SP digging into the growing
controversy over Malibu sand project
December 16, 2015
By Peggy Kelly
Santa Paula News
Santa Paula is digging into the growing controversy over a Malibu sand replenishment project that would bring hundreds of trucks daily from Grimes Canyon through Fillmore, Santa Paula and Oxnard.
The first phase of the project involves an estimated 43,000 one-way truck trips hauling up to 300,000 cubic yards of sand over three or four months to eroded Broad Beach, whose wealthy residents will bear the $31 million cost through their property taxes.
The project overseen by the Broad Beach Geological Hazard Abatement District has been permitted for 10 years with the option of possible extensions. It had been in the works for about five years — about two years ago there were discussions about transferring sand from the Ventura Harbor area — before garnering support from a split California Coastal Commission in October.
The project, which possibly would be perpetual, still must pass muster with several state agencies.
The Santa Paula City Council heard comments about the project at the December 7 meeting from Sheryl Hamlin who noted the impacts of truck traffic would be “terrible” for Santa Paula.
Determining project success she said is “visual” and “when the ocean takes the sand away they are prepared to pay more money,” to replenish Broad Beach.
Reading the transcripts of the hearings added Hamlin, “Reminded me of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,” as the sand in Grimes Canyon was painstakingly compared to Broad Beach’s.
City Manager Jaime Fontes said staff has been working on the issue “The last couple of months…we have a good relationship,” with Fillmore, whose portion of Highway 126 passes through their city.
The council, he added “is well aware” and the issue would be discussed at a future meeting.
The Ventura County Board of Supervisors ripped into the plan at their December 8 meeting when Supervisor John Zaragoza raised the issue during board comments.
Moorpark was in for blame for allegedly approving the agreement for the replenishment project that would send the truck traffic in the opposite direction and avoid Highway 118 that travels through that city.
Moorpark representatives reportedly claim that they were told the Broad Beach GHAD was responsible for such notifications to the other cities and the county.
At the board meeting Zaragoza said the project should not be done “at our expense” with hundreds of daily truck trips traveling through areas with high pedestrian traffic, especially children.
He also noted that an EIR should be prepared to study the impacts of pollution, noise and road impacts.
Such a plan said Zaragoza “is extreme and a total disregard for our community…”
“I’ve personally been involved with this a long time,” said Supervisor Peter Foy who blasted the Coastal Commission “that, in a sense, said we don’t care what happens in your community…”
County mine owners told Foy they don’t want to jeopardize their relationships with the cities, “and now Fillmore, Santa Paula are going crazy, it’s going to cause nothing but problems with 47,000 trucks in less than one year, twice that,” counting empty trucks returning to Grimes Canyon to fill up.
Foy said when he spoke to County Planning Director Kim Prillhart he was told “We don’t have a lot of oversight with the mines…”
Supervisor Kathy Long, the board chair whose district includes Santa Paula and Fillmore, said Prillhart and Chris Stephens, director of the county Resource Management Agency, are already examining “what strategy, what approach we have…”
Her own discussion with the a Coastal Commissioner revealed how the sand gets to Broad Beach and how is not part of their “purview...
“Fillmore is very concerned by this as they should be and I’ll be right there standing with them,” to resolve the issue.
“It’s unconscionable that we have not had good neighbors who have felt it was acceptable to take an action that pushed this out to other parts of the county without discussion and any dialogue whatsoever,” and she noted, “My office never received any requests for meetings or discussions,” of the plan.
Before late 2016, when construction is projected to start, the Army Corps of Engineers, State Lands Commission and the Regional Water Quality Control Board among others must approve the plan.
