Home › News › Local News
Suit filed over proposed boating center
Environmentalists oppose Coastal Commission's OK of plan in Oxnard
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsAn environmental group opposed to the planned boating center at Channel Islands Harbor has sued the California Coastal Commission over its approval of the project last month.
It's the second time that the group, Habitat for Hollywood Beach, has sued the Coastal Commission to stop the boating safety and instruction center.
Habitat members and other opponents argue it would be too big and is planned for an inappropriate location, too close to trees where herons and other birds nest.
The commission first approved the project in 2005, but that approval was overturned in court when Habitat for Hollywood Beach sued.
The judge sent the matter back to the Coastal Commission, with instructions to consider a wider range of alternatives and a deeper analysis of the "cumulative impacts" of other projects at the Oxnard harbor.
Last month, the commission again approved the boating center proposal by the county, which owns the harbor. Habitat for Hollywood Beach vowed to sue again, and on Thursday — just as its deadline to challenge the decision was nearing — it filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
In the new suit, the group argues the commission did not follow the judge's orders to consider more alternatives and cumulative impacts.
"They've just approved the same project they approved before," said Frank Angel, Habitat for Hollywood Beach's attorney. "The court clearly told them to do more than just glance at alternatives."
County Harbor Director Lyn Krieger, however, said the commission and its staff appeared to seriously consider many alternatives, based on the questions they asked Krieger and other county officials.
Krieger said she's "not terribly surprised" by the lawsuit.
"I can't imagine why a boating center for kids that is less tall than many of the houses that are going up a stone's throw away is such a significant project for the opponents," she said.
Angel said he has advised his clients that they could also ask the court to impose monetary penalties on the county because of alleged permit violations on other construction projects at the harbor.
At last month's Coastal Commission meeting, a few commissioners reprimanded the harbor for allowing construction crews to remove trees and exceed permitted noise levels.
Krieger said she met with the Coastal Commission this month and argued that the contractor's actions were not violations.
Even if they were, she said, the responsible party would be the developer, not the county.
Posted by johnmuir96 on May 24, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So the people who moved from L.A and developed the lots from lot line to lot line now want everyone to stay out of the neighborhood, go figure
I just hope that the Channel islands community Service District does not illegally use the people monies to fund the law suit
Its time to build the boating center
Posted by Tom_Johnston on May 24, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, just build the dang thing and get this over with. I think the "nesting birds" thing is just a ruse anyway. I'm very certain there will be great care taken not to disturb the birds during nesting season. I live near a recently built sub-division, and I know that there are plenty of laws to ensure this happens.
Good grief!! The birds already live in a busy harbor, if they wanted solitude, why aren't they on one of the islands offshore?
Posted by arthur on May 24, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've lived on Hollywood Beach for 18 years and I believe that we all have the right, even an obligation, to care for our neighborhoods. I very much appreciate our little park and the wildlife it nurtures.
This issue is not about whether to build the BISC or not... it's about whether there is sufficient reason to build a 20,000 sq ft building that incorporates a reception center for hire, at the expense of the park when there are a number of viable alternative locations available.
The “nesting bird” issue is only one of the legitimate concerns. The original cause of complaint was that the Harbor Director initiated the project without informing, never mind consulting, with the local residents and we had every right to say we'd like to know what was planned.
Some of our concerns are indeed based on how the project will affect the local community, (and what would be wrong with that?), however there are other concerns that go beyond... including the small yet unique and precious eco system that will be eliminated. Another is that the BISC by design, will actually reduce public access to the harbor for the average citizen as the cost of the programs to be offered will be unafordable to many families. So a public park would be replaced by a facility serving a very limited few. A facility that duplicates programs that already exit in the harbor by the way.
This is not the forum to list all the arguments to support our position and I understand that some will not believe this little green space is worth the time and cost to fight for. However, some of us do believe that it's worth whatever it takes to preserve the ONLY park on the west side of Harbor and the courts have so far agreed with us.
If the Harbor Director remains adamant about where the BISC is to be located, perhaps the good citizens who feel there have been enough resources dedicated to satisfying her preferences... should ask her to explain why she believes it's worth any cost to pursue them.
We are spending our money for what we believe in. She is spending yours.
Posted by sslocal on May 25, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why not have it on the east side? Seems as if most folks want it there anyway.
Posted by johnmuir96 on May 26, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ah yes but arty why did the CICSD spend the people funds on the lawsuit?????
the CICSD is for water and trash not the agenda of a few
Posted by Oranges on May 26, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I went to the harbor a couple weeks ago and was suprised by teh inactivity and total lack of energy down there.
The BISC should be in the back water where kids can sail without the traffic. Having it near the mouth of the harbor will create situations for all boaters. Ifyou must have it there use the Port Royal or the failing Whales Tail.as the center.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.