With Venoco Energy recently gathering enough citizen signatures in support of the Paredon slant-drilling initiative to bypass Carpinteria’s traditional review process, the City Council called an emergency meeting on the subject this week. At the meeting, councilmembers and concerned citizens alike heard a city staff analysis of the proposal that examined the project’s potential financial and environmental impacts.
The staff report found the initiative unsatisfactory and unclear on dozens of points, including many that could result in litigation should voters approve it. And while the pronouncement of these faults was greeted with audible approval from attendees, the report was criticized by Steve Greig-Venoco government relations liaison and the only person at Monday’s meeting to speak in favor of the project.
Greig called the staff report partial and claimed that many of the faults it found echoed concerns that City Attorney Peter Brown had voiced in his legal challenge to the initiative. (Brown’s suit-made on grounds that the proposal was unconstitutional and legally defective-was rejected by the County Superior Court in July, and he has since appealed.)
Among the extensive list of problems Brown and his team found with the proposal were many that could ultimately cost Carpinteria legal fees, such as legal tussles related to zoning discrepancies, permit technicalities, and the lack of the California Coastal Commission’s review of the Paredon Initiative. The city’s challenge of the initiative alone has cost around $260,000. Furthermore, staff found that the project violates the Carpinteria General Plan and attempts to circumvent General Plan guidelines either by “amending some but not all of the mandatory policies, thereby creating internally conflicting policies,” or by simply exempting the project from the policies. (Examples of the violations include allowing 140- to 175-foot oil rigs, which would illegally obstruct views from the bluffs, and also disturbing harbor seals, despite regulations to protect them, with noise from working rigs.) A point of concern that drew especially strong reaction from attendees was a proposal to allow future developments and modifications without the consent of the city, whose issuance of coastal development permits would be rendered only ministerial.
In responding to the report, Greig cited a perceived anti-Venoco bias. He explained that the document omitted the project’s positive aspects and ultimately did not serve the voters’ interests. “Would this help you make an informed decision?” he asked rhetorically. Greig also claimed that the report’s assertion that the Paredon Initiative would have a 30-year lifespan was incorrect; he said the proposal is for 20 years, with the additional 10 included only if Carpinteria opts for them. He also claimed the report’s assertion of a 10- to 15-percent drop in the value of real estate near the project site-between City Hall, the Arbol Verde neighborhood, the Pacific Ocean, and the Carpinteria Bluffs-was not necessarily correct and that the money flowing back to the city, which Venoco predicts to be between $15 million and $108 million, could ultimately raise property values.
Former Carpinteria mayor Donna Jordan, however, called the Paredon Initiative “fatally flawed” and cautioned the city against allowing itself to become subservient to a corporation. “After reviewing this report, I cannot imagine how anyone who loves the city could support the Paredon project,” she said. Indeed, the councilmembers themselves seemed wary, with Al Clark and Kathleen Reddington aggressively questioning Greig, and Brad Stein and Mayor Greg Carty saying little in favor. And Councilmember Joe Armendariz-who in August cast the sole vote against Brown’s appeal-seemed troubled by the prospect of litigation and resulting financial burdens to Carpinteria residents.
In addition to discussing whether the ballot measure might appear on the June primary ballot, councilmembers at the December 14 meeting will also mull over the possibility of taking an official stance for or against the Paredon Initiative.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
why is our country beholden to corporations? Don't let it happen to you Carpinteria. Money "flowing back to the city?" Yeah, right. 15-108 million is a huge difference which means Venoco will have to make billions if not trillions to not care about some millions seeping into the community. It is all about profit for these guys. They 'prey' at the altar of capitalism (capitalize on the natural resources in this case). Let the city get half of the profits if Venoco wants to drill... They won't even give you a penny on the dollar otherwise.
spacey (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If activists would work as hard to drag ordinary people out of their cars and onto mass transit as they do to categorically oppose anything that says "oil", who knows? They might actually accomplish some good for the environment.
CharlesB (anonymous profile)
December 5, 2009 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CharlesB, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern a difference between this particular project and "anything that says oil."
I'm so tired of hearing people who are for this project talk about how great this is for local business or that we would be more independent with our oil.
If you look at the damage this project has the potential to do to the community as well as the home prices in the area, you can clearly see it's not worth it. It's a trade-down rather than something "good" for Carpinteria.
Most of California's oil comes from Alaska anyway, which is something people don't often realize.
Regardless, being opposed to this particular project doesn't make one categorically opposed to any oil project. THIS one just happens to be wrong, potentially environmentally unsound possibly dangerous and damaging to home owners' investments in the entire city of Carpinteria.
Native1 (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2009 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Native1:
1/4 of California's oil comes from within. The remaining 75% is split evenly between Alaska and Canada/Mexico. 75% is "imported" into the state.
Also you should know that California alone uses more gasoline than any country in the world (except the US as a whole, of course). That means California's 20 billion gallon gasoline and diesel habit is greater than China's! (Or Russia's. Or India's. Or Brazil's. Or Germany's.)
The people of California speak: We want MORE oil!
I'll bet you are not part of this problem! Have you ever used oil, gas or plastic? If so you are a hypocrite. Stop buying the evil stuff, already
Right On CharlesB: Anybody can sit around and say no. It takes a lot of work and conviction to make something happen. Greenies: show me how to get to work in the morning (without relocating), how to keep large office buildings warm/cool, how to fuel an airplane (so I can go skiing!). Get off your butts and make something happen - you might even make a profit (OMG!) and get rich (double OMG!!)
osotoh (anonymous profile)
December 7, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I support the PXP proposal partly because I do use petroleum products and recognize that we need some drilling, but this project is an abomination ( NOT Obama Nation). If the citizens of Carpinteria vote in favor of this, something I sincerely doubt will happen, they will have a very long time to regret it.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
December 7, 2009 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All you hypocrite NIMBY* whiners need to start walking or riding bicycles and have your residences disconnected from the grid. And don't buy any products that are tainted by having been made from, or packaged in, or were transported by hydrocarbon burning means.
* NIMBY - not in my back yard
GSBruce (anonymous profile)
December 8, 2009 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)