-----

Water Crisis Approaching: Do we accept endless population growth as a "given" and just let developers and water agencies continue to build with no limits?

Is there really more water out there that all we need to do is capture it somehow?

-------------------

Dry winter underlines water need

By Dan Walters - dwalters@sacbee.com

Published 12:00 am PST Wednesday, November 28, 2007
http://www.sacbee.com/walters/story/525991.html

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE – It's almost December, but anyone driving in the bone-dry Lake Tahoe basin is more likely to encounter blowing dust than drifting snow.

Northern California, it's becoming more evident every day, faces the scary prospect of a second dry winter that will not refill its badly depleted reservoirs. How depleted? Shasta Lake, at the head of the Sacramento River system near Redding, can hold 4.6 million acre-feet of water but contains just 1.8 million. Lake Oroville, with a capacity of 3.5 million acre-feet, has just 1.3 million. Folsom Lake is scarcely one-quarter full.

On Monday, the state Department of Water Resources told the water agencies that serve two-thirds of Californians that they can expect just 25 percent of their normal allocations next year, down from 60 percent this year. Several cities in Southern California have declared water emergencies. The fire danger remains high, as this week's Malibu fire underscores. Within a few days, a judge's order that curtails water deliveries to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to save endangered fish will take effect.
This is the immediate crisis, and there's very little that politicians can do to avert it. But it's part of a longer-range crisis that's been developing for decades in a political vacuum. It may worsen if the warnings about global warming prove true, because winter snows will lessen, and more of the state's precipitation will come in the form of rain.

Against that background of immediate water shortages and long-range peril, are the Capitol's politicians rising to the occasion? Not noticeably.

Yes, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders are talking about making a multibillion-dollar investment in water conservation and storage. And talking. And talking. But the philosophical and partisan conflicts that have stalled water policy for decades are as strong as ever. Tellingly, on the day that state water officials delivered the bad news to Californians, Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders met again to discuss the long-stalled water plan and failed again to reach agreement.

The pivotal point is whether the state should build new reservoirs as part of its water plan or rely on conservation and other forms of non-storage water management to meet its needs, such as shifting more water from farmers to residential, commercial and industrial users.
Schwarzenegger proposes reservoirs, but Democrats, under intense pressure from anti-reservoir environmental groups, have been reluctant. The lead Democrat on the issue, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, finally agreed to place $3 billion in the proposed water bond for reservoirs. Republicans, however, are insisting that the money be appropriated permanently, fearing that environmentalists would block its use if it remains subject to legislative appropriation.

Their fear is well-founded. Environmental groups see water supply as the key element in land use and other development issues and believe that restricting supply will somehow slow growth – disregarding the simple demographic fact that California's population growth stems almost entirely from immigration and babies. Thus, the never-ending debate over water really isn't about water so much as it is about how and if California will continue to grow.

There is no small irony in that conflict. Those on the political left who oppose new reservoirs generally oppose immigration restrictions and universally believe in global warming scenarios that imply the state needs more storage to capture winter rains and offset the loss of snowpack.
Storage could be in some form other than traditional reservoirs, perhaps, such as replenishing underground aquifers – but anyone who thinks we don't need it in some form is intellectually dishonest.

-----

Initiative to reverse ban on nuclear plants statwide is withdrawn

Insufficient public support for new nuclear plants in California prompts sponsor to shelve the plan

11/27/2007 By David Sneed

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/203714.html

An initiative to lift the state’s ban on new nuclear power plants will not appear on the June 2008 ballot.

State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, has withdrawn the ballot initiative he submitted to state elections officials, after public opinion polls found lukewarm support for new nuclear power plants in the state.

His initiative would have overturned a 1976 state law prohibiting construction of new nuclear reactors until a permanent solution for the storage of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel is found.

About 14 percent of California’s power comes from nuclear plants. The state has two nuclear power plants in operation: the San Onofre plant near San Diego and the Diablo Canyon plant near Avila Beach.

“This was certainly a controversial initiative,” DeVore said. “If we pushed this thing to the ballot, we were likely to lose.”

Lifting the state’s nuclear moratorium is relevant to San Luis Obispo County because most proposals for new nuclear plants call for adding reactors to existing plants.

Officials with Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which owns and operates the Diablo Canyon plant, say they are interested in more nuclear power but are not proposing adding new reactors to Diablo.

PG&E spokesman Pete Resler said Monday the utility had no comment on the De- Vore initiative.

There is renewed interest nationally in nuclear power and federal regulators expect to process applications for about 30 new reactors along the East Coast and in the Southeast in coming years.

A group of entrepreneurs has proposed building a new nuclear plant in Fresno.

Unless it is overturned, the state’s nuclear moratorium will prevent new nuclear plants for the foreseeable future. Completion of a planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is at least a decade away—maybe longer if Nevada legislators succeed in their pledge to keep the repository out of their state.

Lacking support

In addition to lifting the nuclear moratorium, DeVore’s ballot initiative would have prevented nuclear plants from being built in earthquake-prone areas and along ecologically sensitive parts of the coastline.

In October, DeVore got permission to begin gathering signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. No signature gathering was done, however, because several opinion polls showed that 52 percent of the public supports more nuclear power while 42 percent is opposed.

That was not enough support to justify moving ahead given the fact that environmental and some consumer groups were gearing up to fight the initiative.

“That’s very modest support,” he said. “You want to be in the mid-60 percent range before you start on something that controversial.”

Rochelle Becker, who heads the San Luis Obispo-based Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, said she was delighted by DeVore’s decision to stop the campaign. The state Energy Commission is doing a cost-benefit analysis of nuclear power and it would be premature and irresponsible, she said, to change the law before that analysis is finished.

Becker was working with other groups, including the Sierra Club, to fight the initiative. They want the state to pursue renewable energy sources rather than nuclear power.

“When Mr. DeVore introduced this initiative,” she said, “he brought many more people together on our side than he anticipated.”

DeVore said he hasn’t given up on the idea of new nuclear power plants in California as a way of meeting ambitious state goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He plans to submit a bill next year that would lift the nuclear moratorium legislatively and said it may take several years to generate enough public support to change the law.

DeVore submitted such a bill to the state Legislature last year, but it was voted down in committee. The new bill has not been written yet, so De- Vore is not sure how it will differ from the previous one.

-----

Fate of Last Chunk of Orange County's Bolsa Chica Wetlands is Decided by Coastal Commission

(above) Tract Map Approved by the Commission

Staff-Recommended Tract Map (Rejected by Commission)

FROM http://www.bixby.org/parkside/

Shea got some of what they wanted, we got some of

what we wanted; and it looks like maybe this was
a true split decision:

http://www.ocregister.com/news/land-shea-wetlands-1923938-commission-homes

Shea is now estimating they have 25 acres to build on,
once you factor in the NTS out of a buffer and the VFPF.
That would leave 25 acres open, though not all of it
conserved (the NTS & VFPF aren't leaving
the land fallow).

Is that enough to make the project "viable" in
Shea's eyes?  Will be interesting to see...
--Julie Bixby


To read more:
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/huntingtonbeach/bolsachica/article_1923102.php

Friday, November 16, 2007

More details emerge on HB Parkside decision

Bolsa Chica Land Trust representatives said they still won a good chunk of wetlands but are now seriously considering legal recourse.

BY CINDY CARCAMO

The Orange County Register

HUNTINGTON BEACH Now that the dust has started to settle, it appears that the California Coastal Commission will allow Shea Homes to build on about half the land they own, the developer's representatives reported Thursday.

The decision made late Wednesday leaves both the developer and environmental activists opposed to the project disappointed and pondering their next move.

Shea officials said the Coastal Commission essentially granted them 25 acres to build on.

The developer had planned to build a 170-home community called Parkside Estates on a 50-acre parcel of land near one of the county's last wetlands.

After Wednesday's decision, it's now unclear how many homes Shea will construct, said Shea Homes spokesman Laer Pearce.

"It was a big mistake," he said of the commission designating some of the land wetlands.

After a more than six-hour hearing in San Diego, both sides were left wondering how much they truly lost or gained for their cause because commissioners voted separately on certain sections of the land and designated some areas wetlands and environmentally sensitive areas while determining others were not.

What is clear is that some of the commissioners disagreed with a November report prepared by their staff. The staff recommended slashing a proposal to 19 acres, stating that a good portion of the Shea Homes land is wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas for habitat that is protected.

Probably the two most contentious areas were two sections – a 0.95-acre patch and another 4-acre swath of land. Environmentalist and the commission's staff said the areas were wetlands. The developer vehemently disagreed.

Commissioners voted that the 0.95-acre portion was not a wetland and open to development.

"I went out there today to kind of say goodbye," said environmental activist Julie Bixby, who visited the area Thursday morning. "It was a bit sad."

Commissioner Dan Secord wanted the rest of his colleagues to vote against calling a separate 4-acre parcel a wetland, opening it up for development. None of the commissioners, however, agreed to take it up for a vote, killing the motion.

The 4-acre swath, protected by a 100-foot buffer is a major win for environmental activists -- most members of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust.

"We're happy that the … wetland was able to survive the slash-and-burn approach that the coastal commission took to staff recommendations. That's a major benefit," said Flossie Horgan, the land trust's executive director.

One of the biggest losses for Shea opponents, however, was when the Coastal Commission voted to reduce a 100-meter buffer to a 160-foot minimum variable buffer to protect what staff called an environmentally sensitive area for birds of prey.

The major source of debate at the hearing was whether Shea Homes moved large portions of dirt around the land to intentionally cover up wetlands under the guise of farming.

Those allegations were also raised by an environmental watchdog group in a lawsuit filed against Shea in Orange County Superior Court. A judge delayed the case until December, hoping the commission would decide the matter first.

Shea Homes Vice President Ron Metzler told commissioners that the farmer who rented the land was following normal farming practices.

Horgan said the land trust will meet soon and consider legal action against Wednesday's decision.

"Absolutely, because you can't destroy wetlands and you can't make them disappear under the guise of farming," Horgan said. "You cannot use farming to destroy wetlands."

BACKGROUND ON THE BATTLE TO SAVE ALL OF BOLSA CHICA:

from http://bolsachicalandtrust.org/challenges.html

While over 1,200 acres of the wetlands have been saved from development, the adjacent upland areas are quickly vanishing due to residential development. The view is admittedly stunning. However, the devastation of the fragile ecosystem - as a result of urban runoff, household pets, and house and garden chemicals - will be permanent. The assault on Native American burials and gathering spots will be horrifying. The loss of habitat for native and migrating wildlife is irreplaceable. This treasured "Little Pocket" of old California culture and history will be lost forever.

While a broad-based community effort has held off this invasion, a final resolution is needed. The only way to permanently safeguard this last vestige of old California is to purchase the property for preservation. While the purchase of the Lower Bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa was accomplished in 2005, acquisition efforts continue on the 50-acre Upper Bolsa Chica Wetlands, proposed for development by Shea Homes; and on the 6-acre Sacred Cogged Stone site, proposed for condominiums by its owner.


from http://amigosdebolsachica.org/history.htm
In 1973, as part of a controversial land swap, the State of California acquired approximately 300 acres of wetlands adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway. A portion of this was restored by the state in 1979 to become the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. The remaining acreage was retained in private hands. Planning for the construction of a massive marina, commercial and residential development was quickly underway. The plan was drastically reduced in 1989 through the settlement of a lawsuit filed by the Amigos.

May 1997, SAN DIEGO JUDGE RULES IN FAVOR OF LAWSUIT PROTECTING BOLSA CHICA. Filed by the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, the Sierra Club, the Surfrider Foundation, Huntington Beach Tomorrow and the Shoshone Gabrieleño Nation, the suit claimed the Coastal Commission erred in approving development in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, allowing Warner Pond to be filled, and approving the moving of the eucalyptus ESHA to the Huntington Mesa, and the court agreed.

(editor's note: The now-famous Bolsa Chica decision changed the way the Coastal Commission dealt with wetlands along the entire California Coast. Where previously wetlands could be filled-in and built upon as long as other wetlands were restored, the law was clarified to prohibit virtually any destruction of coastal wetlands. This has shifted the battle for wetland advocates to disputes over what is a wetland, as the battle over the remaining 50 acres at Parkside Bolsa Chica has shown. A similar battle occurred at the Ballona Wetlands in 2002 at the Marina Freeway)

In 1997 the state acquired 880 acres of Bolsa Chica wetlands and another 41 acres was acquired in 2005, bringing public ownership of the Bolsa Chica to over 1200 acres. Wetland restoration of nearly 600 acres of Bolsa Chica was begun in 2004.

In the summer of 2006 seawater flowed into the restored wetland for the first time in over 100 years. The Bolsa Chica wetland restoration was the largest coastal wetland restorations ever undertaken in Southern California.

-----
L.A. City Council votes 13-0 for New EIR for Development Project on East L.A.'s Elephant Hill

Sunday, November 4, 2007
http://saveelephanthills.blogspot.com/

COUNCILMEMBER HUIZAR SECURES MAJOR VICTORY ON El SERENO DEVELOPMENT

Councilmember Huizar won a unanimous City Council vote to stop the issuance of development permits for the proposed Elephant Hill new home project until a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report has been completed. The vote is a major community and environmental victory for El Sereno residents. Councilmember Huizar has led the charge to halt work on the development until new concerns, including water runoff and potential sinkholes, have been fully addressed. The Council voted to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report in June.

-----
Gaviota Coastline Threatened with Westward Expansion of Santa Barbara/L.A. Sprawl

Taken from the Santa Barbara County Planning department's webpage on this project:

http://sbcountyplanning.org/projects/03DVP-00041/index.cfm

also see the 11/14/2007 summary of the project:
http://sbcountyplanning.org/PDF/projects/03DVP-00041/SBRanchProject-Detailed%20Summary(9-12-07).pdf

The Santa Barbara Ranch Project consists of amendments to the County’s Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance along with a variety of subdivision and entitlement applications that would collectively permit a residential estate development on the Gaviota coast, two miles west of the City of Goleta. Several different development scenarios are under consideration involving between 54 and 72 new residential dwellings, an equestrian center, agricultural support facilities, a worker duplex, public amenities (including access road, parking and restroom, hiking, biking, equestrian trails near the coastal bluff, an educational kiosk and a coastal access stair structure), and creation of conservation easements for permanent protection of open space and agriculture.


UPCOMING MEETINGS/DEADLINES:

November 13, 2007 – Recirculation of Revised Draft EIR

December 10, 2007 – Public Meeting on Revised Draft EIR

January 2, 2008 – End of Public Comment Period on Revised Draft EIR


GROUPS FIGHTING THE DEVELOPMENT:

http://www.savenaples.org/

http://www.gaviotacoastconservancy.org/

-----
$874 Million is in California Parkland and Habitat Budget for 2007-2008

In the State Legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger’s Budget signed August 24th for July 2007-June 2008 there is a total of $874 Million for Parkland and Wildlife Habitat.

http://www.calandtrusts.org/trustnews.cfm?resID=124779&alt=1

FROM PROPOSITIONS 12/40/50--- $153.6 MILLION

Resources Agency---$20.5 million River Parkways

Department of Conservation--$14.9 million CA Farmland Conservancy Program

Department of Forestry--$4.5 million

Department of Water Resources--$99.6 million-- Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plans

State Coastal Conservancy--$3 million
Capital Outlay--$2,000,000
SF Bay Conservancy Program--$1,000,000

Tahoe Conservancy--$11.1 million Conservancy Grants -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM PROPOSITION 84---$650.6 MILLION

Wildlife Conservation Board--$383.2 million total
Capital Outlay--$135,000,000
Forest Conservation--$180,000,000
Natural Community Conservation Plans--$25,000,000
Oak Woodlands Program--$14,300,000
Rangeland, Grazing Land, Grasslands Program--$14,300,000
Ecosystem Restoration on Ag Properties--$4,600,000
San Joaquin River Conservancy--$10,000,000

State Coastal Conservancy--$114.7 million total
Capital Outlay--$37,000,000
Ocean Protection Council--$28,000,000
SF Bay Conservancy Program--$23,700,000
Monterey Bay--$9,700,000
San Diego Bay--$6,700,000
Santa Ana River—$9,600,000

Department of Parks and Recreation--$15 million
Opportunity Acquisitions

Department of Water Resources--$34 million total
Flood Corridors Program---$25,000,000
Urban Streams Program--$9,000,000

Department of Forestry--$2.8 million Urban Forestry

Tahoe Conservancy--$27.4 million Capital Outlay

Rivers and Mountains Conservancy--$25 million Capital Outlay

Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy--$17 million Capital Outlay

Sierra Nevada Conservancy--$17 million Capital Outlay

Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy--$11.5 million Capital Outlay

Baldwin Hills Conservancy--$3 million Capital Outlay

--------------------------------------

ADDITIONAL FUNDING--$69.8 MILLION
Wildlife Conservation Board--$30 million Habitat Conservation Fund

Department of Transportation--$10 million Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program

Department of Parks and Recreation--$29.8 million total
Recreational Grants-$11,800,000
OHV Trust Fund-$18,000,000

-----
Chula Vista Wetland Restoration Hinges on 1500 Condos and Shopping Center

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071009/news_1m9pacifica.html

Developer is working on bayfront land swap
By Tanya Mannes
STAFF WRITER, San Diego Union-Tribune

October 9, 2007

CHULA VISTA – San Diego-based Pacifica Cos., which has been working since 2000 on a plan to build condos and at least one hotel on the Chula Vista bayfront, has agreed to scale down the project and move it to a new site – across from the Chula Vista Marina – to protect wetlands.

Permits are still years away, but company President Ash Israni said he is encouraged by the progress made in discussions with the Port of San Diego, environmental groups and labor unions.

Israni holds an option to develop 97 acres near a wildlife preserve. He hopes to swap that for 32 acres owned by the port and build a “walkable neighborhood” of 1,500 condos, a 250-room hotel and 450,000 square feet of commercial and office space.

“What we want to do is a 24-7 type of community that is active, vibrant and environmentally sensitive,” Israni said. “You have to make sure that everything is agreeable and everybody likes what I'm doing.”

Public attention has focused on Gaylord Entertainment's plan for a hotel and convention center on the Chula Vista bayfront. Fewer people have heard of Pacifica, which is the other big private-sector player in the 550-acre Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan. Both companies intend to invest more than $700 million each in their projects.

The Port of San Diego is working on an environmental impact report for the master plan area. Permits are at least two years away for Tennessee-based Gaylord and three years away for Pacifica.

Israni got involved in the bayfront master planning process years before Gaylord arrived on the scene.

“But we've been very low-key about it,” Israni said. “A lot of people don't know who Pacifica is.”

Pacifica is a $2 billion asset company with a portfolio of condos and apartments throughout the United States and India. One project is in Imperial Beach, where Israni is seeking permission to build a resort on the Seacoast Inn site.

Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox said she's aware of “very general” information about Pacifica's plans but has not seen any design renderings. She noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee for the bayfront envisioned housing as an important component of the master plan.

In 2002, before she was elected mayor, Cox worked as a consultant for Pacifica on an issue involving National City's hotel tax. In 1996, she worked with Pacifica to help it get a more visible sign for its Holiday Inn Express in Chula Vista.

If the land swap is approved, Pacifica would begin a one-year process of seeking coastal development permits. The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corp. will have the authority to approve them.

Chris Lewis, chairman of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corp., remembers Pacifica from his work on the Citizens Advisory Committee but said he hasn't heard much since.

“I know very little about it,” Lewis said. “They kind of took a back seat when we started working on Gaylord.”

Gaylord got involved in the Chula Vista bayfront planning process in 2004. The national company hopes to build a hotel with up to 2,000 rooms and a 400,000-square-foot convention center. In July, the company reached an impasse with labor unions and for a time said it would drop the project.

So far, Israni has managed to avoid a combative relationship with labor unions. Pacifica has begun preliminary talks with the San Diego County Building & Construction Trades Council, the union that butted heads with Gaylord. Israni said the talks have been “very cordial, very friendly.”

Israni has also taken steps to appease environmentalists who objected to his 2002 plan for 3,400 condos and three hotels for the site bound by wetlands. He has scaled back the project and accepted the idea of a complicated land swap.

To help build alliances, Israni hired former Mayor Steve Padilla's coastal/environmental coordinator, Allison Rolfe, as the project coordinator. Rolfe served on the Citizens Advisory Committee for about two years before joining Padilla's staff in September 2005.

This year, Rolfe helped Pacifica reach a tentative pact with local environmental groups, including the Environmental Health Coalition and the San Diego Audubon Society, to not oppose the project. Israni agreed to build a “green” project that would meet national standards for nature-friendly design. He also agreed to contribute an estimated $7.5 million into a new community benefit foundation for affordable housing, natural resources protection, environmental education and other projects. The agreement is not yet signed.

The land swap will require approval from the port and then from the State Lands Commission. The bayfront master plan will also go to the Chula Vista City Council and the California Coastal Commission. The earliest the plan could clear all hurdles is mid-2009, according to the port's timeline.

Israni said he never anticipated that the project would take this long.

“It has been a real trying project for me. I would never take on a project like this again,” he said. “But we are so far into it that it has become a challenge I need to pursue.”

-----

Environmental group seeks to limit mining near protected lands

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_C_mines16.3d1cede.html

Monday, October 15, 2007

By JENNIFER BOWLES
The Riverside Press-Enterprise

An environmental group is pushing for federal legislation that would restrict mining within 10 miles of a national park, wilderness or other protected lands, a change that could affect thousands of California mining claims.

Congress is considering updates to the nation's 135-year-old mining law.

In San Bernardino and Riverside counties, 525 mining claims lie within 10 miles of Joshua Tree National Park, which straddles both counties, according to the Environmental Working Group. Of those, 207 claims have been filed since 2003. At Mojave National Preserve in eastern San Bernardino County, 2,486 claims are within 10 miles; 670 have been filed since 2003.

Statewide, 21,365 claims are within 10 miles of federal public lands, the group said.

Bill Walker, vice president of the environmental group's West Coast office in Oakland, said Monday that the group analyzed data from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which oversees mining activity.

Legislation has been introduced to update the Hardrock Mining Law of 1872, and the group wants the buffer zone to be included and land managers given power to weigh whether the mines would be harmful to the environment. The buffer zone is needed, Walker said, to protect the landscape and reduce the chance of damage to wildlife habitat and water sources from toxic waste.

The House Resources Committee is scheduled on Thursday to mark up the legislation, introduced by the committee chairman, U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W. Va.

Joe Zarki, chief of interpretation at Joshua Tree National Park, said park officials aren't aware of any current claims that are a threat. He said the Bureau of Land Management typically allows the National Park Service to comment on anything nearby.

"We're always concerned about issues along our borders that might possibly impact resources, whether it's the air, wildlife or vegetation," he said.

Robert Waiwood, geologist with the bureau for the California desert district, said most claims are for gold and that most don't become active mines. The district's only large, open-pit operation, he said, is in Imperial County.

Walker said he's concerned about the few claims that do become active.

"If just a few did," he said, "they would have quite an impact."

Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency added the Formosa Mine in Oregon to the nation's Superfund list. Mining activities released copper, zinc and other metals into the headwaters of two creeks and severely degraded 18 miles of stream habitat, the EPA said.

Palm Springs Voters Reject Project at Base of Mt. San Jacinto Aerial Tramway

11/10/2007  SAVE OUR MOUNTAINS SUPPORTERS

We did it!!

Tuesday, the voters of Palm Springs went to the polls and put an
absolute whammy on the Yes on C folks. We received more than a 60% NO
vote in a full landslide over the opposition that put $650,000 into a
campaign that got them just 3846 votes. That’s almost $200 per yes vote.

I will not single out any individuals for special thanks, as each
contributed in his or her own way. We had volunteers who made calls,
contributed money, showed up at events, placed signs, handled our
website, walked door-to-door and all of the other tasks that make for a
successful campaign. Collectively, we demonstrated that not only can you
fight City Hall, you can win!

TO ALL OF YOU, I GIVE YOU MY HEARTFELT THANKS!!

We will soon have a new City Council who we believe will be more
responsive to our concerns. You can be assured that Save Our Mountains
will not rest on our laurels from this victory, but will continue to
press for the responsible stewardship of our awesome natural resources.

Thanks again for supporting those of us who were in the thick of this
campaign. We hope that we can count on your support continuing into the
future.

GREAT JOB!!

Jono Hildner, Chair
Save Our Mountains
http://noshadowrock.org/

http://www.saveourmountains.com/

November 6, 2007 marks a critical turning point in the fate of Chino Canyon, our magnificent alluvial fan located at the historic entrance to Palm Springs and the gateway to the Aerial Tram and San Jacinto/Santa Rosa National Monument. In 2006, the City Council voted 3-1 to rubber-stamp a 10-year extension to the 1993 Shadowrock Development Agreement for building a massive development in the heart of Chino Canyon. In doing so, they ignored the Planning Commission’s unanimous vote to deny the extension, and betrayed the public trust. A NO vote on Measure C rejects the 10-year extension to this flawed and outdated development agreement.

What’s at stake?

A NO! vote on Measure C
rejects a development agreement that... --Fails to require an assessment to pay for necessary additional police and fire services. --Permits mass grading and over two million cubic yards of cut and fill. --Fails to require a hotel and its promised revenues. --Violates current Chino Cone Ordinance. --Allows above ground utility lines, sewer and water pipes. --Permits ripping out part of the Chino Canyon Oasis.

What’s it going to take? Like the Measures B and C campaign in 2005, the Shadowrock Referendum promises to be a difficult fight. We anticipate that there will be many attempts to confuse and deceive voters and a lot of money spent by the developer and his allies. Two things we know for certain: We need you to vote NO on Measure C We need your personal involvement to win this fight.








Money is always welcome and critical to getting our message out. Volunteering your time or opening up your home to host a coffee for neighbors and friends will also be of immeasurable help to this campaign. Please join in by contributing what you can.

Photos are by Tom Brewster and Greg Day 

-----
Solar Power Plant Proposed for Carrizo Plain in Eastern San Luis Obispo County

by Cal French/Sierra Club
November 2, 2007


Silicon Valley's solar boom continues with Ausra, a Palo Alto startup backed by venture capitalist heavyweights Vinod Khosla and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, filing an application to build a 177-megawatt solar power plant on California's Central Coast.

Ausra's lodging of its 1,000+ page "application for certification" with the California Energy Commission last week is another sign the company, which relocated to Silicon Valley from Sydney last year, is about to sign a major deal with a California utility. Khosla has previously said Ausra is negotiating with PG&E. In its application, the company stated that the San Luis Obispo County project, called the Carrizo Energy Solar Farm, would begin providing greenhouse gas-free electricity to "a major California utility" by June 2010 under a 20-year power purchase agreement. If the Commission licenses the project—at least a year-long process—construction would begin in 2009. In September, Florida utility FPL announced it would use Ausra's technology for a planned 300-megawatt solar power plant.

While there's no shortage of solar startups with big plans for Big Solar, only three companies have actually taken the expensive and time-consuming step of filing a construction application with the California Energy Commission. (On Wednesday, Oakland, Calif.-based solar company BrightSource Energy cleared a major regulatory hurdle when the Commission signed off on its application for a 400-megawatt Mojave Desert power plant and began the licensing process.)

The Carrizo solar thermal power plant will deploy 195 long rows of flat mirrors to focus the sun' s rays on tubes of water suspended over the arrays. The superheated water creates saturated steam that will drive two electricity-generating turbines, to be supplied by either GE or Siemens. While the efficiency of Ausra's compact linear fresnel reflector system is lower than competing technologies, company executives claim they will able to drive down the costing of producing solar electricity to make it competitive with natural gas.Unlike most solar power plants in the works for California, Ausra has chosen not to locate its facility in the Mojave Desert, where solar sites are sun-drenched but are often on government land and far from transmission lines. Instead, the Carrizo project will be built on 640 acres of old ranch land on the Carrizo Plain, where Ausra will just need to construct a 850-foot transmission line to connect to the power grid.

"Ausra Inc.'s proved, proprietary technology significantly reduces the cost of a solar thermal power plant and is thus capable of significantly reducing global carbon emissions by generating low-carbon electricity on a commercial scale at competitive prices," the company stated in its application.