Sierra Club loses Oceano Dunes case on appeal

January 10, 2012


The local chapter of the Sierra Club lost its appeal on Monday to force off-road vehicles from a portion of the Oceano Dunes that the state rents from San Luis Obispo County.

In 2008, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit claiming vehicles should be banned from the state’s vehicular recreation area’s 584-acre La Grande Tract. The club argued that the County’s Coastal Plan Map lists it as a buffer zone which means vehicles are banned. Superior Court Judge Charles Crandall ruled that it was too late for the Sierra Club to mount a challenge.

Not only did the Second Appellate Court uphold Crandall’s decision that it is to late to fight the state’s 1982 Coastal Development Permit, the appellate court also determined that having the area dubbed a buffer zone does not mean that off-road vehicles should be prohibited.

“Despite two pleading attempts, Sierra Club has failed to allege that State Parks has a clear and present ministerial duty to ban off-highway-vehicle activities on the La Grande Tract,” the appellate court decision says. “Sierra Club is barred from collaterally attacking the 1982 Coastal Development Permit by suing for mandamus, declaratory, or equitable relief.”

The court also ordered the Sierra Club to pay cost and certified the appellate court’s unanimous agreement for publication.

SierraClub Vs CalParks

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hey, Karen Velie!

I notice that on every page where I have left a comment, the Thumbs Up/Down has been grayed out, making it impossible to checkmark.

This occurs despite the fact that the Thumbs Up/Down is Ioperative on the other comments on the same page.

It also appears the Thumbs Down sections of my blog are sometimes active, while the Thumbs Up section is inactive, making it impossible to give a Thumbs Up, but ONLY a Thumbs Down.

So, today, for instance, on this page, both the Thumbs Down/Up is greyed out under my comment and both are inoperative, while everyone else’s is active. Why is that?

Even with the greyed out Thumbs Up/Down, it appears someone does have the ability to click the Thumbs Down button.

So, how does that happen? Is that manipulation of the ThumbsDown?Up functionality coming from you, or your site Administrator, or just a technologically capable site hacker?

It is useful to know that there is a security issue with your Web site. Thanks.

You want to thumb’s up your own comments? No, it does not work that way.

I have revised the comment voting Q&A to better reflect that self voting is blocked and is a feature, not some hacksor.

“Is that manipulation of the Thumbs Down/Up functionality coming from you, or your site Administrator, or just a technologically capable site hacker?”

No manipulation from the staff, occasional shenanigans from the other commentator’s.

Please report real security issues to, not in the comments.

You posit a fallacious argument. Disprove Play-Doh causes acne if I am wrong.

Now, indulge us and please divulge who/where Republican has anything to do with any comment here.

Ah, the ugly progressive underbelly. What’s the chance your car sports a “COEXIST” sticker?

Oh, the Sierra Club has lost their way… I’ll try not to gloat…. Bwah! Ha! Ha!

I remember when the Sierra Club meant something… preserving our wilderness for everyone to use and enjoy. Today, their efforts have been to close everything to all of us.

Their relevance has gone the way of the dodo.

Yeah, you WISH, Roger. What a bunch of total crap, as usual from a guy who continually promotes selfishness, destruction of wildlife and habitat, and anti-environmental bigotry.

Explain this, Roger: If the Sierra Club is so irrelevant to modern life, why do you and other anti-environmentalists always invoking its name, and why are there so many news and feature articles that refer to the Sierra Club in the present tense?

History lesson for you Roger: John Muir, the first president of the Sierra Club, was a botanist, as well as an inventor, and ecologist who saw and revered God in nature. Mr. Muir set the path for the Sierra Club and if he was with us today, any one with common sense would agree that he would be in favor of a buffer zone in order to protect wildlife and vegetation and the basic character of the dunes as they have stood most of the last many thousands of years before the onslaught of OHVs.

So Roger, quit with your revisionist history/propaganda aimed at misguiding people about the Sierra Club. In other words, quit spewing your total bullshit. You either don’t know what you are talking about or you are purposely trying to misguide people in order to push your clueless, destructive ideology.

100 years ago The Club was a worthwhile organization. Today it shares little with Mr. Muir.

While YOU share NOTHING of anything worthwhile today, or any day.


Loser? The Court says otherwise.




TAX- EATER ! ( YES, you TAKE taxes from the commons as a fireman, and pay MUCH less back . Then , you think yourself entitled. Got your number…little boy… ).

What do you know about Mr. Muir? More B.S.? Would you care to explain, or are you content to let your anti-nature, anti-environmentalist propaganda stink and fester in the rays of truth?

Oh brother.

You are right that John Muir was a great man and a visionary. I remember some years ago when the Sierra Club was voting on whether or not to oppose illegal immigration on the grounds that it was destroying the ecosystem of the southwest desert, which it indisputably has. The pragmatic faction of the Sierra Club and the progressive faction had an internal fight, and the progressive faction won out, with the Sierra Club declining to address the environmental impact of illegal immigration. Since then, the Club seems to me to have tacked leftward more and more, and has unnecessarily alienated many people who might be otherwise inclined to support many of the Sierra Club’s principles. I still like the Sierra Club based on the legacy of John Muir, but I can’t join if they’re unwilling to take on a controversial issue just because they have to adhere to every little subclause of the progressive orthodoxy. Believe it or not, there are many of us who try in our own way to preserve the environment but can’t get behind all the ancillary leftist beliefs that seem to come as part of a package deal.

The fact that the government will now try to effectively financially punish the Sierra Club for bringing up a legitimate legal issue in court is chilling for the freedoms of all Americans. This was obviously not a frivolous lawsuit, because if it was, it should hot have been allowed by the courts to go this far.

For the sake of the freedom of all Americans to protect themselves from the tyranny of a government agency gone rogue and vindictive, we should all hope the Sierra Club does continue to fight this outrageous, liberty smashing ruling that threatens the most sacred rights of Americans.

Are we to assume you don’t agree with either Judge Crandall’s original decison or the appellate court decision?

Judge Crandall does not exactly have a reputation as a conservative judge, as a matter of fact he has ruled in favor of other environment cases brought before him by the Sierra Club and other environmental activist groups.

Outrageous, liberty smashing, tyranny…….really? .

Your notions of justice contradict long-ago settled precedents. It is not a sacred American right to sue (twice) and walk away from the burden caused to other parties. It is equitable for the loser to pay costs and make the prevailing party whole.

A suit does not have to be frivolous for the losing party to have to pay costs. No where has it been claimed the suit was frivolous; it was not. But it was a losing 28-years too late wrong-headed move that the Club pursued a second time despite losing in front of Crandall at the trial court. Will the Club go for round three in front of the Supreme Court?

Liberty smashing?? Inane again. The Appellate Court ruled, “The presumption is that the Coastal Commission, the County, and State Parks have weighed the competing interests and are acting in the best interests of everyone, including the Sierra Club.”

It’s especially novel that you call State Parks rogue and vindictive. Please remember who brought this lawsuit. I see a lot of vindictive comments on your part. If you’re a Clubber, I’d suggest maybe the Club is the vindictive party.

Your comments are becoming increasingly bizarre with the passage of time. How is “the government” trying to punish the SC for bringing suit? Where did any court decide the lawsuit was “frivolous”? Which government agency has gone “rogue and vindictive” in this situation? How does an adverse ruling based on law in a contested case “smash” liberty? Is it a travesty of justice every time an entity files suit against a public agency and loses? If you’re hung up on the award of costs to the prevailing party look at CCP 1032 and 1033.5. You lose and you generally pay the other side’s costs, but those costs are statutorily limited. Unfortunately, the taxpayer money spent on attorney’s fees defending the suit won’t be recovered.