July 2009 Archives

LONG BEACH -- In an 11th-hour move, Los Cerritos Land Trust board members issued a call Friday for a delay of Tuesday's schedued City Council vote on the controversial land-swap deal.
The following is the environmental organization's statement:

"Dear Friend of the Los Cerritos Wetlands,

"Back when the simpler land swap proposal first became public it seemed like one of those win-win situations. Why not trade out some underused city-owned property in urban Long Beach in order to move into public hands an important portion of the Los Cerritos Wetlands?

 "But since this deal was first brought before the public, more worrisome details have come out. These details are not small, insignificant matters; they are at the heart of the ability to protect and restore. They should be addressed before any vote is taken on the swap.

"So we hope the City Council has the good sense to postpone the vote on the land swap until some important and troubling aspects have been fully aired and discussed. What are our concerns and questions? Let me spell them out.

"Cost
It may well be nice and generous of the city to agree to subsidize this land swap since it is true we have no clear evaluation of what the dollar value of the wetlands is. And yes, wetlands are 'priceless.' However we just don't have a clear picture of how polluted the land is, how much of the wetlands is restorable, how much it will cost for clean up, and how much of that land will be required to remain as oil wells and roads to service those wells. The state of California is prohibited from paying more than fair market value. The city is not. So it is reasonable to be concerned that, if the city takes a big financial hit to purchase these wetlands they might be tempted in times of financial crisis (like now) to sell them off or use them for purposes other than protected wetlands.

"Guarantees
"We have said all along that a good way to help ensure this land remains as open space as it awaits its transfer to the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority is that a conservation easement or deed restriction that travels with the land be a part of the deal. The city won't do that because to do so would depress the value of the land. But it is indeed a good way to demonstrate to the public that their intentions toward this land are to protect and preserve it. Given how broke the state of California is, and how little funding is available for even priority acquisitions like Los Cerritos Wetlands, who knows how long it will be before the land can be acquired, especially when you factor in the big price tag for cleaning up the toxins in the soil?

"Zoning
"For some reason the city seems to think this wetlands parcel to be traded to the city is zoned as commercial, but that is just not the case. This land has never been certified as commercial by the Coastal Commission. That means this land is likely considered wetlands by the Coastal Commission and therefore worth far less on the open real estate market than the city thinks it is. Again, this fact places the city in a more financially vulnerable position and thus more easily tempted to exploit the land to try to make up for the loss.

"Oil Rights
"The latest is that the land owner has put the oil rights to this land on the open market. Who will the new owner be? Will he be a locally owned, responsible company like Signal Hill Petroleum or a cash-strapped, highly leveraged firm that will put the priority of extractions ahead of environmental protection

"The bottom line is that there are just too many questions about this deal that need to be answered before the land swap moves forward. There is no way the City Council should vote on the land swap until the questions we have raised have been fully answered. We ask the City Council to postpone a vote on this land swap for at least 30 days, and we encourage you to ask your local council member to support a postponement.

Elizabeth Lambe
Executive Director
Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust

Anglers can now use the Department of Fish and Game's (DFG) Web site now features
the current status of the statewide catch of yelloweye
rockfish.

 This information is of interest to many, because once the
federal catch limit of this species is close to being met, the
groundfish season may close, according to the agency.

"Yelloweye rockfish is the most constraining groundfish species on
the West Coast,"  Marija Vojkovich, the agency's marine region manager, stated in a recent email.
"In 2008, many anglers were surprised when the groundfish season
north of Point Arena closed early because the yelloweye rockfish catch
had approached the federal harvest limit. This year, the tracking tool
should result in fewer surprises."

Yelloweye rockfish are federally designated as an "overfished"
species that may not be kept in California.

However, anglers sometimes catch the fish by accident, and this incidental take is counted towards
the statewide recreational harvest limit.

 The new tracking tool is available at www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/groundfishcentral/tracking.asp..

The tracking tool will be updated weekly as new catch information is
received and processed. 

Yelloweye rockfish is a challenging species to manage because the statewide
recreational harvest limit is minimal-only 6,173 pounds of incidentally
taken fish are allowed for 2009. This species is slow-growing,
late-maturing, and can reach ages of more than 100 years. According to
the current federal rebuilding plan, the yelloweye rockfish stock may
take over 70 years to recover.

"Groundfish" includes over 80 species of marine fish, including
other rockfish, lingcod, cabezon and some species of flatfish.

For more information about groundfish fishery management and the Pacific Fishery
Management Council, the federal agency responsible for setting harvest
limits for groundfish, visit www.pcouncil.org.

For more information regarding recreational groundfish regulations and
for current in-season regulation changes,  call the DFG
Recreational Groundfish Fishing Regulations Hotline at (831) 649-2801,
or visit the DFG Groundfish Central Web site at:
www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/groundfishcentral/index.asp.

Los Cerritos Land Trust board member Tom Marchese raised a number of questions regarding the pending Los Cerritos Wetlands land-swap deal, which will be considered by the City Council on Tuesday. City Manager Pat West responded to most of the questions in this memo, shedding more light on the proposed deal.

Here are Marchese's questions:

Dear Mr. West,
 
Thank you for the fine work that you and your Staff do for our beloved City. Thanks as well for meeting with me after the conclusion of business Tuesday night. Here is a transcript of my questions and testimony.  I omitted the introduction.  Your comments back to me after the session are in parentheses and at the end.
 
1)      Is this Wetlands exchange planned to come back for a vote on August 4th, if not, when?
(Afterwards you stated that it is up to Council, but to clarify, August 4th is when a vote to enter into Escrow is possible?)
2)      And, is agreeing to no oil well relocation or removal a stipulation?
3)      Is no road relocation, or removal a stipulation?  A concern is that if about half of lower Bixby is built out and reserved for the exclusive use of the oil operators, we cannot restore it, or use it, so why are we buying it?
4)      Is no soil remediation a stipulation?
5)      Has an estimate of partial or complete soil remediation been prepared?  Will one be forthcoming?
We cannot restore these Wetlands unless we remediate the soil where the intertidal connections are required. (Afterwards you stated that you had not seen the Moffit and Nichol Study and were unaware where these new waterways are proposed) ( I can provide a copy)
6)      Has any allocation of relative fault been discussed, or approximated as to the sources of the contamination?   This seems to be a material fact critical to these negotiations. I need to state for the record, that the California Earthcorp estimate for a partial clean up, in 2005 dollars, was 90-140 Million dollars. During our Los Cerritos Wetlands Study group rezoning effort, we learned that this cost could be much higher.
7)      Has an independent Appraisal been performed for the entire Wetlands?  How about for the subject matter or this partial exchange? May we respectfully request enough time for peer review of these opinions please?
8)      When can we review the Phase 1 and Phase 2 documents? May we be afforded ample time to consult experts as to the observations and assumptions?  (Afterwards you expressed concern that this might harm the seller. I stated that I failed to see how, and that such information has been made public during other acquisitions)
9)      What is the approximate value of the present oil rights, net of remediation, and what is the cleanup cost attributed to this price?  They are related.
10)   When will the residents and stakeholders be afforded the transparency we previously assured of?
 
I thank Mayor Foster for his direction in this matter and look forward to sharing your response with my friends and associates.
As for our conversation after I testified, at what time do you feel that describing the additional land attached to this first proposed exchange would be prudent?
As I explained, I believe that we are entitled to a much better deal and that I believe that every dollar we can save now can help acquire, restore and preserve the area sooner, and better.
As stated before, bargaining for the mineral rights could help fund the remediation and restoration, pay us a nice royalty, create local jobs and even possibly provide local Green job training and educational opportunities.
Also, moving or removing some oil wells is very important to safeguard the estuary.  As I explained, some of them loom perilously close to the habitat, Wetlands and ocean.  To reiterate, the discounted present cash value of a few of the low production wells could be as low as $ 50,000 .
Also, removing and restoring some redundant or no longer needed road beds, especially that of the 'Studebaker Extension', or, restoring several clearings is also quite feasible.   These are but some of the suggestions that could be reasonable terms of this deal.
As I said, a condition requiring that the oil operators maintain water in the Pond East of Shopkeeper Road seems fair. This used to be mandated by the City, for additional Fire safety and Habitat preservation.
This pond's rapid water loss recently is probably a function of the greatly increased oil production (from about 220 barrels a day, to around 350) since Dean/Berger took title and due to increased de-watering.  This condition alone would result in an immediate, significant ecological windfall.  The City should do this immediately exchange or not.
Finally, you stated that the City would implement a Permanent Moratorium on any new construction upon the acquired land to prevent any entitlements from the time Long Beach takes title until the time of conveyance to the State.  Of course several of us need to study this. Future oil exploration would also be a problem.
A lot more was said, I will reduce it to writing for future correspondence.
Again, thank you most sincerely for your wonderful goal in this area. I look forward to your response.
 
Very Truly Yours,
Tom Marchese