To help fight against the road, go to http://www.taskforce.sierraclub.org/friendsofthefoothills/

Coastal Conservancy Board Bows to Hearst

The Board of the California Coastal Conservancy met on September 15, 2004 in order to examine the proposal to develop a resort and mansions on the Hearst Ranch, along with a public payment of $95 million and hundreds of millions more in future tax benefits.

After several hours of testimony from staff and other interested parties on behalf of Hearst, the public was allowed to briefly address the Board.

Senator Bruce MacPherson (R-Santa Cruz) spoke first and continued the Hearst adoration. He lobbied the Conservancy to approve the deal for Hearst as a blank-check with no improvements whatsoever. MacPherson felt that the “five years” of private negotiations amongst their economic partners (Hearst Corporation, American Lands Conservancy & California Rangeland Trust) was more than sufficient.

Assemblymember Fran Pavley (D-Thousand Oaks) spoke next and recalled that she had served on the Coastal Commission in the 1990’s during the time that the Hearst Corporation had proposed resorts and golf development on the ranch. Pavley sought to clarify the contracts and called the deal a “development proposal” because it contemplates future residential and commercial development and intensification of agricultural operations. Under the circumstances, Pavley said, the prudent course of action requires increased public scrutiny due to the public spending $95 million in order to facilitate the future development. Pavley specifically criticized the fact that the so-called public beach access trail is routed on Highway #1 and specifically bypasses popular San Simeon Point.

Senator Wesley Chesbro (D-Northcoast) spoke next and said the deal was “not a simple issue” and deserves careful consideration and additional scrutiny. Chesbro said that he had asked the Senate Legislative Analyst to examine the deal and was concerned about the results of their analysis showing that the public may not be getting a fair value in the deal.

Chesbro said that the lack of an inventory of environmental resources or a plan to protect them in the future is a critical failing of the plan and makes it impossible to know if the deal is acceptable.

Chesbro said the goal of the coastal trail is to have a trail along the coast…not the highway.

Then San Luis Obispo Supervisor Shirley Bianchi addressed the Conservancy Board and spoke glowingly of Hearst and her efforts to assist them. Bianchi launched into her oft-repeated assertion that she is an environmentalist and said that the coastal access should be along the roadway in order to prevent loss of trails from future coastal erosion. Bianchi said that natural and cultural resources information should deliberately remain private and be hidden from the public in order to prevent people from looking at them and possibly degrading them. Bianchi said her “mind was blown” by the prospect of a resort of “only” 100-rooms and “only” 27-mansions. Bianchi concluded by paraphrasing and torturing a Benjamin Franklin quote that some agreement — any agreement — is better than no agreement at all. In the end, Bianchi urged that the Hearst plan be approved without the additional needed examination.

Representatives of a Hearst booster group called “Hearst Now” all praised the deal as the best conservation agreement ever concocted and asserted “widespread” public support. A long list of private property and business organizations was read into the record as proof of public support. A San Luis Obispo land negotiator downplayed the Legislative Analyst’s criticisms by saying that the “transaction values” outweighed any flaws contained within the agreements.

The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce said that the Hearst development deal was the “opportunity not just of one lifetime, but many lifetimes.”

Eventually, others were permitted to speak.

A coalition of California’s and the nation’s largest environmental organizations, representing millions of people, was given 20 minutes to address the Commission. Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Surfrider Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, CoastWalk, California Coastal Protection Network and others all spoke to the critical need to improve many aspects of the agreement. An analysis critical of the deal, prepared by the nation’s largest land Trust, The Nature Conservancy, was submitted into the record.

Susan Jordan of California Coastal Protection Network spoke regarding the many new restrictions on public coastal access that would become operative if the deal were approved. By putting the coastal trail along the Highway #1, Jordan said, Hearst and American Lands Conservancy would undermine the intent and the goal of the trail, and the end result would be drastic rollbacks of the existing, current use of the coastal lands by the public. Jordan urged the panel to seriously consider the adverse public access implications of the agreement.

Pat Veesart of the Sierra Club addressed the failure of the State to negotiate any audit or enforcement provisions for the agricultural easement. As the agreement is currently proposed, the State of California is paying for the easement, but any future enforcement or follow-up regarding the easement will have to be conducted via the nonprofit ranching organization called California Rangeland Trust (CRT). CRT will hold the easement, and if Hearst Corp. violates the easement in any way, then CRT is supposed to confront Hearst. Hearst is a billion dollar entity; CRT is a small nonprofit organization.

The role of American Lands Conservancy was less clear. It is best described as that of a broker, often called a preacquisition specialist. In other words, they negotiate the deal with Hearst, and then lobby for public funds to complete the deal, and finally they are paid handsomely from the proceeds. Within a short time following the conclusion of the deal, ALC will be gone.

Ann Notthoff spoke on behalf of Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV), and emphasized that the money to be paid Hearst is coming from public park bond initiatives, and that without careful guardianship of those monies, the public and voters will not continue to support such initiatives. Widespread public dissatisfaction with the Hearst deal will compromise conservation efforts statewide.

Linda Krop of Santa Barbara’s Environmental Defense Center (EDC) asked the Board to (1) protect existing public access and not to allow Hearst to curtail existing access, (2) require that the State, and not Hearst, develop the public access plan, (3) evaluate the feasibility of protecting historic access east of Highway #1 through San Carpoforo Valley, (4) insure that future oil, gas, and mining activities are prohibited; and (5) insure that Hearst is prevented from exporting and/or transferring water off the ranch.

After several hours more of public testimony the result was anticlimactic: The Board merely rubberstamped the Hearst proposal.

Although it is hard to calculate the exact losses associated with this plan, consider this: Hearst will receive nearly $100 million in cash and at least another $200 million in tax benefits. Hearst will also receive development entitlements for 27 mansions, 15 houses and a resort, easily in excess of $200 million in value. In addition, Hearst will retain as private property a number of the best beaches along the Ranch (including the area previously proposed for a golf course, which they now call a bull and cattle grazing zone), and be able to continue and intensify existing cattle and agricultural operations on the ranch. Hearst, thus, has retained and been granted values easily in excess of $500 million.

What, on the other hand, does the public get? And, more importantly, would any person or entity pay the same on the open market? Well, the public is paying $300 million (in cash and tax benefits) and getting….A trail along the coast and 1500-acres of rocky shoreline, no access whatsoever inland to the vast majority of the property and resource protections that are neither disclosed nor defined.

Would you pay $300 million for that? Would anyone? Of course not.

The Conservancy Board is comprised of seven members: Paul Morabito, Douglas Bosco, Jeremy Hallisey, Gary Hernandez, Donna Arduin (alternate Patrick Kemp), Mike Reilly, Mike Chrisman (alternate Karen Scarborough).

Board Chair Paul Morabito didn’t show up for the meeting, and timber industry lawyer and lobbyist Doug Bosco directed the meeting.

Board members Mike Reilly, Gary Hernandez, Doug Bosco, Patrick Kemp, Jeremy Hallisey and Karen Scarborough remained.

At the outset Conservancy staff sought to clarify the agreements by further restricting all future use of all coastal properties to “day use.” All “night use” of the lands west of Highway #1 would be prohibited. State Parks sought to provide further definition by saying that when it is pitch black the public will be prohibited. Considerable time was devoted to the definition of nighttime.

Board member Mike Reilly (who also serves as Chair of the California Coastal Commission) began the Board’s discussion by thanking Hearst and their partners for their many years of efforts to implement their plan. Reilly then cautioned project proponents that the Conservancy has an obligation to consider and discuss needed improvements to the proposal.

Then Reilly asked that the Board direct staff to work with Hearst to insure that any proposal to ever transfer water offsite from the Ranch be prohibited unless it can be shown through independent analysis that such transfers could occur without adverse impacts to wildlife or agricultural operations.

Ms. Scarborough, who represents Governor Schwarzenegger at the California Resources Agency, argued that the existing agreement already protects against “impairment” of resources, and that California Rangeland Trust is qualified to oversee future water sales off the Ranch.

Reilly explained further that a “water budget” should be prepared prior to any water transfers offsite.

Scarborough then invited Nita Vail of Rangeland Trust to the podium, where Vail explained that doing any sort of comprehensive or cumulative water analysis at the ranch is absolutely not acceptable to Hearst.

That should have alarmed Conservancy Board members. Instead, Reilly’s motion for a coherent water plan died for lack of a second.

Reilly then moved that the State be allowed to enforce the easement if and when California Rangeland Trust fails to follow through on the staggering number of commitments they are burdened with as a result of this agreement. Reilly said that, specifically, that the State needs to retain a third party enforcement interest at least until such time as the 211 existing legal paper lots on the Hearst Ranch are extinguished.

Senator Chesbro then joined in as a nonvoting Conservancy advisor, and voiced support for Reilly’s motion.

Scarborough then said that she thought the State had sufficient enforcement powers to insure the easement and resources protection promises are kept. Scarborough said she felt strongly that such enforcement powers existed. “We believe in strong enforcement,” Scarborough stated.

Conservancy Staff Counsel Glen Alex then sought to help Scarborough by telling her that no such State enforcement mechanisms exist.

After a laughable explanation that included the right of Hearst to choose several other easement “enforcers” prior to the State ever having any rights whatsoever, Scarborough tried to insist that the enforcement provisions were adequate. She just couldn’t explain them.

Hernandez then seconded Reilly’s enforcement motion.

An attorney for the Rangeland Trust then jumped up and intervened in the proceedings, urging the Conservancy Board not to consider the motion, stating that the legal lots are valueless.

That should have caused the Conservancy Board to wonder why taxpayers are paying $300 million in cash and tax benefits in order to retire the lots.

Reilly then sought to explain that since the public is paying for the lots to be retired, it is only logical that the State should retain enforcement powers until such lots and rights are retired.

Scarborough then said that she would not support the motion.

Board member Bosco then said that the purpose of the entire plan is to allow CRT to protect the ranch, and to prohibit the public and the State from being involved. It would be wrong, Bosco concluded, for the public or the State to now become involved, even if it is our money.

The Conservancy Board then voted on the motion. On the vote, Scarborough, Bosco, Hallisey, and Kemp voted for Hearst. Hernandez and Reilly voted for the public, and the public lost 2-4.

Reilly then moved that State Parks be permitted to provide recreational facilities on public properties located west of Highway #1.

Sam Schuchat, Conservancy Executive Director, then said that, unfortunately, the CalTrans easement (for which the public paid $27 million) is only a draft and involves severe restrictions on public access facilities.

Scarborough then argued that Schuchat’s explanation was proof that such facilities are allowed.

The Board then voted and the motion passed unanimously.

Reilly then said that the Conservancy exists for no higher purpose than to insure progress toward establishment of the California Coastal Trail. Reilly said that routing the Coastal Trail along Highway #1 is not sufficient and a bad precedent. The Coastal Trail should be an opportunity to visit the coast without an appointment, a reservation and an escort. “The proposal doesn’t meet the minimum requirements of our vision or our mandate,” Reilly said.

Reilly then moved that the State, through State Parks and Coastal Conservancy staff, have the right to plan and provide for the coastal trail and that the plan should not be controlled by Hearst and American Lands Conservancy.

Scarborough then launched into another long winded dialogue regarding the need to avoid interfering with or improving the deal as proposed, and ended with yet another pledge to let Hearst and ALC do whatever they want.

Senator Chesbro then said that he and many other legislators support Board Member Reilly on the need for public involvement in the public access plan.

Scarborough then worried that if Hearst didn’t like the access plan, then another Conservancy hearing might be required. “Could there be another hearing?” Scarborough called out. Scarborough then asked if she could ask Hearst if they would like another public hearing. Chairman Bosco declined Scarborough’s self-serving request.

Yet Bosco then said that, “this is a deal, a deal worked out in private between Hearst and their partners over a long period time and that the State cannot be in a position of either delaying or changing it.” Bosco then said that perhaps the Coastal Commission will improve the public access features of the plan.

“It may be more than a little disingenuous to try to put this off to another organization,” Reilly said. “The Coastal Trail issue is what the Conservancy is about. This is a litmus test. With the amount of time that Hearst has put into access restrictions at San Simeon Point, Ragged Pt. and other places, we must be careful.”

Scarborough then said that in her opinion the “trail will exist,” and that she would not support the motion.

The Board then voted on the question of whether the public would be involved in the public access plan and the vote was Scarborough, Kemp, and Bosco for Hearst and Hernandez, Hallisey, and Reilly for the public. The motion failed on a 3-3 tie.

Scarborough then praised Hearst, and the Board voted unanimously to give a blank-check to Hearst.

Mark Massara, California Coastwatcher, September 2004

Schiff-Feinstein Bill Passes House Committee

WASHINGTON DC (9/21/2004) — The House Resources Committee today approved the Schiff-Feinstein Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act. This bill, which has already passed the Senate, would evaluate the feasibility of expanding the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley — the mountains above the San Fernando, La Crescenta, Santa Clarita, Simi, and Conejo valleys, as well as the Arroyo Seco Corridor.

"I first introduced this bill in 2001, and I am pleased to see the bill moving toward the House Floor today," Congressman Schiff said. "In light of the tremendous population growth in our region over the last twenty-five years, it is vital that we study ways to expand and preserve our precious open space and parks for future generations."

Schiff introduced H.R.704 in the House, and Sen. Feinstein introduced companion legislation, S. 347, in the Senate. In October 2003, Congressman Schiff testified at a House National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands Subcommittee hearing in support of H.R. 704, as did La Cañada-Flintridge Mayor Pro-Tem Anthony J. Portantino, representing the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. The U.S. Park Service also submitted written testimony in support of the House bill. Since it already passed the Senate in April 2003, the Senate version of the bill was considered in Committee today.

Several environmental organizations also support the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act, including the Altadena Foothills Conservancy, the California Wilderness Coalition, Scenic America and the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club, as well as the cities of Glendale, La Cañada-Flintridge, Pasadena and South Pasadena. In the House of Representatives, the legislation enjoys bipartisan support from California Representatives Howard L. Berman (CA-28), David Dreier (CA-26), Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (CA-25), George Miller (CA-7), Brad Sherman (CA-27) and Hilda L. Solis (CA-32).

Designated by Congress in 1978 as the world's largest urban park, the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area spans the area from the Ventura Freeway westward to the Pacific Ocean, an area rich in rare Mediterranean ecosystems. Inclusion of the Rim of the Valley corridor would link wildlife habitat in the Santa Monica Mountains to the Angeles National Forest. Under the legislation, the Interior Department would consult with state, county and local governments, and report their recommendations to Congress within three years. A subsequent Act of Congress would then be required to designate any new addition to the U.S. Park System.

Congratulations to the Sierra Club Activists who are Being Honored by the Orange County League of Conservation Voters!

Paul Carlton, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Santa Ana Mountains Task Force
http://www.angeles.sierraclub.org/sam/

Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Friends of the Foothills Campaign
http://www.taskforce.sierraclub.org/friendsofthefoothills/

Claire Schlotterbeck, Hills for Everyone
http://www.hillsforeveryone.org/
and Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Puente-Chino Hills Task Force
http://angeles.sierraclub.org/Environmental/CampaignsChapter_Puente-ChinoHills.asp

Unsung Hero Turns 98

"Edgar Wayburn has worked to preserve the most breath-taking examples of the American landscape. In fact, over the course of more than a half-century, both as President of the Sierra Club and as a private citizen, he has saved more of our wilderness than any person alive." — President Bill Clinton upon presenting Dr. Edgar Wayburn the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1999.

Tomorrow (9/17/04) Dr. Edgar Wayburn, an environmental defender whose conservation achievements have spanned 50 years of activism, will celebrate his 98th birthday. Dr. Wayburn played a central role in the establishment of Redwood National Park and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and in the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. For his visionary achievements, he was honored with the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism in 1995 and the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1999. His book, Your Land and Mine: Evolution of a Conservationist, was published by Sierra Club Books last spring and offers an engaging portrait of an important and inspiring American life.

This Sunday, Dr. Wayburn will be honored at a Sierra Club 40th Anniversary Gala Celebration as the recipient of the first-ever Howard C. Zahniser Lifetime Achievement Award, given to someone whose life of achievement in protecting wilderness most closely parallels those of the person principally responsible for the Wilderness Act.

"I have often been asked why I devoted my life to conservation. Such a question implies a choice; yet I never felt as though I was presented with one...Simply put, however, I feel that protecting wildness is absolutely necessary. Whenever we encroach on the natural world, we crop the boundaries of our own existence as humans, cut off our fields of solace and sensation...In destroying wildness, we deny ourselves the full extent of what it means to be alive."

—Dr. Edgar Wayburn, from his book Your Land and Mine: Evolution of a Conservationist


Sierra Club Endorsements for November 2004

CITY COUNCIL
Aliso Viejo: Karl Warkomski, William "Bill" Phillips
Anaheim: Stefanie O'Neill
Costa Mesa: Katrina Foley, Mirna Burciaga
Dana Point: Lara Anderson
Fullerton: Sharon Quirk
Huntington Beach: Debbie Cook, Steve Ray
Irvine: Larry Agran, Debbie Coven, Sukhee Kang
Orange: Teresa "Tita" Smith
San Clemente: Stephanie Dorey, Michael Kaupp
MAYOR- Irvine: Beth Krom
IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT BOARD- Annie Yang-McNally
CA STATE ASSEMBLY- 69TH District: Tom Umberg (D)
US CONGRESS- 47TH District: Loretta Sanchez (D)

Environmental Resolutions Passed by Angeles ExComm (9/19/04)

Sierra Club Links
Sierra Club World Wide Web: http://www.sierraclub.org
Angeles Chapter site:http://angeles.sierraclub.org
Angeles Chapter Conservation Newsletter: http://angeles.sierraclub.org/newsletter/
Sierra Club California: http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/
Sierra Club Vote Watch Website: http://www.sierraclub.org/votewatch/
National site main page: http://www.sierraclub.org/
National Clubhouse activist resource site: http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/
Need help contacting your US representatives or finding out about legislation?
US House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov/
US Senate: http://www.senate.gov/
California State Assembly: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/
California State Senate: http://www.sen.ca.gov/
California State: http://www.ca.gov/state/portal/myca_homepage.jsp
California Legislative Information: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
California Secretary of State voter information: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections.htm
This Electronic Conservation Committee Newsletter is sent free, automatically, on email to all activists who hold any of the following positions in the Angeles Chapter or its entities: Executive Committee Member; Entity Chair or Conservation Chair, Political, and Newsletter Editor, Conservation Subcommittee or Task Force Chair. In addition, many activists throughout the Chapter and state receive it free by email, either by request or by position.  Distribution is approximately 350 by email, and 45 by postal hard copy. If you no longer hold the Club office with the automatic pull and wish to continue to receive it, email ivesico@earthlink.net. If we do not have your email address - please let us know. If you wish (and tell us), it will be tagged "private" and not printed or given out. The Newsletter (without upcoming resolutions) is available on the Chapter website at http://angeles.sierraclub.org/home.html Paper postal copy is available ($20/year payable Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club) for those who are technically challenged or simply don't want to be bothered. To receive The Newsletter by first class mail, send a donation of $20 to (almost) cover printing/mailing costs to Conservation Newsletter, 112 Harvard Ave PMB 297, Claremont CA 91711
National's GoldBook provides information to chapters and groups on the differences between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) funds; how to utilize and access charitable 501(c)(3) funds; how to get a project approved; fundraising plus much, much, more material on the Sierra Club. It is now available at the Clubhouse website. Go to  http://www.clubhouse.sierraclub.org/; follow the instructions for obtaining the password. The GoldBook can be found by clicking on A - Z List of Materials box, then on "G" under A-Z List of Documents, then on GoldBook, Educational Project Guidelines.
The California/Nevada Directory (RedBook) is now available online. It also includes the Handbook of Sierra Club California Bylaws and Standing Rules (GreenBook). Contact Lori Ives for the online address and password. Send your membership number, your position in the Club, and your reason for needing the information. The paper edition ($20) is available on special order. Contact Lori for information.
E-Mail Lists: There are four important discussion lists for Angeles environmental activists:
Angeles Chapter Cons Listserve mailto:<angeles-conservation@lists.sierraclub.org>and
Angeles-Alerts Listserve angeles-alerts@lists.sierraclub.org
California/Nevada Listserve calif-activists@lists.sierraclub.org (moderated list for announcements)
California/Nevada Listserve calif-activists-forum@lists.sierraclub.org (unmoderated discussion list)
Subscribe to California Activists: calif-activists-request@lists.sierraclub.org
Subscribe to California Activists Forum: mailto:calif-activists-request@lists.sierraclub.org
For either list, send your name, email address, Sierra Club membership number, your position in Club (how are you active?)
Subscription is processed by one of the list owners, usually the same day.
Subscribe to Angeles-Alerts: email mailto:listsserve@lists.sierraclub.org with the message "subscribe angeles-conservation"
or "subscribe calif-activists"  or "subscribe angeles-alerts" Note: it's "listserv," not "listserve."
To leave a list, send an e-mail to mailto:to<listserv@lists.sierraclub.orgIn the text of your message (not the subject line), write: "signoff calif-activists" or "signoff angeles-conservation" or "signoff angeles-alerts"
The Angeles Chapter's website is http://www.angeles.sierraclub.org/

Angeles Chapter Conservation Management Committee
Angeles Chapter Grants Committee
Gordon LaBedz/Chair 562-494-6368; Bonnie Sharpe/Vice Chair/Grants Chair,
Jay Matchett/Treasurer, Al Sattler/Secretary, Robin Ives/Newsletter
Judy Anderson, John Ulloth, Roy van de Hoek, Rudy Vietmeier
Lori Ives, Publisher/Webmaster/Circulation (non-voting)
Johanna Zetterberg and Rachel Myers/Conservation Coordinators (non-voting)

Motions should be submitted in advance, together with objective background material and supporting and opposing arguments, both to the Committee Chair and Newsletter Editor, for distribution with the agenda. Other motions will be postponed for action at a later meeting unless the motion is submitted in writing and unless the Committee votes an exception to ordinary procedure. Motions needing further action by the Angeles Chapter ExComm or some higher level of the Sierra Club should start out: "The Angeles Chapter Conservation Committee recommends that the Sierra Club... To find out more about voting requirements and representatives, consult the Angeles Chapter website Conservation Committee

Angeles Chapter Conservation Committee
3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 320, Los Angeles CA 90010-1904

AGENDA — Wednesday, October 20

7:30 pm (sharp) Introductions/Approval of the Agenda

7:35 Regional Conservation Committee Report-Robin Ives
7:40 San Gabriel River Campaign Resolution
8:00 Chapter Conservation Priority Discussion