Every spring the SF Bay Chapter working with the regional wilderness committee does a service trip to the Old Woman Mts, Turtle Mts or Whipple Mts, some of the new wildernesses managed by the BLM's Needles office. The BLM decides what project they most need help on, and we provide the bodies; this last spring we did it jointly with the San Gorgonio Chapter's Mojave Group, (which also leads other service trips) and we hope to repeat the process next spring. Stay tuned.

But today, CELEBRATE 10 years.

Legal Victory for Water Supply Litigation

The California 5th District Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the Friends of Santa Clara River and the Sierra Club. They had charged that the Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) had approved an inadequate urban water management plan for the Santa Clarita Valley region.

The lawsuit was the first successful challenge in California of an urban water management plan, and the first legal decision that linked water quality and quantity.

According to Lynne Plambeck, one of the original litigants, California Law required the Castaic Lake Water Agency to make an assessment of its available supply of water over the next 20 years. The Agency included groundwater sources that were contaminated by the industrial chemical perchlorate. In addition, the Agency relied on its full water entitlement of water from northern California. These entitlements have been cut back severely in years of drought.

Lynne Plambeck, president of the Newhall County Water District, said that "Water supply in general is being overstated to support new development that is unsustainable. The lawsuit will discourage inaccurate water supply reporting and that in turn will discourage unsustainable development. Planners can't make good planning decisions if they don't have accurate information."

Johanna Zetterberg, conservation program coordinator for the Sierra Club's Angeles Chapter, said that the decision has special importance because the entire state will be preparing urban water management plans next year. "It is critical that these plans are accurate and honest assessments of available water," Zetterberg said. "They must not put our communities at risk by relying on contaminated or unproven supplies for housing approvals."

To download the report, please visit: http://www.sierraclub.org/trade.california. "The report makes it clear that international trade deals significantly challenge the authority of the California state government to protect the environment and health of its communities," said Margrete Strand, Senior Representative for the Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program. "In the effort to promote global commerce, provisions of trade agreements have gone too far and target domestic and state environmental laws as potential ‘barriers to trade’."

• The Sierra Club’s report details how trade deals significantly challenge states to set regulatory guidelines to protect the environment. Specifically, the report discusses:
• How the WTO has been used by foreign governments to challenge environmental laws;
• How the proposed WTO services agreement (the General Agreement on Trade in Services, or GATS) could limit state governments’ ability to regulate service sectors - like waste-water services, energy, waste disposal, and pollution control - when a foreign provider is involved; and how NAFTA has given global industries the power to directly challenge public interest laws that might interfere with profits.

The report also uncovers several disturbing examples of how the Bush administration-supported trade agreements have negatively affected California’s environment and communities. Among them is the story of a Canadian gold-mining company using the investment provisions of NAFTA to challenge a California law which protects the environment of sacred Native American land by requiring mining companies to return mining sites to their original condition when their operation is completed. The company contends that under NAFTA, California cannot impose regulations which it believed may hinder its ability to profit from planned mining operations.

"Again and again the Bush administration has promoted a flawed trade model that sacrifices the health of our families and communities in order to increase corporate profits," continued Strand. "New trade deals should strengthen, not weaken, environmental safeguards, workers’ rights, and democratic values."

Along the solutions outlined in the report is the promotion of a balanced and fair trade policy that supports, rather than undermines, environmental protections. It encourages citizens and state-level public officials to speak out for trade policies that protect their ability to adopt leadership standards to protect air, water, and land resources.

Angeles Chapter Election Results
Howard Strauss, Sierra Club California Political Chair

Here is how the candidates endorsed by the Angeles Chapter fared in the election.

Los Angeles Political Committee Endorsements

All of the candidates in LA County endorsed by the Chapter Political Committee were victorious except for Michael Feinstein in the race for the Santa Monica City Council. In that race, our other two endorsed candidates, Richard Bloom and Ken Genser, were elected. Bobby Shriver finished first

Two wins that were especially significant were Mike Gordon and Betty Karnette in the State Assembly. The Republican Party put a substantial amount of money into both of these races and the Governor supported their opponents.

All in all, a very impressive showing in LA County.

US House of Representatives: CD 26 Jane Harman; CD 27 Brad Sherman; CD 28 Howard Berman; CD 29 Adam Schiff;
CD 30 Henry Waxman; CD 31 Xavier Becerra; CD 32 Hilda Solis; CD 33 Diane Watson; CD 34 Lucille Roybal-Allard;
CD 35 Maxine Waters; CD 37 Juanita Millender-McDonald; CD 38 Grace Napolitano; CD 39 Linda Sanchez
State Assembly: AD 39 Cindy Montanez; AD 40 Lloyd Levine; AD 41 Fran Pavley; AD 42 Paul Koretz;
AD 43 Dario Frommer; AD 44 Carol Liu; AD 45 Jackie Goldberg; AD 47 Karen Bass; AD 48 Mark Ridley-Thomas;
AD 49 Judy Chu; AD 50 Hector De La Torre; AD 52 Mervyn Dymally; AD 53 Mike Gordon; AD 54 Betty Karnette;
AD 55 Jenny Oropeza; AD 59 Dan Harden

State Senate: SD 21 Jack Scott; SD 23 Sheila Kuehl; SD 27 Alan Lowenthal

LA Superior Court Judge: Gus Gomez; Zeke Zeidler; Mildred Escobedo
LA Initiative: Proposition O (Water Bond) SUPPORT
City of Santa Monica Mayor Richard Bloom
Council: Michael Feinstein; Ken Genser

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In Orange County the results were supplied by Orange County Political Chair Alex Mintzer.

With the Orange County Registrar of Voters reporting 100% of precincts, how did our Club-endorsed local candidates fare?
13 Won (W), 6 Lost (L) (68%)
US Congress: Loretta Sanchez (W)
CA Assembly: Tom Umberg (W)
Irvine Ranch Water District: Annie Yang-McNally (L)

Municipal races: 11 Won, 5 (L) (69%)
Aliso Viejo: Bill Phillips (W), Karl Warkomski (W)
Anaheim: Stefanie ONeill (L)
Costa Mesa: Katrina Foley (W), Mirna Burciaga (L)
Dana Point: Lara Anderson (W)
Fullerton: Sharon Quirk (W)
Huntington Beach: Debbie Cook (W), Steve Ray (L)
Irvine Mayor: Beth Krom (W); Irvine Council: Agran (W), Kang (W), Coven (L)
Orange: Tita Smith (W — by 62 votes)
San Clemente: Michael Kaupp (L); Stephanie Dorey (W)

Coastal Commission Rejects Proposal
to Develop Bolsa Chica Wetlands’ Upper Mesa

The California Coastal Commission met in San Diego, October 13-15, 2004. On Wednesday, October 13, the Coastal Commission began another marathon session to review yet another proposal by Hearthside Homes (http://www.hearthsidehomesca.com/) to develop a subdivision adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands in Huntington Beach, Orange County.

This time Hearthside sought to build on 105.3 acres of upland habitat above the Bolsa Chica wetlands.

The most recent project proposal included 379 houses in a private gated, guarded community on 77.3 acres, along with at least five man-made polluted water runoff “treatment” wetlands, a 2.5 acre private gym facility, a 1.3 acre detention pollution pond, and a 2.5 million gallon underground water reservoir.

Also included was a 28 acre “public park” which was not actually a park at all, but instead was to serve as habitat for a 5 acre eucalyptus grove that is home to nesting and roosting red-tailed hawks, white-tailed kites, great horned owls and other birds and raptors. The public would access the park via foot or bicycle, as cars of non-owners would be prohibited.

Yet that was not all. The “park” was also to serve as a wastewater facility, a parking lot, and a fire buffer zone for adjacent homes. The “park” would include a street extension and numerous public trails. Whether by design or ignorance, it was clear in the end that the birds would be forced to vacate.

As Coastal Staff noted in their analysis (the staff report is online at www.coastal.ca.gov/lb/W12g-10-2004.pdf), the project as proposed would cause a raft of massive, devastating, irreversible adverse impacts on coastal resources and wildlife.

Among other things, the project proposed severely inadequate 100 ft buffers between the new houses and the eucalyptus grove where raptors and owls nest, roost and perch. Commonly accepted science and literature regarding raptor buffers clearly show that at least 300 ft buffers are necessary. Many scientists argue that at least 500 ft buffers are necessary, buffers free of all the infrastructure and development proposed by Hearthside for the Bolsa Chica “park.”

Worse, because the buffer for the Hearthside project was only to be 100 ft, the entire environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) adjacent to the eucalyptus trees would have to be mowed and cleared for fire protection and planted and irrigated with new fire resistant landscaping. In other words, the puny “buffer” and the work to be done within it was a death sentence for the birds.

Worse, other unacceptable uses proposed for the ESHA and natural buffer areas included a man-made water pollution dump and various ponds, a street extension, paved paths and a parking lot.

According to the Coastal Act, ESHA resources and wildlife must be protected, along with adjacent areas necessary for the future survival of the animals and resources.

In addition, the project proposed to grade a 2 acre, 30 ft high mini-mountain into and across sensitive habitat in order to expand residential uses out toward the Bolsa Chica wetlands below. The grading served no other purpose but to extend residential development out over the wetlands and, as such, violated the Coastal Act’s prohibitions against massive coastal landform alteration.

Further, the project sought to eliminate critical habitat for rare and legally protected Burrowing Owl habitat (Burrowing Owls are a Species of Special Concern under California law). The owl habitat was to be eliminated to create a street runoff pollution pond, again representing an offer for massive destruction of wildlife habitat merely to make an extra buck on additional residential development.

Further, the project proposed to eliminate a rare and legally protected colony of Southern Tarplant. The Tarplant community is to be eliminated to make way for a private gym facility. Fortunately, private gyms are neither protected nor prioritized under the Coastal Act, nor are they considered rare or endangered.

The project proposed to eliminate and pave over 75 acres of raptor foraging habitat with no mitigation or adjacent habitat protection whatsoever, insuring that those few birds who survive the impossibly inadequate buffers to their nests will have no grasslands to hunt on and would, inevitably, leave or die.

In all, the project did a splendid job of insuring the survival of a new residential subdivision, but included nothing designed to insure the survival of wildlife or coastal resources.

Commission Geologist Mark Johnson addressed the massive grading proposed, and showed the Commission that the natural landform would be dramatically altered in order to extend the slope to allow the bluff to accommodate more houses. Johnson also informed the Commission that a giant earthquake fault (Newport-Inglewood Fault) runs directly adjacent to the proposed subdivision and was responsible for a large 6.2 earthquake in Long Beach in the 1930s. Today, however, the slopes are stable and liquefaction during a quake is most likely to occur in the wetlands/lowlands portion of the property and not (hopefully) underneath the houses. The houses, Johnson said, would shake very severely during future, inevitable quakes.

Commission Biologist John Dixon told Commission members that three major wetlands and four terrestrial landform ESHAs exist on the property. Among the permanent and seasonal wetlands, the Southern Tarplant colonies, the eucalyptus groves and wildlife resources Dixon addressed the various environmental values associated with the property. Dixon told the Commission of the rapid decline of raptors throughout Southern California, and of their common presence and last ditch stand for survival at Bolsa Chica. While the developer had spent much time and effort aimed at diminishing the importance of rare Burrowing Owls at Bolsa Chica, Dixon strongly advised that the owl’s presence required the Commission to treat the property as “occupied” by owls. Only 12 pairs of Burrowing Owls are thought to exist in Southern California.

Dixon also spoke of the importance of the rare Southern Tarplant, and referenced that the Commission has, in the past, treated Southern Tarplant colonies as ESHA. Dixon included only the most significant clusters to be ESHA; any smaller colonies onsite he would allow to be paved over for houses.

Dixon also told the Commission that the appropriate minimum buffers for the raptors living in the eucalyptus grove is 100 meters, or over 300 ft. The 100 ft buffers proposed by the developer, Dixon said, would not be successful. Some raptor experts, Dixon said, argue that buffers of at least 200 meters in size are required.

Dixon then addressed the applicant’s proposal to utilize buffer and ESHA areas for infrastructure, trails, roads, houses, pollution ponds and a parking lot, and said those are inappropriate uses of habitat areas.

In the end, Coastal Staff were able to identify such overwhelming defects, with such severe impacts, that staff recommendations to improve the project or make it acceptable or consistent with the Coastal Act were not possible. Instead, staff sought to outline several types of alternative approaches to redesigning the project that would bring it into conformity with the act, and suggested that the Commission provide specific direction to the developer and allow the matter to be continued.

The developer, during its presentation, argued that the Commission should just approve the project as proposed and allow destruction of the habitat and resources onsite. The developer argued that it had been trying to trying to develop these wetlands for 30 years, and had in the past proposed such admittedly awful projects as a 5700 house subdivision and an 1800 slip marina. Compared to those horrendous proposals, the current “Brightwater” subdivision was an environmental dream. Numerous other Chamber of Commerce type advocates pounded chestnuts and utilized old canards by accusing the Commission of “holding the developer hostage” and “putting the needs of rats above humans.”

One wrinkle that quickly became apparent was the recent sale of the lower mesa (or bench) of the property for $65 million dollars to the State of California. The developer sought to take advantage of the sale of the lower bench, and use that property to mitigate for some or all of the environmental damage associated with the latest proposal on build on the upper mesa. The central point, though, is that the developer doesn’t own the lower bench any longer and cannot use the public’s property for mitigation of its own adverse environmental impacts. The fact that the developer even tried to collect $65 million taxpayer dollars and then use the same property to allow for additional development on the upper mesa was clearly a form of environmental mitigation “double-dipping” and offensive to many in the audience.

Hearthside Homes reiterated it had struggled for over 30 years to develop the Bolsa Chica wetlands, including placing houses on 1200 acres that lay underwater and property that now is in public ownership. Over the last ten years, the State has paid Hearthside some $100 million dollars to not develop on the sensitive lands. Hearthside called it’s last 105 acres the “remaining corner” of the property.

Hearthside representatives said they tried hard to comply with the Coastal Act, and tried not to fight with coastal staff in their effort to destroy environmental resources. Hearthside said that instead of developing over 1,000 houses, they had decided to build less than 400 houses.

Hearthside said it had compiled an “extraordinary” group of biologists to help develop the property. Hearthside said that they had convinced California Department Fish & Game that the development would be great. Governor Schwarzenegger’s Resources Agency representative Karen Scarborough, personally attended the meeting in order to confirm that DFG supported the project.

Hearthside then said that a 100 meter buffer was not justified, and that the proposed 100 ft buffer was more than sufficient. At least three more times they said that DFG had “approved” the plan, raising again the specter of how malleable DFG has become over the years. Unlike the Coastal Commission, DFG is an agency that is entirely controlled by the Governor’s office, and has often been subject to political influence that has undermined it’s ability to adequately protect wildlife in California.

Following the developer came representatives of Bolsa Chica Land Trust, an organization that has been working for many years to protect all the sensitive resources at Bolsa Chica. Many Land Trust members attended the meeting to support Coastal staff and they called for protection for all of Bolsa Chica. For more information on BCLT, go to http://www.bolsachicalandtrust.org/

Starting the discussion for BCLT was Shirley Dettloff, a founding member of another Bolsa Chica conservation organization, Amigos de Bolsa Chica (http://www.amigosdebolsachica.org/). Dettloff also served many years as a member of the Coastal Commission and also was Mayor of Huntington Beach. Dettloff spoke of the many years of efforts to purchase, protect and prevent loss of Bolsa Chica wetlands and the adjacent mesas.

“We recognize that development can and will take place,” Dettloff said. “Today we are asking that you listen carefully to your staff.”

Evan Henry, past President of Bolsa Chica Land Trust spoke next and stressed that as a stand-alone coastal development project, the current proposal to develop Bolsa Chica did not meet the plain requirements of the Coastal Act.

Others testified that the project needed real, genuine environmental buffers uncompromised by human infrastructure and improvements, roads and parking lots.

Others asked that public access to the bluff-top park and lower mesa would be much more authentic if the project wasn’t a gated community with no public parking.

“We ask for appropriate use, not misuse, of buffers,” said BCLT Board member Sandra Genis.

Other environmental organizations including Surfrider Foundation, League for Coastal Protection, Wetlands Action Network, Amigos de Bolsa Chica and the Sierra Club also supported protection of Bolsa Chica and urged the Commission support their staff.

In rebuttal the developer argued that in 2002 a 100 ft buffer was okay, and that the smaller buffers should suffice today. They said that today derelict visitors are trashing the wetlands and ESHA areas and that in the future, when the luxury houses are built, the property will be treated better. Again the developer stated that DFG supports the project with its small buffers, and the Commission should as well.

Dr. Dixon then addressed the Commission again, and defended his analysis that buffers need to be enlarged. Buffers should be managed to protect habitat, not to manage development, Dixon said. The ESHA needs protection not as a short-term way to facilitate development, but in perpetuity, as a way of insuring the future of the species and the habitat, Dixon concluded.

Staff concluded by saying that the issue is not the number of units, but where they lay on the ground. Without significant redesign and revisions, staff finished, the project as proposed is not consistent with the Coastal Act and should not be approved by the Commission.

After many hours of public testimony, the Commission initiated its discussions at 5:30 pm.

Commissioner Sara Wan began the discussion by thanking staff for their exhaustive analysis. Wan said that the site is not just a jewel for the State of California but a national and international resource given that it includes an entire ecosystem and not just wetlands. Wetlands cannot function properly without upland habitat, raptors and other animals, birds and wildlife. “It is critically important to protect it all,” Wan said. That is the reason why for over 30 years scientists have said that a 100 meter buffer is necessary. “The present proposal is not consistent with the Commission’s past work at Bolsa Chica,” Wan said. Using the buffers for all kinds of things — trails, roads, parking, ponds etc. — is effectively eliminating the notion of a buffer in the first place. “The problem is the development envelope, not the number of units proposed,” Wan concluded.

Commissioner Dave Potter then made a motion to approve the project as proposed by the developer. Potter said that the relative lack of raptors fails to necessitate additional protection, and that the Southern Tarplant isn’t critically important, that public access is sufficient, and that the desire of the developer to extend the bluff face to accommodate additional development was appropriate given past degradation of the property by the developer and others. Potter concluded by saying that he felt the Commission could and should find a way to approve the project.

Commissioner Bonnie Neely joined Potter, saying that as since the County of Orange approved the project the Commission should end the long history of the project by supporting local government and also approving it.

Commissioner Meg Caldwell then spoke and read from a memo prepared by Commissioner Patrick Kruer before Kruer had to leave the meeting. Kruer noted that the project could be dramatically improved by simply moving the project elements around to protect the environmental resources, without compromising value, profits or economic return to the developer.

Commissioner Trent Orr (Alternate for Pedro Nava) said he had very serious problems with the project, and that simply wanting to end the long history of the project is not a valid excuse for approving a defective project. Orr reiterated that in his mind there is a project that can be achieved at Bolsa Chica, but it shouldn’t happen by bending the Coastal Act.

Commissioner Annette Rose (Alternate for Mike Reilly) said that she does not support gated communities, and that gates represent a threat to public and openly accessible coastal communities everywhere. In the past, Rose stated, she has often advocated against gated developments, and in her opinion they make people less safe, not more so. Rose said that while she would like to act today to redesign the project, design by committee might well result in unfortunate unintended consequences. It is better, Rose concluded, that the Commission provide direction and that coastal staff and the developer take the time necessary to make the project consistent with the Coastal Act.

Commissioner Barry Sedlik, who represents the California Business, Housing and Transportation Authority (and is a contributing, but not voting member of the Commission), then spoke. Sedlik, in his first meeting ever, accused the Commission of taking a ‘duck and cover approach’ and telling the developer that the Commission will only approve the right project, and that the Commission will only know the project when it sees it. That approach, Sedlik claimed, is discouraging developers from building more houses in California. Sedlik appeared to be arguing that more luxury sprawl housing developments were good for the California economy, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Commission Vice-Chair William Burke then said that everyone believes there is an approvable project, but that it will be very difficult to get there during the meeting.

Commissioner Orr then reiterated: “I am not arguing against housing, I am arguing against development that is not consistent with the Coastal Act.”

Commissioner Caldwell said that she had written up at least seven separate motions that could improve the project, but that such planning is not, in any case, ideal. Caldwell’s suggestions included provision of genuine natural buffers of sufficient size, public access, elimination of gated features, protection of Burrowing Owl and Southern Tarplant habitat and other recommendations based upon Coastal staff’s analysis.

After a brief break and huddled lobbying, the developer agreed to withdrawal it’s current proposal in an effort to go back to the drawing board and address the numerous issues raised by the public, Commission staff and members of the Commission.

Mark Massara, California Coastwatcher, October 2004

Coastal Commission Approves Public Takeover
of Public Beach at El Morro, Crystal Cove

Late in the evening on Wednesday, October 13, following the exhausting Bolsa Chica deliberations, the Commission finally, and at long last, addressed a proposal by California Department of Parks and Recreation (“State Parks”) to demolish mobile homes, construct public improvements and do environmental restoration at El Morro Mobile Home Park at Crystal Cove State Park, located at 8471 Pacific Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, Orange County.

The history of the El Morro trailer park and State Parks goes way back.

Crystal Cove State Park was created in 1979, when the State of California purchased 2800 acres from the Irvine Company using $32.5 million taxpayer dollars. At the time, it was the largest State Parks purchase in State history. The purpose of the acquisition was to create an oasis within sprawling Orange County that would include 3.5 miles of pristine beaches.

Included in the purchase was the El Morro trailer park, a 295 unit private trailer park located on a wedge of sand between the ocean and Pacific Coast Highway. While the intent was to remove the trailers immediately, through a long series of administrative, legislative and legal actions the trailer owners refused to budge.

Thus, 25 years after purchase of the property, and as of last week, the public was still unable to use the beach and the trailer owners were still firmly in control of “their beach” and attempting to negotiate yet another lease extension.

You can see photos of Moro Canyon, the beach and the trailers at www.cacoast.org/8573

State Parks, finally deciding ‘enough is enough’ applied to the Coastal Commission for permission and permits to demolish the trailers and restore the beach.

In fact, ‘trailer’ is a somewhat misleading characterization of the homes at El Morro. In reality, most of the trailers are actually high-end beachfront residences, most having been in the same families for generations, often used as second homes and vacation rentals. Better yet, the rent paid by trailer owners averages only $750 1100/month even though many are sublet to the public during the summertime for $2000/week and $8000/month, resulting in massive windfalls for trailer owners. Other Morro facts: Less than 30% of trailer owners actually live at El Morro. 51 leases are owned by family trusts. Corporations own 12 trailers. 14 lessees own two trailers. 6 lessees own three trailers. 7 lessees live out of state. After other fees and costs, the State of California receives only $1 million annually from rent payments. Leaseholders routinely sell their “leases” to other private parties, for as much as $500,000, with no portion of the income going to the State. Millions of dollars have been paid for leases over the last two decades, with none of the money going to the state and no public access improvements to the El Morro area of the State Park.

State Parks, meanwhile, proposed to remove the trailers and construct a 60 space campground on the bluff, restore habitat in Moro Creek, provide a day use parking lot and picnic area and restore public access to the beach for the first time.

Hundreds of trailer owners wearing matching blue “Morro Village” t-shirts attended the meeting to oppose the State Parks takeover. Their lawyers, from the firm Foley & Lardner in San Diego, spent an hour in front of the Commission attacking State Parks. Their attack focused on their perception that State Parks and the public would damage the environment if allowed to takeover the park, and that the trailer owners should be allowed to continue their stewardship of the beach and bluffs.

The lawyers submitted a 31 page legal brief and argued that it would be an abuse of discretion for the Commission to approve the public takeover and that both State Parks and the Commission were in violation of the Endangered Species Act for not conducting new and additional studies on legally protected wildlife such as the Pacific Pocket Mouse.

The trailer owners then spent another hour explaining to the Commission their long history of enjoyment and stewardship of the Moro Beach and how the public, if allowed to go there, would undermine and damage coastal resources.

Coastal staff recommended that the Commission approve the State Parks’ applications. The staff reports are at www.coastal.ca.gov/lb/W12h-10-2004.pdf and www.coastal.ca.gov/lb/W12i-10-2004.pdf.

It was after 8 pm by the time the Commission finally was able to discuss the matter and they were not impressed with the trailer owners’ arguments. Commissioner Trent Orr reflected many of the Commissioners’ feelings when he told the trailer owners that he was sympathetic to their having to leave their homes, but that having their lawyers drone on for an hour about the impacts to pocket mice was neither persuasive nor compelling. Calling the presentation “self-serving” “disingenuous” and “transparent” Orr reminded the trailer owners of their long history of exclusive use of a public beach and of their numerous past promises to vacate peacefully if allowed to just stay a bit longer. Now was that time, Orr concluded, and now was the time for the public to finally win access to a public beach.

Commissioner Toni Iseman then moved to approve the public takeover, and clarified with staff that of the 60 campsites, 30 would remain exclusively for tents, and only 30 would be allowed for RV style camping. Commissioner Sara Wan seconded the motion and the Commission voted 9-0 to approve State Parks’ plan (Iseman, Wan, Orr, Burke, Kram, Rose, Caldwell, Neely and Potter).

Mark Massara, California Coastwatcher, October 2004

Matilija Dam Removal Approved

To say that the Coastal Commission welcomed the US Army Corps of Engineers to their meeting on October 14 is an understatement. It would be more accurate to say the Commission enthusiastically embraced the proposal by the Corps to remove the Matilija Dam, located on Matilija Creek, a tributary of the Ventura River located 16 miles inland of the coast in Ventura County.

Why? Because removal of this one dam will free over 6 million cubic yards of sand trapped behind it. How much is that? Well, it has been estimated that so much sand is piled behind the dam that if it were spread across the beaches of Ventura County, every beach in the County would be 10 ft wider! And in as much as Ventura County is already 2/3rds covered by seawall, any sand replenishment opportunity is badly needed.

Worse, when the 190 ft tall dam was constructed in 1948, its builders failed to appreciate that it would immediately and permanently destroy over 17 miles of the most important steelhead trout habitat in California. The devastation, however, soon became apparent as the steelhead runs on the Ventura River plummeted from 4,000-5,000 annually to less than 100 fish. Steelhead trout are now an endangered species in California and the chance to regain the prime habitat upstream of the Matilija Dam represents a hugely significant restoration opportunity.

The project has been under study and consideration for many years. Representatives of Friends of the Ventura River, Surfrider Foundation, the Sierra Club, as well as numerous other nonprofit and governmental organizations have been researching and studying the various benefits and difficulties associated with trying to undertake the largest dam removal project in US history.

The prospects for removal seemed feasible from the beginning simply because the dam no longer served any viable purpose. Constructed in originally in order to prevent flooding and enhance water storage, the dam had long ago filled with sand and no longer provides flood protection or water storage. Meanwhile, better water storage had been created with the construction of nearby Lake Casitas.

As proposed by the Army Corps, the project would involve the incremental removal of the dam in sections of approximately 15 ft. Sand would then be transported via slurry to various points along the river, where thereafter it would move naturally toward area beaches. The coastal staff report is at www.coastal.ca.gov/cd/Th19a-10-2004.pdf. All the details, analysis and photos are at http://www.matilijadam.org/ An organization of project advocates called the Matilija Coalition has additional materials posted at http://pages.sbcglobal.net/pjenkin/matilija/

A news account of the Commission’s decision is at http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/oj/article/0,1375,VCS_168_3256713,00.html

More news of the dam removal project is at http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/peninsula/9989613.htm?1c

And http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Dam%20Removal

In the end the Commission voted unanimously to approve the project, with Commissioners Peters, Nava, Kruer, Caldwell, Burke, Kram, Iseman, Neely and Albert supporting the project.

Note: The project still faces additional hurdles, the primary being that the US Congress still must approve funding for the project, which is estimated to cost $130 million.

Mark Massara, California Coastwatcher, October 2004

Priorities and Elections—Proposed Resolution
By Bob Morris

Friends, I have attached a proposed resolution that attempts to address the issues that have been raised about Sierra Club priorities and budget allocations on these forums. The resolution is informed by the idea that Sierra Club should focus more where our potential is greatest: organizing and activating the broad but mostly inactive membership in grassroots actions. The model is the EVEC campaign, which was very successful in the limited times and locations that it was activated.

The resources for this increased grassroots focus would come from those which are currently allocated to professional activities of studying policy and lobbying. The central idea is that there are numerous centrally organized professional environmental policy study and lobbying organizations, but that Sierra Club has a uniquely organized, informed and extensive grassroots membership. By capitalizing on that membership we will have the most impact on changing the course of public opinion and policy.

I will present this resolution to the DC Chapter at our next ExComm meeting, and encourage others to do so as well. It is my opinion that we members have a responsibility to be vigorous in our participation in determining the direction of the Club and the allocation of our resources.

I welcome any comments, changes and criticisms regarding this proposed resolution.

Environmental Resolution Passed by Angeles ExComm 10/24/2004

Support for Regional Cooperation to Implement the Emerald Necklace

The Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club supports regional efforts to create the Emerald Necklace along the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel River from Whittier Narrows to Peck Road Water Conservation Park.

Useful Information

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, November 17

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

7:35 PM Staff report for 2004
7:50 PM Elections of 2005 Conservation Chair and Vice Chair for submission to 2005 Chapter Chair
8:00 PM Sierra Club Priorities and Elections (See article by Bob Morris)
8:30 PM Chapter Conservation Priority Discussion
After discussion, the Conservation Management Committee will submit priorities to the 2005 chapter executive committee.
9:30 PM Endangered Species Committee-Rose Marie White
9: 45 PM Canyons Campaign-grant change of use request

Next meeting: December 15