Much has changed since then. But some things remain the same. An army of outside experts has arisen to confirm, quantify and help start to remedy the air pollution damage identified in the suit, but securing a similar foundation of support to remedy aesthetic damage has barely begun.
A considerable degree of confusion reigned at the POLA Commission meeting on June 4, as staff presented their recommendation to approve two lists of aesthetic mitigation projects-one from Wilmington; the other from San Pedro-provided for in the China Shipping ASJ.
The confusion was procedural, but beneath the surface, a much larger substantive question remains: Will the Commissioners accept the top-recommended San Pedro project, a 10-year study of aesthetic impacts, proposed by two of the original China Shipping litigants-Janet Gunter and Andrew Mardesich-who say the study is badly needed to fulfill the original purpose of the lawsuit.
While the study of air pollution impacts and their remedies has advanced by leaps and bounds, the nature of aesthetics impacts remains amorphous and ill-defined, making it near impossible to make sound decisions that will stand the test of time.
"This application should have actually been the first application in the chute five years ago," Andy Mardesich told the commissioners at the June 5 meeting. "As a litigant, as an author of the process, at the negotiating table with the Port of Los Angeles five years ago, I always put the study and the discovery before projects."
"We're trying to bring a good planning process into the equation, so that what we have 50 years from now makes sense for the whole community--not just 'we need a pool over here or a mural over there, but something that has a long-lasting connection," Janet Gunter told Random Lengths afterwards. "We need to look at projects that over time will work with the community to create a vision for the future."
Kathleen Woodfield headed the Port Community Advisory Committee (PCAC) subcommittee that reviewed all submitted proposals. Wilmington and San Pedro had separate working groups, she explained, and the San Pedro group recommended the mitigation study as its top proposal.
As project proponents, Gunter and Mardesich aren't asking for any money for themselves. The project will be carried by a team of consultants, with the oversight and involvement of POLA, PCAC, the Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC), and the State Lands Commission (SLC). "We'd much rather be involved in an early level of the process so we can provide guidance," said Paul Thayer, head of the SLC.
The team would be headed by two principal consultants-Scenic America, which would oversee the aesthetic analysis and Beacon Economics, which would do the economic analysis-aided by sub-consultants with different specific areas of expertise.
"This study parallels what happened for pollution mitigation," explained Beacon Economics co-founder Jon Haveman, "There was an analysis of how much pollution there was, how much harm there was, and how would you most cost effectively reduce that harm. This study basically would parallel that review process for aesthetic impacts and congestion," he explained, adding, "This study should have been approved before any of the other investments."
"Our visual environment is a public resource and it can be polluted just like the quality of our air, water, and wildlife," adds Brad Cownover, Director of Scenic Conservation at Scenic America, the only national nonprofit organization dedicated solely to preserving and enhancing the visual character of America's communities, countryside and public lands. Although this sort of study would be something new for Scenic America, coordinated planning with stakeholders is not.
"While individual mitigation or beautification projects can and should be part of any strategy to restore the visual environment of an area, they are less successful if implemented in an isolated, random fashion," Cownover explained. "The real value of investing in the proposed aesthetic 'nexus' study is that it provides a comprehensive framework to document the valued character of the area that stakeholders want to protect. The proposal will provide an unprecedented opportunity for those who care about the area around the Port of Los Angeles to engage all stakeholders, prioritize issues, identify funding and partners, and develop the action steps necessary to really make a difference."
Establishing such a comprehensive approach to reversing decades of aesthetic degradation would be deeply satisfying to Mardesich and Gunter, who've been waging this battle for a decade now.
Aesthetic impacts were her first concern, Gunter, even before she knew anything about air pollution. In the late 1990s, she recalls, "My chief concern was things they were not doing for the business district. And as a previous resident of Wilmington, I looked around and saw a lot of the damage was directly a result of the Port."
While POLA has spent most of the last 10 years downplaying off-port aesthetic impacts, it briefly reversed course sharply, and floated an attempt to rewrite state law, declaring itself a redevelopment agency, intended to counter the community blight that it itself had created. The proposal went nowhere due to opposition from LA County.
Air pollution came to the fore after an Austrian immigrant architect, Alfred Zimmer, introduced Gunter to her first environmental impact report (EIR)-- the one for Pier 400. It was completed, and thus too late to comment on, but next up was the China Shipping Terminal, which the Port claimed didn't even need an EIR, since a generic one had previously been done in 1997 for development of area where the terminal would be located.
At the time, Gunter was discussing her growing concerns with Mardesich, Noel Park, and a handful of others.
"We talked about it [China Shipping], we decided we would take a stand on it.... We spoke up at hearings. They just ignored us. Basically, they said, 'You don't like it, file a lawsuit.' But no one would take the case."
It took months of looking. No private attorney could afford the expense of taking on such a large government entity. Finally, one attorney referred them to the NRDC. But at the time NRDC had never filed a lawsuit involving the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the law governing the EIR process. So environmental attorney Jan Chatten Brown was invited to the first meeting that Gunter, Mardesich, Park and the others had with NRDC.
At the meeting, they discussed diesel dust and air pollution. "We also brought up the issue of the blight, industrial blight to both Wilmington and San Pedro. And that they [the Port] would not declare the visual impacts." NRDC "had already done some review," but their problem was, "We're not CEQA specialists." To file suit, they would have to hire someone, which they couldn't pay for.
"Noel says 'well, how much do you need?' He said, 'I'll put $10,000 in,'" Gunter recalled. "I said, 'well, I'll put $10,000 in.'" And that's how the lawsuit began. They lost at trial, but prevailed on appeal, as the court found that previous EIRs had been carried out more as bureaucratic exercises than as serious attempts to fulfill the intent of the law.
Aesthetic impacts surfaced again during the resulting settlement negotiations. "As negotiations came to a close. It came over to the aesthetic side. And that's when I said no," Mardesich recalled. "They looked at me in amazement. What do you mean no?" It wasn't just the Port, the environmental groups were surprised as well. "I'm willing to lose everything, if I don't get what I want," Mardesich recalls saying.
In the end, that's why there even was an aesthetic mitigation fund in the first place--$20 million worth.
Between the proliferation of ever-higher cranes and expansions of Pier 300 and Pier 400, San Pedro had lost its historic blue water vista, so there was strong support for the Gateway Park project to beautify the entrance to San Pedro in the first round of aesthetic mitigation projects. But this ran into the problem. The Port never acknowledged off-port visual impacts, which lead to the SLC finding of no "nexus" between the proposed project and the Port. Councilwoman Janice Hahn managed to get alternate funding, but the experience only further underscored the need for documenting off-port aesthetic impacts-thus rekindling Mardesich's desire for an independent study.
"The purpose is to do what the port has refused to do and continues to refuse to do. That's all it is," he told Random Lengths.
The final round of mitigation project selection began last year, Woodfield explained. There were separate working groups for San Pedro and Wilmington, which both feed their results to her subcommittee. Ken Milendez, head of Wilmington Waterfront Development Committee, played a leading role on the Wilmington side.
"The procedure this time went well," Milendez said, "Last time we had some disagreement with some of the people in San Pedro who were on the subcommittee. We put that behind us."
Each community controlled its own process. Explaining Wilmington's, Milendez said, "What we looked at was, was the organization presenting connected to the harbor area, and for how long? And can they make this thing happen?"
"We also wanted to treat the port as one community, one harbor," he added. "So one of our projects is the lighthouse. It's a functioning lighthouse. The coastguard owns it, but they don't have the money to keep it up." They also chose to support the Tall Ships program. "They can leverage the money. They do great work with kids around the area, not just San Pedro, not just Wilmington."
There were Wilmington-specific projects, too, such as a health education program at Banning's Landing, a landscaping project adjacent to the marinas, and a digital sign for Downtown Wilmington, capable of fulfilling something of a "town crier" function.
Melendez supports the aesthetic mitigation study, partly because he gave his word that both communities would support each other's decision process, but also because he believes in it, and it will benefit Wilmington as well as San Pedro, as Haveman explained.
"One important aspect is the impact on real estate values. As an example, there are homes in Wilmington that are located right across the street from a lot with stacks of containers, and those stacks of containers impact property values in those neighborhoods."
On the San Pedro side, Haveman notes, going up into the hills, "They used to have a blue water view. Now they have a blue crane view. And that would clearly have an impact on property values."
This is not to deny-as Port staff often argues-that some folks find cranes visually appealing.
"The fact that individuals may have different landscape preferences does not mean that those values are not important," Cownover explained. "To use the supposition that 'beauty is subjective' as an argument against protecting resource values is a common excuse we hear a lot, mainly because municipalities rarely realize that there are indeed numerous valid, defensible, and scientific ways to assess visual quality. The biggest mistake our nation can make is to be afraid to talk about beauty, to shy away from discussing the aesthetic character of our landscapes and communities."
It's not a matter of sacrificing the character of a community, but preserving what's best about it.
" We all intuitively appreciate the visual quality of the places we live, work and play; but we too often take them for granted and are not driven to speak out until change occurs, which is usually too late," Cownover stressed.
"If communities do not document the character of the places they want to protect or enhance, they are destined to lose them. The fact that citizens in the surrounding Port communities have decided that they want to invest in documenting that character should be applauded."
While residents are justifiably impatient, particularly given the history of delay on waterfront development, the idea of doing things right, and looking to the long haul, rather than a one-shot project, is likely to persuade most residents. But whether Port staff will agree is another matter.
"Following this study the port will have to look at off-port impacts of various projects, and establish a means of mitigating those impacts," Haveman noted. "Without a study of this kind, that will never happen."
Which is precisely what many residents assume the Port wants all along.
This is shaping up as a real opportunity for the Port to show just how serious it is about its still-new commitment to "green growth."
STATE BLOGS
