Purpose of the Meetings

Kathleen Gildred: Our new proposed name is the "Environmental Leadership Round Table." Our purpose is to bring together the leadership of environmental organizations to be in dialog to see how can we work together on various projects. Let's look at how this group can best serve this function, how to make these meetings meaningful, how to find ways to collaborate effectively. What are the processes we should use in these meetings? Should we have presentations? How should information be distributed beyond this meeting?

Adi Liberman: At the first meeting in May, we talked about how this is a continuation of a previous roundtable that met in the 1980s. We want to share issues, events, ways to get things done, action agendas, who's doing what.

Ruth Galanter: At the previous roundtable there was usually a group of 10-25 people so it was easier to get to know people and have interchange on different issues. We should have presentations to inform the group about issues.

General Discussion:

Ä In the 1980s there was need to provide moral support to each other, because people felt alone. Now the demand on our time is very high and it is difficult to come to meetings.

Ä Because there is division in the environmental community, we need to work toward better understanding among the different approaches, to learn from each other.

Ä There are different kinds of groups here: government, activists, legal-oriented. We need a unified environmental voice, more people saying the same thing will make us heard better.

Ä We should include diverse environmental approaches, be non-partisan, focus on a variety of environmental issues, and discuss how to overcome forces destroying the environment. There may be some differences of opinion of tactics among us, but that is okay.

Ä We want to talk about issues where there is division in the environmental community, such as the Ballona Wetlands, and have a forum to present both sides.

Ä We should share information here on who's doing what, distribute materials.

Ä Information on important actions should be disseminated beyond this room to the community at large. We need direct education of the public. We need to raise the consciousness of people.

Ä We should consider a name change to something like the Environmental Networking Forum or Southern California Environmental Coalition.

Ä We should form a proactive agenda for the group -- we have the power to get things done.

Ä The Ethnic Coalition formed the Environmental Justice Forum, but it ended when the grant ended, and they lost the staff person who was organizing the meetings. This Forum was very helpful, providing opportunities for networking, as well as specific presentations. [We invited people on the Environmental Justice Forum list, but so far they haven't attended.]

Ä We need to be more inclusive, and broadly define "environment." We can't be an advocacy group that has to act by consensus, because we can't represent our groups. We can do information sharing and networking (but there can be activism in the hallway outside).

Ä We need someone who has available time for organizing meetings. The meetings should light enough in tone for people to get to get to know each other. We should discuss serious issues, but not get mad at each other. Kathleen and Adi have done a lot of work to get this organized. The bigger the meeting gets, the more cumbersome it is to organize it. It will be difficult if we outgrow this room. Remember the City of LA is paying for this facility, so it is a public neutral place, which is an advantage. There are potential limits on us as a group, but not on what any of the groups do outside this room.

Ä We all want a sustainable future, viable economy and social equity. Let's discuss issues as friends, not be adversarial. Let's share information on what is hot, and identify the issues that need more attention.

Ä This meeting is a good way of not having to make many serial phone calls to inform groups about different issues.

Ä Let's do information sharing and coordination with other roundtables, such as Peter Kreitler's Environmental Roundtable that meets monthly in Santa Monica.

Ä It is important to mobilize for the elections in November. Relative to the Coastal Commission, politics is the key issue.

Ä This group cannot be involved in partisan politics, but the individual groups can report on what they are doing relative to elections.

Ä Non-profits are limited by the IRS on election issues, but members of non-profits can take positions as individuals. We need to respect each other, and disagree respectfully. Madelyn Glickfield is willing to talk to us about this process.

Ä Non-profit organizations can participate in discussions on politics, but not take action.

Ä We can educate people on the issues of links between the Assembly leadership and who is appointed to the Coastal Commission.

California Coastal Commission

Sara Wan: The Coastal Commission is a current hot issue, because 8 of the 12 members are dedicated to destroying the Commission. They want to fire Peter Douglas and frighten the staff. They have put together a Management Audit Committee to review all Coastal Commission procedures and rewrite our mission unrelated to our statutory requirements. They want to be friendly to developers. They are not in favor of any restrictions on land use. They want to reduce public access. They want to dismantle the Coastal Act without going through the legislature. The result will jeopardize the entire coast of California.

The next Coastal Commission meeting is in Los Angeles at the Crown Plaza Hotel, near LAX, August 13-16. We must get as many people as possible to attend. The only thing they respond to is protest and public scrutiny. They announced the agenda to fire Peter Douglas the minimum 10 days in advance of the meeting. But 4 groups led by The Center for Marine Conservation got the word out, generating 500 faxes, from every county, many cities, and every major environmental group and got 300 people at the meeting. This public attention forced them to back down.

We need to bring about the same public pressure relative to the discussion of the parameters of Management Audit Committee study, which will start on Tuesday, Aug. 13, at 1:00 pm. There is no way to stop the management audit, but we can suggest our own directions for the Committee. They have to listen to you. We can present what would we like to see changed for our side, improvements that will help the public. At present, they are only interested in helping the developer. Please get as many people as possible to attend.

Coastal Access: They want in the management audit the directive to review old permits to see if people with access easements are happy. They can eliminate the easement retroactively if the property owner asks for a reopening, and if the access hasn't been picked up by a public agency or a non-profit. For example, in Malibu, most easements have not been picked up, because of need for liability insurance. We may lose all those easements forever. We need legislation to relax that insurance requirement. [The Land Trust Alliance has a way to pool insurance costs.] The State Constitution states that the public has access to all navigable waters. The desire for guaranteed public access created the original impetus for the Coastal Act.

They will discuss parameters for the Fiscal Audit Committee at the meeting on Friday. They could determine they have no budget for permits or enforcement.

We should get the word out to all the media about the issues. The press put attention on the Peter Douglas issue before the meeting and they had to back down. Since the majority of the public wants coastal protection, we can get Republicans, Democrats, and Independents involved. It is only the Republican leadership that is out of step with the public.

We also have to work between now and November elections to get people elected that are committed to protecting the coast. Immediately we need a 2 prong strategy: 1. Public scrutiny of all Commission actions between now and November, and 2. Organize a "Vote the Coast" campaign for the November election. For more information, contact Ann Notthoff, NRDC 415-777-0220 and Mark Ryavec at the American Oceans Campaign, 310-392-4843.

Mark Ryavec: The American Oceans Campaign will fax out a one-page information sheet to everyone on the sign-in list.

Kathleen Gildred: I can automatically fax out to many organizations on my computer fax.

Marcia Knight: We are organizing the Campaign to Bring Back the Coastal Act which has the Sierra Club, NRDC, and others on a steering committee. Contact Kathy at the Sierra Club.

Saran Kirschbaum: The Earth Spirit Bulletin Board has action alerts. NRDC and Sierra Club have web sites. Using these means will reach a much bigger audience.

Los Angeles River

Jan Chatten-Brown: On 7/24 we received a decision on the LA River case (which was brought by 11 environmental groups). The judge ordered the project returned to the County Board of Supervisors for reconsideration.

The background of the case is that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determined that there was no longer 100 year flood protection for portions of the LA River. In response, the Army Corps of Engineers, supported by the County Dept. of Public Works (DPW), proposed a $300 million project to build parapet walls, modify bridge piers and re-armor the backsides of levies. The bridge modifications and level re-armoring are fine, but many environmental and community groups oppose the walls because they would be a magnet for graffiti, impair visual access to the River, and would essentially eliminate the possibility of a river-long bikeway and parkway. Instead, we support using various multi-purpose flood management approaches, such as using use storm water to recharge the ground water basin.

In October 1995, petitioners almost had a settlement (DPW had agreed) to create and fund a task force to look at the alternatives proposed by FoLAR (Friends of the LA River), and to develop a Los Angeles River Watershed Management Task Force. Unfortunately, the settlement fell apart at the last minute for reasons unrelated to the merits of the settlement.

The Army Corps of Engineers did an analysis of the FoLAR alternatives proposal and said it was too expensive. That analysis was not made public, and FoLAR had no opportunity to rebut it before the Board's action. The FoLAR Plan, the Corps' Analysis, and FoLAR's rebuttal must be given to the public and the Board of Supervisors before the Board's action.

Now we have another chance at the Board of Supervisors, but so far only Supervisor Yaroslavsky is supportive. The hearing we probably take place August 20, 1996, so we do not have much time to organize. We must get editorial support and resolutions from prospective task force participants indicating they would like to participate. An action alert and sample letter to the Board of Supervisors will be sent to everyone on the list. If you have any personal relationship with any member of the Board of Supervisors, please call Jan Chatten-Brown at (310) 474-7793, or Mark Ryavec with American Oceans Campaign at (310) 392-4843.

Andy Lipkis: The issue is sustainability. Now we just send stormwater to the ocean, rather than saving it for our use. We could use the $300 million for watershed management, otherwise, the project will seal out multi-purpose flood management approaches forever. We need to bring on other funders like MWD. Our approach could provide more economic development, environmental justice, etc. We did a poor job politically before the Board of Supervisors. We need to generate more effort to convince the supervisors to support multi-purpose project planning. The issue is constituencies. All supervisors need pressure.

Ruth Galanter: I could bring a motion to have the City DWP report to the Council Committee I chair on the feasibility of the FoLAR alternatives.

Jan: The City could help with information on water detention sites.

Sara Wan: Let's look at the economic benefits analysis, because the FoLAR proposal is, in the long run, the cheaper alternative.

LAX Expansion

Sandy Brown: Sen. Tom Hayden will hold a press conference opposing LAX expansion into Santa Monica Bay, Monday, July 29 at 10 am, on Sandpiper Road. Ruth Galanter is also opposing building runways in the Bay. We need to look at the airport master plan. Boating and homeowner groups will be helpful constituencies.

Ward Valley

Jennifer Richardson, Americans for a Safe Future: The Ward Valley Nuclear Waste Dump may go ahead without any further environmental review and be exempt from all US environmental laws if bills S 1596 and HR 3083 are passed. We need to write Senators Boxer and Feinstein asking them to oppose S1596.

Internet Web Site

Jim Stewart: SCCED will soon be posting a web site to provide information about Southern California environment and development issues. Please complete and return the attached form if you wish to be included on the web site.