News

2/11/16

MORRO BAY -- Defying a hostile crowd, the California Coastal Commission voted Wednesday night to fire Executive Director Charles Lester, a decision that environmentalists fear could weaken the agency's strict posture on development of the state's precious coastline.

The commission made the vote in closed session at the conclusion of a marathon meeting in Morro Bay attended by hundreds of sign-waving Lester supporters. Commissioners rejected the notion that Lester's dismissal would damage coastal protection, and several lashed out at the media for portraying Lester's ouster as a struggle between pro- and anti-development forces.

"Some of you now are convinced that we are behind a sinister plot to betray everything we've sworn to protect," said Commissioner Mark Vargas. "This is not a decision we come to rashly or suddenly, but after years of review with the executive director."

So many people addressed the 12 voting commissioners that the public comment period stretched past six hours.

Many speakers scolded the commission for a lack of transparency. The commissioners said little in the weeks leading up to the meeting about the reasons for the hearing to dismiss Lester, a fact that some commissioners attributed Wednesday to Lester's refusal to waive his right to keep his personnel evaluations confidential.

"From the outside, it certainly appears that what is underway at the California Coastal Commission represents politics over public service, special interests over the good of the people, and backroom maneuvers over public transparency," said Lynda Hopkins, who lives in Sonoma County.

But commissioners insisted Lester's removal was based solely on his job performance.

Commissioners criticized Lester and his staff on several grounds. Some said the staff lacked ethnic diversity. Others claimed the staff did a poor job communicating with coastal development applicants and sharing information with commissioners.

"We're not a rubber stamp," said Commissioner Dayna Bochco, who voted to retain Lester. "We need to know what we're deciding and why we're deciding."

Lester delivered an impassioned defense of his job Wednesday morning, but it was not enough to sway a majority of the commission.

"I understand how this organization works, bottom to top," said Lester, who headed an agency that regulates development along 1,100 miles of the California coast. "The work of the commission speaks to who I am and who I strive to be."

Public support for Lester was almost universal after the commission announced in late January it would consider removing him. Myriad environmental groups and more than 10 members of Congress, 18 state legislators and 35 former coastal commissioners lobbied the commission to retain the executive director, who took the post in 2011.

About 95 percent of the agency's staff signed a letter praising Lester as "an exceptional and dedicated" leader.

Even Pebble Beach Co. defended Lester. A company executive read a letter from CEO William Perocchi that credited Lester for helping to establish a cooperate and respectful relationship between the commission and the luxury golf resorts. Perocchi called Lester "fair, pragmatic, creative, open and reasonable."

During his presentation Wednesday morning, Lester pledged to improve staff diversity and communication between the agency's staff, developers, stakeholders and commissioners. But he stressed the importance of preserving the staff's independence.

"Over the years some have criticized the culture of the staff, arguing that it needs to change, perhaps be less independent and more user-friendly," said Lester. "I think it is important to distinguish between independence and engagement. The role of an independent staff has always been central to the success of the commission's program."

The votes to dismiss Lester came from commissioners Wendy Mitchell, Martha McClure, Effie Turnbull-Sanders, Mark Vargas, Erik Howell, Robert Uranga and Olga Diaz, an alternate replacing Gregory Cox, who did not attend the meeting. Commission Chairman Steve Kinsey and commissioners Carole Groom, Mary Shallenberger, Dayna Bochco and Mary Luévano voted to retain him.

Howell, McClure, Mitchell, Uranga, Vargas, Diaz and Bochco rejected a motion by Groom to hash out Lester's fate in private but vote in public.

Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, who appeared at a rally before the hearing, issued a statement late Wednesday criticizing the backroom vote.

"Behind closed doors, the Coastal Commission defied the will of the people and acted to weaken the protection of California's iconic beaches," Steyer said. "This is a wake-up call for all who care about preserving California's majestic coastline for future generations."

Urango and other commissioners claimed their hands were tied in discussing Lester's performance by the executive director's decision not to open up his records to public scrutiny. But Christopher Pederson, chief counsel for the commission, told commissioners they could discuss "their own current thoughts regarding the executive director and management of the agency" so long as they didn't delve into the specifics of past evaluations.

One commissioner who remained notably silent Wednesday was Wendy Mitchell, whom environmentalists have pointed to as the leader of the anti-Lester movement.

Mitchell, a political consultant, was tapped by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010 during his final days in office.

Some speakers Wednesday accused commissioners of seeking to undermine the independence of the commission's 163-person staff to benefit coastal developers.

"This hearing is not about Charles' performance -- it's about yours," said Stefanie Sekich-Quinn, coastal preservation manager for the Surfrider Foundation. "This hearing is about your priorities for the coast and what the direction of this commission looks like."

Supporters gave Lester a rousing standing ovation once the commission's decision was announced around 9:20 p.m. Lester thanked the members of the public for their support.

"It's been a privilege to serve the commission as executive director for the last 4 1/2 years," said Lester. "I worked hard, I accomplished a lot, and hopefully that work will continue on into the future."

Read Original Article

3/26/16

The city of Eureka issued a request for proposals Friday on how to relocate the nearly 200 people living in Palco Marsh encampments by the newly set May 2 deadline, with the California Coastal Commission slated to hear an application for a temporary camp within the city’s local coastal zone as early as April, officials said.

The move comes nearly one year after a police raid of the area resulted in more than 20 arrests and as the city prepares to begin construction on a section of the Waterfront Trail running behind the Bayshore Mall slated to start mid-May. The city cited the construction, a lawsuit, safety issues and environmental concerns as reasons for setting the new deadline.

“We’ve been working in this direction really since last fall,” Eureka City Manager Greg Sparks said.

Interested parties and nonprofit or religious organizations can submit an “exit strategy” for a 30-day period that started Friday. Plans must be limited to a six-month window and not require city funding or resources.

Sparks said the Eureka City Council is split on allowing city property to be used for the temporary relocation effort.

“That still remains to be determined by the council,” he said.

The city previously shelved plans to establish one or more temporary homeless campgrounds but the move received new momentum earlier this month with Mayor Frank Jager calling on the council to approve a temporary homeless camp so the people living in Palco Marsh have somewhere to go when trail construction starts.

Sparks said the city hasn’t designated a site for a temporary camp. “We’re leaving that open in the RFP for proposers to propose it on city property or private property,” he said.

State Sen. Mike McGuire said he attended a meeting Tuesday with local and state officials, including elected officials and representatives from a number of agencies, to discuss the issue.

The application that would go before the coastal commission would be for “the temporary use of a temporary homeless camp” within a local coastal zone, if that’s the direction the city decides to go, McGuire said. One of the concerns about previously discussed sites — the most recent was a city-owned parking lot Washington and Koster streets — was receiving permission for sites within a coastal zone from the commission.

Affordable Homeless Housing Alternatives — or AHHA — unveiled its sanctuary camp proposal two weeks ago and has submitted the plans to Sparks, AHHA board member Edie Jessup said.

“Our vision for how the sanctuary camp would work is on the table,” she said.

As presented, the AHHA camp doesn’t fit into the sixmonth time frame set by the city. Jessup said she and the rest of AHHA will see if they’ll submit a revised proposal to the city after looking at the wording of the request.

“It’s pretty vague, I’m not really sure what it means,” she said.

Sparks said that if the 30day period passes without a feasible plan being brought forward and approved by the council, the those camping in the area will still have to vacate.

“That responsibility rests with the individuals staying out there,” he said.

Sparks added that the city is concerned with the prospect of these people picking up and relocating to another encampment in a green belt or elsewhere.

“We would not encourage that type of thing to happen,” he said. St. Vincent de Paul and Eureka Rescue Mission facilities can provide beds for around 50 people, Sparks said.

Last year, the Eureka Police Department responded to 315 calls in the greenbelt area and documented 60 instances of crimes or reported crime. Aside from crime, the city has also recently faced litigation due to safety concerns behind the mall. Eureka paid $400,000 to Kathleen Anderson, who was injured in the concrete structures in the area are known as the “Drying Shed.”

“She took a fall and injured her shoulder as she was taking people back there to camp,” Sparks said. Now Eureka faces losing insurance coverage in the area if the structures aren’t removed by summer. The structures were already planned to be demolished and the concrete used as a base for the trail before the lawsuit, Sparks said.

McGuire said the California Coastal Conservancy will consider a $1 million grant application to tear down marsh structures in May. Sparks said the city is also looking into getting $300,000 from another source. The marsh and Humboldt Bay are unique ecosystems and have been strained by all the waste that ends up out there, according to Humboldt Baykeeper Executive Director Jennifer Kalt.

“The homeless camps do impact the environment and certainly do impact access to the coast there,” she said. “I’m really glad to see the city is going to start working on the trail there.”

Kalt said she is concerned that homeless campers will move to greenbelts or into the forest, which would lead to many of the same environmental issues now happening in the marsh.

“The city and the county really need to be working toward a longer term solution,” she said. “Certainly it’s a much bigger social problem that we have to address as a community.”

“Until we come up with a long-term solution to address the larger social issue,” Kalt added, “just moving people around isn’t going to help the bay.” 

Read Original Article

1/20/16

Last week, standing in ankle-deep water, I overturned a seashell and a slimy eel slithered up, and then another and another.

Now, after a week of looking into the murky waters at the California Coastal Commission, where an attempt is underway to fire the director, I'm up to my elbows in sea serpents.

When it comes to protecting the greatest 1,100-mile stretch of beach on the planet, we'd all like to think decisions are made without politics or money getting in the way of good judgment.

But come on. We know better.

"I think what has developed over time is a culture of the cozy," said Pedro Nava, a former state legislator and onetime member of the commission.

He did not mean "cozy" in a good way. He meant that some of the state's most powerful lobbyists, representing some of the state's wealthiest people and corporations, are too close to the decision makers.

"The only representatives who can afford to attend each and every coastal commission meeting up and down the coast, and create relationships with the commissioners, are those who are paid by the big developers," Nava said.

To make matters worse, some of these schmoozers- and browbeaters-for-hire are called "agents" and are not technically lobbyists. If they were, which they should be, they'd have to register and report on exactly who's paying them and how much.

Public access to beaches is sometimes at stake when billion-dollar projects are proposed, said Nava. He thinks the public has a right to know exactly who is paying whom and how much, and that the information should be available to the public on the commission website.

Nava left the commission in 2004 but recalls feeling uneasy about one particular gathering, while he was in office, at the exclusive Montage Laguna Beach.

That's a questionable choice of lodging for commissioners, even though the hotel provided a discount for state employees — especially since that hospitality followed approval of the hotel project by the commission.

"Nobody else got a state rate, but guess who else could afford to stay there," Nava said. "The agents for the developers. The grass-roots and community-based organizations had to find rooms miles away, which meant that in the evening, when you were in the cocktail lounge, the only people who weren't staff and commissioners were the agents for developers. What happens is you become influenced and affected by all those people."

This astute observation comes as a throng of environmentalists and commission critics are railing against what has been called an attempted coup on executive director Charles Lester by commissioners with the most pro-development voting records — some of whom happen to be personal appointees of Gov. Jerry Brown.

I should note that one anti-Lester commissioner keeps insisting to me that neither the governor nor the developers' cadre of lobbyists, or "agents," have anything to do with the Lester matter.

They say it's all about Lester's performance.

Brown's staff, meanwhile, insists he has had no involvement and has not taken a position.

But some coast watchers suspect that Brown has not been fond of the commission going back to the 1970s, when then-girlfriend Linda Ronstadt wrangled with regulators over a permit for a project at her Malibu home, and Brown called the commission "bureaucratic thugs."

Be that as it may, at least three state legislators are now speaking up in support of Lester, including Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego).

"My view is that Lester is balanced and fair," said Atkins. "I'm concerned that the attempt to oust him is politically motivated as opposed to being about management issues, and I'm concerned that an effort is underway to undermine the objectivity of the commission."

Assemblyman Marc Levine (D-San Rafael) said the commissioners have "disregarded any number of staff recommendations" on proposed developments and "should be taking a close look at themselves" before pointing fingers at Lester.

Assemblyman Mark Stone (D-Santa Cruz), a former coastal commissioner, also came to the defense of Lester, whose future could be decided Feb. 10 at a hearing in Morro Bay.

"It's not a performance issue," he told me.

He calls Lester "a consensus builder" who has done "a good job working with local jurisdictions to get projects moving forward but still be compatible with the values of protecting coastal resources."

Atkins and Stone both said they're considering legislation to create greater transparency in the way the commission does business, including a possible bill requiring "agents" who lobby the panel to register as what they are: lobbyists. Past attempts, by the way, have failed.

Another dark corner of the operation, crying out for reform, involves what are known as ex parte communications. "One-sided" kind of describes the meaning of the term.

Anyone who wants to weigh in on a development issue can request an ex parte contact with a commissioner so that parties with other views know that such a meeting occurred. But guess who benefits most from that arrangement — at least in the minds of critics.

"By and large the commissioners are working with and listening to people who are professionals and are paid to travel up and down the state, and the public is at a huge disadvantage," said former Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan.

"I don't have the money to go flying up and down the coast wining and dining commissioners," said Stefanie Sekich-Quinn of the Surfrider Foundation.

Here's another problem: Commissioners have to report any ex parte communication on a given proposal and say what was discussed, but they often don't provide specifics. And they don't have to indicate whether they declined ex parte requests from those with differing views on a project.

I can't think of a good reason that shouldn't be changed immediately, with all such information posted on the website for all to see.

Sekich-Quinn said she requested to speak to three commissioners last fall on a Broad Beach reclamation project in Malibu, but got no responses. Then, at the hearing, those three commissioners reported one or two ex-parte communications with the other side.

In the end, the commissioners voted against a public access provision Sekich-Quinn and others had wanted.

That access point would have been on public trust land, and still the Broad Beach residents — including some of Hollywood's biggest names — prevailed.

If there is justice, or karma, an infestation of eels will soon hit Broad Beach.

Read Original Article

1/20/16

The powerful California agency that manages development along the state’s fabled coastline may soon oust its top executive, setting up a battle between environmentalists and developers who frequently clash over projects large and small.

The potential shakeup at the California Coastal Commission raises questions about the direction of an agency often caught between property owners and conservation along the 1,100-mile coast.

The commission’s chairman, Steve Kinsey, notified Executive Director Charles Lester in a letter released Wednesday that the panel will consider whether to fire Lester next month.

“Alternatively, the commission has offered you the opportunity to present a transition plan for your replacement as executive director,” Kinsey’s letter states.

Commission spokeswoman Noaki Schwartz said in an email that Lester was not available for comment and that he has exercised his right to have a public hearing on his possible dismissal, which will take place Feb. 10.

Lester has held the post since 2011, and no reason was given for the proposed dismissal in the letter.

Kinsey did not return a phone call or email seeking comment. However, environmental activists suspect some commission members want to push out Lester to make way for management that would be more welcoming to development.

Humboldt Baykeeper Director Jennifer Kalt described Kinsey’s action as “an attack on the Coastal Act” and stated that the commissioners behind the proposed power change are those that “consistently vote to not uphold the Coastal Act.”

“They just want to see development at all costs,” Kalt said. “They don’t want to see sensible, sustainable development.”

Susan Jordan of the California Coastal Protection Network said Lester’s ouster would leave the agency in turmoil and intimidate its staff.

“It’s not just about the homeowner who wants to build on the bluff. We are talking about billion-dollar projects,” Jordan said.

The commission has been at the center of fierce battles over beach access in celebrity enclaves, and it’s facing a lawsuit after banning SeaWorld from breeding captive killer whales at its San Diego marine park.

Attempts by the Times-Standard on Wednesday to reach the commission’s North Coast representative Martha McClure — also a Del Norte County supervisor — were not returned.

Having been a coastal county co-chair on the California State Association of Counties when Lester was appointed in 2011, Humboldt County 3rd District Supervisor Mark Lovelace said the association fully supported Lester’s appointment after former executive director Peter Douglas stepped down due to the lung cancer diagnosis preceding his death in 2012.

While Lovelace said he had yet to hear from the commissioners about their proposed power change, he said there has been no obvious evidence that would possibly justify Lester’s removal.

“If there are specific accusations, I assume those would center around having provided information that led to improper decisions,” Lovelace said. “I haven’t heard any, which leads me to believe that this is more politics than substance.”

For Lovelace, Lester has been very accessible to coastal communities, having held several joint meetings with coastal counties and cities and helping to secure grant funding for local jurisdictions to update their local coastal plans, including $90,000 for Humboldt County in 2014.

“He has absolutely changed the tone and relationships in regards to local governments,” Lovelace said.

Kalt said Lester helped to spearhead the development of a guidance document on sea level rise — a topic of significance for the Humboldt Bay area.

“They kind of had to adapt some of the laws put in place back then to meet that challenge,” Kalt said. “I think it’s very forward thinking — not stuck in 1972.”

The move to replace Lester comes in the midst of a long-running review of a proposed development of nearly 1,400 homes, a resort and retail space known as Banning Ranch in the Newport Beach area. Companies involved in the project include real estate firm Brooks Street, Cherokee Investment Partners and Aera Energy, which is jointly owned by affiliates of Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Exxon Mobil Corp.

“The timing of this may be very relative to the Banning Ranch case,” said Steve Ray, executive director of the Banning Ranch Conservancy, which wants the 400-acre site to remain open space.

“This is the last, large piece of unprotected open space left on the Southern California coast. This is the last big battle,” Ray said.

Lester, quoted in a media report last year, was skeptical of the project. Coastal Commission staff had recommended denial of the plan and thought developers didn’t work hard enough to identify sensitive habitat.

“This site is incredibly rich in biological resources,” Lester told the Orange County Register in October. “Despite its history of oil development, it deserves a more sensitive and creative effort to address the Coastal Act requirements than we have seen to date.”

Read Original Article