Opposition to Sierra Club Endorsement of Whittier Narrows Development

I got this from my associate Jim Odling, who forwarded it. I personally do not yet have an opinion about this, but, am posting it here for notice and discussion. I believe the nature center is the bird sanctuary on the southern side of Durfee, across from Legg Lake and Golfland. It's a nice, quiet place to study plants and birds.

( From Friends of the Whittier Narrows Natural Area http://naturalareafriends.net )

All Greens who are Sierra Club members please send US Mail letters to both to the Sierra Club Executive Committtee and Conservation Chair Bonnie Sharp. A sample letter is below. Do it quickly. The monthly Executive Committee Meeting is on
Sunday April 29.

Call Angeles Chapter Chair Mike Sappingfield at (949)768-3610 and Conservation Chair Bonnie Sharpe at (714)528-9596.

Please attend the Angeles Chapter Executive Committee meeting on Sunday April 29, 2007 at 1PM 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 320. They (we, the members) need to postpone any consideration of the "Discovery Center". The Draft Environmental Impact Report and
Federal Impact Study are not expected to be available until June or July 2007.

SAMPLE LETTER

April 20, 3007

Bonnie Sharpe, Conservation Chair(at the same address below)
Executive Committee Angeles Chapter of Sierra Club 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 320 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1904

Dear Executive Committee Members:

I am a member of the Sierra Club.

The proposed "Discovery Center" that would be built at Whittier Narrows Natural Area (WNNA) is in the county's Sensitive Ecological Area (SEA) at the San Gabriel River in South El Monte.

I am writing to express strong objections to this project, which is being widely promoted by Sierra Club member Jeff Yann as being endorsed by the Angeles Chapter of Sierra Club.

This proposal is everything that John Muir DID NOT stand for. The proposal began when the Upper San Gabriel Water District, and other agencies wanted to locate a large 150-seat auditorium and accompanying large parking lot at WNNA for their district and agencies' conventions and large meetings.

Whittier Narrows Natual Area docents there can tell you that the maximum number of students coming to WNNA and nature center is TWO bus loads. We DO NOT need a large 150-space parking lot since the students come by bus not cars. We also do not need a huge , $18, 500 square foot building and 150 seat auditorium since our teaching with the students is done outdoors not indoors.

Jeff Yann was (and, I believe, still is) under the employ of the water district, so this project from its conception involves a clear, unacceptable conflict of interest.

I have spoken with other members of the Angeles Chapter and the natural area docents who also express grave reservations about this, including the false bottom "marshland" and unnatural "creeks" in the "Confluence Park" master plan for this project.

John Muir would turn in his grave over this one. WNNA is a bird and wildlife sanctuary and should not be turned into a conference and convention center. Leave it as it is with wildland habitat in which we teach our children and students about the outdoors. The Angeles Chapter should not support, but instead become involved in finding an alternative location for this proposal.

It is my understanding that the Draft Environmental impact Report and the Federal Impact Study are not expected to be available before June or July. Excom should not even consider endorsing this proposed project until the environmental documents are available to identify the negative impacts and proposed mitigations for the project, and receive comments from the public.

Sincerely,

They have no idea what John Muir would do

It's always a little pointless to speculate on what someone who's been dead for nearly 100 years would think about current-day events.  But if logic won't stop the Greens, it won't stop me, either.

 

John Muir thought the way to get people to care about places like Yosemite was to get people to visit it.  For decades, the Sierra Club's own motto included the phrase, "explore, enjoy, and render accessible" the scenic lands of our nation.  He knew that persuading people to preserve places they had never seen or themselves enjoyed would be an exercise in futility.

 

The future of California's wild places (and I mean ALL of its wild places, and not just the Whittier Narrows) is going to be determined by how successful we are in persuading all of the people of California that these places matter.  The Prius-driving, wine-sipping, Birkenstock-wearing crowd needs to do everything it can to make the environment relevant to the people living in places like South El Monte, El Monte, and Rosemead.  If giving up 18,000 square feet of the Whittier Narrows will help achieve that goal, I'm all for it.

Greens Opppose Sierra Club

You should check out the proposed development at the links below. I thought it would not be a big project, but it is.

Here's a link to the Discovery Center Authority.

http://www.rmc.ca.gov/discovery/about/about.html

The 18,000 square feet is the size of the building, not the site, which is 7.5 acres. The project would replace the existing Nature Center, which is located near Golfland and S. El Monte HS. Here's a google map:

http://tinyurl.com/3agvuz

And here's the center's page: http://parks.co.la.ca.us/whittier_narea.html

The center is in the northern part of a strip of undeveloped land adjacent to industrial uses, and surrounded by urban life and developed parks, except to the southwest, where it extends into the bird preserve and the WN dam.

If you don't already know about it, it's easy to miss, because the entrance area is so small. The current site is very accessible, by car. It's already somewhat developed.

According to their presentation, on the Authority's site, this project would approximately triple the size of the current center, adding around 16,000 sqft of floorspace. The entire northern end of the land would, basically, become a large parking lot.

The bulk of the space would be used for "interpretation" -- museum-like exhibits explaining the area. There's also a meeting room / auditorium, and two classrooms, and offices.

$6.8 million has already been provided for the project.

Also, I think your characterization of Greens as wealthy hippies is unfair and inaccurate. I know Greens, and they aren't like that. They're relatively well educated, but don't have much money, and drive old compact cars.

The rest of this post will be put into my letter to the project.
-------------------------

I've been to the existing center a few times, so my opinions are based on this limited experience. I think the proposed center is too large. It's also going to be an ongoing expense, to heat and cool the building and pay for the expanded staff. The building is ugly and obtrusive, presenting a man-made wall that blocks the view to natural areas behind it.

I think the primary problem with the existing center is that it's hard to find and enter, because the frontage is so tiny. For this reason, people driving up from the park, or down from the north, aren't likely to take notice of the center. I personally found out about the center by reading about it, despite having driven past it at least 50 times, cycling past it at least 10 times. The plan doesn't address this problem, because it preserves the existing hidden face.

The practice of placing a small entrance to a hidden expanse of land is reminiscent of country clubs. Or the Huntington Gardens.

The enlarged parking area is pointless. I've never been there when there are more than a dozen cars parked there. It's virtually empty. You park, and then walk into the places where they keep the plants. This enlarged swath of asphalt forms a loop, and is lined on both sides by trees. It's like a huge, circular driveway, and is completely hidden from the street by trees.

Someone arriving by bus at Peck and Durfee, like a poor person or a young person without a car, would have to walk all the way to the present entrance, almost half a mile away. The north side of the street is HOT because there are no trees.

If they need more spaces, why not put them along the street, in two rows. It would take less space, require less landscaping, and have a reduced impact, because the street-side is already paved. It would present a large face to the world, announcing the existence of the interpretive center. They do that at the park, and it seems to work -- many people use the park.

The large physical space of the center is also at odds with the fact that the environmental movement is politically opposed to large structures, and increasingly, against centralization. Large buildings are reminiscent of large institutions of power, like city halls, cathedrals, office towers, and old banks. They used architecture to impose power on people. (Is this project an elitist cathedral to bureaucratic environmentalism?)

The environmentalist resistance to power tended (and tends) to produce books, not buildings. Resistance to industrialization, pollution, resource extraction, and pavement are inherently decentralized, and often community-based, and use ideas and education to fight.

I think education strategies would be appropriate. A decentralized, media-based strategy of community-based education should be considered. For example, the center could operate a few low-power radio stations to broadcast educational material across the expanse of the preserve, and the immediate area.

Participatory media kiosks and classroom buildings could be set up to allow people to upload photos from their digital cameras, or make video-testimonials about their experience. These could be disseminated at the same kiosks, or small buildings, and via the web.

Publicly accessible biological laboratories could be built, and made accessible to people. The community has the potential to produce more scientists, but this potential is being squandered because the nature center isn't competitive with the adjacent attractions (namely Golfland and McDonald's). The lab could be used to do soil analysis, air analysis, and other environmental studies for the community.

The classrooms and meeting rooms could be decentralized, too. They could be built as a buffer between the street and the preserve, and function as a kind of physical and psychological "gateway" between the modern world and the "preserved" world. The modern "front yard" versus the "back yard" of preserved land. The buildings could be LEED compliant, and use building techniques and technologies useful to people who own suburban tract houses.

These strategies would not require the construction of a large 18,000 sqft building, and accompanying acres of parking. They would save money in the short-term, save money in the long-term, and potentially consume less energy. They would be more ideologically compatible with spreading the ideas of the environmental movement.

7.5 acres is NOT the big picture

Greens have a tendancy to absolutism that is counterproductive to achieving actual change (as opposed to feeling good about losing the good fight).  One need look no further than the 2000 election to see that in action.

*

I *have* been to the proposed site.  The current museum is small, dark, and not effective as a launching point for getting people to think about their place in the world.  Basically, it's one small room with a few dozen stuffed animals.

*

The proposals for "artificial" mashlands and stream confluences are aimed at making this one location a microcosm for interpreting the role of marshlands, wetlands, and open spaces elsewhere.  It's not about "improving" nature so much as being able to tell a story at one location that would normally require traveling up and down dozens of river miles.  That's the role this place needs to fulfill.  Those first- and second-generation Californians attending schools in South El Monte, El Monte, and Rosemead have to see a relevance for preserving open space, and that's what this Discovery Center envisions.  Otherwise, we "save" these 7.5 acres, but eventually wind up losing *everything* else in the state.

*

The mainstream environmental groups (of which the Sierra Club is frequently in danger of becoming NOT a part of), and people like Congresswoman Hilda Solis, can read the demographic trends just as easily as we can.  If environmentalism remains as predominantly white and privileged as it is today, then we might as well just throw in the towel.

*

THAT'S the big picture that I see this Discovery Center as fulfilling.  This needs to be a place that captures the imagination of neighborhood kids, and where the role of wetlands generally can be interpreted, as opposed to just this a place where birds can be checked off of an observer's guide.

Greens Opppose Sierra Club

I'm somewhere in between your support of the center and the "no change" stance that the dissident Sierra members are taking.  I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to gain any political traction.  The direction it's taking, however, may not make this place any less exclusive than it is today.

The center is inaccessible because it's virtually invisible.  I found out about it by reading about it in some enviro brochure.  If that's how people are going to find out about it, then, people aren't going to find out about it, especially not people who aren't the typical enviro stereotype.

Making it exclusive, but large, may make people think it's some kind of "park" with a museum.  They may end up treating it as a recreational space or an office/conference space.  It'll just keep attracting the same people, and the same culture.

Also, with regard to enviro demograpnics....

This new nature center plan, as far as I have read, does not have anything in it about the community, its environmental needs, or outreach beyond the traditional enviro constituencies.  The board of the project appears to be mostly water district upper brass.  There is one environmental group represented.  The enviros are stuck in the Stakeholder's group (which has one rep on the board), and in there, there appear to be seven - a minority.

I take back what I said about "cathedral to environmentalism."  It might be a cathedral to the water district presidents.

If this project is a sacrificial lamb to get water district support for the rest of the Emerald Necklace plan, then maybe it's worth it.  It just feels bad.

I'm going to write in stating my issues, and Cc the County Supe office and some others.

Greens Opppose Sierra Club

I thought your letter was much more productive than the Green letter.  You were talking about reducing the footprint and the impact of the center, while the Greens seemed to be just saying NO.  I also didn't like their cheap shot at Jeff Yann.  For goodness sake, he's either an employee of the water district or he isn't.  They shouldn't be impugning his motives with innuendo that they should have no trouble either verifying or rejecting.  Besides which, even if he was employed by the water district, I hardly think that qualifies as a terrible conflict of interest (not unless he's in the running for a contract to pour the concrete or something, which of course he isn't).

I support the Discovery Center modernization because I know what the Sierra Club/Amigos de los Rios and other environmental groups (and, yes, a number of elected officials--Rep. Hilda Solis, County Supervisor Gloria Molina, etc) are saying:  They want this place to serve a role in environmental outreach to the Latino population of the west San Gabriel Valley.  Maybe everyone is being duped by the water district, but I don't think so.

Greens Opppose Sierra Club

I just got a letter from Jim - he pointed out that this isn't a Green issue. I think it's just the letter from a Green, but the issue involves the FoNN.

I feel that this center, it's large building, and it's large footprint, might be a concession to the water districts, to sell the idea of creating parklands around the rivers. Deep down, every politico, even high-level bureaucrats (who are really just minor league politicians) want their public service to be remembered. They dream big. A large building like the Discovery Center is just something they'd like. I suspect they didn't anticipate any controversy.

Some people like the concreted, northern end of Legg Lake, and others like the muddy, rocky southern end of Legg Lake. The twain shall never meet. :-)

The FoWNNC meet on Sunday at 1. If anyone reading this supports, even partially, what they're doing. Go to the Nature Center at 1PM.

Here's Jim's note

James Odling wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> I read your posting at Save Our Community. Thanks for letting Rosemead people know about the need to protect the Whittier Narrows Natural Area from the misnamed Discovery Center.
>
> The Sierra Club, because of the work of Friends of the Whittier Narrows Natural Area, has taken the recent SC Conservation Committee decision for the Discovery Center off the Executive Committee agenda of Sunday April 29. It will be considered again by the Conservation Committee on May 16. Paving a natural area to make a parking lot is something no environmental organization should support.
>
> There is an inaccuracy in your post. Yes, I do oppose the Discovery Center at the natural area and I am a Green Party member. The Discovery Center has yet to be considered on Green Party agenda anywhere to my knowledge. I posted the same message you published at Save Our City to several Peace and Justice sites and to several Green Party sites.
>
> Please come to the meetings of the Friends of the Whittier Narrows Natural Area. We meet Sundays at 1:00PM in the picnic area at the Whittier Narrow Nature Center 1000 N Durfee Avenue, South El Monte. The participation of Save Our City would be appreciated.

I'm somewhere in bet

I'm somewhere in between your support of the center and the "no change" stance that the dissident Sierra members are taking.  I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to gain any political traction.  The direction it's taking, however, may not make this place any less exclusive than it is today.
The center is inaccessible because it's virtually invisible.  I found out about it by reading about it in some enviro brochure.  If that's how people are going to find out about it, then, people aren't going to find out about it, especially not people who aren't the typical enviro stereotype.
Making it exclusive, but large, may make people think it's some kind of "park" with a museum.  They may end up treating it as a recreational space or an office/conference space.  It'll just keep attracting the same people, and the same culture.
Also, with regard to enviro demograpnics....
This new nature center plan, as far as I have read, does not have anything in it about the community, its environmental needs, or outreach beyond the traditional enviro constituencies.  The board of the project appears to be mostly water district upper brass.  There is one environmental group represented.  The enviros are stuck in the Stakeholder's group (which has one rep on the board), and in there, there appear to be seven - a minority.
I take back what I said about "cathedral to environmentalism."  It might be a cathedral to the water district presidents.
If this project is a sacrificial lamb to get water district support for the rest of the Emerald Necklace plan, then maybe it's worth it.  It just feels bad.
I'm going to write in stating my issues, and Cc the County Supe office and some others.
plaque cuisson