California Coastal Commission's New Chairwoman, Meg Caldwell

Meg, last year you were appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger to the California Coastal Commission and later elected as its chair. What do you think prompted the governor, his Cabinet Secretary Terry Tamminen, and others to enlist you in the service of the state in this capacity? What are your credentials, and what perspective do you bring to your new role?

Well, I think that I am a known quantity. I have known Terry for years; I brought him to Stanford to give a presentation back when he was the Santa Monica Baykeeper. We have kept in touch over the years, and I think he is familiar with the work that I am doing at Stanford. I think that helped enormously, and the fact that I actually have a professional background in land use helped as well.

Another aspect of my background that probably convinced them to seriously consider me is that I have had experience in the public sector. I have been a planning commissioner in a local jurisdiction. They knew that I understand and take seriously the obligation that we have to conduct the public's business in the public light. During the interview process, we discussed our personal philosophies of governance, particularly urban governance, and of restoring integrity to the process. We really had a meeting of the minds over that.

The other thing is that the governor has charted out a strong ocean strategy and policy that is completely in line with my personal and professional philosophy, so there was really no disagreement between us on the policy direction for the state in terms of coastal land use and protective measures.

The original intent of the Coastal Act and the creation of the Coastal Commission more than thirty years ago was that the Commission would go out of existence after it improved the land-use plans of all of the jurisdictions along the coast. Obviously, that hasn't happened; there probably aren't more that forty plans approved. Was the original concept flawed, and is the Coastal Commission here for our lifetime?

This is a misconception. The Coastal Act made the Commission permanent because coastal protection is a permanent work in progress. If you look at the Act, it contemplates continual examination and keeping enough flexibility within it to be a living document. One example of this is that the Coastal Commission has the authority and an obligation to examine the local coastal plans over time and make sure they remain responsive to the needs of the state and to the principles and policies that are laid out in the Act. So, we continually review local coastal plans and proposed amendments. The law also requires the Commission, on an ongoing basis, to hear appeals of local coastal development permits. It is the only state agency with authority to review federal activities for consistency with Coastal Act policies, which is another continuing responsibility.

The other point I would make is that over 80 percent of California residents live within an hour's drive of the seashore. It will remain a magnet for conflict as long as there is intense competition for the resources along the coast. The Coastal Commission is uniquely positioned to be an arbitrator between the competing users of coastal resources. There is a growing recognition that there is a very strong connection between coastal land use and marine resource vitality. There are a lot of issues that still have not been adequately addressed, such as non-point-source runoff, a major contributor to the degradation of coastal water quality. We have made so much progress at wastewater treatment facilities and other sources of water pollution, but there is a lot of work remaining to adequately address non-point-source pollution. We are only at the cusp of examining all of the coastal land-use plans and local coastal plans to make sure that they are harmonized with the goal of significant reduction of non-point-source pollution.

In the last twenty years, the Coastal Commission was not really in a position to review major offshore facilities. Now, there is a whole new generation of facilities that are going to come up for review, including 36 offshore oil and gas leases this year. The governor's policy is to extinguish those leases, so there will be a lot of discussion between the state and federal agencies. Our job will be to evaluate them against Coastal Act policies. We also have a whole new crop of energy facilities that are coming up for review. Three liquefied natural gas facilities will be heard by the Commission this year, with a more coming in the future. So, our plate is actually quite full.

Please elaborate for our readers about the liquefied natural gas proposals. What issues do they raise, and how will the Coastal Commission take on this issue?

First, I should just state that we are at the very beginning of this process. We just had our first workshop on LNG at our last meeting in Long Beach. It was important to hold the workshop in that community, because one of the proposed facilities would be sited in the Port of Long Beach. We have had a briefing from the California Energy Commission staff, and we are planning to have another workshop at our next meeting in Monterey. Our briefing is not complete yet, but we do know a few things about the proposals that are in front of us. There is a proposal for an onshore facility at Long Beach, and there are three offshore proposals: one fourteen miles off of Oxnard, another to be moored adjacent to Platform Grace off of the Ventura coast, and another one is proposed 2.5 miles offshore from Camp Pendleton in northern San Diego County. The Coastal Act and CEQA both require intensive environmental impact reviews. Those evaluations are in progress right now, so we have not yet seen those documents.

I can't speak in detail about the kinds of issues and impacts those reviews are weighing, but I can say a few things that we know already. For example, the vaporized natural gas is an obvious public safety concern. When it is mixed with the air it can be highly flammable. There is an obvious concern with respect to the proposed onshore facility at Long Beach, where there is a significant population in the vicinity, including those who work in the port area. That will have to be carefully reviewed, and I am sure that the Port of Long Beach itself will be concerned about the health and safety issues. There is concern for the people working on or near the proposed offshore facilities, as well as for any fisherman or recreational boaters that may be in the vicinity. My understanding is that the primary safety risk associated with the proposed LNG facilities is a vapor cloud release, which can pose problems up to one mile from the facility, and possible as far away as two miles away. Again, that will be detailed in the environmental impact report.

Marine resource issues raised by these proposals include the degree to which a few facilities may use ocean water, either in the facilities themselves or for maintaining ballast for the tankers that are docking. Also, pipes will have to be laid to get the "regasified" natural gas to the shore. At the proposed Oxnard facility, the pipe would be laid under the beach, which is directly adjacent to wetlands that the Coastal Conservancy is in the process of restoring, which could create issues. At Platform Grace, we are evaluating the entire use of that facility. Currently, Platform Grace is set up as a relay station for oil that is coming from remote drilling operations. There is considerable skepticism about whether or not joint use there is even possible. The other issue that Platform Grace raises is how the natural gas will make it onto the platform to be piped onshore. There is a flexible piping system designed that of looks like an umbilical cord, and we are going to carefully examine the integrity of that kind of design.

What do you say to the petitioners and other stakeholders who, while expressing support for the goals and the programs of the Coastal Commission, think that its processes are unfathomable and time-consuming, and that other members defer too much to the local representatives who sit on the Commission?

I would say that the vast majority of coastal land-use decisions are handled at the local level anyway. A very small percentage – close to five percent – of coastal development projects end up before the Coastal Commission. Generally, we only look at only the most problematic or complex projects that come up through the system.

In terms of the degree to which we defer to the six local elected officials on the Commission, we naturally want to hear their perspectives, but feel free to disagree. I have seen no reticence on the part of any of the commissioners to take issue with the local representative on any particular case. All of the commissioners, including the ones who represent the jurisdiction where a given project is located, have a broader responsibility to the State of California and the Coastal Act. I think that is one of the trickiest things for the local representatives: to step back and recognize that when they are convened as the Coastal Commission, they are serving as California Coastal Commissioners, not as local elected officials, and they, therefore, have broader responsibilities. Sometimes, that means more detailed analysis, a process that can be more lengthy, complex, and difficult to understand than the local process. That is just part of the package.

As for the time it takes to process coastal permit applications, a review conducted several years ago showed the processing time by the Commission was considerably shorter than at the local government level and much faster than any other state agency. In addition, many projects coming to us are subject to tight time limits established by law.

Meg, you and a few other commissioners have taken the position that you will not entertain lobbying calls from petitioners before making a decision. Can you elaborate on that position, how the other commissioners view it, and what it means about the process?

My position is that I do not have "ex parte" communication, which is informal, non-public communication about an issue before the Commission. The idea behind that policy is that we are doing the public's business, and both the public and our fellow commissioners are entitled to operate from the same information. We need to make sure that the reasons for our decisions are absolutely and completely available to those who are affected, including the applicants and the interested public. My experience with ex parte communications has been that, while it is easy to report the time and place of a contact, it is very difficult to convey the whole breadth of the exchange. My goal in avoiding these kinds of communications is to make sure that all of our discourse and exchange of information takes place in front of those who are affected and all of the decision makers, including staff.

You have served as a planning commissioner in the City of Saratoga. What lessongs that experience can you apply to your state-wide responsibilities for over 1,100 miles of coast? How have you adjusted to the change in scope?

There is a huge difference in physical scale, and to that extent, they are incomparable, but there are lessons and similarities between the two. First and foremost, we must keep respect for the integrity of the public process and an understanding of how local land-use decisions are made and policy is developed. My experiences have helped me on the Coastal Commission, because I really can say that I understand what the local process looks like. I understand what applicants go through at the local level and the extra amount of work that it takes for them to go to the Coastal Commission for review.

The two positions are more similar than you might think. Local folks care just as deeply about their environment, their unique resources, and the integrity and character of their communities as the state does about its coast. Similarly, the same competing interests and users exist at a local level as at the state level. There are many more people, many more interests, and a lot more money at stake at the state level, but the emotions run just as high, and the level of commitment and perseverance is very similar. I have not found it too big of a step to the statewide level. It is more complex, and it is incredibly interesting.