Email your comments to: stae@planning.lacounty.gov

Send written comments Re Newhall Ranch, Landmark Village Project No. 00-196-(5) to
Ms Susan Tae
Los Angeles County Regional Planning Dept
320 West Temple Street
Los Angeles CA 90013

View the environmental documents at http://planning.lacounty.gov/case.htm

You can contact Susan Tae at (213) 974-6433

Pasadena, Other Cities Agree to Comply
with New Global Warming Law
by David Czamanske

Pasadena and five other Southern California cities, under pressure from the environmental community, a state legislative leader, and Senator Dianne Feinstein, have decided to comply with, rather than seek to avoid, new legislation designed to reduce California's contribution to global warming.

Their decision to comply with SB 1368, a new state law signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in September and set to take effect January 1, was made after public pressure was brought to bear on utility officials and their respective city councils.

SB 1368 prohibits California municipal utilities from entering into new contracts, or renewing existing contracts for 5 years or more, for electric power unless emissions generated by the power plant concerned comply with a new greenhouse gas emission performance standard to be established by the California Energy Commission.

The six Southern California cities get a significant share of their base load power from Intermountain Power Plant, a large coal-burning power facility located in Delta, Utah. Construction of the power plant was financed in large part by the 6 cities, which consume 75% of the plant's power output in proportion to their financial commitment: Los Angeles 44.6%, Anaheim 13.2%, Riverside 7.6%, Burbank 4.4%, Pasadena 3.4% , and Glendale 1.7%.

The six cities were confronted with a dilemma when the Intermountain Power Authority, the Utah agency which owns the plant, extended an offer in July for renewal of their existing power contracts, which end in 2027, through 2044.

As of early October, only the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power had responded, indicating it did not intend to renew. The other five cities were carefully evaluating their responses.

Enactment of SB 1368 changed the situation. Utility departments in the other 5 cities saw the opportunity to renew their IPP contracts slipping away, and responded accordingly. Burbank City Council authorized contract renewal on October 24, as did the Riverside Public Utilities Board on November 4. Pasadena Water and Power staff prepared a report recommending renewal.

But when the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology, and local citizens became aware that contract renewals were advancing, they reacted strongly. They stated quite firmly that trying to avoid complying with a new law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was not in the public interest, nor in the long-term interest of the cities.

Senator Dianne Feinstein issued a strongly-worded letter of condemnation, and State Senate President pro Tem Don Perata, author of SB 1368, made it clear that attempts to circumvent the law were misplaced. News articles and editorials condemned the proposed renewals.

Public attention had the desired impact. Burbank Mayor Todd Campbell, a former member of the Board of the Coalition of Clean Air, asked his City Council to rescind its contract renewal. Riverside's Utility General Manager similarly asked his Public Utilities Board to rescind approval.

In Pasadena, Councilman Sid Tyler, Chair of the Council's Municipal Service Committee, said there too many uncertainties to take action now on the proposed contract renewal, which would not take effect until 2027. Pasadena Mayor Bogaard, Vice Mayor Madison, and Councilman Paul Little all stated they did not support renewal.

On November 20, at a meeting of IPA's Coordinating Committee in Burbank, representatives of all 5 cities which were considering renewal stated that they no longer intended to do so at this time.

The Coordinating Committee instead adopted a motion introduced by Fred Fletcher, Assistant General Manager of Burbank Water and Power, to prepare a proposal for funding a study to evaluate ways in which greenhouse gas emissions from IPP might be reduced.

IPA's Board of Directors has in the meantime extended the opportunity to renew the contracts until 2023.

Could greenhouse gas emissions from the power plant be substantially reduced? Only through costly modifications, such as converting it to a more environmentally-friendly integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant, or capturing greenhouse gases produced by the plant and sequestering them underground in nearby salt domes.

It certainly would be a positive turn of events if such action results in significant reduction of greenhouse gases from this power plant. But the ultimate objective is the eventual phasing out of this and other coal-burning plants. Unfortunately an additional power unit, known as IPP Unit 3, is currently being planned by a group of intermountain cities and Pacifcorp, a private utility.

The environmental community will therefore have to closely monitor this power plant if real progress is to be made in reducing its emissions of greenhouse gases.

Conservation Committee Voting Criteria

All members of the Conservation Committee Management Committee can vote on the Conservation Committee.
Groups and sections which have a Conservation Chair will be considered to be adequately informed on conservation issues to be allowed to vote at any meeting.

Issue Committees and Task Forces, to be considered active, must have more than four members and must meet at least one time per calendar quarter. In addition, they must have a mission statement that clearly states their purpose, and must publish an annual report describing their meetings, activities, and accomplishments.

To be able to vote at Conservation Committee meetings, active committees and task forces must have had a member in attendance at Conservation Committee meetings either in Los Angeles or Orange County at least once in the previous four months. Attendance will be tracked by the Secretary of the Conservation Committee.

Good Morning and Happy New Year.

This is Congressman-elect Jerry McNerney of Pleasanton, California, a new Member in the 110th Congress.

As we move into the New Year and the new Congress, I am excited about what we can achieve for the American people. In this election, the American people clearly called for change: change in the way we do business in Washington, change in the way that we shape our energy policy, and most importantly, a change of direction in Iraq.

As our first responsibility in fulfilling the mandate of this critical election, House Democrats will restore integrity and civility in Washington in order to earn the public trust.

We will ban gifts from lobbyists and lobbyist-funded travel, prohibit the use of corporate jets, and shut down the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street Lobbyists. We will restore the House tradition of allowing a reasonable 15-minute voting period to prevent extended votes, and we will require that Congress put away the credit card and operate under
pay-as-you-go common sense budget rules. We will hold Members of Congress accountable to the people who voted them into office, not lobbyists and special interests.

Our heavy dependence on foreign oil is putting our economy, our climate, and our national security at great risk. We are actually funding the very terrorists around the world who are trying to harm us. It's our patriotic duty as citizens of this great nation to end our dependence on imported oil. Democrats will quickly and significantly reduce our consumption of foreign
oil while creating jobs, prosperity, and a healthy environment with a new energy technology, including renewable energy and bio-fuels.

Most of the technologies needed to reshape our energy future are already at hand; what has been lacking is the political will to develop and expand their use. Democrats have a vision of creating a new energy economy using good old-fashioned American ingenuity to achieve energy independence. New American jobs and a bright future will be the dividend.

Democrats will also lead the way for a new direction in Iraq. My son was in the military when he convinced me to run for office, and we continue to keep our soldiers and their families in our prayers. But our troops need more than our well-wishes, and our veterans need more than lip service; we need a change in policy, as confirmed by the Iraq Study Group report released earlier this month.

I share the concern of my Democratic colleagues that President Bush may use his same failed logic to increase our troop strength in Iraq by up to 30,000 soldiers. The incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, has said that an increase in troops at best won't change a thing, and at worst could exacerbate the situation even further in Iraq.

The Iraqis need to understand that the responsibility for the future of that country is theirs. Beginning the redeployment of American forces would send that message. We must also improve the training of Iraq security forces by ensuring that Iraqi units are not infiltrated by either militia members or insurgents. The consequences of not doing so are unacceptable. In my
district there is a Gold Star mom whose son was killed in Iraq by the very Iraqis he was training. He and his mom are always in my thoughts. We simply can not ask our young men and women to train Iraqis without doing everything possible to make certain that the people they are training are not attacking our troops.

Our troops have done everything asked of them in Iraq with great courage. Particularly at this time of the year, when families gather to celebrate the holiday season, we need to remember the huge sacrifices being made by the brave men and women in our military, and give thanks for their service.

Thank you for listening. I wish everyone the very best 2007 and pray that God blesses you and your families for this holiday season.

How Old Is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Orders to cater to creationists makes national park agnostic on geology.

12/28/2006, Washington DC. Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is 'no comment.'"

In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.

In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.

According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.

Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item - the creationist book.

Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on "Interpretation and Education (Director's Order #6) which reinforces the posture that materials on the "history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes."

"As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan," Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. "We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job."

Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar.
View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist book has occurred.
See the 2005 NPS Director's Order #6 on Interpretation.

8.4.2 Historical and Scientific Research. Superintendents, historians, scientists, and interpretive staff are responsible for ensuring that park interpretive and educational programs and media are accurate and reflect current scholarship ... Questions often arise round the presentation of geological, biological, and evolutionary processes. The interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism. The facts, theories, and interpretations to be used will reflect the thinking of the scientific community in such fields as biology, geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and paleontology. Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes. Programs, however, may acknowledge or explain other explanations of natural processes and events. (Emphasis added)

Trace how the creationist book controversy started and grew.
Look at tax dollars used to support the Bush administration program of "Faith-Based Parks

A Shifting Tide, or a Tidal Wave?
by Carl Pope

Preparing to take the red-eye back to DC for the swearing-in of the new Congress, it's clearer and clearer that the country is not going to wait for Washington to lead again. Nor will the Sierra Club. Paula Carrell, who coordinates our state policy support efforts, reports that in a completely unprecedented clustering of state legislative interests, the 30 (out of 43) Sierra Club state lobbying offices that have already sent her their preliminary agendas, say they expect to actively lobby 90 state energy policy bills!

Luckily, there are many signs that the tide is making a momentous shift in Washington. A new poll shows that both Republicans and Democrats nationally want Congress to control U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases (Republicans 61%, Democrats 82%). Furthermore, majorities in both parties also favor requiring car makers to increase fuel efficiency even if it increases the cost of owning a car (Republicans 71%, Democrats, 86%).

Just before Christmas, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told the press that his role in 2008 was going to be to make sure that global warming was seriously addressed in the campaign. "There is a whole new movement because of the change of people sent to Washington," Schwarzenegger said in an interview this week. "We want to put the spotlight on this issue in America. It has to become a debate in the presidential election. It has to become an issue."

The Raleigh News and Observer featured Sierra Club organizer Tom Jensen as one of seven local residents who will matter in 2007, citing his Cool Cities work "to persuade North Carolina cities to sign a commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.... based on a climate protection agreement by the U.S. Conference of Mayors," ... "sort of a local government version of the international Kyoto Protocol."

The New York Times just reported that while the new Democratic leadership is making some significant steps towards reforming the rules which encourage corruption, these steps pale by comparison with what has become standard in many states.

John Hurson, a former Maryland legislator turned federal lobbyist, told the Times that he was barred from letting a lobbyist buy him a cup of coffee under rules enforced by the Maryland Ethics Commission. Meanwhile, congressmen were flying across the country for golf trips with lobbyists and enlisting them as major fund-raisers for their re-election campaigns.

"It was amusing in a sad kind of way.... At the state level in Maryland a lobbyist can’t even have his name on a campaign flier. And at the federal level some of these guys are basically running campaigns."

And finally, to impart a sense of the tidal wave I sense coming, imagine this scene: Bush has just finished his second term and stepped down. His successor, however, is another Republican. But here's what the newly elected executive says at his inaugural: "We have a common vision ... Meaningful, secure work with good pay and good benefits; Quality, affordable, accessible health care; A good home on a safe street in a safe neighborhood; World-class schools preparing our children for the jobs of the future; Clean rivers, beautiful beaches and coastlines free of oil drilling. This is a vision we can make a reality. If we come together, work together we will succeed together. And to those of us entrusted with the public confidence, our mission has never been more clear: Solve problems, don’t politicize them. Put the common good above partisan politics. We will work together to do what is right."

Sound unreal? Well, it just happened. The Bush who was stepping down, of course, was Gov. Jeb Bush, in Florida. The quotes are from the new Governor, Republican Charlie Crist.

Is Washington going to rise again and become our capital? I'll be interested to gauge the changing tides this week. But while I'm hopeful, I think there is still some risk that our nation's capital will fall victim to the bigotry of low expectations. After all, it has been down for a long time.

The Craving Strikes Again
by Carl Pope

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 Washington DC -- A year ago the President warned us of the dangers of our addiction to oil. He's relapsed again. Yesterday, he announced that he was using his executive authority to lift the ban on oil drilling in Bristol Bay, one of the most important fisheries in America and in the world. White House spokespeople are promising us that Bush will "knock our socks off" in the State of the Union Address when he reveals something big, new, and important about oil addiction and global warming. If so, it won't be the first time — Think Progress has actually assembled the long list of Bush pledges to change our energy course and kick our addiction to fossil fuels — proof that if we judge the President by his promises, instead of his deeds, we are, in the words of a 12-step program, "enabling" him to grab the next fossil fix that comes his way.

For more information, please visit: http://www.sierraclub.org/carlpope/2007/01/craving-strikes-again.asp

Big Oil Buys a Face Lift

Watch out, America. The oil industry is about to go on a charm offensive. Beginning this month, Big Oil will be hitting the airwaves with a massive advertising campaign to burnish the industry's public image. How much will they spend? Well, according to American Petroleum Institute (API) President, Red Caveney, "We will spend what's necessary to achieve the objective." Seeing as how the industry posted record profits in 2005 and has already racked up over $100 billion in profits in the first nine months of this year, they have the money to buy a lot of charm.

It couldn't come soon enough. The House Democratic leadership has announced that part of its first 100 hours agenda will repeal billions of dollars in oil and gas industry tax breaks and redirect the money towards clean energy tax credits. The industry has also been challenged by Senators John Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) who recently sent a letter to Exxon's CEO Rex Tillerson demanding that the company stop funding conservative think tanks that promote bogus climate science. Thankfully, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board came to Exxon's defense by calling the Senators 'bullies' and claiming that the letter was a de facto gag order. Seriously, how dare they demand real science? Adding insult to injury, even a group of Fortune 500 CEOs and former military officers recently came out with a report warning about America's dependence on foreign oil.

The oil industry is hoping that Americans will fall for their ruse and stop demanding that we move forward by putting smart energy solutions in place to break our dependence on oil. They want to be so squeaky clean that they've even hired the advertising company behind the 'Got Milk?' campaign. But Americans won't be fooled. We know that we have the technology to curb global warming and cut our dependence on oil.

Tell your elected officials that it is time to act.

Brand New Wilderness in Nevada
by Vicky Hoover

Wed, 20 Dec 2006: As of this morning, when President Bush signed the massive tax and trade bill passed by Congress at the very last minuite, to which Sen. Harry Reid had added his White Pine County public lands bill as Title III, Nevada has more than a half million acres of new wilderness. This is in White Pine County, the eastern Nevada area that includes Great Basin National Park and the spectacular Schell Creek Range. 558,133 acres to be precise, more land than was in the bill when it was first introduced. Sen. Reid put in some last minute changes that were definite improvements, responding well to specific items the Sierra Club objected to. Though not answering all the Toiyabe Chapter's objections, the 11th hour improvements were highly significant, and Sen. Reid deserves our thanks for these. And his office has credited Sierra Club persistence.

Next summer the Sierra Club national activist outings include one to White Pine County areas, led by Melinda Goodwater, Sept 1-9. "Eastern Nevada's Wild Heights" is trip # 07196A, costing $495, with some discounts available for qualified activists. Visit http://www.sierraclub.org/outings/National/

Campers, Hikers Pay Millions to Subsidize
Disruptive Off-Road Vehicles
Tax study shows majority who enjoy non-motorized recreation subsidize minority who use ATVs, dirt bikes
by Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California, (916) 557-1100 x109

SACRAMENTO – Thursday, December 21, 2006. California campers, fishermen, and hikers pay millions in taxes to promote — and to clean up damage and law enforcement problems caused by — a small minority who use dirt bikes, ATVs, and other off-road vehicles, according to the new Fuel Tax Study released December 20th by the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMVR).

All California drivers pay state fuel taxes, and a portion, based on miles driven off of paved roads, goes to the California Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund to manage off-road recreation. This tax is collected from ordinary vehicles driving ordinary dirt roads for traditional outdoor recreation such as camping, fishing, hiking, biking, sightseeing, horseback riding, and hunting.

The Fuel Tax Study finds that the vast majority of California’s off-highway fuel usage comes from cars, trucks, and SUVs used by families and individuals going off-highway to camp, fish, and hike. The study finds that while 82.6% of off-highway fuel usage is generated by street legal vehicles, only 17.4% comes from ATVs and motorcycles. (This figure is in line with State Parks' most recent recreation survey (2002) which found only 16.7% of outdoor recreationists use ORVs.) Yet, more than two-thirds of current OHV Fuel Tax receipts are spent to promote ATV and motorcycle recreation on California’s public lands.

“Every time Californians drive on dirt roads to camp, fish, or hike we are paying fuel taxes to promote the same dirt bikes and ATVs that are trashing the land and ruining outdoor recreation for the rest of us,” said Brent Schoradt, deputy policy director of the California Wilderness Coalition. "It's only fair that ORV users start paying their own way to clean up problems caused by their machines."

Only about one-third of the OHV Fund is tapped for California’s OHV local assistance grants for law enforcement and restoration work, to protect land, water, and local communities from off-road vehicle damage and disruption. About two-thirds is spent promoting and managing ORV use, at State Vehicular Recreation Areas. None is spent on traditional, non-motorized off-highway recreation like hiking.

Next year’s legislative session is critical to California’s OHV grants program. The OHV program expires January 1, 2008, and must be renewed in 2007. A growing coalition of conservationists, outdoor recreationists, and community residents is urging legislators to strengthen law enforcement, provide for restoration of ORV-damaged lands and waters, and create a lasting framework to protect California’s communities and environment from increasing ORV abuse.

"Everyone has the right to enjoy nature, but nobody has the right to spoil it for the rest of us” said Jim Metropulos, legislative representative of Sierra Club California. "California needs better management of ORVs to protect traditional outdoor recreation, restore damage caused by these machines, and help law enforcement get a handle on out-of-control dirt bikes and ATVs."

Congress Goes Home
By Kathy Kilmer, The Wilderness Society

December 21, 2006. The 109th Congress is now history, and will be judged at least in part on its environmental record, which we found to be one of the most hostile on record. From attempts to sell off our national lands to efforts to open vast stretches of western lands to wholesale oil and gas development, the most radical members of the 109th Congress demonstrated again and again a dangerous disregard for conservation of our public lands.

Remarkably, and against all odds, we and our partners — with your help — not only beat back most of the worst assaults but we actually won some important conservation gains. Thank you! Your calls and emails and donations have made a difference. With your help, we were able to convince the 109th Congress to designate as wilderness more than a million acres of America's national lands!

We will be counting on you in the coming year to help fend off the Bush administration's efforts to open more of our public lands to developers. As proof, note that the Forest Service has just released a new policy exempting forest planning from environmental impact statements.

We here at The Wilderness Society send our very best wishes for a very happy holiday season! Read on to learn about some important gains during the last hours of the 109th Congress.

Rocky Mountain Front Wins Protection!

Legislation passed in the last hours of the Congress that will ban future oil and gas leasing on 400,000 acres of National Forest and BLM lands along Montana's Rocky Mountain Front.

 

This milestone is not the end of our campaign to win permanent protection for this singular and spectacular landscape where the Rockies meet the Great Plains, but it is crucial to our efforts to retire 120,000 acres of existing leases. The WildAlert community has steadfastly taken action on this issue over the years, and we thank you for your help!

Who Speaks for the Sierra Club?
Policies as of December, 2006

From Angeles Chapter Bylaws section 5.3, adopted 10/23/2000

The [conservation] program shall be coordinated with other Club entities. Chapter leaders shall not make a statement or take a position publicly that is contrary to policy or position established by the Board of Directors, the duly authorized chapter, group, committee or other Club entity, or the Club membership through referendum, nor shall Club leaders or staff members mention their Sierra Club affiliation if they, in their own names, make a statement or take a position contrary to established policy.

From the National One Club Policy
(see http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/leaders/policies/oneclub.asp).

Chapters may not establish plans, messages or strategies, or carry out activities that conflict with nationally or regionally established ones.

Groups may not establish plans, messages or strategies, or carry out activities that conflict with either nationally, regionally, or chapter-established ones.

Individual activists, leaders and staff may not carry out activities which conflict with an established national, chapter or group plan, message or strategy.

From the National Policy on Policies
(see http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/go/policies/policy_on_policies/)
There is more relevant material in the document than just this:

III.E. Junior entities should seek the concurrence of the Conservation Governance Committee, its chair or its designee, before taking a position or issuing guidelines or an advisory on an important issue that:
(a) might set a precedent for the entire organization;
(b) deals with issues of social or economic policy where the Board has provided no guidance;
(c) where the position has substantial potential to foster friction because other Club entities are likely to take inconsistent positions;
(d) when the position is based on determinations of fact that are highly disputed; or
(e) when the issue presents new, fundamental and controversial issues for the Club.