Environmentalists see pro-development influence in firing of Coastal Commission chief
The California Coastal Commission’s decision late Wednesday to fire its executive director, Charles Lester, after closed-door deliberations sparked outrage by environmentalists.
Many of the more than 100 Lester supporters awaiting the decision broke into tears or reacted angrily.
During an emotional public meeting in Morro Bay before the 7 to 5 vote, many speakers warned that replacing Lester would send a powerful signal to commission staff to be more accommodating to development.
“It’s disgraceful that the commissioners voted in secret to fire Dr. Lester,” Steve Jones, oceans communications specialist for the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.
Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) tweeted: “Let me apologize to the public. I truly thought my appointees would be better stewards of the coast.”
Environmental group Heal the Bay issued a statement saying Lester’s firing is “representative of a larger issue about the future of California’s coastline. The vote raises the question of what the Coastal Commission’s vision is for California’s coast.”
Scores attending a California Coastal Commission meeting Wednesday in Morro Bay show there support for Executive Director Charles Lester, who commissioners voted to fire.
Among Lester’s supporters are Newport Beach-area activists who oppose development of Banning Ranch.
Newport Banning Ranch LLC is looking to build homes, retail space and a boutique hotel on part of the 401-acre property next to the Santa Ana River and across Coast Highway from the ocean. Banning Ranch is one of the largest remaining undeveloped areas in Orange County.
Lester had not publicly opposed developing Banning Ranch, but the Coastal Commission as a whole sent the project back to the developer and Lester’s staff, saying it should be scaled down and brought back for approval.
Representatives of Newport Banning Ranch and the Banning Ranch Conservancy, a group seeking to prevent development at the site, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.
Kevin Nelson, founder of the Nature Commission, a nonprofit effort to increase preservation of wildlands near urban areas, wrote a Jan. 30 commentary in the Daily Pilot in which he lamented the prospect of Lester losing his job “due to the influence of development interests over those of the environment.”
Nelson called Lester a “smart administrator with strong allegiance to the ethics of conservation” and argued that without the Coastal Commission’s environmental stewardship, Banning Ranch “would be buried beneath development” and “Crystal Cove’s small, open stretch would be covered by Newport Coast homes, right to the bluff edges.”
Lester’s dismissal took effect immediately, with Senior Deputy Director Jack Ainsworth leading the agency until the commission selects a replacement.
Commissioners Olga Diaz, Erik Howell, Wendy Mitchell, Effie Turnbull-Sanders, Mark Vargas, Martha McClure and Roberto Uranga voted to fire Lester. Voting no were commission Chairman Steve Kinsey and members Dayna Bochco, Carole Groom, Mary Shallenberger and Mary Luevano.
Several commissioners who voted against Lester were escorted out of the meeting by law enforcement without explaining their votes.
Kinsey called it a difficult decision that “revolved around leadership and not around an issue of greater flexibility for development” along the coast, which many of the hundreds of supporters of Lester had claimed in seven hours of public testimony earlier in the day.
“The challenge we face now is to rebuild trust and to illustrate through our actions that we will live up to the ideals of the Coastal Act,” Kinsey said.
Bochco said commissioners have had problems getting information from staff, had not been included in agency processes and often were left in the dark about how staff had come to conclusions related to projects.
“It is not about developers and their consultants,” Bochco said. “We have been terribly mischaracterized as developer hacks.”
No other commissioners offered explanations following the vote. After giving Lester a moment to speak, they adjourned.
In the past, some commissioners said Lester was lacking in management and leadership skills and that they had trust and communication problems with him and staff.
They said the planning and approval process is much too long and burdensome for developers.
In his remarks after the vote, Lester said: “It’s been a privilege to serve the commission for the past 4½ years. If there is a silver lining, I’ve been energized by all the people who came together on this.”
His comments drew sustained applause from the audience.
In an interview later, Lester said he heard nothing from commissioners during the hearing that went beyond organizational issues he thought they would work through to resolve.
He said he went out of his way to address concerns about the agency’s process, staff diversity and communication with commissioners.
“I don’t know, maybe they just thought I was too independent,” Lester said.
Groom and Shallenberger defended Lester and praised him for a long list of achievements, including the development of a strategic plan for the agency, efforts to address sea-level rise, increasing the budget by $3 million and good cooperation with local governments.
Lester was notified in writing Jan. 14 that the commission would consider his dismissal. The panel gave him the option of resigning or having a public hearing to determine his future. He chose the latter.