Poseidon debate goes on

All eyes seem to be on City Councilman Don Hansen as the

controversial Poseidon project heads toward round two at City Hall.

One of the four yes votes that approved the desalination plant’s

environmental report, Hansen has been the target of anti-Poseidon

groups angry over the council’s Sept. 6 decision.

In e-mail forums and online discussion groups, Hansen has been

crowned the swing vote for the next public hearing.

“He’s put himself in a very precarious position,” land activist Ed

Kerins said. “In one instance, if he approves the project, many will

say he has shown his true colors. If he goes against Poseidon, he

will be a shining rose.”

It was Hansen who instructed the council to approve the

environmental report on the project but delay a vote issuing permits

until Poseidon had a chance to spell out its benefits. The

$250-million desalination plant is said to be capable of converting

seawater into 50 million gallons of drinking water per day.

The environmental report debate is merely a distraction, Hansen

said, and the council must now “go all in” and finally side with

either the supporters or the detractors of the project.

“It’s pretty obvious that’s what the community wants from us,”

said Hansen. He said he has not made his mind up on the project.

Unlike the environmental report phase, which merely asks the

council to determine whether Poseidon has disclosed all the possible

detrimental effects of the project, the upcoming permitting process

will rule on the project itself.

“They have full jurisdiction to certify the environmental impact

report and deny the conditional-use permit,” said Scott Hess of the

planning department.

In 2000, the council took a similar approach on a housing project

near City Hall. A majority of the council members voted to certify an

environmental impact report on a residential development on the old

Northam property, only to later deny permits for the homes.

The council members must now determine whether Poseidon is a good

fit. According to city law, the council can reject the project on one

of four criteria: the project is not consistent with the city’s

general plan; the project isn’t zoned properly for the site; the

project isn’t compatible with surrounding areas; or the project is

ruled detrimental to the health and welfare of its neighbors.

The first two criteria don’t apply because the city’s general plan

calls for an industrial use on the site and the land is zoned for use

by a utility. The council could, however, rule that Poseidon will

have a detrimental effect on residents living near the site due to

construction, noise or a pipeline planned to connect with regional

distribution system. The council could also rule that the project

will lower property values.

Hansen said it was not appropriate to deal with these concerns

during the environmental report phase, but opponents of the project

argue that Hansen and others missed a chance to kill the project.

“We’re terribly disappointed,” said David Guido of Huntington

Beach Tomorrow, a local land-use group. “They had the perfect

opportunity for this thing to be put to bed before it went any

further.”

Hansen disagreed, arguing that Poseidon would have simply further

revised the report and resubmitted it.

“You must concede that at some point the report is going to become

adequate,” he said.

Councilman Dave Sullivan said the city has not reached that point,

adding that he was concerned that the report does not address the

possible dewatering effects the construction of the pipeline might

have on coastal areas.

He said he voted against certifying the environmental report

because he was concerned that the pipeline might also destabilize the

Ascon toxic waste dump.

“Until my dewatering questions are addressed, I will continue to

have grave concerns about this project,” he said.

Sullivan suggested that a compromise pleasing both sides seems

unlikely, but Hansen said the possibility for a deal exists.

“It depends at what point the applicant will start delivering

things that will ease some fears,” he said. “I’m sure that’s how the

guys at Poseidon are busy spinning their wheels.”

In the meantime, opponents of the project are busy contemplating

how to stop Poseidon. Just as in the environmental report phase, when

opponents worked to provide council members with reasons to reject

the plan, organizers must now begin compiling reasons that a

desalination facility is not a good fit for the community, Guido

said.

“We lost the first round, but we plan to keep the fight going,” he

said.

Guido added that he believes the environmental report is the

easiest step in the process, followed by the permitting process and

then a more difficult review by the Coastal Commission. Staff members

from that agency have been highly critical of the desalination plant.

Ultimately, Poseidon could be decided by a judge, said

Councilwoman Debbie Cook, who voted against certifying the

environmental report.

“The city invites two lawsuits by doing this the way it looks like

they will do it,” she wrote in an e-mail. “They will be sued on the

EIR [environmental report] -- there is just too much interest

statewide in this. If the environmental groups don’t sue, they run

the risk of another entity utilizing the approved EIR or Poseidon

winning a lawsuit on the CUP [conditional-use permit] side. Poseidon

will probably sue if their project is denied.”

The city has the right to substantiate findings against the

project, but Cook said, “I have my doubts as to whether this council

has the stomach for a protracted legal fight. Past behavior is the

best indicator of future behavior.”