Last community-based environmental organization walks away from Discovery Center project

And then there were none.

The last community-based environmental organization on the booster committee for the troubled San Gabriel River Discovery Center water museum project voted in July to remove itself from the committee.

The exit of the local chapter of the California Native Plant Society is the latest page in an exodus from the project. In past years, the Discovery Center Authority claimed to have nearly 30 members on the committee. Today the list is down to seven.

The project booster committee is now made up almost exclusively of government agencies and water districts, a fact which reveals the project for what it is: unsustainable pork-barrel spending at a time when the taxpayer and ratepayer can no longer bear it.

The $22 million taxpayer-funded water museum and meeting hall -- deemed "incompatible" with the Whittier Narrows Significant Ecological Area by the county's own habitat experts -- is being pushed by a group of government agencies and water districts. Now, their booster committee consists almost exclusively of other government agencies and water districts.

Remaining members include the watershed council, an interest group dominated by agencies, water districts and utility companies; and another government agency whose chairman supports expanded oil drilling in the nearby Whittier Hills even though the agency was established to protect habitat and wildlife there.

Organizations that have decided to walk away because of their opposition to the project or their concerns about its goals, impacts and viability include the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society and the Whittier Narrows Nature Center Associates. Volunteer members of these and other organizations are deeply committed to community, conservation and education -- and they reject the destruction of wildlife habitat and public lands for a building intended primarily as a meeting hall for government officials and water execs.

But the authority seems to be little concerned that the local community, the habitat experts and the conservationists have all rejected the project. With a handful of its fellow agencies still on the booster club, the authority can claim a kind of support. But that support reveals the project for what it is: unsustainable pork-barrel spending at a time when the taxpayer and ratepayer can no longer bear it.

Sierra Club refuses to endorse Discovery Center

In a serious blow to the controversial San Gabriel River Discovery Center, the local chapter of the Sierra Club in May refused to endorse the proposed water museum and meeting center that threatens important community and environmental resources in east Los Angeles County .

One Sierra Club member said the center appeared to be a monument to water districts and county agencies. Another said the project would “destroy the atmosphere of local community — something that is as rare and valuable as remnant habitat.”

The executive committee (board of directors) of the Angeles Chapter opted instead for neutrality toward the $22 million taxpayer-funded project proposed for the Whittier Narrows Natural Area.

The significance of the Sierra Club move cannot be overstated. The local chapter has been involved in the project since 1999. For the organization to turn around now and refuse to give its blessing — after presentations by Belinda Faustinos, director of the Discovery Center Authority, and Russ Guiney, director of Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation — is an important indication of the serious, unanswered questions that surround the project and the joint powers authority attempting to build it over the opposition of the community.

In discussions leading up to the chapter decision, local Sierra Club leaders questioned the wisdom of the project. One member said the center appeared to be a monument to water districts and county agencies. Another said the project would “destroy the atmosphere of local community — something that is as rare and valuable as remnant habitat.”

Project opponents within the Sierra Club and outside it (the latter including Bill Robinson, a director at one of the authority’s member water districts) made the case that too many grave doubts exist regarding the authority’s goals and priorities, the questionable environmental ethics and educational need for the Discovery Center , and the project’s financial viability.

For more information on our efforts to protect the natural area, please visit our website at http://www.naturalareafriends.net/.
--
Photo: John Muir (Library of Congress)

Commenting on an environmental impact report

The public comment period on the Montebello Hills Specific Plan draft environmental impact report closes Thursday.

Motivated by that quickly approaching deadline, I finally got off the dime, reviewed portions of the biological resources and recreation sections of the document, drafted some comments and submitted them to Montebello's director of planning and community development, Michael Huntley.

It was the sort of new experience that, afterwards, I was left thinking, "What was so scary about that?"

The document's 5,000-page length was intimidating, no doubt about it. But as members of the Sierra Club's Save the Montebello Hills Task Force recommended, I concentrated on those areas for which I had an affinity.

Focusing on those areas, I was able to draw conclusions that I hope will offer some assistance in the effort to shape the future of what is already important wildlife habitat and could be a true oasis of public open space for the city and surrounding communities.

It seemed to me that the current proposal depends too much on other areas in the region to support survival of species that might suffer from the 1,200-unit development planned for the hills. It fails to take into adequate account the serious development threats faced by the Puente-Chino Hills and the destruction wrought by last year's Freeway Complex fire.

It was also clear that, while the proposal acknowledges the nearly 200-acre shortage of parkland in Montebello, it does little to address this shortage and in fact creates obstacles to addressing the shortage in the future. The plan includes more than 300 acres of open space and reserve, but all except 16 acres of that land will be off limits to the public.

The Sierra Club alternative, on the other hand, would preserve and restore the hills as wildlife habitat while at the same time opening them to the community for what has come to be termed low-impact recreation and education--hiking, picnicking, outdoor education.

Reviewing and commenting on the EIR was a great experience. The sort of thing that proves you don't know what you can do until you try.

And I'm sure that, as Montebello Hills Task Force co-chair Margot Eiser said, it will turn out to have been great practice for the discovery center EIR.

Montebello extends EIR comment period to 60 days on proposed Montebello Hills development

The Montebello City Council last night extended the public comment and review period to 60 days on a controversial 1,200-unit development proposed for the Montebello Hills, which provide important habitat for wildlife such as the threatened California gnatcatcher.

The fight over the plan proposed for the 488-acre property owned by Plains Exploration & Production Company is something I was only vaguely familiar with before joining the effort to save the Natural Area from becoming the site of the discovery center. But it’s an important battle, and one that stirs passions.

The plan, from what I’ve seen, would take the oil fields of the hills, one of the last remaining areas of open space in Montebello, and place a large housing development right in the middle of it. The remaining open space would form a horseshoe around the development.

There were many speakers, some for the project, more against it. A member of the Friends of the Whittier Narrows Natural Area made comments on behalf of the group.

He (this is your author taking himself out of the story) said that we’re concerned about the impact the planned development would have on the wildlife habitat and open space of the region, pointing out that the Montebello Hills, the Puente-Chino Hills and the San Gabriel Mountains (via the San Gabriel River) all meet at Whittier Narrows. He said too that the treatment the hills would receive in the current proposal isn’t habitat preservation, it’s ornamentation, background for the housing development.

Other speakers far more familiar with the project’s draft EIR, a dense 5,000-page behemoth, criticized the proposal in greater detail.

Especially impressive was the appearance of a staff lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council. The lawyer, Damon Nagami, also focused on the disruption the current proposal would cause to the habitat. The NRDC appears to favor a smaller development concentrated on the far west of the parcel, leaving the larger portion of the hills to connect directly with the Whittier Narrows.

The Sierra Club and its task force are working hard to defend the hills from further development, and they’ve offered an intriguing alternative to more homes. Their plan, available on the Montebello Hills Task Force Web site, would maintain the hills as wildlife habitat (adding wildlife corridors to connect with the narrows) and open them up to the community with a network of trails.

It conjures visions of a Griffith Park, but located in southeast Los Angeles, where members of our community, from the poorest to the most affluent, could enjoy a day out in the fresh air, with family and friends or alone.

It all makes me wonder why, when the benefits of access to outdoor recreation and education are so clear—especially when so close to home—we must fight so hard to save our remaining wild places and open spaces.