CGF's oral comments on the San Jose Water Company logging plan

I attended the California Department of Forestry hearing on Wednesday, January 31 that was held to receive public comment over the San Jose Water Company proposal to log 1,000 acres of redwoods and Douglas-Fir trees in Santa Clara County. Hundreds of people attended, and I would guess 90% were opposed.

The best argument against the type of plan the company submitted is that it's only available for smaller landowners, while the company holds too much land. This could be a deal-killer.

I spoke near the end and had three basic comments. First, I said the best way to resolve the conflict between fire experts is a collaboratively-created Community Fire Plan that doesn’t hand control to one company, such as is the case here where the company has a bias that encourages arguing that logging big trees is good for fire protection.

Second, two pro-logging speakers had said we need to cut down our trees because otherwise they’ll log irresponsibly in Canada. So I noted how another, earlier speaker had come from a forest protection group in the Sierras and spoke against the project. Rather than encourage a bad plan here to protect her area, she felt that promoting good environmental management overall will help her area more.

Third, a staff member of the applicant had previously said they allowed a government agency to bring a hired consultant on to their land because they “had nothing to hide.” I pointed out that they refused permission for the fire experts hired by the community to participate in a pre-harvest inspection.

I thought I’d write about this partly because it’s such an important issue. Also, it’s an example of how I often try and use my very short opportunity for public comment. While there are usually multiple points I want to emphasize even before I've heard other speakers, I also try and seize the opportunity to reinforce previous good comments and to demonstrate why opposing arguments are incorrect.

-Brian

Keeping drugs out of the water

The Mercury News reports about a successful program in San Mateo County encouraging people to turn in their old medicines for proper disposal, instead of pouring them down the toilet. The powerful drugs, even in minute quantities, are harming the fish and amphibians in constant contact with medicated water.

Other jurisdictions are looking to copy San Mateo County. Let's hope it spreads.

-Brian

Ainsley Timber Harvest Plan Threatens Butano State Park

Lennie Roberts, CGF's San Mateo Legislative Advocate, submitted these public comments on the proposed Timber Harvest Plan of the Ainsley Forest.

January 23, 2006

Ms. Leslie Markham
Deputy Chief, Forest Practice
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
135 Ridgeway Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95401

Re: THP 1-06-127 SMO, Ainsley Forest LLC

Dear Ms. Markham,

The Committee for Green Foothills has reviewed the above-referenced THP. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this plan.

The THP and its accompanying environmental information and analysis, as revised and recirculated on January 8, 2007, has significant errors and omissions and as such is incomplete and inadequate in a material way, and cannot be used to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed THP. We believe that the THP in its current form has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts. The Alternatives Analysis does not include a fair and thorough analysis of possible alternatives, but rather appears to have been written to reach a foregone conclusion favoring the proposed THP.

Our specific concerns include the following:

1) Proposed commercializing of illegally harvested trees

The THP, on page 26, acknowledges that “The Ainsley Forest LLC pursued a project to mill lumber for personal use within the last couple of years. Hire labors (sic) fell (sic) approximately 50 trees within the project boundaries prior to the exploring the opportunity of a Timber Harvest operation with Big Creek Lumber Company.” It is a stretch to state that the cutting of 50 trees is merely for “personal use.” What documentation has the landowner provided that use of these trees was not for commercial purposes? On page 27, the THP states; “There is (sic) approximately 40-50 mbf of down timber manufactured into logs within the project boundaries.” Does mbf used here stand for million board feet? Assuming that the number should be 40-50 thousand board feet, this volume of product would provide sufficient lumber for several large single family residences. Reasonable “personal use” is not 40-50 trees. An associated impact of this unauthorized timber harvesting was the unauthorized construction of new roads. The December 7, 2006 comment letter from California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) states: “During the PHI, participants found that the landowner had already graded a proposed skid trail into essentially a very steep road. The grading extends downslope past the boundary of the proposed harvest unit to a location close to Gazos Creek. It may also impinge on marbled murrelet habitat.” DFG recommends a site evaluation by DFG staff to determine whether additional mitigation measures are required to restore the integrity of the murrelet habitat along Gazos Creek. Committee for Green Foothills strongly objects to allowing the illegally harvested conifers to be commercialized without any penalties or sanctions for timber harvesting without a permit and for grading of roads and skid trails including grading outside of the proposed THP area without permits. Commercializing the illegal activity would simply be rewarding the applicant for evading the law.

2) Conflicts between map and plan text regarding haul routes

The Haul Route Map, page 24.5, conflicts with the description of Haul Route #2, page 85. The text of Haul Route #2 states trucks will turn right (north) onto Cloverdale Road, and travel to State Highway 84 in Pescadero. Trucks would then turn west on 84 to State Highway 1. The text then erroneously states that trucks would take State Highway 1 north to Big Creek Lumber Company’s mill. However, the mill is south of this intersection.

Contrary to the text described above, the map shows trucks on Haul Route #2 turning south on Cloverdale Road, and then turning right (west) on Gazos Creek Road to State Highway 1. This section of Cloverdale Road is extremely narrow, windy, and has wholly inadequate lines of sight. As such, it is dangerous and should not be used. The inconsistencies and conflicts between the text and map should be corrected.

3) Inappropriate use of State Parks roads and park resources for commercial timber harvesting

The Traffic Impacts Analysis, page 85, requires the plan to identify any public roads to be used for transporting logs. The plan erroneously identifies Butano Fire Trail and China Grade Roads within Butano State Park as public roads. Although these roads are owned by State Parks, a public agency, they are behind locked gates and are not open to motorized use by the general public, and are therefore not public roads. Public use is limited to non-motorized recreational uses, including hiking, biking, and equestrian uses.

The plan is deficient in that it has no information as to what rights the applicant has to use these public park roads for commercial use including hauling of logs and associated timber operations. Absent a specific easement, use of these roads for commercial timber harvesting operations, and improvement of these roads as called out in the THP, violates Public Resources Code Sections 5001.65, 5001.7, and 5001.9.

The plan proposes to upgrade, expand, and maintain park roads, potentially impacting recreational use and enjoyment and damaging park resources. Regarding the proposed haul routes, the plan, page 22, states: “Prior to hauling, the road will have to be upgraded in certain locations to allow for safe passage of loaded log truck.” (sic) The THP fails to identify what rights the applicant has to “upgrade” State Park property, and specifically what such “upgrading” would entail. In addition to the undefined “upgrading” of haul routes, Portia Halbert, Resource Ecologist, State Parks, in a letter dated September 16, 2006, indicates that State Parks has approved construction and use of a turnaround within Butano State Park. The construction of the turnaround beyond the limits of the current park roads to accommodate commercial timber harvest operations violates the above referenced Public Resources Code Sections governing use of State Parks lands and resources. Ms. Halbert in the same letter indicates that the roads will not only be used and expanded for timber harvesting, but will be repaired, upgraded, and maintained subsequent to timber harvesting by the timber operator, plan submitter, or applicant.

If the applicant holds a valid recorded easement that permits commercial use of these park roads, the roads must be included in the plan as appurtenant to the timber operations, as required by 14 CCR 1034 (x). Impacts from use and expansion of the roads must be evaluated. Under CEQA, all potential environmental impacts of a project must be analyzed and mitigation measures must be adopted if there are significant environmental impacts.

4) Impacts to nesting marbled murrelets within the Butano State Park Habitat Area have not been evaluated

Haul Route #2 proposes to use the Butano Fire Trail to the north and west of the Ainsley property for hauling of logs. Most of the road traverses through occupied marbled murrelet nesting habitat within Butano State Park, and its quarter-mile buffer zone, as documented by California Department of Fish and Game. The THP Restrictions Map, page 24.3, shows a small portion of the Butano State Park Habitat Area, and a portion of the Butano Fire Trail. If Haul Route #2 is selected, the plan must be revised, in consultation with California Fish and Game, to evaluate impacts and provide mitigation measures for nesting marbled murrelets within the Butano State Park Habitat Area.

5) Recreational Impacts from the proposed THP have not been adequately evaluated

The THP, page 82, identifies a recreational assessment area to be analyzed as the project area plus the area within 300 feet of the project boundaries. This is inadequate. The project will involve use of the Butano Fire Trail and possibly China Grade as the haul road (see previous comments). The portions of these roads within Butano State Park are used by the public for hiking, bicycling, and equestrian use. The plan estimates that up to 20 trucks per day will use these roads. The plan must evaluate the impacts of commercial logging trucks and associated equipment and vehicles on recreational use of these roads.

6) Alternatives to the proposed project are not fairly and thoroughly evaluated

Committee for Green Foothills is concerned that the Alternatives Section in the THP dismisses Alternative 3: Public or Private Purchase of the Timber/Timberland Alternative without any basis in fact. Particularly troubling is the conclusion that if public purchase of the property occurred, “additional infrastructure and facilities would most likely be constructed. Additional roads, parking lots, bathrooms, trails, and maintenance facilities would have to meet or exceed the rate of use by individuals seeking recreation opportunities.” This conclusion is not based on factual evidence, and is in fact contrary to the management of the back country of Butano State Park and other redwood parks in the area. Old fire trails and logging roads are used by hikers, cyclists, and equestrians, and do not necessitate construction of additional roads, new parking lots, bathrooms, trails, and maintenance facilities. Addition of this remote property to Butano State Park could expand the geographic area enjoyed by low impact recreational users and at the same time protect the important stream and wildlife habitats on the property. The THP’s proposed harvesting of the maximum allowable commercial forest species (up to 60% of trees 18” in diameter and greater dbh, and up to 50% of trees between 12” and 18” in diameter dbh) will result in substantial new road construction and reconstruction, operations in or adjacent to biologically sensitive habitat areas, and in geologically unstable land areas, all of which have the potential to cause greater environmental impacts than public purchase for parkland.

The Public or Private Purchase Alternative further dismisses private sale of these larger parcels of land, stating that such sale “could result in an additional portion of San Mateo County being subdivided and becoming densely populated.” The TPZ zoning district allows a very low density of development, in this case one house per 40 acres, and the property’s remote location greatly reduces the property’s desirability for residential development. An example of this lack of desirability is upper Gazos Creek Road, where several parcels of 20 to 40 acres have never been developed with residences. The conclusion that the property could become densely populated is erroneous and not supported by the facts. Further conclusionary statements in this paragraph are equally erroneous – for example, any very low density subdivision would be conditioned through the environmental review and approval process to protect wildlife migration corridors, aquatic habitat, and special status species.

Alternative 5; Delaying the Timing of the Project, or Alternative Project Locations on the Ownership states that the delay could affect Maximum Sustained Production per 14 CCR 913.11(c). However, this statement is contrary to the landowner’s demonstrated management given the fact that no commercial timber harvesting has occurred on the property since the late 1950’s. The statement that “not making timely environmental improvements to the site may present adverse effects’ is questionable since the owner has been engaged in illegal grading of skid roads, trails, and roads over the past two years, which has likely caused significant environmental impacts to the tributaries and mainstem of Gazos Creek. The landowner should be required to remediate these graded areas regardless of whether a THP is granted. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the landowner to maintain and repair logging landings, skid trails, roads, and other associated drainage facilities whether or not these activities are under the purview of a THP or a County Grading Permit.

CGF appreciates the opportunity to comment. We request that we be notified in writing of any actions CDF takes on this THP.



Lennie Roberts, Legislative Advocate
Committee for Green Foothills

cc: Portia Halbert, California Department of Parks and Recreation
Stacy Martinelli, California Department of Fish and Game
Kent Aue, California Department of Fish and Game
Rich Gordon, Supervisor, San Mateo County
Michael Schaller, San Mateo County Planning Division

Logging and Fire Hazards: Why does Logging Create Additional Fire Hazards

It seems to come up in any logging plan, that the purpose of logging is to reduce fire hazards. CGF has uncovered information about why logging in redwood forests can actually increase fire hazards, at least in the first few years after the harvest. The following is a handout prepared by Lennie Roberts that we distributed at a public hearing about the YMCA's Proposed Timber Harvest Plan at Camp Jones Gulch.


Commercial Timber Harvesting and Fire Hazards at Camp Jones Gulch

The NTMP (Nonindustrial Timber Management Plan) for Camp Jones Gulch proposes commercial logging in perpetuity. Up to 40% of the trees 18 inches and diameter will be harvested every 15-20 years. Old-growth redwood and Douglas fir trees in two groves are not proposed for logging, unless they are determined to be “hazards”. However, cutting of up to 20% of the second-growth trees within these areas is allowed by the Plan. The Plan can be amended in the future, without public comment.

Commercial Timber Harvesting will increase fire hazards

Redwood forests are dependent upon the cool, foggy coastal climate in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Mature redwood and Douglas fir trees create a canopy of continuous shade that discourages fire-prone shrubs, trees and other sun-preferring vegetation from growing. Summer fog drip replenishes water in the creeks, and maintains moist conditions that keep fire hazards low. In San Mateo County, up to half of the annual precipitation recorded in redwood forests comes from summer fog drip.

Cutting of the largest trees in a commercial timber harvest opens up the tree canopy and exposes the forest floor to direct sunlight. The resulting hotter, drier conditions on the forest floor increase the fire hazard. Logging debris and slash (tree branches, tops, and brush) from cutting of timber, up to two feet deep, is left on the forest floor, adding to the fire hazard. Increased sunlight encourages the growth of weedy and fire-prone species such as tan oak, California lilac (ceanothus), and broom. These fast growing shrubs and trees become “ladder fuels” which enable a fire to spread up into the canopy of the forest. As the forest recovers and the tree canopy grows back, the sun-preferring weedy species become shaded out and eventually die, adding to the fire hazard.

An additional hazard associated with the Camp Jones Gulch NTMP is the proposed use of herbicides on tan oaks. Tan oaks are not considered desirable in a commercially managed forest. They invade recently logged areas, and will re-sprout vigorously if cut. The NTMP proposes to use a method called “hack and squirt” in which herbicides are squirted into a cut in each tree trunk, killing the tree. However, unlike many other species, the leaves on dead tan oaks do not fall off. The leafy dead standing trees become virtual torches - one of the “ladder fuels” that the YMCA is concerned about.

Note: In its review of a 1976 Timber Harvest Plan for the Jones Gulch property, California Division of Forestry stated that the fire hazard will be increased for a period of 4 to 5 years rather than one or two years as the YMCA had predicted. In fact, the hazard is much greater than that due to the abundance of brushy shrubs and trees growing back after each timber harvest cycle. Yet, one of the YMCA’s stated purposes of this NTMP is to reduce fire hazards.

There are alternatives to Commercial Timber Harvesting

The YMCA should adopt and implement a strategic fire plan. This would include control of vegetation along Pescadero Creek Road, and the Camps’s ingress/egress road. Within 100 feet of the buildings in the developed area of the Camp, the YMCA should maintain 100 feet of defensible space required by State law. Within the next 200 feet, and other strategic locations such as ridge tops, the Camp should implement shaded fuel breaks. There are funding sources to assist landowners with fuel reduction, and there are potential partner organizations to implement fuel reduction programs.

Lennie Roberts, Legislative Advocate

CGF Letter to YMCA Encouraging a Stewarship Approach to Camp Jones Gulch

Lennie Roberts, CGF's San Mateo County Advocate, wrote this letter to the YMCA in December urging them to consider a more stewardship-based approach to managing the land at Camp Jones Gulch. The YMCA has now established a Stewardship Advisory Committee to review their timber harvesting plans and to help the camp develop alternatives to the NTMP permit the Camp filed last summer.

December 18, 2006

Charles Collins, President and CEO
Bill Worthington, Vice President, Property Development
San Francisco YMCA
631 Howard Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94105

Re: Alternatives to Proposed NTMP at Camp Jones Gulch

Dear Messrs. Collins and Worthington,

We are writing to outline an alternative plan for the YMCA that will meet the objectives of managing the Camp Jones Gulch property to reduce fire hazards, improve forest health and wildlife habitat, restore damaged or degraded areas, improve and maintain roads and trails, and enhance the outdoor education and recreation programs at the camp. This approach also can provide the YMCA with new sources of revenue and partners that will restore and enhance its stature with the community.

The YMCA and Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) have worked together during a number of meetings over the past three months. We have made considerable progress together, but as you know, CGF continues to be deeply concerned about the two threshold issues we have identified regarding the proposed Nonindustrial Timber Management Plan (NTMP) for the camp.

CGF’s first threshold issue is use of the NTMP, which would grant an entitlement to commercially log the redwood and Douglas fir forests at Camp Jones Gulch in perpetuity. The NTMP, once approved, does not allow for future public review or enforceable means to adapt the plan in response to new scientific knowledge or changed environmental conditions. The NTMP also commits the YMCA to land management that CGF believes is likely to have significant adverse environmental consequences. While reasonable people may disagree philosophically about timber harvesting, this particular NTMP has generated widespread opposition. Clearly there is tremendous public interest and concern that could be redirected to help the YMCA with the challenges of land management, stewardship, and financial support.

CGF’s second threshold issue is also a key component of our proposed solution to help meet the YMCA’s capital needs for upgrading the facilities and infrastructure. We strongly encourage the YMCA to pursue selling a forest Conservation Easement to a land trust such as Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) or Save the Redwoods League, or to a public agency such as Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. This Conservation Easement would generate capital funds, and also would allow the YMCA to carry out its programs and desired land management activities while protecting the forest.

We appreciate and commend the YMCA’s interest in managing your land in an environmentally responsible way. We hope that this letter can be the start of a strong partnership between the YMCA, its various constituencies, and the broader public. We pledge to use our time, expertise, and community contacts to help in this effort.

Resolution of current controversy

The YMCA is at a critical junction. If the YMCA continues on its present course of gaining approval of the NTMP, CGF believes the opposition will intensify and there will likely be challenges at every step of the timber harvest approval and implementation process. Based on our knowledge of the issues, we believe it is highly likely that if the California Division of Forestry (CDF) approves the NTMP, a legal challenge would be filed. Pursuit of the NTMP is counterproductive to the important goal of finding common ground and regaining the community’s support and trust. It is not too late to regain this support and trust. However, as long as the NTMP is pursued, it will remain as a focus of the opposition.

Restoration of the forest instead of a commercial tree farm

Instead of committing to operating a commercial tree farm (which is the basis of the NTMP), the YMCA should adopt an ecological approach to forest restoration. Wildlife Biologist Steve Singer, in his letter to CDF dated December 11, 2006, outlines more specifically the compelling reasons for this ecological approach, and the benefits of protection and enhancement of habitat for the federal and state protected marbled murrelet. Other benefits include avoidance of potential landslide hazards, erosion and sedimentation impacts, damage to water quality, potential adverse impacts to protected steelhead trout and Coho salmon, reduction of fire hazards, and improved aesthetics. A restored and preserved forest at Jones Gulch would be not only environmentally less damaging, it would be far more valuable to the YMCA and the constituencies it serves than the revenue from repeated cycles of timber harvesting.

Goals of a Stewardship and Restoration Plan

The goals of the Stewardship and Restoration Plan should be to protect and enhance the property’s natural biodiversity by preserving the old growth stands and restoring the second growth stands to resemble old growth conditions as much as possible. This would provide habitat for species dependent upon such older forest conditions. The restored second growth stands would have a continuous canopy that shades the forest floor and maintains cool and clear water in McCormick and Jones Gulch Creeks — necessary conditions for steelhead trout, Coho salmon, and other aquatic species. Mature second growth trees would provide potential habitat for the marbled murrelets that already occupy the nearby old-growth groves at the camp and in Pescadero Creek County Park. Typical understory plants in a mature second growth forest include hazelnut, ferns, huckleberry, and other low growing species. There would be few “ladder fuels”, a greater proportion of larger, fire resistant trees and moister ground conditions — elements that significantly reduce fire risk. The mature forest’s open, park-like quality could be more quickly achieved through selective removal of spindly conifers and the fast growing sun preferring species such as tan oaks and ceanothus that were stimulated by the last rounds of timber harvesting.


Steps toward a new approach:

1. While we have helped identify a number of potential candidates for a stakeholder planning group, this group should be revised and expanded to include people with expertise in wildlife and fisheries biology, forestry and fire ecology, forest restoration, geology and stream processes.

2. The YMCA should hire a consultant with an ecological background rather than timber harvesting to oversee the project, using grant sources from below to develop the Stewardship and Restoration Plan.

3. The YMCA should make sure the stakeholder group is encouraged to look broadly at ways the YMCA can meet its financial obligations to upkeep the camp while preserving and enhancing the natural biodiversity.

This approach has the potential to revitalize and expand the programs of outdoor recreation, nature study, and education at Jones Gulch. The YMCA’s mission, its partnership with the outdoor education programs of San Mateo and San Joaquin Counties, and its stature in the community would all benefit from this collaborative effort.

Key Issues:

Financing a Stewardship and Restoration Plan

The YMCA can obtain funding for implementing its Stewardship and Restoration Plan from state and federal grants, special restoration funds such as oil spill trustee funds, foundations, and private donors. The San Mateo County Resource Conservation District in Half Moon Bay is familiar with many funding sources, and works with landowners and public agencies to obtain grants for conservation planning and implementation.

Forest Protection through a Conservation Easement

POST or Save the Redwoods League could purchase a Conservation Easement to ensure the preservation of the forest. A Forest Conservation Easement could be structured to allow the customary and desired activities of the YMCA including repair and maintenance of roads as well as thinning of underbrush and fuels reduction for fire safety. Incidental selective cutting of larger trees that would help the forest regain its mature park-like quality, and removal of hazard trees could still be allowed under a Conservation Easement. The Conservation Easement would provide the YMCA with capital funds that could be used to upgrade the buildings and infrastructure.

Repair and restoration of roads and trails

Legacy roads from previous logging operations should be repaired and maintained where these roads are still needed for Camp operations, recreation, and fire protection. Other legacy roads and skid trails that aren’t needed should be put to bed. There are funds available through the Fisheries Restoration Grant Program of the California Department of Fish and Game for assessment of roads and for road repair and restoration projects. This is the grant program that has funded a road and trail assessment in Pescadero, Memorial, and Sam McDonald County Parks, and has to date provided funds to repair some of the identified sites in these three nearby parks. Potential partners in road and trail repair and restoration include California Conservation Corps, Americorps, and nonprofit organizations such as Acterra and Community Impact.

Fuels hazard reduction

Fuel hazard reduction and non-commercial thinning of the forest for fire safety purposes can be funded through grants from CFIP and state funds such as Proposition 42, which funded a community scale fuel reduction program in the Lake Tahoe area recently. This latter program was developed and implemented through a partnership with the local fire agency. Much, if not all of the work to remove dead and fire prone brushy species can be accomplished at very low cost through partnering with the California Conservation Corps, the San Francisco Conservation Corps, and/or non-profit organizations. Such low tech programs could have an educational component to include student participation from Camp Jones Gulch attendees. A conservation grazing program could be designed and implemented to reduce the fire hazard in the grasslands. Potential partners in developing such a grazing program include the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District (RCD), the federal Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and the state University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE).

Repair, upgrade, and replacement of dilapidated buildings

Potential partners in this effort include community-based organizations such as Community Impact and Christmas in April. In San Mateo County, some larger construction companies have donated materials and labor to non-profits for repair and rehabilitation of buildings as well.

Potential new program possibilities

It appears that the camp facilities are not fully utilized. If the YMCA desired to increase its operating revenues, it could consider making its facilities available to research and/or education programs such as a field station for study of redwood ecology, marbled murrelet, and Coho salmon/steelhead trout recovery research. Potential partners in this effort include UC Santa Cruz, San Jose State University, non-profit organizations such as the Pescadero Conservation Alliance, and others. The facilities could be used on weekends as overnight accommodations for volunteers who could do restoration projects at the camp or on public and private lands in the vicinity.

Conclusion

The NTMP path has sparked much opposition from the very community that has been nourished and inspired by the programs and activities at Camp Jones Gulch. While this opposition may seem like a bad nightmare, it is clearly a testament to the stewardship values that have been nurtured in the community and the allegiance these individuals feel toward the coastal redwood forests and the unique habitat values they provide. The time is now for the YMCA to take advantage of this heightened public interest and concern. We urge you to withdraw the NTMP, expand the Stakeholder Working Group to include people with expertise in forest and fire ecologists, wildlife and fisheries biologists, geology and fluvial/stream specialists, and move forward with a Stewardship and Restoration Plan. Many of these professionals would also have specific knowledge of the criteria and funding cycles for grant funding.

We very much appreciate all the time and care you have taken to listen to the community’s concerns. We now hope you will respond to those concerns along the lines of our proposal. We wish you all the best in your programs and we stand ready to assist you in developing and implementing a Forest Stewardship and Restoration Plan at Camp Jones Gulch.


Sincerely,



Holly Van Houten Lennie Roberts
Executive Director Legislative Advocate


cc: Leslie Markham, California Division of Forestry
Rich Gordon, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Kellyx Nelson, San Mateo County Resource Conservation District
Paul Ringgold, Peninsula Open Space Trust
Ruskin Hartley, Save the Redwoods League
Steve Singer, Environmental and Consulting Services

CGF Letter on Camp Jones Gulch County Use Permit Application

Lennie Roberts, CGF's San Mateo County Representative, sent this letter to San Mateo County concerning the YMCA-Camp Jones Gulch's application for a use permit.

February 14, 2007

George Bergman, Zoning Hearing Officer
455 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94062

Re: PLN 2003-00377 – Item #5 on ZHO Agenda, February 15, 2007

Dear Mr. Bergman,

On behalf of Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) I have reviewed the Staff Report for the above-referenced project, and have the following comments:

1. Minor corrections to text and dates: On page 12, third paragraph, the Staff Report states that a Nonindustrial Timber Management Plan was submitted to the California Division of Forestry in 2005. The date of filing of the plan was actually June 5, 2006; the acronym should be corrected to: NTMP, not TMP. The last sentence of this paragraph should be corrected to refer to Attachment I, not H. Attachment I is not the most recent version of the Harvest Schedule map – it should be updated to include the 10/6/06 map.

2. Grading exemption for after-the-fact grading: The Staff Report, pages 12 and 13, make reference to unauthorized grading that was done on the property and also within San MacDonald County Park. It is stated: “the Applicant has already performed such work in 2005, and has recently worked with the County Resource Conservation District (RCD) to finalize these efforts of erosion control for one of these existing on-site roads which is adjacent to and crosses into San MacDonald County Park. This work was completed per the standards and under the supervision of the RCD….”

This statement is not correct. I have spoken with Kellyx Nelson, and she states that the RCD was never on site to review this grading, nor has a copy of the Staff Report been sent to the RCD for their review. Jim Howard, a representative of the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), a federal agency, was out on the site during the summer and made suggestions as to how the remedial work could be improved. According to Mr. Howard, the road is considered temporary, and if it is to be used in the future, it will need to be upgraded with more robust erosion control and drainage systems.

CGF has reviewed the Grading Ordinance Exemption 8603.18 that is cited in Finding # 4 of the Staff Report, which is copied below:

SECTION 8603.18. Repair of storm damage consisting of slide repair, debris removal and water impoundment replacement on agricultural lands carried out under the purview of the ASCS or RCD provided that such activity does not create hazards to other lands.

The subject grading was to clear a hillside of overgrown trees and brush and re-establish an old road for emergency ingress/egress, according to the Applicant. Attachment F shows the location of the road, with the title: “Secondary Access Road Improved with Grading Exemption.” The project did not entail “slide repair, debris removal, and water impoundment replacement on agricultural lands”. CGF does not believe the Finding can be made under this particular Exemption to the Grading Ordinance. It is possible that Section 8603.11 may cover this activity.

3. A Confined Animal Permit may be required for horses: The existing and proposed Plans show an equestrian area. The provisions of the Confined Animal Regulations may apply to these facilities.

4. Maintenance of roads and trails: It has become apparent during the review of the proposed NTMP that the Applicant has deferred important maintenance and repair of roads and trails. CGF suggests that the Use Permit be conditioned to provide for annual maintenance of the roads and trails that are used as part of the YMCA programs.

5. Relationship between Use Permit and NTMP: The YMCA, as stated earlier, has submitted an NTMP to the California Division of Forestry for review and approval. CGF is concerned that the NTMP would grant an entitlement for commercial harvesting of timber every 15 years in perpetuity without public review and approval. We have met with the YMCA several times, and have proposed an Alternative that would take a stewardship and restoration approach to managing the forested lands (see attached letter of 12/18/06). The YMCA is currently considering our Alternative, but they do not wish to withdraw the NTMP until they determine that the Alternative can meet their financial and other objectives.

If the YMCA received approval for the NTMP, CGF believes that it is not possible to foresee all environmental or public concerns over time. However, there is no provision in the Forest Practice Rules for public hearings unless the Plan is amended in a significant way. The YMCA has offered several measures that would inform the public of future entries for timber harvesting, but these are voluntary and not binding upon future Boards or Management of the YMCA, nor do they require the YMCA to change the Plan in response to public concerns. The only guarantee of a public review process that is enforceable would be through the Use Permit for the camp. Since the programs and use of the camp, would be affected by timber harvesting operations, CGF believes that the County has the ability to require a public review process for each entry on the property for commercial timber harvesting.

To this end, we suggest that a new Condition be added, or Condition 3 be amended to require the Applicant or his designee (such as the Registered Professional Forester or Licensed Timber Operator) to submit each Notice of Timber Operations (NTO) to the San Mateo County Planning Division with sufficient time for notification of the interested public. The Planning Division would hold a public hearing, and if necessary, the Use Permit could be amended to include provisions for protection of the facilities, including roads and trails, and natural resources, including the streams, that are part of the Camp’s operation and programs.

We are hopeful that the YMCA, through a collaborative planning process that they are initiating, will ultimately not pursue the NTMP as currently proposed. However, we would like to have a provision that, if needed, could be implemented to ensure that the greater community and environmental interests are accommodated in this Use Permit review process.

Thank you for consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with the YMCA and the County for the long term best management of the Jones Gulch property.

(signed)

Lennie Roberts, Legislative Advocate
Committee for Green Foothills

Copy (by email): Dave Holbrook, San Mateo County Planning
Peter Jones, Executive Director, YMCA Camp Jones Gulch

Spreading environmental activism

Last week, at the last minute, we learned about an environmentally-destructive proposal in front of the San Jose City Council, one proposing a change in zoning for a parcel to allow development in a riparian buffer zone. I blasted off the following email and made some phone calls a few hours before the vote. Maybe it had an effect, because Mayor Reed postponed the vote:

Dear San Jose City Council members:

The Committee for Green Foothills asks you to support your staff and your Planning Commission in rejecting a developer proposal (Item 11.4 on tonight’s agenda) to rezone a property to allow more development than permitted under its current designation, which would then allow the developer to remove 91 trees on a two-acre lot and build deep within the riparian buffer zone (30 feet away instead of the city’s policy of 100 feet).

There is no reason to make this exception. The developer points to other exceptions but those in turn do not represent the City’s usual standard. City staff recommended a 75-foot buffer, which is seems overly generous. The developer does not deserve any more leeway.

The developer may wish to make more money off this project by changing the zoning, but he has no right to expect that change. Rewarding any money spent on this prospect will further open the floodgates for speculation in land, which will surely result in constant pressure to eliminate environmental regulation, just as this developer proposes. We urge you instead to reject the proposal.

In the alternative to outright rejection, the Committee requests the City contact the Santa Clara Valley Water District to see if the project conforms with the intent of the Water Protection Collaborative. That process kept the Water District from issuing its own riparian protection permits in return for a promise by cities to rigorously protect riparian corridors on their own. We strongly suggest the City ask the Water District’s opinion of this type of project, and of the developer’s apparent conclusion that there is no reason to enforce the City’s riparian buffer zone policy.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt

I contacted our fellow conservation groups and encouraged them to get involved. Bob Power from Audubon wrote the following email that was even better than mine:

From: Bob Power

Date: February 1, 2007 1:24:54 PM PST

To:

Subject: Item 11.2 on your February 6th agenda: PDC06-062 Proposed 19 New residential units, Duckett Way

February 1st, 2007

Subject: Item 11.2 on your February 6th agenda

PDC06-062 Proposed 19 New residential units, Duckett Way

Dear Councilmember:

The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) has a taken a keen interest in the proposed 19 unit development at the terminus of Duckett Way in San Jose. We are clearly opposed to the use of your Discretionary Alternate Use policy to allow encroachment on the riparian corridor adjacent to this property.

We are in complete agreement with your planning staff and Planning Commission in denying this application and strongly urge you to support their clear deliberations, analysis, and previous decisions about this project.

You staff has spent four long years working with the planning staff of the other Santa Clara County municipalities, the county, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to develop guidelines and a framework for protecting the riparian corridors of this valley and ensuring the health and vitality of our creeks and streams. A decision to allow this development to come within 30 feet of the adjacent riparian corridor “because the project isn’t financially feasible” otherwise, would be a slap in the face at this process. Financial feasibility should be ascertained at the outset of a project and should not be used as an “after-the-plans-are-drawn” piece of leverage to attempt to receive a variance.

I was struck by the applicant’s comments that the top goal of this project was “1. Preservation of the riparian corridor.” And how that goal was met with a plan to encroach upon that corridor and ask for a variance to bring development within 30 feet of that corridor. This seemed to make no logical sense. If “Preservation of the Corridor” is goal #1, why not bring forward a plan that supports that goal and shows a 100-ft. setback?

We are in complete agreement with Commissioner Zito’s comments indicating that a less diligent planning department in the past, does not justify making current and future bad planning decisions as they relate to Riparian Corridor Policies.

Your staff and Planning Commission are doing a good job and are making good decisions. We urge you to support them and the work they do by denying this appeal.

Sincerely yours,

Bob Power, Executive Director

Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society

This issue is going from one that slipped through the radar screen to one that is getting the criticism it deserves.

-Brian

Notes on Joint Venture Silicon Valley Conference

Just came back from the the Joint Venture Silicon Valley's State of the Valley Conference. Interesting speakers, some related to our work, others were more "just business", but it was useful to get out and meet folks. Thought I'd just repeat here some of the notes I took on what they said, and some editorial comments of mine.

-Brian
---------

• 25% protected of Silicon Valley is open space (didn’t define what that meant).
• Protected open space increased 1.5% and accessible protected land increased 3.3%. I consider that second figure to be very important – responsibly-managed public access reinforces public support for open space.
  
• New construction residential density increased markedly over the last 3 years. This is very good and contrary to the national trend. On the other hand, 3 years is a short time. I’ll speculate that it might be a reaction to the high price of housing.
  
• Says only 26% of households can afford a median price home. This is smaller than San Jose’s estimate of 33% - could reflect the larger geographic base, or one of the two estimates are wrong. If JVSV is right, there’s even less justification for San Jose’s assumption that house prices can continue to increase faster than household income.
  
• Household income went up in 2004-2005, but has gone down overall in the last five years.
  
• Panelist Aart De Geus made an interesting comparison between investing in education and ecosystem management, especially regarding global warming. In both cases, your payoff/punishment can be delayed for decades, so it’s hard but important to get sufficient investment in doing the right thing.
  
• A quote: “if everything you tried works, then you’re not trying hard enough.”
  
• Late-morning panel – Is Clean Technology Silicon Valley’s Next Wave of Innovation: lots of interest in solar power, which has tremendous potential to help the environment and stop global warming. Every good thing has its downside though. CGF welcomes new economic development that clean power can bring to the area. We see no reason why that new prosperity should expand sprawl in the area, though. The danger is that something good will be used as an excuse to do something bad. The model for that problem is Stanford University, which used the excuse of providing a location for Carnegie Foundation to push development up into the Stanford Foothills. We don’t want to see that problem writ large by clean power in Silicon Valley.
• Al Gore gave the keynote address. Had a lot to say about the importance of Silicon Valley in helping develop clean power, but nothing directly related to open space. He did, however, sign on to a petition by the environmental community opposing the logging proposal in Santa Clara County, so that kind of support was great to have.

Attend the CDF hearing tomorrow if you can - help stop the Los Gatos Creek logging project!

Below is an Action Alert that will be posted on the regular part of our website, but because of the press of time, I'm posting it here right away.

-Brian

---------

Dear Friends,

The San Jose Water Company wants permission to log, in perpetuity, 1,000 acres of redwood and Douglas-Fir trees near Los Gatos Creek in Santa Clara County. Please attend a hearing TOMORROW, January 31^st, if you can, and/or write both the California Department of Forestry and Santa Clara County to ask them to fight this destructive project.

What’s Happening

San Jose Water Company proposes to log 1,000 acres near Lexington Reservoir, in an area used as an important water source for thousands of County residents. The plan would give the company permanent rights to repeatedly log various parts of the property on a rotating basis – even if problems are discovered later, the plan cannot be amended by government authorities. The proposal would remove nearly half of the trees that are over three feet in diameter and many smaller trees, a controversial provision that maximizes profit but could significantly increase fire risk. The logging proposal will damage environmental values and threaten water quality, and could even bring sprawl development to the hillsides.

Why This is Important

While almost all of the old-growth forest is gone from this area, much of it was logged over a century ago and is now regaining environmental significance. Removing large trees can dry out the forest and increase the undergrowth that fuels dangerous fires, so the alleged fire benefits of the project are disputed by leading fire scientists. Besides potentially impairing water quality for thousands of people, the plan could destroy water sources for hundreds of rural residents – this would invite the extension of city services up into the Santa Cruz Mountains. Hillside sprawl could then follow. Ultimately, these lands should be purchased and protected, but that may be impossible if a destructive timber plan is approved.

What You Can Do

Attend the California Department of Forestry hearing TOMORROW, if you can, and send comments opposing the plan to CDF (something you can do even if you can’t go to the hearing).

1. Attend the CDF hearing TOMORROW, if you can, and announce your polite-but-firm opposition to the plan when public comment is received. The hearing will be at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 at Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose.

2. Please write, fax or email CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY by February 7^th and ask them to deny this plan. Ask instead of the logging that CDF and Santa Clara County support a “Community Fire Plan” that brings together multiple groups to determine the best ways to manage fire risks. Send your comments to:

Leslie Markham, CDF, 135 Ridgeway Ave, Santa Rosa, CA 94501

Fax: (707) 576-2608

Email: SantaRosaPublicComment@fire.ca.gov

Important! Be sure to reference Timber Plan #1-06NTMP-012 SCL

3. Santa Clara County residents should contact the Santa Clara County Supervisors and ask them to “non-concur” with a decision to approve this project. If the County takes this action, it puts the harvest under greater scrutiny. Write to:

Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

County Government Center

70 W. Hedding Street, 10th Floor, East Wing

San Jose, CA 95110

Fax (408) 298-8460

Email all five Supervisors

4. Please send a copy of your message to CGF so we can track our efforts on this issue: fax 650-968-8431 or email: action@GreenFoothills.org.

To learn more:

Read the Fall 2005 Green Footnotes article warning about the upcoming plan.

Read the January 27, 2007 article in The Mercury News.

Visit the community website opposing the plan, Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL).

You can attempt to read the timber harvest plan, by clicking this here, and find Plan 1-06NTMP-012 SCL, although it is split into many files. You can also find comments from agencies here.

Thanks for speaking up for open space. Your voice does make a difference!

-the folks at Committee for Green Foothills

Not really our issue, but funny

A public service announcement on energy efficiency.

I could argue that efficient land use patterns are also part of a larger effort for energy efficiency, but mostly I'm posting this for the humor value.

-Brian

UPDATE: On a more serious and somewhat more-related note, San Jose wrestles with its ineffective tree protection ordinances and procedures. While street trees aren't a central part of CGF's mission either, it's related to the problem of people cutting down trees in sensitive areas without permits.

Prop. 90 returns, and it may be even worse

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association has filed papers to circulate a new anti-environment Initiative to replace the failed Proposition 90 (interestingly, they don't make any mention of this on their own website). Proposition 90 would have stopped many new environmental regulations on destructive land use, and we joined many other environmental groups in successfully opposing the measure.

Original rumors were that the new version would just focus on taking private property for private economic interests, a less controversial issue, but the proponents seem to have decided instead that the problem with Prop. 90 is that it didn't go far enough in in stopping environmental regulation.

The petition is here. Some commentary on the proposal here:

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has filed a new initiative to amend California's Constitution. This is a repeat of the just-defeated Proposition 90, only worse. Like Proposition 90, the proposed initiative would hamstring government regulations of all kinds — from rent controls to land-use zoning. But unlike Proposition 90, it would apply to existing laws and regulations — not just future ones.

And here:

In the last election, opponents of Prop 90 successfully argued that it would throw out any new land-use or zoning regulations that prevented real estate developers from making as much money as they wanted. So the Jarvis Association put in some language in their initiative that sounds like it won’t apply to such protections. But by doing so it creates some extra hurdles for government to prove that their actions are constitutional – and would allow right-wing judges to throw out any land use regulations that they don’t like.

The Jarvis Initiative says that its new definition for “damages” would not apply to land-use, planning, zoning or use restrictions – if they “substantially advance a legitimate government interest.” But current law presumes that land use regulations are rationally related to a state interest, and property owners who challenge them have the burden to prove that it is not. While it sounds like the Jarvis Initiative is less extreme than Prop 90, it would actually force government to prove how each and every one of its land-use regulations advance a substantial interest. Even a unanimous Supreme Court in Lingle v. Chevron (2005) agreed that such a standard is excessive.

The website I just quoted has this statement that I'm not sure about:

But the worst part of this initiative is that it is retroactive. Whereas Prop 90 was careful to limit its scope only to new laws or regulations, the Jarvis initiative says that “any action by a public agency” that was passed before the election and “results in continued damage to private property” will be “null and void.” Sensible protections that have been in place before the Jarvis initiative goes into effect could be considered a “continuing damage” to private property. Every protection that Californians currently take for granted are in jeopardy because of this provision.

That language isn't in the petition posted on the State Attorney General website I linked to above (UPDATE: see bottom of the post, turns out I was wrong). There is another anti-environment initiative in circulation, Petition 1233, that "[r]equires public entity taking private property to compensate owner at owner’s stated value, without limitation or review." There may be confusion between the two versions. Even without the language though, this new version appears retroactive - it just requires compensation instead of nullification.

I've read through the initiative, and the key issue is that "damage" must be compensated if a land use restriction denies any "reasonable investment-backed expection" (amendment to Sec. 19(b)(2)(ii) of Article I). If someone's grandfather bought a ranch in the Mount Diablo Range in 1900 with the then-reasonable expectation of subdividing it into one-acre lots, Santa Clara County's decision in the 1970's to stop that kind of hillside development will subject the County to liability in 2008 - if this initiative passes.

I also agree that the procedural changes are significant. Section 19(c) gets rid of deference to governmental agency findings and allows evidence outside the administrative record. Allowing outside evidence is a two-edged sword, because the agency can use it to cure a finding not supported by the record. That particular provision will benefit rich corporations and individuals attempting to drown agencies in litigation, while working against poor landowners with few legal resources.

It remains to be seen whether this initiative will even make it to the ballot, but we'll obviously have to watch it.

-Brian

UPDATE: The "null and void" language is in the initiative after all, in the Effective Date section I had skimmed too quickly.

Welcome to 2007!

Lot's going on in this new year in Santa Clara County. Coyote Valley will be hot, as will the Santa Clara County LAFCo's decision whether to require mitigation for the loss of farmland. Developer proposals will come to the table and we'll have to decide what to do about them. There are even projects we're aware of but have not decided whether we should get more involved - Mountain View Farm, Evergreen development, and more. Some ongoing issues - water quality issues, and the County-wide Habitat Conservation Plan - will continue to require attention.

We'll keep you informed, and we'll be asking for help - see you around, maybe both in the virtual and real worlds!

-Brian

Green Palo Alto, less-green farmlands, more-green ring tones, and a blog update

A grab-bag of news today:

Palo Alto commits to an eco-friendly plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing sprawl, and reducing monster mansions in the hillsides, will be a helpful step in fighting global warming.

Farm produce buyers link wildlife restoration to contamination fears, despite a lack of evidence. The E-coli problems are unlikely to trace back to wildlife. Hopefully these concerns will be managed appropriately.

Your cell phone can ring you with the call of the wild. Our endangered local animal, the California red-legged frog, can be your ring tone available for free at a conservation website.

And a brief update about this blog: spammers are trying to post unrelated comments selling products on this blog, so we've disabled the comments feature. We're very interested in hearing your (real) comments though - send them to brian at greenfoothills.org or holly at greenfoothills.org.

-Brian

Some successes are easy

I recently attended a meeting intended to help advise the new incoming mayor of San Jose about environmental initiatives he could take. The group was trying to limit the recommendations to a small number of items. At the end of the meeting, I tossed out as a last comment that the next General Plan revision should deal with the large land areas south of the city, near Almaden Reservoir and elsewhere. Those areas had been annexed during the foolish, expansionist years of the 1960s and 1970s but are not candidates for real incorporation into the city. City staff attending the meeting agreed, suggesting those places be rezoned from a residential to open-space designation (not exactly what I had in mind, but still a vast improvement). General agreement around the room, and the idea made it onto the list.

I think there's a good chance that this will go forward and eliminate some future developer's effort to put suburbs on hillsides. Something starting with a last-minute suggestion.

-Brian

Comments on the Castro Valley Ranch DEIR

CGF submitted two sets of comments on the proposed subdivision of the 8,000 acre Castro Valley Ranch, both of them reprinted below. This is a potentially dangerous project, so we'll need to watch it carefully.

-Brian
--------

December 6, 2006

Rob Eastwood, Senior Planner
Santa Clara County Planning Office
70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 7th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110

Re: Comments on Castro Valley Ranch Subdivision DEIR

Dear Rob;

The Committee for Green Foothills submits the following comments on the Castro Valley Ranch Subdivision DEIR.

Missing analysis of growth-inducing impacts within the project.

The DEIR as currently written provides insufficient basis for the County to decide whether to approve the subdivision. The elephant in the room, but not in this DEIR, is that the 16 lot subdivision and road construction will induce the growth of future subdivisions. The less-than one full page discussion of growth inducing impacts of the project (DEIR pg. 154) entirely fails to disclose this impact. It says “Any future development on the project site would be governed by the land use policies and densities of development prescribed in the County General Plan, which is not proposed to change. These land use policies will limit the number of lots that can be created by subdivision each year and the minimum lot size.” The issue, however, is that the paved and extended road, together with lot line adjustments that facilitate future access and future subdivisions across the entire property, induce the possible growth in the form of new future subdivisions that could not occur without the newly configured parcels and new road infrastructure. It is the change to Castro Ranch created by this project that induces growth, the change that many groups are clearly worried about, and that effect is overlooked in the one chance for it to be analyzed.

The DEIR not only fails to disclose the growth inducing impacts, it fails to adequately describe the impacts of how much future subdivision can occur on Castro Ranch because of the new road and lot line changes. The failure to do a slope-density analysis, combined with the failure to indicate how future subdivision cannot feasibly occur without the road extension, means the scope of the impact has not been described.

These issues are the primary, but not exclusive, impacts from the proposed project. The “what’s next” issue is the shoe that we all are waiting and expecting will drop at Castro Ranch. A willful decision to ignore this concern that everyone acknowledges as existing is not only wrong but also a failure to comply with CEQA’s requirement to disclose growth-inducing impacts. For these and other reasons the DEIR as written cannot serve as a basis for the County’s decision over this project.

Other impacts and comments:

Contrary to the discussion on page 154 saying the project won’t provide access to any surrounding areas that lack access, it will provide alternative and improved access to properties served by Whitehurst Road, giving those properties a means to access Highway 101 (by agreement with Castro Ranch landowners) while avoiding Highway 152 traffic. A separate growth inducing impact will be from providing secondary emergency access for Whitehurst Road properties that could be a condition for future development there.

Because the lot line adjustment is treated as a subdivision, approval of this project is equivalent to improving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required. Government Code section 66474(e) states such approval is impermissible if the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The on-site and off-site growth-inducing impacts are likely to cause such impacts.

The DEIR raises several hydrology concerns (DEIR pg 52-55). It fails to analyze potential increases in impervious surfaces from residential development at Castro Valley. This potential increase can be analyzed using similar size project and recent permits to determine an estimate of impervious area from driveways and house sizes. Any change to runoff can be cumulatively significant in the Pajaro watershed, a stream that is impacted by erosion and sedimentation. Compliance with NPDES permits is insufficient to avoid cumulative impacts for sedimentation or other pollutants. NPDES permits set minimum project size and maximum cost levels for mitigations. Unless the County requires a no-net increase in peak flows, it has failed to analyze impacts that could be significant either individually or cumulatively. Reliance on compliance with an NPDES waste discharge requirement is insufficient in and of itself; CEQA mandates that all cumulative impacts be considered and NPDES requirements do not attempt to eliminate all such impacts.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Brian A. Schmidt

---
(sent via email)

Dear Rob;

I would like to add the following comments to Committee for Green Foothills’ previously-submitted comments:

First, as with other County EIRS, the DEIR fails to analyze the cumulative impacts of increased greenhouse gas emissions from the project, particularly from anticipated residential development and use. The DEIR does briefly mention the use of petroleum-based fuels for road construction will contribute greenhouse gases (DEIR at 153) but does no analysis of whether this impact is cumulatively significant, and ignores the greenhouse gas impact from increased road use. Carbon dioxide is the main pollutant causing global warming, which will have significant environmental impacts. The lack of a regulatory standard for carbon dioxide does not mean that it can be ignored, and other agencies take global warming effects into account. See, e.g., "Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook" (“The SCAQMD adopted a policy on global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion on April 6, 1990, that committed the SCAQMD to consider global impacts in its rule making and in drafting revisions to the AQMP”) available at www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/CH3_rev.doc.

Second, without a conservation easement granted to an appropriate agency prohibiting use of the road by persons attempting to get access from Whitehurst Road, there is no guarantee that the project will not promote access to other properties (DEIR at 154).

Third, the DEIR failed to analyze threats that increased tree harvesting would occur as a result of splitting the property up for estate purposes, or from improved road access. Such harvest would be an indirect impact effecting species habitat and hydrology.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

-Brian Schmidt

Commercial Timber Harvesting and Fire Hazards at YMCA Camp Jones Gulch

Lennie Roberts, CGF's San Mateo County Legislative Advocate, attended yesterday's hearing at Camp Jones Gulch about the YMCA's plans to log part of the camp. One of the issues has been how best to reduce the threat of fire within the camp. Lennie presented this information about the qualities of a redwood forest that make it less prone to fire, and the impacts of logging when the forest canopy is opened up and the forest floor dries out.

Commercial Timber Harvesting and Fire Hazards at Camp Jones Gulch

The NTMP (Nonindustrial Timber Management Plan) for Camp Jones Gulch proposes commercial logging in perpetuity. Up to 40% of the trees 18 inches and diameter will be harvested every 15-20 years. Old-growth redwood and Douglas fir trees in two groves are not proposed for logging, unless they are determined to be “hazards”. However, cutting of up to 20% of the second-growth trees within these areas is allowed by the Plan. The Plan can be amended in the future, without public comment.

Commercial Timber Harvesting will increase fire hazards

Redwood forests are dependent upon the cool, foggy coastal climate in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Mature redwood and Douglas fir trees create a canopy of continuous shade that discourages fire-prone shrubs, trees and other sun-preferring vegetation from growing. Summer fog drip replenishes water in the creeks, and maintains moist conditions that keep fire hazards low. In San Mateo County, up to half of the annual precipitation recorded in redwood forests comes from summer fog drip.

Cutting of the largest trees in a commercial timber harvest opens up the tree canopy and exposes the forest floor to direct sunlight. The resulting hotter, drier conditions on the forest floor increase the fire hazard. Logging debris and slash (tree branches, tops, and brush) from cutting of timber, up to two feet deep, is left on the forest floor, adding to the fire hazard. Increased sunlight encourages the growth of weedy and fire-prone species such as tan oak, California lilac (ceanothus), and broom. These fast growing shrubs and trees become “ladder fuels” which enable a fire to spread up into the canopy of the forest. As the forest recovers and the tree canopy grows back, the sun-preferring weedy species become shaded out and eventually die, adding to the fire hazard.

An additional hazard associated with the Camp Jones Gulch NTMP is the proposed use of herbicides on tan oaks. Tan oaks are not considered desirable in a commercially managed forest. They invade recently logged areas, and will re-sprout vigorously if cut. The NTMP proposes to use a method called “hack and squirt” in which herbicides are squirted into a cut in each tree trunk, killing the tree. However, unlike many other species, the leaves on dead tan oaks do not fall off. The leafy dead standing trees become virtual torches - one of the “ladder fuels” that the YMCA is concerned about.

Note: In its review of a 1976 Timber Harvest Plan for the Jones Gulch property, California Division of Forestry stated that the fire hazard will be increased for a period of 4 to 5 years rather than 1 or two years as the YMCA had predicted. In fact, the hazard is much greater than that due to the abundance of brushy shrubs and trees growing back after each timber harvest cycle. Yet, one of the YMCA’s stated purposes of this NTMP is to reduce fire hazards.

There are alternatives to Commercial Timber Harvesting

The YMCA should adopt and implement a strategic fire plan. This would include control of vegetation along Pescadero Creek Road, and the Camps’s ingress/egress road. Within 100 feet of the buildings in the developed area of the Camp, the YMCA should maintain 100 feet of defensible space required by State law. Within the next 200 feet, and other strategic locations such as ridge tops, the Camp should implement shaded fuel breaks. There are funding sources to assist landowners with fuel reduction, and there are potential partner organizations to implement fuel reduction programs.

-Lennie Roberts, Legislative Advocate

The son of Prop. 90

Via an email from Greenbelt Alliance, we learned that backers of the defeated Proposition 90, which would have decimated new land use protections, may try again with a new measure.

According to the article, the backers are now focusing on prohibiting eminent domain for private projects, rather than trying to block new environmental protections. If true, the new measure would be less relevant to CGF's work, but we'd have to look at the details to be certain.

-Brian

Success with MidCoast Local Coastal Plan Amendment!

I am very pleased to announce that today the san Mateo County Board of Supervisors unanimously supported Resolution #4 as the means by which they will submit the LCP Amendment package to the Coastal Commission. This vote signals the Board's willingness to work collaboratively with the Commission. They have agreed to request and consider adopting any of the Commission's suggested modifications to those Amendments that are found to be non-compliance, as submitted, with the Coastal Act. The Amendments that are found to be in compliance will be certified as submitted. By rejecting an "all or nothing" approach, the Board has demonstrated its commitment to a successful outcome for this seven-year, community initiated project.

The Board followed the course of action that Committee for Green Foothills and many of you recommended. Thanks so much for sending your comments to Board members over the past two days. It made a difference. In addition to adopting Resolution #4, the Board followed CGF's other recommendation and directed that all non-LCP Amendments (namely, those that do not require Coastal Commission certification) be implemented right away. This means that the lot merger program, the formation of a flooding and drainage committee and release of the Midcoast Groundwater Study will not be delayed.

The LCP Update is not yet finished but we reached a milestone today.

Thanks again for staying with this process over the past seven years and speaking out -- clearly, eloquently and often -- in support of our Coast. While we did not prevail on all of the issues, we have ensured the adoption of stronger, more protective policies in many areas. Please continue to communicate, motivate and participate!

April Vargas, Board of Directors

MidCoast LCP Amendments before San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, November 14th

April Vargas of the CGF Board of Directors submitted these comments to the Board of Supervisors concerning what method the Board uses to seek approval of the Amendments by the Coastal Commission, who needs to provide the final approval.

Committee for Green Foothills Comments on
Midcoast LCP Update Project
County Counsel Memo November 14, 2006

County Counsel has identified four alternative forms of the resolution submitting the proposed changes to the County’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) to the California Coastal Commission.

Committee for Green Foothills supports Resolution No. 4 (Separate Amendments, Modification Possible) for the following reasons:

* Resolution Nos. 1 and 2 would involve an “all or nothing” approach to certification of the LCP Amendments. The entire package would either be certified or denied. While it is likely that most of the proposed LCP Amendments will be certified by the Coastal Commission, some may not. It would not be in the county’s best interest to risk a denial of the entire LCP amendment package if this is the case.

* Resolution No. 3 would allow the Commission to certify each Amendment separately, which would not risk denial of the entire package. However, the Commission would be precluded from suggesting modifications. Assuming the county would want to revise the Amendment so it could be certified, it would be helpful to know what modifications would meet the Coastal Act requirements.

* Resolution No. 4 allows the separate certification of Amendments that meet the requirements of the Coastal Act, and gives the County the additional benefit of the Commission’s suggestions for modifications. The County does not have to adopt those suggested modifications, and can always suggest other revisions, or provide additional background information that supports the County’s Amendment as originally submitted. Resolution No 4 allows for a process of give and take, and collaboration between the county and the Coastal Commission which reflects the partnership between our local government and the Coastal Commission).

Resolution No. 4 provides the most flexible approach to the certification process and will honor the extensive, seven-year public process that produced the set of Amendments to be certified. Hundreds of county residents, numerous staff members, the Planning Commission and your Board have all devoted countless hours in good faith efforts to draft essential changes to our Local Coastal Plan. These revisions have been crafted to address current conditions within the Midcoast area. Underlying this whole process is the requirement that these revisions meet the standards of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Resolution 4 provides the most effective method for meeting these requirements and we urge the Board to adopt it.

We also encourage the Board to adopt modifications that will allow the Non-LCP items to become effective immediately. County staff has proposed a comprehensive and balanced process for implementation of the substandard lot merger program and there is no reason to delay on this or any of the other Non-LCP items.