Newsletter Sign Up

If you haven't already done so, I encourage you to sign up to receive the Egrets Not Regrets email newsletters. You can sign up by entering your email address in the box to the right.

I'm fixin' to get a newsletter distributed soon, likely this weekend, so sign up today!

Team Egret in the News!

Well, well. Back from vacation less than a week and Team Egret is already making headlines!

First, LBReport linked to the blog post made earlier about the Second and PCH meeting format.

Then, the folks over at The District Weekly used this blog post in their "staff infection" section.

Cool, eh?

Thanks for the nods; I appreciate it!

Hitchcock Hearing Before Planning Commission Set

As an appellant in the Hitchcock land scraping matter, I received a "Notice of Public Hearing." The matter will be heard before the Planning Commission on:

December 3, 2009
5 p.m.
1st Floor Council Chamber

Following is the mailing I received:


Hope to see you there!

Second + PCH Meeting Thoughts

Well that was interesting.

The evening seemed to start off tame enough, but then about half hour in, tensions rose. And I could totally see why.

Jeff Winklepleck, the City's point person for this project, began to introduce the process for the "breakout sessions," and things started trending south. People seemed to have objection with the breakout sessions, preferring instead to have a "group discussion" wherein questions could be asked/answered in real time. Questions about impacts and the like.

Craig Beck, Director Department of Development Services, intervened and further attempted to explain the environmental regulatory process and how "we just aren't there yet" with regards to having a discussion of impacts...that it is too soon in the process, and that discussion transpires with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

He is absolutely right. Both Mr. Winklepleck and Mr. Beck did their level best to try and explain that a discussion of impacts is simply just too premature. Couldn't agree more.

However, there is a fundamental disconnnect between where this project is in the environmental regulatory process and the information distributed by the Second + PCH development team at this community meeting and the scoping meeting (and also posted on their website).

At the City's meeting tonight, "we" were provided an "information packet" from the Second + PCH developers that listed several statements about project impacts (or seeming lack thereof). No data. No analysis. Just statements.

For example, in the table entitled "Change to Traffic Flow with Mitigations," it shows that with the project and mitigation, traffic at the intersection of PCH/Second will decrease by 1% in the AM peak, increase by 7% in the PM peak and increase by 12% in the Saturday peak periods. That's it...no supporting data, no defining variables, no identification of mitigation, etc.

With that information in hand, the public had (and has) questions. And I think that's fair. I mean, when I walk into a meeting, am handed this information and read that traffic mitigation exists which could reduce impacts, I want to know about the mitigation. When I read that "there will be NO negative impacts on the wetlands" (emphasis theirs), I want to know what tools were used in that analysis.

Those (and others) are valid questions that the public wants to ask...but we can't because it is "too soon."

But as it is too soon to ask the questions, it is similarly premature for the Second + PCH team to be distributing/posting the information, especially in the absence of any supporting documentation.

Granted, the Second + PCH team has every right to distribute/post this information, but I believe that doing so at this early stage only serves to facilitate a breakdown in the public communication process, as was evidenced tonight. I believe that the Second + PCH team needs to respect where we are in the environmental process and let the City/EIR consultants do their job. It is the responsibility of the latter to identify and address potential impacts at this stage, not the job of the development team.

Should the Second + PCH team continue to publicly distribute/make available this "impact" information before the release of the EIR, I believe that the public process will continue to devolve as questions about the distributed information will inevitably persist....and the questions will continue to go unanswered.

We (the public, the City and the development team) should be striving for as "pure" of a public communication process as possible, not introducing materials which serve to hinder it. (And that goes for "both sides")

Second and PCH Community Meeting Format

I have spoken with City staff about the format for tonight's Second and PCH community meeting. Following is a summary of what should transpire this evening:

The meeting will begin with introductions.

The developers will make a presentation about the proposed project.

Following the developer presentation, there will be "breakout sessions" facilitated by city staff. These are essentially small groups wherein each group will have a chance to voice what they like about the project (and why) and/or what they don't like about the project (and why). These small groups will not be arranged by "topic." By that, there will not be a focus group to discuss traffic and another to discuss density, etc. It is the responsibility of the facilitator to take notes.

After the small group portion of the evening concludes, it is the responsibility of the facilitators to report the results to the larger audience.

Second + PCH Meeting Reminder

I'm back from vacation and starting to get into the swing of things again (very, very slowly).

Just a reminder that the Second + PCH community meeting is scheduled for tomorrow (Monday). Meeting information is contained in one of my earlier posts and can be found here.

See you tomorrow.

Second and PCH Comment Letter (NOP)

Following are the pertinent portions of the comment letter I drafted and sent regarding the proposed Second and PCH Project in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study:

• Given the likelihood of significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project, feasible mitigation will be necessary to reduce said impacts to below a level of significance. Such mitigation should not include extension of either Shopkeeper Road or Studebaker Road as doing so would cut a road through the wetlands, and would also have associated environmental impacts. Should extension of either road be identified as traffic mitigation for the Project, however, impacts of the road extension(s) must be analyzed in the Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
  

• For consideration of compliance with SEADIP's 30% usable open space standard, only "on the ground" aspects should be included in analyzed calculations, being mindful that "building footprint, streets, parking areas and sidewalks adjacent to streets" shall not be considered usable open space. Whereas the Project contains both "above ground" and "private" open space, these areas should not factor into the equation when determining usable open space under SEADIP.
  

• It is my understanding that the Project will also include approval of a Development Agreement (DA). Aspects contained within the DA should be analyzed in the EIR. For instance, if the DA is to include off-site improvements such as landscaping (either adjacent to, or even on, the wetlands), the EIR must identify and analyze the potential direct and indirect impacts associated with this (and any other) surface disturbing activity.
  

Second and PCH Community Meeting - Monday, Nov. 16

The cast and crew of the City of Long Beach Department of Development Services will hold a community meeting for the proposed Second and PCH development. Details follow:

Monday, November 16, 2009
5:30 p.m.

Wilson High School
Media Center
4400 E. 10th St.
Long Beach, cA 90804

For more information: Jeff Winklepleck (562.570.6607) or jeff.winklepleck@longbeach.gov

Additional details can be found on the flyer below:

Want to learn more about CEQA?

There will be a CEQA study session and presentation (to the Planning Commission) on the "consideration of environmental factors in project planning and decision making, and an overview on the policies and procedures that go into analysis and identification of the potential environmental effects of proposed projects."

This study session will be held on Thursday, November 5 in the 3rd Floor Large Conference Room in City Hall at 5:00 p.m. Jill Griffiths (comprehensive planning officer, Department of Development Services) is identified as the contact.

Women's Conference - Day 2!

What a great conference! So inspiring and empowering and simply just fabulous.

The conference concluded with the Minerva awards, wherein 4 remarkable women were honored for their courageous and tireless work helping others less fortunate. One of the winners was Dr. Kathy Hull. She is the co-founder of the George Mark Children's House. I knew nothing about this before yesterday.

George Mark Children’s House is the first and only freestanding residential pediatric palliative care center in the United States, and is located in San Leandro, CA. It offers a unique alternative for children with life-limiting illnesses, and their families. They are setting the standard for pediatric palliative care.

Even more amazing is that assistance is provided regardless of the financial situation of the families, thanks to the generosity of donors.

Please consider taking a moment to check out the George Mark Children's House website. What an amazing thing they are doing.

Women's Conference - Day 1!

How awesome!

What a great experience. My favorite was Martha Beck, life coach and author. I don't exactly know what a life coach is, but she was a fantastic speaker...so funny and engaging.

It all was lovely. And good swag too.

I phoned into LBReport.com and the audio can be heard here.

Can't wait til tomorrow.

Appealing to the Planning Commission

If you do not like the decision made by Zoning Administrator, Derek Burnham, and you spoke or provided written comment, you may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission within 10 calendar days after the date of decision (see below).

The appeal form can be found on the City of Long Beach website, by clicking here.

THE FOLLOWING IS APPLICABLE FOR APPEALS TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION (AND/OR TO THE CITY COUNCIL)

• Any aggrieved person may appeal a decision on a project that required a public hearing.
• An appeal mustbe filed within ten (10) calendar days after decision.
• An appeal shall be filed with The Long Beach Development Services on a form provided by that Department.
• A public hearing on an appeal shall be held within sixty (60) calendar days after The Long Beach Development Services receives a completed appeal form or after the City Clerk receives the appeal from The Long Beach Development Services.
• A notice of the public hearing on the appeal shall be mailed by The Long Beach Development Services to the applicant, all persons entitled to mailed notice, and any known aggrieved person not less than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the hearing.
• The Planning Commission shall have jurisdiction on appeals from the decisions of the Zoning Administrator and the City Council shall have jurisdiction on appeals from the Planning Commission.
• Except for appeals to the Coastal Commission for projects located seaward of the appealable area boundary and appeals to the City Council of local coastal development permits on developments regulated under the City's Oil Code, there shall be no further appeals after a decision on an appeal.
• You are hereby provided notice that the time within which judicial review of the herein reported decision must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

Forms should be sent to:

Long Beach Development Services

• 333 W. Ocean Blvd., Fifth Floor
• Long Beach, CA 90802
• Attn: Jeff Winklepleck

A $50 fee is required per form.

Hitchcock Hearing

As expected, Derek Burnham voted to approve the permit for Sean Hitchcock's illegal activities. He opted not to attach a condition requiring restoration of the subject lands. Disappointing, however, was his rationale.....that since there was no way to know what was there before the illegal earthwork, there is no way to make him put it back. Huh?

What do you mean no way to tell what was there before? Any number of tools can be used to try and re-create history....aerial photos, google earth images, eyewitness accounts, photographs taken, etc.

It isn't that it can't be done, it is that no one is requiring it be done. Big difference.

Looks like an appeal to Planning Commission is in order.....

OPINIONS on this Whole Hitchcock Business

Alright, so I have some opinions on this whole Hitchcock business. The operative word in that sentence is OPINIONS. If you agree with me, fine; if you don't, you don't. Here goes....

I've been a fairly active commenter over at The District Weekly's comment board about this matter, so the following is largely a recitation of things I have posted over at TDW, and is summarized below.

As mentioned previously, Derek Burnham can do one of several things on Monday. I don't really think that outright denial of the permit is feasible as Hitchcock has already done the requested work (importing the soil, etc.) and this matter is really a formality. So that leaves 1) approve the permit outright, 2) approve with conditions, or 3) delay.

I'm liking option 2: approve with conditions. Mr. Hitchcock clearly did wrong when he conducted his earthwork without a permit. He destroyed habitat (critters did call that land home) and endangered human life (hence the emergency action to replace the landfill cap due to methane release).

This is a serious matter and it deserves serious attention. Moreover, it deserves serious discussion about what options are available as remediation for his egregious actions. And I just don't think that discussion is transpiring, which is an absolute pity.

My default position is to require restoration of the subject lands. He erred and he should put it back. However, what is feasible with regards to restoration? That is the kicker.

Restoration can mean any number of things - it can mean just restoring the contours, it can mean just re-planting vegetation, it can mean just "putting back" the soil, it can mean some combo of the three, etc.

I think it is important to ask for restoration that is commensurate with the level of violation (come on people, he didn't destroy Bolsa Chica, the subject lands weren't exactly pristine anything....). But in order to understand how best to remediate, one must understand what the land WAS prior to the illegal earthwork (not what the land is currently).

Is it a wetlands now? I dunno. He stripped the area of vegetation, imported "foreign" soil and then conducted determination surveys in the dry season. You do the math. However, I do not think it fair to say "well, the area isn't wetlands now, so no restoration is necessary."

Was it a wetlands prior to the illegal earthwork? I dunno. But I do believe that is the baseline which should be used in decision-making.

If looking at the historic baseline shows absolultely no wetlands, then it is what it is, and the area should be recontoured to its previous state.

If looking at the historic baseline shows wetland potential, then restore to that previous potential.

That is why I believe that a condition of the requested permit should be to require a restoration plan be produced. Again, restoration means many things - it could be minor (simply restoring the contours), or it could be much more labor intensive (contours and vegetation, etc). I can't make a call as to what is adequate as I'm no biologist.

But I know that as the situation stands now, nothing (to my knowledge) is required of him. And I just don't think that is fair.

Hitchcock Hearing - Monday, October 12, 2 p.m.

Hitchcock's illegal scraping business is being heard at zoning on Monday, Oct 12 @ 2pm. The action on which a decision is necessary is explained here. This post will deal with "process."

At Monday's hearing, the zoning administrator (Derek Burnham) can do one of several things:

1. "approve" the permit outright without conditions,
   
2. "approve" the permit and add conditions,
3. delay the matter until a future hearing, or
   
4. "deny" the permit altogether.
   

Should you choose to attend, you can "testify" and make recommendations as to the desired course of action.

If one doesn't like the decision made by Derek Burnham, they can file an appeal. Doing so would kick the matter up and be heard at the Planning Commission.

If one doesn't like the decision made by the Planning Commission, they can file an appeal to the California Coastal Commission. (I have been made aware that in order to appeal to the Coastal Commission, you need to have "standing" by being an appellant previously in the process.)

As this whole process started at zoning, City Council is bypassed; had this started at Planning Commission, an appeal would have landed at Council.

So if you have an opinion on the matter, show up at City Hall on Monday, October 12 @ 2 p.m.

Sean Hitchcock's Hearing - Monday, Oct. 12

As alluded to previously, the matter of dealing with Sean Hitchcock's illegal earthwork activities will be heard on Monday, October 12 at 2pm down at City Hall.

Dave Wielenga of The District Weekly penned an article on this which can be found here.

Likely tomorrow (or maybe even later today) I'll be posting some thoughts on this matter. I've been out of town for the last several days and need to get my head "back in the game." (speaking of game, Go Dodgers!)

So stay tuned.

Scoping Meeting Tonight

Quick reminder that the Second and PCH project scoping meeting is this evening, 6:30 at Rogers Middle School (365 Monrovia Ave.)

As explained previously, you show up to the scoping meeting and state:

• your general concerns and/or what you like about the project,
• suggest any alternatives and/or mitigation measures you believe are feasible, and
  
• identify what you would hope to see analyzed in the EIR and why (if you can).

And what if you don't want to speak? No problem! Show up and listen.

Scoping

Things sure went from fun and festive to business as usual in a hurry.

Since the Second and PCH community/scoping meeting on Oct 7 at Rogers Middle School is soonest, I suppose it's probably best to start there.

An application has been submitted to build the aptly named Second and PCH project. Submittal of said application triggers CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act).

CEQA is an environmental law which enables public agencies to make informed decisions. It also facilitates public participation. CEQA compels public agencies to examine and disclose the potential significant adverse environmental consequences of their actions, including the approval of private development projects (Planning and Conservation League, 2007).

With regards to Second and PCH, given the potential for significant effects under CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is going to be prepared.

When a Lead Agency (the City of Long Beach in this case) decides to prepare an EIR, scoping is necessary. Scoping is essentially an early public consultation process. Scoping is helpful to agencies as it assists them in identifying the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in an EIR and in eliminating from detailed study issues found not to be important (CEQA 15083(a)).

So what's the gist?

Basically, you show up to the scoping meeting, state your general concerns and/or what you like about the project, suggest any alternatives and/or mitigation measures you believe are feasible, and also identify what you would hope to see analyzed in the EIR and why (if you can).

For instance, if you don't think that cutting a road through the wetlands is appropriate traffic mitigation given the inevitability of wetlands habitat destruction, you should show up and say that.

Alternatively, if you think the current place is a neopolitan ice cream looking eyesore and needs to go, say that too and also add what you would like to see there instead.

So that's it. Scoping.

Now show up and participate on October 7, 6:30 at Rogers Middle School (365 Monrovia Ave.).

When it rains it pours......

Much is afoot in southeast Long Beach.

The City of Long Beach Department of Development Services will hold a joint community meeting and EIR scoping meeting for the proposed Second + PCH development on October 7 at 6:30 p.m. at Rogers Middle School (365 Monrovia Ave.) in Long Beach.

Additionally, Mr. Hitchock (of illegal scraping infamy) is requesting approval to allow the import of approximately 1,000 yd3 of soil to re-establish and maintain the cap over the existing landfill in response to California Coastal Commission Emergency Permit 5-09-068-G. In conjunction, an approval to allow weed abatement to comply with a Fire Department order is also requested. The scheduled hearing for this action will be on Monday, October 12 at 2:00 p.m. down at City Council Chambers.

So I guess I've got some explaining to do......stay tuned.

Extravaganza Pictures

As promised, following are a few pictures taken during the first ever Egrets Not Regrets Extravaganza (thanks Lisa). I am limited to the number of pictures I can post, so I will be including more in the newsletters I will begin sending "shortly."

Friends of Colorado Lagoon (FOCL) President Dave Pirazzi and Education Director Taylor Parker toast their $150 "victory."

I have been told that the money they won will go towards paying naturalists at the Colorado Lagoon for their wetlands based environmental education program.

Rock on! Keep up the good work!




The City of Long Beach, Office of Sustainability was on hand to answer questions. Some really great, useful information was provided to those in attendance. Thanks ladies!






Christopher Ward of Eco~Link was chatting it up, likely talking about the "350" event they are sponsoring on October 24.






And then there was the Compassionate Cuisine crew, sharing information about their upcoming event on October 9 at the Japanese Gardens.







My personal fave, me and Mel Nutter. Mel's life long dedication to environmental protection is unparalleled, and very much appreciated.



More great pictures will be in the first Egrets Not Regrets Newsletter, so sign up by entering your email in the upper right hand corner of the blog.

Back to Business......

Alrighty, I just returned from San Francisco where I channeled my inner Imelda. When you have family that lives less than an hour from the City, it is almost criminal not to BART over and spend a few days eating, drinking and shopping with reckless abandon.

In any event, I am back now and will resume posting. Tis time to get back to business, I suppose.

Before I forget, however, there are some pictures of the Extravaganza on Stephanie's blog, The Dynamo Vine. I'll also be posting some pictures of the event.

How fun!

Well last night went swimmingly. In fact, the most common line I heard was "this was fun, when's the next one."

We guesstimated that about 75 people came and went throughout the course of the evening. Friends of Colorado Lagoon walked away with $150 "just for showing up," as Taylor Parker said when I handed him the money.

Though I mentioned this last night, there are several people who helped make the Extravaganza a success:

• Alicia and Jennifer (Gaslamp owners);
  
• Stephanie (uber-creative person and wine lady);
• Lisa, Beth, Joyce and Adrea (sounding board extraordinaire and penultimate proofreaders)
• Attending enviro organizations (FOCL; Compassionate Cuisine; LCWLT, Sierra Club, Eco-Link; City of Long Beach, Office of Sustainability; and El Dorado Audubon);
• Bill Pearl of LBReport.com and Dave Wielenga/the folks at The District Weekly for their mention of the event;
• Leslie Heuer for posting on Facebook (see "Save Los Cerritos Wetlands" group); and
• Sheriann Ki Sun Burnham for tweeting (@StudioKiSun).

Would also like to thank Joe Segura (Press Telegram) and Jennifer Stockdale and Bill Childs (The District Weekly) for attending. Also like to thank 4th District Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell who popped in.

Given the success of last night's event, pretty easy to make the case that there should be another Extravaganza. I'll get on it. But in the meantime, it looks like I'll have to get back to the business of making my "regular" enviro posts.

Thanks again to all who attended. Team Egret is very pleased.

See you tonight!

The wine has landed at the Gaslamp. There is a strong line-up of environmental organizations slated to attend. Everything has been handled on my end...now I just need people to show up!

I'd like to thank the following publications for their mention of tonight's Extravaganza:

Thank you to Bill Pearl of LBReport.com for the article posted. I just love the title "....fair + wine + friends + fun." Exactly!

Thanks also to Dave Wielenga for his super nice write-up for The District Weekly (7 things!). Wow.

I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Extravaganza Update

Egrets Not Regrets Extravaganza

THIS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 6 - 8 p.m.

The Gaslamp Restaurant
(6251 E. PCH...corner of PCH/Loynes Dr.)

Environmental education and volunteer fair!

Attendees
Friends of the Colorado Lagoon
Compassionate Cuisine
Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust
Sierra Club
Eco~Link
City of Long Beach, Office of Sustainability
El Dorado Audubon

For those so inclined, organized wine tasting running concurrently
Harbinger Winery
6 tastings for $22

Wines
Dynamo White
Rose de Mouvedre
Dynamo Red
A Point Red Cuvee
El Jefe Red Table Wine
Blackberry Bliss

$5 from every tasting will be donated to one lucky, winning organization!

For more information click here.



Hope you can make it on Thursday!

CEQA Stuff and the Land Swap

I realize that the last several posts have been about the Extravaganza, and fair enough. But the purpose of this blog was for it to be an information sharing platform. In that vein, I'm hearing a lot of questions about the "CEQA stuff" surrounding the land swap, so I'm taking a "TV timeout" to steer back to the mission of the blog.

The City of Long Beach declared that the land swap was "categorically exempt" under CEQA. Whether or not that was the right decision isn't my call to make; I simply don't know enough about the action. However, I do understand the process, which I can (hopefully) explain.

The City filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE). An NOE is defined in CEQA guideline 15374. In CEQA, this "starts a clock" under which a party may bring legal action. CEQA has a very clearly defined statute of limitations. CEQA 15062(d) states, "The filing of a [NOE] and the posting on the list of notices start a 35 day statute of limitations period on legal challenges to the agency's decision that the project is exempt from CEQA. If a NOE is not filed, a 180 day statute of limitations will apply."

As I understand it, the 35 days was up on Sept 10. I have not seen the NOE, nor do I know when exactly it was filed.

Secondly, filing of a NOE for the swap and expiration of the timeframe to bring legal action do not preclude future environmental review on the subject lands. Should a project (or mitigation for another project) be proposed on the wetlands parcel in the future, the appropriate level of environmental review should be conducted at the time of proposal.

In other words, that a NOE was filed for the swap itself, does not mean that a road proposed (either directly or as mitigation) through the wetlands "escapes" subsequent environmental review. Granted, it could be tried, but I just don't think it is a very defensible position (my opinion).

In any event, I hope the above is clarifying.

Extravaganza Wines

In vino veritas......in wine there is truth, or so the proverb goes.

As has been touted, there will be an organized wine tasting at the first ever Egrets Not Regrets Extravaganza. Twenty-two bucks will get you 6 tastings of Washington's own Harbinger Wine.

The tasting line-up is (drumroll).....

• Dynamo White
• Rose de Mouvedre
• Dynamo Red
• A Point Red Cuvee
• El Jefe Red Table Wine
• Blackberry Bliss

I've decided to "take one for the team" and taste some of the wines beforehand. What can I say, I'm a giver.

My official tasting notes for the 3 that I tasted are as follows: in a word, YUM (even the white, and white wines aren't really my thing). Since I doubt, however, that my review was helpful, the "official" winery tasting notes for the above wines can be found here.

I'm not the only one who fancies Harbinger, either. The wine editor of Sunset Magazine in an article entitled, "The West at its Best: 20 Coastal Discoveries" (September 2009) gave Harbinger a nod, stating the winery as her favorite in the up-and-coming Olympia Peninsula wine area.

And it's not just tasty but goes towards a good cause as well. Five dollars from every tasting will be "set aside" and put in a cash pot. At the end of the evening, I'll draw the name of one participating organization at random. That organization will be the recipient of the cash pot.

So if you ever needed an excuse to drink wine on a Thursday, this is it! It's a fundraiser as well.

Extravaganza Updated List of Attendees

The list of environmental organizations that will be participating in the first ever Egrets Not Regrets Extravaganza is growing!

Recently added:
Sierra Club
Eco~Link
City of Long Beach, Office of Sustainability

Already committed to attend:
Friends of the Colorado Lagoon
Compassionate Cuisine
Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust

Check back often for updates and information....and mark your calendar for Thursday, September 17, 6-8 p.m., at the Gaslamp.

Egrets Not Regrets Extravaganza!

Do you want to volunteer but don't know how to get involved? Do you want to learn more about local environmental organizations? Do you want to taste some great Washington wine? Are you looking to have a good time?

If you answered yes to any of the above, then mosey on over to the Gaslamp Restaurant and Bar (6251 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach) on Thursday, September 17, from 6- 8 p.m. for the first ever Egrets Not Regrets Extravaganza.

What, you ask, is the Egrets Not Regrets Extravaganza? It's simple, really. The Extravaganza is essentially an environmental education and volunteer fair. Every local environmental organization is herein invited and will be provided its own table to display its information, educate the public, solicit volunteers, put out a donation bin, etc.

The goal is to provide a forum where like-minded environmental folks can meet, learn and (perhaps most importantly), have fun! Team Egret likes it best that way because all work and no play…well you know the story.

And like every good fair, there will be good food and drink! For those so inclined, there will be a wine tasting running concurrently wherein twenty-two bucks will get you six glorious tastings of Harbinger Wine. If wine just isn't your thing, belly up to the bar and order your favorite alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverage. The Gaslamp also offers a full dinner menu.

For one lucky organization, it's a fundraiser too! Five dollars from each wine tasting will be "set aside" and put in a cash pot. At the end of the evening, I'll draw the name of one participating organization at random. That organization will be the recipient of the cash pot. The more people tasting, the bigger the cash pot!

The Egrets Not Regrets Extravaganza is open to the public and all are encouraged to attend. This really will be a great way to learn about the local environmental organizations and explore that different volunteering opportunities exist, so be sure to spread the word…

If you are a local environmental organization and wish to participate in this fabulous affair, please send an email to: egretsnotregrets@gmail.com and information will be emailed to you subsequently. Reservations for organizations are mandatory.

The first confirmed attendees are: Friends of the Colorado Lagoon, Compassionate Cuisine and the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust. Team Egret suspects that many other environmental organizations will follow suit.

In any event, check back often for updates!

Exciting things ahead.....

Team Egret has been working overtime lately (not really) and will be sharing some pretty exciting information in the coming days, so stay tuned.

Check back often so you don't miss out on the festivities (yes, there will be festivities!).

CEQA Decision and Development Agreements

In the 8/2/09 edition of the LA Times, I ran across an article by Martha Graves entitled, "Judge hinders proposed Wal-Mart supercenter in Rialto."

Well this is timely.

In pertinent part (based on the article, I haven't seen the decision), the developer (Walmart) entered into a Development Agreement with the City of Rialto. A lawsuit was brought (Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto) and Judge Donald R. Alvarez decided that Rialto's approval of the Project violated the California Environmental Quality Act and other land-use laws.

One of the violations identified was that the approved Development Agreement was inconsistent with the City's current general plan and a specific plan.

Huh. That's interesting.

Back in Town

Back in town from what turned out to be a "comedy of errors" business trip (Reno and Yerington).

Night 1 - set off the burglar alarm trying to get the truck out of storage and was "locked into" the storage facility after hours....with the alarm sirens blaring and the mechanical voice yelling "burglary, burglary, burglary." Not at all embarrassing.

Night 2 - the door to my hotel room breaks and I can't get in. After about 30 minutes of laying in the hallway singing various iterations of "nobody knows the trouble I've seen" and watching hotel personnel try one maneuver after another to gain me ingress, they finally end up breaking the window to let me in. Can't believe it took them so long to figure that out. Generally people will move mountains to get me to stop singing.

Day 3 - when checking out of my hotel, I inadvertently turn in my ID with my hotel room key, which I realize after being dropped off at the airport.

I hit the trifecta, eh?!?

In any event, I am back and will resume posting.

Development Agreements

Given that the Second and PCH development team has indicated their intention of entering into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City of Long Beach, I'm starting to get some questions about DAs. Gotta say, however, I have zero experience with DAs....but I do have easy access to planning-type material and I can read.

Generally, DAs are contracts negotiated between government agencies and project proponents that govern the land uses that may be allowed in a particular project. The allowable land uses and other terms and conditions of approval are negotiated between the parties, subject to the public agencies approval.

DAs are regulated by the provisions put forth in California Government Code, commencing with Section 65864, and Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 21.29.

The Institute for Local Government publishes the "Development Agreement Manual: Collaboration in Pursuit of Community Interests" and has some good pro/con info, I thought.

Additionally, my understanding is that the City of Long Beach entered into a DA over the Douglas Park Project. The City produced a FAQ sheet associated with that project. Therein are some DA-related questions/answers which may be of use.

Second + PCH Study Session Now Online

The Second + PCH study session (July 16, 2009) at the Planning Commission is now online and available for viewing.

Check it out to see what the applicants are proposing. Equally interesting is the feedback provided by the Planning Commissioners.

"It opens the door for other projects to go higher."

An article by Fred Swegles entitled "San Clemente Rejects 4-Level Development Across from Pier" appeared today in the OC Register (thank you sender for alerting me). Read below to see how San Clemente City Councilmembers responded to a development project which, as proposed, exceeds the City's 30-foot building height restriction and also exceeds the City's lot-coverage limits. For many Long Beachers, this hits a little close to home....

A vacant lot directly across from the entrance to the San Clemente Pier will remain vacant a little longer.

On a 3-2 vote Tuesday night, the City Council turned down a plan to build a four-level, 5,348-square-foot commercial/residential development on a 3,200-square-foot lot at 614 Avenida Victoria.

Council members denied permits for the project "without prejudice," meaning architect Michael Luna is welcome to submit a revised plan.

In May, city planning commissioners approved the proposal, which exceeds a 30-foot height limit and the city’s lot-coverage limits. City code allows a project to exceed standards if it provides "substantial public benefits." The City Council has discretion to say yes or no.

The council majority Tuesday wasn't convinced that offerings such as a covered public patio, a tile mural, public benches and decorative tile sidewalks justify making the building bigger than standards allow.

Mayor Lori Donchak joined Councilmen Wayne Eggleston and Bob Baker in deciding that the project would be too big.

"The Pier Bowl is a sensitive area," Eggleston said, recounting a history of big developments that caused an outcry and were dismissed either by the city or the California Coastal Commission.

Councilmen Jim Dahl and Joe Anderson dissented.

"In my view, it's pretty comparable to what's been built there in recent years," Anderson said.

Dahl questioned the practice of asking for public benefits. "It borders on bribery," he said.

There was debate about the city's practice of establishing average building heights in the Pier Bowl while adding in the heights of buildings that went up before the city tightened the zoning code. Approval of this building would push the average higher, Donchak said. "It opens the door for other projects to go higher," she said.

Most residents who attended Tuesday's public hearing opposed letting the project exceed the posted standards.

"Once you start allowing greater heights than the standard, then the next guy is going to go higher and the next guy is going to go higher," Scott Hunt said. "Everything is going to be that high, because you're going to keep adding the averages up, up, up."

Critics and supporters agreed that they like the project's architecture.

"This is going to be the best-looking building on the block," said David Brown, a supporter.

Questions, Questions, Questions

Given that the Second + PCH project is beginning (or about to begin) the environmental review process, I'm starting to get a lot more CEQA-type questions. Fair enough.

As events unfold, I will be making posts which (hopefully) will explain what is transpiring with regards to the regulatory process. My intention is also to provide thoughts on how to write effective comment letters, when to raise issues, etc.

I'm very fortunate in that I've been given some EXCELLENT resource material by CEQA attorney Doug Carstens of the firm Chatten-Brown & Carstens (CBC). For those unfamiliar, CBC was the firm hired to fight the (successful) CEQA lawsuit brought over the ill-fated Long Beach Home Depot Project. They really know their stuff over there at CBC! Thanks guys!

So stay tuned.....

Isn't he cute?

I drove by the illegally scraped parcel yesterday. I'm struck by how different it looks now compared to prior to the destruction. Clearly absent are the contours and the vegetation...and the many critters that called that parcel home.

As more time passes, it gets easier to forget what was there before. And that's just a shame, really. Following is a picture taken pre-illegal earthwork (thank you sender!):


Many, many "pre-destruction" pictures exist.

If one takes these pictures and uses them in conjunction with other available techniques (i.e. using aerial photography to map vegetation/habitat), one will have a better understanding of what was there pre-illegal activity......and what should be there again.....

Moving Forward

I received some positive feedback on the last post, so thanks. I was also asked if "that was it"....if the questions/concerns I identified were my only questions/concerns. Nope. But since my primary concern was a failure to understand why this report was prepared (and the Coastal Commission not involved), I don't think it makes much sense to continue picking it apart. So moving on....

At the City Council meeting (Tuesday, March 24) immediately following the illegal earthwork activity, Fourth District Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell and Third District Councilmember Gary DeLong requested (paraphrased) that staff make a report/produce a memo which essentially outlines the process. Mayor Bob Foster reiterated this request.

What is the status of the memo?

A thoroughly annotated account of what transpired both prior to the illegal earthwork and subsequent would go a long way towards facilitating public understanding. This memo should detail what actions/communications preceded the illegal activity, what actions are being taken to "punish" the offender, what other agencies are involved and what is the status of their activity, what is expected of Mr. Hitchcock now, and what is being done to insure that this egregious behavior does not happen again.

To that extent....I have heard that Long Beach does not really have any meaningful "enforcement provisions" for this type of illegal work; that the most the City can do is slap a "double the permit fee penalty" on Mr. Hitchcock. Given the seriousness of the action, this hardly seems sufficient. But if this is the City's only remediation currently, so be it. Unfortunately, it just is what it is.

However, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Mr. Hitchcock's actions exposed a flaw in the system. It is my opinion that now is the time to "fix it," if possible....at the very least, to try. I believe that discussions should ensue which attempt to do just that.

Now I'm going to throw out some suggestions which I fully realize vary in feasibility. But ya gotta start somewhere, so here goes.....

Other cities have wetlands. Do these Cities have any special enforcement provisions which Long Beach can adopt? How has illegal work on wetlands been dealt with in other municipalities? Or has it? I dunno.

Does the Department of Development Services have a "cheat sheet" which easily identifies/describes the permit process? Akin to a permit flow chart? Would this be helpful to hand out to a developer so that they can quickly and easily see which agencies have regulatory/permit authority for various activities. Again, I dunno.

How can communication be improved between the decision makers and the public? I think issuing the promised memo, if detailed and done thoroughly, is a good first step.

Maybe a citizens task force can be initiated convened in the spirit of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Study Group and original SEADIP committee (hey, I said the ideas varied in feasibility).

It is important to not just identify problems, but also to try and recommend solutions. I realize that this is a difficult activity, but it is a necessary step in moving forward. And at this stage of the game, moving forward responsibly and in light of full information is paramount.

Biological Resources Evaluation and Jurisdictional Waters Delineation

Warning….breathy post follows:

The Biological Resources Evaluation and Jurisdictional Waters Delineation for APN 7237017006 (Sean Hitchcock's parcel adjacent to Loynes Dr., just west of Studebaker Rd.) came out this week.

I downloaded my version at the Press Telegram in Joe Segura's article "Shore Patrol: Los Cerritos Report - Wetlands or Not?" Interesting read.

This report was prepared by Ty Garrison of SWCA Consultants at the request of Mr. Sean Hitchock. Mr. Garrison was tasked to investigate two subject matters: 1) the general biological conditions of the site, including the potential for the site to support sensitive biological resources, and 2) a wetland and jurisdictional waters delineation.

Mr. Garrison conducted pedestrian (walking) surveys on April 13 and 20, 2009. It is notable that heavy equipment was working on site during the survey(s).

Mr. Garrison concluded that, "there are no state or federally listed or otherwise special status species occupying the project site." Additionally, "there are no wetlands or jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or waters of the state or riparian habitats under the jurisdiction of the CDFG or RWQCB on the site."

Now I have some questions (surprise, surprise). I should probably start by saying that I am privy only to the publicly available material (the Grunion article, the PT article and the report), and my questions/concerns exclusively stem from the released information. It is distinctly possible (and likely probable) that the public release of additional information and/or further explanation as to the process at hand would answer my questions and/or assuage my concerns. But ya gotta play the hand you are dealt.

First off, the report is ostensibly silent with regards to the Coastal Commission regulations, process and/or involvement. Why?

The subject lands are within the Coastal Zone. Mr. Craig Beck (Department of Development Services) indicated that the Coastal Commission will ultimately be approving the report. Yet the report ignores the Coastal Commission process? If the Coastal Commission has decision making authority (as Mr. Beck indicates), why does the report not identify that authority within the regulatory framework of the produced document? Why is the Coastal Commission voting on a "project" which ignores the existence of their involvement?

So I guess the question of the hour is, "why was this report prepared?" If it was prepared to satisfy a permit requirement, shouldn't all regulations be followed, including those associated with the California Coastal Act? If, however, the report was prepared to enable the Corps to make a determination as to whether or not they (the Corps) have any sort of "regulatory authority" (i.e. jurisdiction), why are the Planning Commission and Coastal Commission involved as decision makers? I don't understand.

Further, the report attempts to make a determination as to whether or not the subject lands are wetlands, identifying the regulatory requirements of the responsible agencies (identified as the Army Corps of Engineers, CDFG and the RWQCB). Again, what about the Coastal Commission requirements for wetlands determinations?

As stated earlier in this blog, the Coastal Commission has a "one-parameter" definition to establish wetlands presence whereas the Army Corps of Engineers has a "three-parameter" definition (parameters being wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology). Mr. Garrison's report identified the presence of wetland vegetation (rabbits-foot grass and broad-leaved peppergrass) within portions of the undisturbed lands. How does that factor into the wetlands determination equation (an equation seemingly absent the Coastal Commission variable)?

Additionally, and as referenced above, Mr. Garrison conducted the pedestrian surveys while heavy equipment (identified as a water truck, several dump trucks and a bulldozer) was working on-site. Okay, really?

First off, a portion of a biological survey is auditory. By that, are there species of birds present which you hear, but don't necessarily see? Was Mr. Garrison's hearing ability diminished by the earthwork occurring on-site?

Further, and perhaps more importantly, birds and other critters generally tend to avoid "loud" noises, such as those noises associated with construction activities. Why would Mr. Garrison conduct his biological survey while earth-moving activities were simultaneously underway? If he was looking to determine which species exist on-site, why did he go out there at a time when the heavy machinery activity and resultant noises were potentially keeping species away? I mean, it's not like the earthwork was scheduled to take forever to complete; it was finished within a matter of days. Couldn't wait? Why not?

Lastly (and more for clarification than anything else), it would also be helpful to know the acreage of the project site, and how many of those acres were subject to the illegal scraping activity, and how many acres remain undisturbed.

So where to go from here? Next post.

Remember me?

Remember me? I'm the girl who started this blog and then promptly went MIA. Though I've been back from Battle Mountain for several days, I managed to pick up some sort of nastiness along the way and am just now getting back into the swing of things.

Seeing no travel in my foreseeable future and with my health maladies behind me (touch wood), I will resume posting once I figure out where it was I left off........

Away, Part Three

I'm headed off again to the Middle of Nowhere, Nevada, or specifically - Battle Mountain. It is such a charming place that it won the title of "Armpit of America" by the Washington Post. You think I'm kidding? Check it out.....Though this article was written in 2001, it may as well have been written yesterday.

Nothing but the best for me. I'm thrilled. Truly.

Away, Part Deux

Apologies for the pertinent post dearth, but I have been away yet again, though this time for pleasure. I not only met my new nephew, but I wholeheartedly tried to kick start the economy by shopping and dining in San Francisco. A girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do.

Away

Have been away for work, which is always an interesting experience. Ranged from checking out a prehistoric village to stepping in fresh cow poop. Quite the dichotomy.

Saw my first mormon cricket, an insect by which I am fascinated. Mormon crickets are gnarly. Per Wikipedia, "tradition tells of a story where the first Mormon settlement in Utah was saved from famine by gulls eating hordes of [crickets] that had been destroying their first wheat crop." Interesting, but odder yet is that they swarm and are cannibals. They will "attack the cricket in front of them every few seconds and [they] must move constantly forward to avoid attacks from behind." Swarming cannibal crickets. Go figure.

Oddities that they are, they are hugely destructive – destroying crops and creating a traffic hazard. In Nevada, the swarming "bands" will extend as wide as the road and go on for miles. Not only will cars slide off the road because the swarming hordes of crickets are quite a distraction (I was told that it will look as though the road is moving, but cars will also slide off the highway because the crickets make the road slick. Mormon crickets are not a good thing, nor are they small (they can get up to nearly 3 inches long).

Their "season" is starting now.

Cool Zeppelin photos and video....

Head on over to LBReport.com for some excellent footage Mr. Pearl took while on a recent Zeppelin ride over Long Beach. Awesome shots of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, especially Steam Shovel Slough!

Thanks for sharing!

SEADIP Meeting

We interrupt this rather vapid wetlands delineation tutorial to bring you the following information....

As reported in LBReport, there is scheduled to be a SEADIP "study session" at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting, beginning at 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 21 (yes, that's tomorrow).

All are encouraged to attend (says the girl who has a previous commitment and will be absent).

Wetlands Delineations - CCC vs. the Corps

A wetlands delineation is used to determine the jurisdictional boundaries of the responsible agencies (previously identified as the CCC, the Corps, and CDFG). When making wetland determinations, three general characteristics are sought: vegetation, soil and/or hydrology.

The CCC's regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 14) establish a "one parameter definition" that only require the evidence of a single parameter (vegetation, soil OR hydrology) to establish wetlands conditions.

In contrast, the Corps generally use a "three parameter definition" requiring the evidence of all three parameters (vegetaion, soil AND hydrology) to establish wetlands conditions, as discussed in the Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

As such, it is feasible that an area of land is considered to be wetlands under the CCC definition, but not under the Corps definition.

Wetlands Delineation - California Department of Fish and Game

Alas there is yet another player in this delineation game....the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Their involvement, however, isn't nearly as easily described (at least for me) as that of the Corps or the CCC.

CDFG is involved primarily via the execution of "Streambed Alteration Agreements" through provisions of the California Fish and Game Code (Section 1600 et seq.). Streambed Alteration Agreements are required in certain instances for construction projects which would impact wetlands associated with rivers, streams or lakes. Fish and Game Code Sections 5650-5645 pertain to the protection of water quality, but do not charge CDFG with additional permitting responsibilities.

Wetlands Delineations - California Coastal Commission

The Corps does not exclusively rule the wetlands delineation roost.....at least in this neck of the woods. The Los Cerritos Wetlands are found in the "coastal zone." Wetlands found in the "coastal zone" are regulated under the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, and are within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (CCC).

Section 30121 of the Coastal Act defines wetlands accordingly, "lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and includes saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens."

Wetlands Delineations - Army Corps of Engineers

If anyone finds these next few posts even remotely fascinating, I'll give them $100. Okay, so I'm lying, but I do think that these will be rather tedious. You've been warned.

It's probably appropriate to begin by explaining what agencies are primarily involved and generally why. This post will deal with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers involvement. I happen to refer to the Army Corps of Engineers as "the Corps," but I've also seen reference to ACE, ACOE and USACE. Alphabet soup.

Anyway, you have the Clean Water Act (CWA), or perhaps more specifically, Section 404 of the CWA. This section requires that anyone interested in depositing dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States, including wetlands," must receive authorization for such activities. The Corps is responsible for administering the Section 404 permitting process.

The Corps (and the EPA) define wetlands as follows (40 CFR 232.2), "Those areas that are innundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."

Demystifying Delineations

With regards to the pending land swap, much ado has been made about whether or not a "wetlands delineation" was conducted on the lands in question. In listening to the ongoing dialogue, I realized that there are so very many questions about this subject matter.

Over the course of the next several posts, I will be "breaking down" the wetlands delineation process, exploring what one looks for in a delineation and who has regulatory authority.

So stay tuned!

Locally Famous!

Twenty-four hours in operation and Egrets Not Regrets got its first bit of publicity!

Local online media source, LBReport, mentioned this blog.

We here at Team Egret (okay so there is only one of us and that hardly counts as a team) are thrilled with this acknowledgment as we (again with the plural) love LBReport as a news venue.

Thanks Mr. Pearl!