUBBER STAMPS DANA POINT HEADLANDS DEVELOPMENT OVER OBJECTION OF THE STAFF AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS – AND WITHIN A WEEK DEVELOPER BULLDOZES DISPUTED ESHA ON THE PROPERTY.
Dana Point Headland (c. 2002) - Currently Being Scrapped For Resort/Housing Development
If the Commission wasn’t convinced that they were dealing with a scoundrel of a developer at the Dana Point Headlands by now, there is certainly no further convincing needed. On the heels of the Commission’s ill-advised decision on April 13 to deny an appeal filed by Surfrider Foundation, the developer’s henchmen bulldozed the ESHA habitat that is at the heart of a lawsuit involving Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation and that same developer over the Commission’s approval last year of LCP amendments designed to allow for development of the area.
And the Coastal Commission can certainly be blamed for their role in the environmental discretion, for they easily could have prevented it at numerous stages along the way had they not been so zealous for resorts and mansions at the Headlands.
Instead, the Commission on a 7-4 vote denied Surfrider Foundation’s appeal on the specifics related to construction of the resort and 125 houses (50 in what is called The Bowl, and another 75 that will cling to an eroding bluff face). Apparently the Commission couldn’t even be bothered with the responsibility of having to insure that the conditions promised in the development will be fulfilled. They couldn’t even be bothered to have to provide a public hearing or any public analysis on any of the specifics involved in one of the more ecologically important, more complicated and controversial projects ever constructed in the Orange County coastal zone. They couldn’t even be bothered having to insure that the millions of yards of grading associated with the project, and construction of one of the longest seawalls in California history is properly conditioned.
They couldn’t be bothered with any of the issues raised in their staff’s analysis and report, which is for all the world to see at www.coastal.ca.gov/lb/4-2005-W24a.pdf
So no one should be surprised when this ill-advised project leads to nothing but regret and unfulfilled expectations in the future. Everyone should merely recall that the Commission couldn’t be bothered, and also that the developer and a boatload of lobbyists assured them it would all be okay.
Commissioners Iseman, Secord, Kram, Potter, Reilly and Burke didn’t need to hear any more.
Commissioners Wan, Caldwell, Shallenberger and Allgood supported staff and would have allowed public hearings on the massive development. (Commissioner Kruer was absent).
News story at http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~23170~2826575,00.html
5. COMMISSION TAKES INITIATIVE AND HOLDS TELEVISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ON LNG
Facing at least four separate proposals for liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals on the California coast and concerned about the lack of any state or federal oversight or coherent planning with respect to the onslaught, the California Coastal Commission began its own series of hearings on April 14. In order to share the information with other governmental agencies and a concerned public nationwide, the Commission also broadcast their proceedings, and the proceedings were carried live and are available in web-video format online at the Commission’s website at www.coastal.ca.gov and http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html In addition, the Commission has pledged to post the various studies sited and materials presented during the hearings on their website as well.
The initial workshop focused on hazard and safety issues. Paramount in crafting the workshop was an effort to insure objectivity and an arms length distance from the LNG industry and proponents, who live in a perpetual state of denial regarding the propensity for catastrophic accidents and explosions associated with LNG transportation, regasification and distribution.
The Commission first heard from Mike Hightower, a civil engineer from Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico and author of a risk assessment study on LNG accidents. Hightower referred people to the California Energy Commission. Hightower is a consultant to the US Dept. of Energy. Hightower soon appeared to be way too dependent and involved in the business of LNG to be able to offer an objective view.
Hightower said the first LNG terminal in the world was established in 1969 in Alaska, as a way of dealing with gas byproducts, which were considered to be waste. LNG is still being manufactured in Alaska; unfortunately, from the beginning all the LNG from Alaska has been exported to Asia!
Meanwhile, Hightower explained that the LNG industry is so excited about prospects for new LNG terminals they have already ordered 50-60 new ships that are being constructed around the world right now. These are very large ships over 1000-ft long, are 150-ft wide, and the equivalent of an aircraft carrier. The tankers, called “Bubble Tankers” based on the way they look, cool LNG to -260 degrees.
Each tanker carries three billion cubic feet of natural gas.
Hightower said the tankers have a good safety record to date, with only eight accidents in 30 years and no huge fires or explosions yet. Hightower said he worries more about security issues, not accidents.
According to Hightower, “LNG is becoming fuel of choice worldwide.” Sliding into an LNG advocate’s role, Hightower then said, “We will import 20-30% of our LNG in next 30 yrs. We will need four to eight new ports in the US, distributed along coasts. Four currently exist now. We will likely need two to three new LNG terminals on west coast. California will be asked to address this need at some point.”
Next the Commission learned why advocates think LNG is so great. LNG can be imported and transported to the United States at $5/btu or per cubic foot, compared with typical gas cost of $6-7.
So let’s get this straight: Gas, currently at all time price highs, is only $1 cheaper per unit than LNG. And that makes LNG desirable?!? And to think that the LNG price gouging hasn’t even begun yet.
Hightower failed to acknowledge the security risks and costs associated with development of LNG terminals but did claim that LNG development is good for port economics. “Development of offshore LNG terminals would be less beneficial for ports”, he said.
Arriving at the point of the exercise, Hightower said the appropriateness of any given site for LNG development is a site-specific analysis.
A very peculiar and complicated discussion ensued regarding the dangers from LNG accidents and explosions. The size of the explosion, and the number of fatalities and injuries, it turns out, is related to the size of the accident.
Aside from learning that most existing planning studies and information is virtually useless, the Commission learned that there is a high probability of fire associated with tear and hole events in a tanker since they provide their own ignition source.
A weird formula was repeatedly referred to as being associated with high fatalities: 35kW/m2. Apparently when you have that formula you have major damage.
Fortunately you can walk away at 5 kW/m2.
Damage to humans will usually always happen if they are within 700 meters of an accident, although other studies show injury as far away as 17-30 miles. Hightower, however, didn’t believe that more cautious studies are credible.
Hightower suggested that in general the range is .5 mile (700 meters) for catastrophic injuries from an LNG accident.
For intentional or terror attacks major damage could be expected to radiate out 500 to 1500-meters.
For a cascading damage attack, which is a really successful and severe attack, Hightower said still there would only be a one-mile area for spill over water.
Hightower’s primary recommendation to the Commission was that they “move LNG terminals away from people, improve security and emergency response. “
Hightower apparently didn’t realize that by moving LNG away from population centers you necessarily increase damage to coastal resources. In fact Hightower never once mentioned anything to do with LNG damage to natural resources, one of the Commission’s fundamental mandates.
Nor did Hightower mention the cost of security, nor who pays for it.
Commissioner Dan Secord finally jumped in and asked that Hightower try to maintain some consistency amongst his use of complicated formulas, feet, btu’s, cubics, miles, meters, kilometers etc.
Finally, everyone agreed that 1600 meters is a mile. 500 meters is a quarter mile.
Other Commissioners began to also jump in. What if the risk is too great for LNG on our coast? How do those risks compare with other sources of energy? What effect can conservation have on our need for LNG?
Hightower remained vague: “Our need for LNG could be reduced by efficiencies, conservation and things like solar, but we have no data on that.”
Commissioner William Burke disputed the validity of modeling and suggested that so-called “cascading effects” are underestimated.
Commissioner Brian Baird of the California Resources Agency assured the Commission that the California Ocean Protection Commission opposes any weakening of CZMA or any federal attempts to pre-empt state authority over energy, oil and or LNG issues.
The next expert to address the Commission was Tom Spicer, another one of the country’s leading experts on LNG. Spicer immediately objected to and disputed Hightower’s claims and cast further doubt on whether modeling for LNG accidents provides any useful information whatsoever.
Then some United States Coast Guard employees talked about their ability to board and escort LNG tankers, but did not address the question of who pays the tab for the security measures.
Commissioners then expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of useful data, the nonexistent state or federal planning schemes to deal with the threat of LNG, and the lack of information regarding who pays for necessary security costs.
6. COMMISSION ACTS TO PROTECT MONTEREY PINE TREE HABITAT THREATENED BY PROJECT TO INSTALL WATER STORAGE TANKS IN CAMBRIA
Late in the evening on April 14 the Commission took up an application from the Cambria Community Services District (CCSD) known as the Pine Knolls Water Tanks project.
The project consists of a plan to remove two existing 103,000-gallon water tanks and construct two new 550,000-water gallon tanks at the terminus of Manor Way (988 Manor Way) in the Pine Knolls neighborhood of Cambria.
The objectionable part of the project, and the reason that the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO), Sierra Club and landowner Ralph Covell appealed the project, was that the CCSD proposed, as part of the project, to expand the project area 6,100 square feet into Covell’s property. Covell’s property, to be taken through eminent domain, happens to be great quality Monterey Pine Forest habitat (ESHA) that is covered by a perpetual conservation easement held by the Trust for Public Lands. Thus the project called for development of Monterey Pine ESHA covered by a conservation easement.
On behalf of the CCSD, Cambria developers and firefighters insisted they needed new, larger water storage tanks.
Yet as coastal staff said, no one disputed that. While coastal staff was concerned about the obvious growth inducing impacts associated with dramatically increasing the water storage capacity for a town with a water shortage induced growth moratorium, staff felt those impacts could likely be mitigated with carefully crafted conditions. The main question was why had the CCSD not looked at alternatives that would not destroy Monterey Pine ESHA habitat?
The staff report is at www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/4-2005-Th11a.pdf
Moreover, it was readily apparent that there were many other, less environmentally sensitive alternative locations where the tanks could be placed without jeopardizing the ESHA habitat or the conservation easement’s validity. It appeared as though the tanks were being placed in the trees merely to avoid interfering with a neighbor’s view, which wouldn’t suffice as a reason to destroy Monterey Pine tree habitat.
CCSD challenged staff’s finding that the Monterey Pine habitat was ESHA. Representatives for the CCSD said that tree cutting and non-native plants and vegetation could be found within the conservation easement area.
Coastal staff responded that, “there is no question in our mind that this is ESHA.”
Commissioner Mike Reilly chided Sierra Club, and said “conservation easements, while inviolate from almost any other action, are subject to incursion for purposes of public safety infrastructure.”
Commissioner Sara Wan said, “We need to take a hard look at alternatives.”
Commissioner Bonnie Neely moved for approval of the project as proposed by the CCSD. Commissioner Dan Second seconded Neely’s motion. Commissioner Neely said, “It is a difficult situation but the district has done the best they can.”
Commissioner Dave Allgood asked again, “Is staff absolutely certain this is ESHA?”
Commission biologist John Dixon then reiterated, “The large contiguous unfragmented forest of Monterey Pine trees mean the burden is for the CCSD to demonstrate it is not ESHA. Some of the trees have pitch canker and variation of tree density and existence of non-native plants. Old logging doesn’t invalidate an ESHA. Nor do old land insults. Edge effects by themselves shouldn’t invalidate ESHA- all ESHA has an edge and if that edge can be developed the cumulative effect is the end of the ESHA.”
Commissioner Allgood then asked, “Are you satisfied with the veracity of these applicants who told us this is absolutely not ESHA?”
Commissioner Director Douglas responded, “That is the reason we are not changing our recommendation. That is what you could look at if you determine a substantial issue exists with respect to this appeal.”
Commissioner Patrick Kruer voiced some concern, saying, “The difficulty for me is the current lack of water storage. I don’t know of any place with less water. They must have to refill these tanks 10 times a day to keep the water flowing. What if there is a fire?”
Commissioner Wan responded, “If you don’t find substantial issue you can’t even look at alternatives. No one is saying they shouldn’t have adequate storage and fire fighting capabilities. They have other land and there are alternatives.”
Then the Commission voted 2-9 to uphold the appeal and require additional analysis. Commissioners Secord and Neely voted for the CCSD. Commissioners Wan, Allgood, Reilly, Shallenberger, Burke, Iseman, Kram, Kruer and Caldwell voted to try to save the trees.
With the appeal certain, Commissioner Mary Shallenberger moved to continue the matter in order to allow coastal staff and the CCSD an opportunity to evaluate less environmentally damaging alternative sites. Someone even suggested under grounding the water tanks. Commissioner Patrick Kruer provided the second.
The Commission then voted unanimously to continue the item.
7. A MOST UNDESERVING SEAWALL
On Friday, April 15 the Commission deliberated a proposal by the Pebble Beach Company (PBC) to build two seawalls to protect a golf hole tee and green at Pebble Beach Golf Links in Monterey County.
The seawalls, both for the inappropriately sited bluffside 5th hole, were proposed for the Tee (83-ft long, 43 to 46-ft high, with 24-ft of buried wall on the beach) and Green (160-ft long, 14-22-ft high with 22-ft of buried wall on the beach) above Stillwater Cove Beach, one of the most beautiful beaches at Pebble Beach and in Central California.
You can see the 5th hole and Stillwater Cove at www.cacoast.org/200402267
Stillwater Cove Beach, Where PBC Proposes A 243-Ft Llong Seawall On A White Sand Beach
The project had some amazing features. As the
coastal staff report admitted, the project was not threatened by erosion or
waves. Instead, PBC sought a “preventative seawall” otherwise known
as an unnecessary seawall. The staff report is at www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/4-2005-F7a.pdf
Moreover, Coastal Act Section 30235, which governs seawalls, is explicit in requiring that seawalls only be permitted to protect “existing structures” in “danger” or threatened by erosion or waves and that no less damaging alternatives are available and that, if approved, a seawall be fully mitigated.
Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation opposed the project not just because the golf hole wasn’t threatened, but also because golf holes are not “existing structures” under the Coastal Act. Given the number of existing golf courses along the California coast, the precedent of allowing golf courses to wall off the coast (each golf course is generally 200 to 300 acres) would be devastating.
Moreover, golf holes are among the easiest land use features to be moved in order to avoid construction of seawalls. In fact, golf courses rearrange and redesign golf hole layout all the time.
In fact, PBC just redesigned and rearranged the Pebble Beach Golf Links course in 1998. But they didn’t move the 5th hole away from the ocean, they moved it closer! And worse, the geologist who claimed erosion and seawalls were an unnecessary concern in 1998 is the same geologist who now claims a seawall is necessary for the oceanfront 5th hole. Incredibly, PBC even sells postcards in their gift shop claiming that the 5th hole is “the most expensive hole in all of golf” since PBC paid extra for Jack Nickalus to move the hole closer to the ocean in 1998.
Yet PBC refused to consider moving the hole away from the ocean and wants a seawall instead. The evidence is unequivocal that placing a seawall on Stillwater Cove beach will contribute to the eventual loss of that beach. So what did PBC offer to mitigate the loss of a priceless beach? They offered to open a trail that was supposed to be opened 20 years ago to a different beach downcoast toward Carmel (the Redondo Trail).
Worse still, pubic access to Stillwater Cove was a requirement for mitigation related to the Commission’s 1984 approval of the Spanish Bay Resort and Golf Course. Ruining Stillwater Cove now is yet another example of how PBC always comes back to eliminate mitigation measures once they get their development constructed - the very same sort of mischief that characterizes PBC’s current efforts to build new golf and resort projects on previously dedicated Monterey Pine tree habitat.
The Commissioners immediately voiced concerns regarding the PBC seawall proposal. Commissioners Sara Wan and Mary Shallenberger argued the proposed Redondo Trail mitigation was inadequate, remote and would not protect Stillwater Cove beach in the future. Commissioner Dave Allgood stated flatly, “you may get your seawall, but not with my vote.”
Commissioner Mike Reilly focused on the “existing structure” question and said that for golf courses, the “principle structure” is the golf holes. That would mean that the potential seawall building envelope for golf courses would be the entire coastline. A more cautious approach would limit golf course “principle structures” to the golf club house.
Commissioner Dave Potter, whose Monterey County Supervisorial district includes PBC, went further, arguing that since “God obviously didn’t make the 5th hole” it is an “existing structure” entitled to a seawall. Such a sweeping definition would allow seawalls for potted plants, and just about anything else.
In the end the seawall proponents lacked sufficient votes to approve the wall. Rather than risk a denial, PBC withdrew the application and promised to resubmit it in order to work with coastal staff further on potential alternatives and other mitigation.
For news on the hearing, go to http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/11382360.htm and
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/11406726.htm
See You Next Month,
Mark Massara
mark.massara@sierraclub.org
Moreover, Coastal Act Section 30235, which governs seawalls, is explicit in requiring that seawalls only be permitted to protect “existing structures” in “danger” or threatened by erosion or waves and that no less damaging alternatives are available and that, if approved, a seawall be fully mitigated.
Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation opposed the project not just because the golf hole wasn’t threatened, but also because golf holes are not “existing structures” under the Coastal Act. Given the number of existing golf courses along the California coast, the precedent of allowing golf courses to wall off the coast (each golf course is generally 200 to 300 acres) would be devastating.
Moreover, golf holes are among the easiest land use features to be moved in order to avoid construction of seawalls. In fact, golf courses rearrange and redesign golf hole layout all the time.
In fact, PBC just redesigned and rearranged the Pebble Beach Golf Links course in 1998. But they didn’t move the 5th hole away from the ocean, they moved it closer! And worse, the geologist who claimed erosion and seawalls were an unnecessary concern in 1998 is the same geologist who now claims a seawall is necessary for the oceanfront 5th hole. Incredibly, PBC even sells postcards in their gift shop claiming that the 5th hole is “the most expensive hole in all of golf” since PBC paid extra for Jack Nickalus to move the hole closer to the ocean in 1998.
Yet PBC refused to consider moving the hole away from the ocean and wants a seawall instead. The evidence is unequivocal that placing a seawall on Stillwater Cove beach will contribute to the eventual loss of that beach. So what did PBC offer to mitigate the loss of a priceless beach? They offered to open a trail that was supposed to be opened 20 years ago to a different beach downcoast toward Carmel (the Redondo Trail).
Worse still, pubic access to Stillwater Cove was a requirement for mitigation related to the Commission’s 1984 approval of the Spanish Bay Resort and Golf Course. Ruining Stillwater Cove now is yet another example of how PBC always comes back to eliminate mitigation measures once they get their development constructed - the very same sort of mischief that characterizes PBC’s current efforts to build new golf and resort projects on previously dedicated Monterey Pine tree habitat.
The Commissioners immediately voiced concerns regarding the PBC seawall proposal. Commissioners Sara Wan and Mary Shallenberger argued the proposed Redondo Trail mitigation was inadequate, remote and would not protect Stillwater Cove beach in the future. Commissioner Dave Allgood stated flatly, “you may get your seawall, but not with my vote.”
Commissioner Mike Reilly focused on the “existing structure” question and said that for golf courses, the “principle structure” is the golf holes. That would mean that the potential seawall building envelope for golf courses would be the entire coastline. A more cautious approach would limit golf course “principle structures” to the golf club house.
Commissioner Dave Potter, whose Monterey County Supervisorial district includes PBC, went further, arguing that since “God obviously didn’t make the 5th hole” it is an “existing structure” entitled to a seawall. Such a sweeping definition would allow seawalls for potted plants, and just about anything else.
In the end the seawall proponents lacked sufficient votes to approve the wall. Rather than risk a denial, PBC withdrew the application and promised to resubmit it in order to work with coastal staff further on potential alternatives and other mitigation.
For news on the hearing, go to http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/11382360.htm and
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/11406726.htm
See You Next Month,
Mark Massara
mark.massara@sierraclub.org
Posted: Thu - April 28, 2005 at 10:19 AM