-----
Sierra Club and Others Fight Developer Attack on State's Environmental Laws

Son of Prop 90

by Bill Allayaud/Sierra Club California Legislative Office

November 6, 2007

California's environment is under attack again from the "property rights" crowd. Last year, we successfully fought off a statewide ballot initiative, Proposition 90, that used the rhetoric of eminent domain abuse to attempt to undermine a swath of laws protecting our health and environment. Now, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association along with the California Farm Bureau is trying to qualify the "Son of Prop 90" for the June 2008 ballot. Provisions hidden in the text of the Jarvis measure would effectively prohibit laws and regulations that protect our air, land, water, and coasts from pollution, as well as laws that prevent sprawl. The measure would even weaken California's ability to stop global warming. And, they have thrown in a provision that would ban rent control in California, a matter that should be decided by each affected local government. A broad-based coalition of environmentalists, local governments, seniors, business, and labor that defeated Prop 90 last year has formed again to defeat this measure. This coalition is promoting a strong, honest eminent domain reform proposal, which would prevent the government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a developer. In order to qualify this alternative to the Jarvis measure, we need 1.1 million signatures by November 20. We're more than halfway to our goal, but we need your help immediately!

You can sign a petition, or better yet, sign yourself and get nine more people to sign the petition and mail it in. Go to http://www.eminentdomainreform.com/petitionRequest/ and you will be taken to the webpage where you can order a petition and get the return address for sending it in. I know you care about California's environmental and planning laws, so this is an urgent matter. For more information about the coalition and the two initiatives, please visit http://www.EminentDomainReform.com.

-----
Gov. Schwarzenegger Targets Toxic Ammunition, Endorses New Law to Protect Endangered California Condor from Lead Poisoning

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2007/10_13_2007_calif._gov._signs_condor_bill.php

10-13-2007 SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Today Governor Schwarzenegger signed an historic bill requiring the use of non-lead ammunition within California condor habitat. Assemblyman Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) introduced A.B. 821 to aid condor recovery by reducing the exposure to lead found in the food of this critically endangered bird.

“We applaud Gov. Schwarzenegger for taking this important action to protect California’s iconic condor from lead poisoning—the species’ most substantial obstacle to recovery,” said Pamela Flick, California program coordinator for Defenders of Wildlife. “With a stroke of his pen, the Governor has taken a significant step toward protecting our endangered wildlife and people from this toxic substance,” said Flick.

Lead is a potent poison that is the leading cause of death among free-flying condors. Ammunition has been found to be the principle source of lead in condors, North America’s largest bird. Condors and other scavengers suffer lead poisoning when they ingest lead bullets or bullet fragments from animal carcasses shot with the toxic ammunition and left in the field.
“Lead has been removed from gasoline, paint, water pipes, and cookware. Now, we can add ammunition in condor country to this growing list,” Flick continued.

Although extremely tough, condors are not immune to the effects of lead poisoning. There have been 276 documented cases of lead poisoning in California condors just since 2000. At least four condors deaths in the state have been confirmed as lead poisonings and dozens more deaths are likely linked to lethal lead exposure.

“Assemblymember Nava has been extremely dedicated to getting the lead out of California condor territory for years,” said Flick. “We thank Mr. Nava and Gov. Schwarzenegger for ensuring that condors will continue to soar over California for future generations to enjoy.”

Federal Agencies Publish Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Energy Transport Corridor Designations in 11 Western States

11-8-2007

From Federal Government's press release: The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S. Departments of Energy, Agriculture, Commerce and Defense today released for public review and comment a draft programmatic environmental impact statement (draft PEIS) proposing designation of energy transport corridors on federal lands in 11 western states in accordance with Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The proposed energy corridors would facilitate future siting of oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution on federal lands in the West to help address growing energy demand while protecting the environment....

(Editors's note: we'll see about that!)

Eighty-four percent of the corridors proposed and analyzed in the draft PEIS are located on BLM-managed lands, while 14 percent are on USDA Forest Service lands. The remaining fractional percentages are on lands managed by the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service, or by the Department of Defense. The proposed corridors are agency-preferred locations for siting of future pipelines and transmission lines.

Interested members of the public, government agencies, American Indian tribes, states, and non-governmental organizations are invited to submit comments on the draft PEIS.

The draft PEIS evaluated factors that constrain where a network of energy transport corridors could be located – including topographical, environmental and regulatory constraints – as well as the overall suitability of particular lands to support development and operation of energy transport infrastructure. As a result of an inclusive public scoping effort over the past two years, including regional meetings and public review of preliminary corridor location maps, the draft PEIS proposal avoids major known and designated sensitive resource areas including wilderness areas and national parks, tribal lands, national monuments and national recreation areas, wherever possible. The few locations where the proposed corridors could not avoid sensitive areas are located along existing transmission lines, highways, pipelines or other rights-of-way.

The agencies will solicit comments during a 90-day public comment period on the draft PEIS. Public meetings will be held in each of the 11 states and in Washington, D.C. During this period, briefings and consultation will continue to occur with each governor’s office, tribes, Congress, and historic preservation officials.

Public meetings in California to take oral comments on the draft PEIS will be held:

January 8, 2008 – Sacramento, Calif.
January 10 – Ontario, Calif.

For more information:

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/newsroom/2007/november/WONews0805_368_deis.html

http://corridoreis.anl.gov/eis/dmap/rowsbm/index.cfm

To submit comments and to review the draft PEIS and related documents, including detailed maps, visit the project website at http://corridoreis.anl.gov. Review copies are also available at libraries and agency regional and field offices. The draft PEIS will also be published in the Federal Register on Friday, November 16, 2007, which initiates the 90-day public comment period.

-----
L.A.'s Mount Cahuenga Could Soon Be Added to the Santa Monica Mountains Park System

138 acre purchase will be considered at Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority Board Meeting on November 7th

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. at the Conejo Recreation and Park District,

403 West Hillcrest Drive, Thousand Oaks, California.

http://mrca.ca.gov/attachment.asp?agendaid=140

-Consideration of resolution authorizing the use of Santa Monica Mountains Open Space Preservation Assessment District No. 1 funds to acquire 138 acres and authorizing the granting of said funds to a public or not-for-profit entity, Cahuenga Peak, Hollywood.

-Consideration of resolution authorizing acceptance of a donation of APN 4438-034-012, 10-acres, Saddle Peak, Topanga Canyon.

-Consideration of resolution authorizing acceptance of a 29-acre conservation easement (APN 2052-009-012) donation adjacent to Liberty Canyon, Agoura Hills.

-Consideration of resolution authorizing the use of Santa Monica Mountains Open Space Preservation Assessment District No. 1 Area B funds to acquire up to 125 properties owned by the City of Los Angeles in Beverly Glen Canyon and authorizing adding those properties as necessary to the Final Engineer’s Report, Los Angeles.

-----
State Water Supply Watchdogs say the State proposes to give away water resources

Monterey Amendments Draft EIR Released
10/25/2007

http://www.pcl.org/newsroom/102507montereyeir.html

Sacramento- Despite the recent crisis in the Delta and the Governor’s push for new dams, last week the Department of Water Resources (DWR) proposed to give away the largest water storage facility in the state and to eliminate drought safeguards for urban areas in California.

DWR’s draft decision, revealed in the Monterey Plus Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (http://www.des.water.ca.gov/mitigation_restoration_branch/rpmi_section/projects/index.cfm), would require the State to permanently adopt State Water Project contract amendments, called the “the Monterey Amendments,” negotiated in secret by DWR in 1994. The original behind closed doors deal was successfully challenged in a lawsuit by the Planning and Conservation League, the Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara, and Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83 Cal.App.3d). While DWR has been allowed to operate under the Monterey Amendments provisionally since 1995, the PCL lawsuit forced DWR to analyze the impact of the amendments and to decide whether or not permanently to adopt the Monterey Amendments or to modify the proposed contract changes based on that analysis.

If permanently adopted, the Monterey Amendments would fundamentally change how the State Water Project (SWP) operates.

Specifically, the Monterey Amendments would:

--Eliminate contract provisions that provide drought safeguards for urban areas. DWR’s own analysis shows that in dry years like 2001, water supplies for homes and businesses in urban areas will be reduced by over 400,000 acre-feet, (a reduction of 26% of total urban water deliveries from the SWP), if the Monterey Amendments are adopted.

--Give away the State owned Kern Water Bank, the largest water storage facility in the State.

--Eliminate the common-sense provision in the original contract which required DWR to determine the realistic yield of the SWP. Without a knowing the actual capacity of the SWP, DWR will continue to promise to deliver “paper water,” water which actually does not exist in the real world. Already, the promise of paper water has lead to over-reliance on the water from the fragile Bay-Delta, over-pumping, inevitable cutbacks in water supplies, and ultimately decreased water supply reliability.

--Transfer millions of dollars in costs to the taxpayers, while rebating millions to individual water agencies.

--Encourage the over-pumping of Delta water in the winter and spring months, which has already, under the provisional use of the Monterey Amendments, contributed to the massive decline of the Delta smelt and other Bay Delta fish populations.

PCL has long held that DWR’s provisional operations under the Monterey Amendments are directly related to the declines in the health of the Delta, and decreases in water supply reliability across the State. If permanently adopted, the Monterey Amendments would strip urban areas, including homes and businesses of their drought safeguards, forcing those areas to depend on delivery of “surplus” water from the Delta in wetter years. The recent fish declines in the Delta and the resulting ruling from Judge Oliver W. Wanger of the U.S. District Court in Fresno, demonstrate that the “surplus” water urban areas now dependent on is actually just “paper water” that cannot be delivered in the future. “PCL is outraged that despite the obvious impacts on California, DWR is proposing to adopt the Monterey Amendments on a permanent basis, stripping urban areas of their drought safeguards and giving away the State’s largest storage facility,” said Mindy McIntyre, Water Program Director at the Planning and Conservation League. “This is a terrible decision for California that will exacerbate the water problems we are already facing today.”

-----

Pacific Lumber Creditors Put Lower Value on Assets than Company Claims

John Driscoll The Eureka Times-Standard
10/11/2007

http://www.times-standard.com//ci_7146687

A document that had been under seal in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court case of the Pacific Lumber Co. holds that its timberlands are worth only a fraction of what the company has estimated.

The declaration of Christopher Di Mauro of Houlihan Lokey, Howard and Zukin Capital -- consultants for the group that holds $714 million in notes secured by 210,000 acres of timber -- estimates the land is worth between $290 and $500 million. Some 6,660 acres of land off limits to protect the threatened marbled murrelet are worth between $10 and $20 million.
The estimate shows just how far apart Palco and its main creditors are. In a reorganization plan filed at the end of September, Palco claims its properties -- split into 181,000 acres for working timberland and 29,000 acres for a high-end rural development and reserve lands -- are worth $1.4 billion.

That exceeds any reasonable estimates of value, Di Mauro wrote in the declaration that were among those Palco subsidiary Scotia Pacific had asked to be kept sealed. Judge Richard Schmidt approved an agreement between the parties to release much of the information this week.
Di Mauro said that Houlihan Lokey has yet to have productive talks about the restructuring plan with Scotia Pacific, and remain far apart on the value of the assets.
”Scotia Pacific and its advisors have not provided a single document or analysis to support the unreasonable valuations to which they continue to cite in their restructuring proposal,” Di Mauro said.

The value of Palco's assets will be at the center of the bankruptcy court's consideration. If its debts are worth more than its assets, in rough terms, Palco parent company Maxxam Inc. could lose control of the company to the noteholders.

The court on Oct. 23 will consider whether to allow Palco's restructuring plan to continue as the only plan, or to allow creditors to submit another reorganization plan.

-----
Berkeley going solar - city pays up front, recoups over 20 years

Carolyn Jones, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, October 26, 2007

Berkeley is set to become the first city in the nation to help thousands of its residents generate solar power without having to put money up front - attempting to surmount one of the biggest hurdles for people who don't have enough cash to go green.

The City Council will vote Nov. 6 on a plan for the city to finance the cost of solar panels for property owners who agree to pay it back with a 20-year assessment on their property. Over two decades, the taxes would be the same or less than what property owners would save on their electric bills, officials say.

"This plan could be our most important contribution to fighting global warming," Mayor Tom Bates said Thursday. "We've already seen interest from all over the U.S. People really think this plan can go."

The idea is sparking interest from city and state leaders who are mindful of California's goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. Officials in San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica and several state agencies have contacted Berkeley about the details of its plan.
"If this works, we'd want to look at this for other cities statewide," said Ken Alex, California deputy attorney general. "We think it's a very creative way to eliminate the barriers to getting solar panels, and it's fantastic that Berkeley's going ahead with this."

for rest of story, click here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/26/MNAIT0DQO.DTL

Plans by Cargill to build homes on salt-flat acreage alarms some

Jonathan Curiel, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, November 1, 2007


The owner of one of the largest undeveloped swaths of bay shoreline says it is considering building houses on the land - a controversial idea opposed by environmentalists who say the property should be restored to its natural state and protected.
Cargill Inc. uses the 1,433-acre site on the edge of San Francisco Bay in Redwood City to produce commercial salt, but John Bruno, a spokesman for a joint venture between Cargill and a real estate development firm, told The Chronicle that the corporation is studying the possibility of building housing there.


The land is just southeast of Bair Island, a marshy, 2,600-acre restoration project that is part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. On that former salt pond, where Redwood City voters in 1982 forbade development, harbor seals have found a place to sunbathe and rare species like the salt harvest mouse thrive.


Although Cargill has not actually produced any plans for the nearby 1,433-acre site, environmentalists say they would fight to prevent Cargill from getting permits to build residences there. Instead, they say the land should be used to further the state's goal of restoring the thousands of acres of bay wetlands destroyed over the past 200 years.
The idea of building housing on the land is supported by at least one local official, a key member of the Redwood City Planning Commission who says the city has an immense need for housing and amenities like playing fields and trails. And the executive director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which has jurisdiction over land within 100 feet of the bay's shoreline, said Cargill could pursue a development plan if it first restored at least half of the site to a natural setting.


Cargill is phasing out its salt production on the land and wants to convert it into some type of mixed development, including some housing. For the past year, Redwood City Industrial Saltworks - a joint venture between Cargill and a real estate development firm called DMB Associates - has solicited comments from Redwood City residents on what they want Cargill to do with the property.


More than 6,000 people have responded through mailings and comments during the company's forums, "and the vast majority of what we've heard is that people are looking for a mixture of uses, and that runs the gamut from housing to parks to bay trails," said Bruno, general manager of Redwood City Industrial Saltworks.


Bruno wouldn't specify the type of housing Cargill envisions nor what percentage of land the housing would occupy, but any development is opposed by groups such as Save the Bay. That group recently started a campaign to protect the last remaining undeveloped properties that ring the bay.


"It's not the place to put housing," said the group's executive director, David Lewis. "If Cargill thinks this can be approved, they're living in the past."


Cargill's Redwood City property is zoned "tidal plain," meaning the corporation would have to get an exemption from the Redwood City Planning Commission to pursue any development.
Before it does, Cargill would have to restore at least 50 percent of the area to natural habitat under state laws governing bay salt ponds, said Will Travis, head of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.


"Our position is that when you take a salt pond and use it for something other than salt making, a substantial portion of it should be restored to the bay or wetlands. The issue of what the (rest of the) property can be used for is the call of local government," Travis said.
And Lewis said the company would face additional development hurdles under the federal Clean Water Act, which he said prohibits former waterways from being filled with development if there are alternatives to put the development in another area. And, Lewis said, state water quality regulations would also severely limit what Cargill could build on the site, which has been used for salt production since 1901.



for rest of story, click here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/01/MNAET3ET0.DTL

-----

Coastline Around San Luis Obispo's Diablo Canyon Nuke Plant is Opened to the Public

10/18/2007 L.A. Citybeat

Excerpts...for full story go to http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=6345&IssueNum=228

The gateway to PG&E’s land, though, had been wide open – and for a reason. We were actually invited. We were invited because, for the first time in well over 35 years, PG&E has agreed to grant public access to the stunning coastline it has claimed as its own ever since the Diablo Canyon project was approved in the 1960s.

The story, which has hardly been well publicized, is relatively straightforward. A few months ago, PG&E applied for permission to build a new above-ground storage unit for its spent fuel from Diablo Canyon’s twin pressurized water reactors. The Coastal Commission, which scandalously signed off on the nuclear plant when it was first proposed 40 years ago, decided this was an opportunity to right a long-festering wrong, and told the power company it could make the modifications it wanted on condition that it open up a stretch of its coastal lands.
As of a few weeks ago, that is exactly what PG&E has done. On Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, hikers are invited to come through the chain-link gate, just as we did, and follow a carefully marked 1.5-mile circuit heading down to the PG&E side of Coon Creek Beach, across to a headland called Point Buchon, and back to the gatehouse.

The gatekeeper made sure he cautioned us not to step even a few feet away from the designated path, mentioned several lines of electrified fencing we might want to avoid, and insisted we check back in with him before leaving.
It may not have been the warmest of welcomes, but the pay-off was amazing. From the PG&E side, we could appreciate the dramatic stone archways framing Coon Creek Beach and explore its kelp-strewn caves, which are accessible at low tide. Back up on the fragile sandstone cliffs, we peered down into a dramatic sinkhole just a few yards from the shoreline and, best of all, enjoyed unobstructed views of the drop-dead coastline heading south, including clusters of tall, table-like rocks where hordes of pelicans and seagulls sat tamely just out of reach of the pounding Pacific surf.

By next year, we later discovered, the entire path to the lighthouse should be open to the public seven days a week – PG&E successfully negotiated with the Coastal Commission to get to that point in stages. It’s hard to know whether to cheer at this development – the 13 miles of PG&E land from Point Buchon to Point San Luis, just around the corner from Avila Beach, constitute some of the most beautiful coastal scenery anywhere in California – or to continue to be appalled, as many people have been for decades, that such a jewel of California’s natural landscape should be closed off at all and exploited for financial gain by a large power company.
It wasn’t just the Coastal Commission that gave PG&E the green light to build Diablo Canyon – the Sierra Club was also complicit, making the insane argument that this stretch of coastline was somehow preferable to the Nipomo Dunes between Santa Maria and Pismo Beach (since converted into an ATV beach and thus ruined for an entirely different set of reasons). PG&E essentially bought off the Sierra Club, promising the wife of the club president a seat on the company board and offering the entire club leadership free flights to the area in Frank Sinatra’s Lear Jet, with Danny Kaye providing in-flight entertainment.

It didn’t take long, after the plant opened in 1973, to appreciate the magnitude of what had been conceded. When the reactor’s plumbing had its first hot flush in 1974, it killed tens of thousands of wild California red abalone in Diablo Cove – an outrage that prompted the formation of an energetic opposition group, the Abalone Alliance, and an ever larger series of protests culminating in a 10-day occupation of the entire site in 1981 leading to the arrest of close to 2,000 people.

Around the same time, an enterprising young engineer discovered an error in PG&E’s earthquake protection calculations, triggering a three-year closure while the company rushed to protect the site from the Hosgri Fault, which runs just two miles off the coast. That might have been the end of Diablo Canyon altogether, but for the intervention of Ronald Reagan who encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency to grant PG&E a $2.5 billion loan to complete its construction work.

-----
Indian group may oppose Feb. 5th, 2008 Clover Valley referendum
Tribal Group is Seeking to Buy Some of Clover Valley from the Developer

By: Toby Lewis, The Placer Herald
October 31, 2007

http://www.placerherald.com/articles/2007/10/31/news/top_stories/02clover.txt?pg=1

The United Auburn Indian Community is considering weighing in on the campaign to defeat the referendum against the Clover Valley development, the group announced this week. "What I would want the public to know is the referendum is short sighted," said Tribe spokesperson Doug Elmets. "That referendum will do more harm than good." The referendum that challenges the development agreement between developer Clover Valley Partners and the city of Rocklin for the construction of 558 homes in Clover Valley will be placed on the Feb. 5 ballot next year. Although plans are not yet finalized, Elmets said the group is currently working with Clover Valley Partners to foster an agreement which would allow the Tribe to purchase the valley floor and convert it into open space with a cultural center.


"The Tribe is absolutely intent on saving the valley and the agreement has been achieved whereby the Tribe, the developer and the city of Rocklin will all be able to achieve some element of success," Elmets said. United Auburn Indian Community, a group that once made a sizeable donation to the Save Clover Valley Coalition back in 2004, is now considering working with the developer to help defeat the referendum drafted by the Coalition. "What we are talking about right now is the Tribe is negotiating with us to purchase 151 of the bottom lots," said Rick Massie of Clover Valley Partners. Those 151 lots equate to the whole of the valley floor, Massie said, which would essentially save the valley floor along with Native American sacred sites.


Proponents of the referendum say it should be left up to the voters of Rocklin to decide the fate of Clover Valley, one of the last remaining open spaces in Rocklin located between Park Drive and Sierra College Boulevard. Elaine O'Deegan, a spokesperson for the Save Clover Valley Coalition, said the proposal for Auburn Indians to purchase the valley floor is nothing new. "They indicated that they had intentions to buy the entire valley floor, but it has all been rumors for the last few years," O'Deegan said. "Until there's a deed of trust or memorandum of understanding between the Tribe and Massie, there's nothing there as far as we're concerned." O'Deegan said there are 249 lots on the valley floor, not 151, and the Native American sacred sites are dispersed throughout Clover Valley's entire 622-acres.


Opponents of the referendum say that if it passes, the current development plan of 558 homes, 366 acres of preserved open space and a two-lane connector road will become null and void, thereby leaving the door open for the original zoning of the valley. The original zoning allows for more than 950 homes with 60 acres of open space and a four-lane connector road, Massie said. Elmets said it would become "incredibly difficult" for the Tribe to purchase the valley floor should the referendum pass. O'Deegan said the claim that the referendum would do more harm than good is merely a scare tactic by Clover Valley Partners and that if Massie was going to build more than 900 homes if it passes, he should be trying to support the referendum. "The truth is you can't stop the project," Massie said. "If you're going to stop it and you do it via the referendum, get ready. The city attorney and the city council are most aware of the alternative and the alternative is not good for the city." The Rocklin City Council unanimously approved the 558-home development plan in August. Since then, the Save Clover Valley Coalition drafted the resolution and collected nearly 5,000 signatures to have the issue placed on the Feb. 5 ballot.

-----------------------------------
Argument against referendum does not add up to 900
Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Letter to the Editor: At the recent City Council meeting several council members stated that if the proposed referendum regarding Clover Valley passes, the previous plan would be in effect, giving the developer the right to build more than 900 houses on the property.
This may be true, and will no doubt be used as an argument for why people should vote against the referendum. However, I would like to point out that at the same meeting the developer spoke quite vehemently in opposition to the referendum. If the referendum passing means that he is entitled to build nearly twice as many houses, and therefore make more profit, why is he so strongly against it?
Douglas Frink, Rocklin