Vote NO on San Francisco’s Prop B

The San Francisco Forest Alliance recommends that you vote no on Proposition B in November 2018.
https://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/city-privacy-guidelines

The proposition, City Privacy Guidelines, would set guidelines for future privacy laws, regulations, policies, and practices for the City. All parts of City government would be authorized to implement any, all or none of these principles. The measure would require that the City Administrator, by May 31, 2019, propose an ordinance establishing the actual criteria and rules for the City. Proposition B is not actually necessary, as it only contains guidelines that may or may not be incorporated into the actual ordinance to be proposed by the City Administrator.

However, the proposition would codify one very important and dangerous thing. Subsection (i) says:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of the Charter, the Board of Supervisors is authorized by ordinance to amend voter-approved ordinances regarding privacy, open meetings, or public records, provided that any such amendment is not inconsistent with the purpose or intent of the voter-approved ordinance.”

In other words, the Board of Supervisors is granting themselves the authority to re-interpret and change Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. This Sunshine Ordinance, is intended to “to ensure that deliberations of commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people’s review.” (You can see the Sunshine Ordinance HERE.)

The Sunshine Ordinance is vital to the rights of individuals to know clearly what their government is doing, and to our free press to fulfill its duty to help the public uphold a fully informed democracy.

City Hall already has too much power to resist transparency and scrutiny. Prop B would unacceptably give our decision makers even more power to further marginalize public accountability and community participation.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
THE END

 

Advertisements

Vote NO on Measure FF!!

San Francisco Forest Alliance supported The Forest Action Brigade in opposing Measure FF. This article, republished here with permission from Death of a Million Trees (a website/ blog opposing unnecessary tree destruction and pesticide use) , outlines why it’s important to vote NO on Measure FF. These are our reasons for opposing this Measure. We believe its impact on parklands will be negative and environmentally destructive,  with more toxic herbicides – like glyphosate (Roundup) – and the loss of thousands of trees.

 

A vote against Measure FF on the ballot for the November 6, 2018 election is a vote against pesticide use in the East Bay.  If Measure FF passes, it will renew a parcel tax for 20 years.  For the past 15 years, the parcel tax has funded the destruction of thousands of trees on thousands of acres of public parks in the East Bay.  The renewal of the parcel tax will increase the percentage of available funds for tree removals and associated pesticide use from 30% to 40% of funds raised by the parcel tax.

Tree removals increase pesticide use because herbicides are required to prevent the trees from resprouting.  Also, when the shade of trees is eliminated, the unshaded ground is soon colonized by weeds that are then sprayed with herbicide.  The destruction of trees has put public land managers on the pesticide treadmill.

The public tried hard to convince the East Bay Regional Park District to stop destroying healthy trees and quit using pesticides in our parks.  We attended public hearings and wrote letters to Park District leadership and its governing board.  We made many suggestions for useful park improvements that would be constructive, rather than destructive.  Our requests and suggestions were ignored.

After making every effort to avoid opposition to Measure FF, we reluctantly take a stand against it.  The parks are important to us and we would much prefer to support park improvements.  Unfortunately, Measure FF will not improve the parks.  Rather, it will continue down the destructive path the Park District has been on for the past 15 years. In fact, Measure FF would escalate the destruction and poisoning of our public lands.

On Friday, August 31st, the Forest Action Brigade participated in a press conference rally at Bayer headquarters in Berkeley. Bayer is the new owner of Monsanto, the manufacturer of glyphosate. The rally was sponsored by a labor organization that is concerned about exposing workers to glyphosate, which is probably a carcinogen.  The President of the Forest Action Brigade, Marg Hall, spoke at the rally.

The Voter Information Guides in Contra Costa and Alameda counties have published the following argument against Measure FF that was submitted by the Forest Action Brigade.  We hope you will read it and take this important opportunity to protect our public parks from being needlessly damaged.

Million Trees

Argument Against Measure FF

“We love public parks, and we support taxation which benefits the common good. Nevertheless, We urge a NO vote. East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) has previously used this measure to destroy, unnecessarily, thousands of healthy trees under pretexts such as “hazardous tree” designations and “protection against wildfires”. But fire experts point out that tree shade retains moisture, thereby reducing fire danger. The measure has also funded so-called “restoration”—destruction of “non-native” plants, in a futile attempt to transform the landscape back to some idealized previous “native” era.

EBRPD’s restoration and tree-cutting projects often utilize pesticides, including glyphosate (Roundup), triclopyr, and imazapyr. We agree with the groundswell of public sentiment opposing the spending of tax dollars on pesticides applied to public lands. Not only do pesticides destroy the soil microbiome; they also migrate into air, water arid soil, severely harming plants, animals, and humans. Because EPA pesticide regulation, especially under the current administration, is inadequate, it is imperative that local jurisdictions exercise greater oversight. While EBRPD utilizes “Integrated Pest Management” which limits pesticide use, we strongly advocate a no pesticide policy, with a concomitant commitment of resources.

Given the terrifying pace of climate change, it is indefensible to target certain species of trees for eradication. All trees—not just “natives” —are the planet’s “lungs,” breathing in carbon dioxide and breathing out oxygen. When a tree is destroyed, its air-cleansing function is forever eliminated, and its stored carbon is released into the atmosphere, thus worsening climate change.

Throughout history, plants, animals, and humans have migrated when their given habitats became unlivable. Adaptation to new environments is at the heart of evolutionary resilience. To claim that some species “belong here” and others do not strikes us as unscientific xenophobia.

Until EBRPD modifies its approach, we urge a NO vote.”

Forest Action Brigade

Do not be misled

The arguments in favor of Measure FF are misleading.  East Bay Regional Parks District attempts to portray a destructive agenda as a constructive agenda.  Please look beneath these pretty-sounding euphemisms for the destructive projects of Measure FF:

·       EBRPD claims Measure FF will “protect against wildfires.”  Destroying harmless trees miles away from any residential structures and replacing the shaded, moist forest with dry grassland that easily ignites will NOT “protect against wildfires.”

·       EBRPD claims Measure FF will “enhance public safety” and “preserve water quality.”  Spraying thousands of acres of open space in our water shed with pesticides will endanger the public and contaminate our water supply.

·       EBRPD claims Measure FF will “protect redwoods and parklands in a changing climate.”  Destroying hundreds of thousands of healthy trees, storing millions of tons of carbon, will exacerbate climate change.  Our redwood forest in the East Bay was confined to less than 5 square miles prior to settlement because of the restrictive horticultural requirements of this treasured native tree.  Because redwoods require more water than most of our urban forest, it is a fantasy that they can be expanded beyond their native footprint.  Where they have been planted outside of that range, many are already dead.

·       EBRPD claims Measure FF will “restore natural areas.”  Our pre-settlement landscape in the East Bay was predominantly grassland in which fire hazards are greatest.  A landscape that has been sprayed with pesticide cannot be accurately described as “natural.”  Previous attempts to convert non-native annual grassland to native grassland have consistently failed, partly because the soil has been poisoned with herbicide.

You can help

The Forest Action Brigade is offering yard signs in opposition to Measure FF (shown below).  You can get a yard sign and/or help to place them in your neighborhood medians by sending an email to mildredtrees@gmail.com.  Please state how many signs you would like and the neighborhood where you plan to place them.  These are the East Bay cities in which Measure FF will be on the ballot:  Oakland, Alameda, Piedmont, Berkeley, Emeryville, Albany, Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito.  These cities are the top priority for yard sign placement.

Million Trees

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
THE END

No Pesticides in Our Parks and Watersheds

Below is the text of a letter San Francisco Forest Alliance sent yesterday to the Environment Commission and the SF Department for the Environment. We stand for no toxic pesticides in our parks and watersheds.

 

To: Director Deborah Raphael, Dr Chris Geiger, and the Commission for the Environment
From: San Francisco Forest Alliance

Dear Dr. Geiger,
Dear Director Raphael,
Dear Members of the Environment Commission

Your Notice of Annual Public Hearing Regarding Pest Management Activities on City Properties incorrectly states that “San Francisco city staff have been national leaders in integrated pest management (IPM) since the City passed its Integrated Pest Management Ordinance in 1996.”

In fact, 1996 Ordinance was gutted in 1997.
While San Francisco has made some progress, we are far from being national leaders. Our current system enshrines the routine use of herbicides.
At present, the city can use whatever pesticide it wishes, wherever it wishes, as much as it wishes – as long as the pesticide is on “Reduced Risk Pesticide List” (Reduced compared to what?). If it wishes to go outside the list, it can seek an exemption. Such exemptions are seldom refused, particularly in “Natural Areas.”

The Marin Municipal Water District has been herbicide free since 2005.
Meanwhile San Francisco continuously uses hazardous herbicides in our watersheds.

In a 2017 pilot project, Marin successfully demonstrated that traffic medians could be maintained without glyphosate (the only synthetic herbicide previously used on medians). Marin County will continue to move forward without herbicides on all medians and roadside landscapes.

The City of Richmond had completely banned use of all herbicides by the city in 2016.
The use of all synthetic pesticides in parks, open space parcels and public rights of way and buildings owned and maintained by the Town of Fairfax is prohibited and a neighbor notification is required prior to the use of pesticides on private property.

In 2000 the Arcata City Council approved by unanimous vote the ordinance which bans the use of pesticides on all properties owned or managed by the city.

In France the pesticides are banned from public forests, parks and gardens since the end of 2016.

The city of San Francisco, on another hand, cannot even commit to use reduction targets for herbicides. In 2017, herbicide usage by the Natural Resources Department rose 57%.

The city claims that the high hazard herbicides are used only as a last resort. In fact, they are used regularly throughout the year, and have been used regularly for many years.

The city claims that the high hazard herbicides are necessary to help “sensitive species,” while in accordance with the court order their use is prohibited in Sharp Park precisely because of the presence there of the endangered California garter snake and threatened red-legged frog. A 2002 paper from UC Davis pointed out that over 40% of Californian butterfly species depend on non-native plants in urban-suburban areas, and notes, “Were certain alien weeds to be eradicated or their abundance greatly reduced, the urban-suburban butterfly fauna would disappear.”

Last week the trial of DeWayne Johnson v. Monsanto Company – the first of over 4,500 such cases – got underway in San Francisco Superior Court.
Meanwhile, glyphosate remains on the SF “Reduced Risk Pesticide List” and is being used by the city – three years after it has been classified as a “probable carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization.

San Francisco Forest Alliance brings to your attention that:

• herbicidal chemicals are more toxic, more dangerous, more persistent, and more mobile than their manufacturers disclose;
• the “danger” from “weeds” is aesthetic or ideological rather than to health and welfare;
• scientific studies associate exposure to herbicides with cancer, developmental and learning disabilities, nerve and immune system damage, liver or kidney damage, reproductive impairment, birth defects, and disruption of the endocrine system;
• there is no safe dose of exposure to those chemicals because they persists in soil, water, and animal tissue for prolonged periods of time, so even low levels of exposure could still be harmful to humans, animals, and the environment;
• infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with compromised immune systems and chemical sensitivities are especially vulnerable to herbicide effects and exposure;
• herbicides are harmful to pets, wildlife including threatened and endangered species, soil microbiology, plants, and natural ecosystems;
• toxic runoff from herbicides pollute streams and groundwater, and therefore the drinking water sources;
• people have a right not to be involuntarily exposed to herbicides in the air, water or soil that inevitably result from chemical drift and contaminated runoff.

Because of above considerations we ask that all synthetic herbicides classified as Tier I and all non-organic herbicides classified as Tier II by the San Francisco Hazard Tier Rating System shall be banned on all City property and the lands managed by the city, with the only exemption for Harding Park Golf Course which is under PGA contract.

We also ask that:
– no other herbicide exemption shall be granted for any other City Property or the land managed by the city,
– such herbicides would be immediately removed from the Reduced Risk Pesticide List with the special exception for use on Harding Park Golf Course only,
– the City stop purchasing hazardous herbicides, and disposes of any remaining stock immediately, following the city’s hazardous waste disposal protocols; again exempting the herbicides intended for use on Harding Park Golf Course only.

We ask SF Environment to lead San Francisco toward the goal of No Pesticides in our Parks and Watersheds.

Sincerely,

San Francisco Forest Alliance

 

– END –

Herbicide Use by San Francisco Natural Resource Department Rises Sharply in 1H 2018

The Natural Resources Department’s low-pesticide-usage honeymoon is over, judging by the pesticide usage data from the first half of 2018. If this continues in the second half, NRD will end the year at nearly the level of pesticide use in 2013.

The NRD accounted for 80% of the herbicide use (calculated by active ingredient) and for 85% of the applications in Jan-June 2018. The NRD, which is responsible for the “Natural Resource Areas” of San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Department (SFRPD), is the largest user of herbicides in SFRPD (barring Harding Park, which we exclude because the golf course is managed under contract with the PGA Tour).

Except for the NRD, the rest of SFRPD has been extremely effective at reducing herbicide use. and used no Tier I herbicides at all in this time. The Tier system, implemented by the SF Department of the Environment (SF Environment), is a hazard rating. Tier III is “Least Hazardous”‘ Tier I is “Most Hazardous.”

POURING ON THE GARLON

NRD is the only user of Garlon in SFRPD, which it uses only on yellow-flowering oxalis. In six months of 2018, it had already used more Garlon than in any whole year in the last four years. (That’s the orange column in the chart below.) Garlon is the worst of the “reduced risk” herbicides. It’s Tier I (according to the SF Environment rating system, where Tier I is “most hazardous” and Tier III is “least hazardous.”) and has been listed as “HIGH PRIORITY TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE” for at least a decade.

This massive increase is the direct fallout of NRD’s futile and anti-ecological oxalis war.  (See Five Reasons it’s Okay to Love Oxalis — and Stop Poisoning It.)

 

ROUNDUP USE RISING AGAIN

The use of  Roundup (or Aquamaster) dropped in 2016, after the WHO declared glyphosate (the active ingredient) a probable human carcinogen and SF Environment moved it from a Tier II to a Tier I rating. (See: Roundup Probably Carcinogenic) But it’s rising again. If the second half is as bad as the first half, glyphosate use will exceed 2017’s, which was more than double the amount used the 2016.

NRD uses four herbicides: Garlon (triclopyr) the most hazardous, which is Tier I; Roundup/ Aquamaster (glyphosate) which was re-rated to Tier I in 2015; Polaris/ Habitat (imazapyr), a pesticide whose breakdown product is a neurotoxin, and is persistent and mobile in the soil; and Milestone VM (aminopyralid), which is even more persistent and can remain active for years and keep poisoning the soil. Its usage of all four has risen, if we prorate the half-year usage figures.

OTHER PESTICIDES ALSO RISING

SFRPD is has added three new herbicides: Axxe, Lifeline and Clearcast. The last two are on the draft “Reduced Risk” list for 2018, though the SF Environment website says the 2017 list is still the current one.  SFRPD has been using Clearcast in lakes in Golden Gate Park (GGP Nursery) against water primrose and parrot feather plant. Lifeline has been used once, on the hardscaping in Golden Gate Nursery. Axxe, which is a Tier II pesticide and is actually on the 2017 list  has been used a number of times. In the Natural Areas, it’s been used on Twin Peaks against oxalis (that’s the “Other Tier II” in the column chart above).

While we are glad that SFRPD has moved so strongly to reduce herbicide use (at least in non-Natural areas), we’re disappointed that it continues to consider pesticides a viable strategy. We would like to see SF Environment take the leadership in moving San Francisco to a policy of No Pesticides in our Parks and Watersheds.

 

– END –

The Very Long Life of Eucalyptus Trees

This article is republished with permission and minor changes from Death of a Million Trees, a website that fights unnecessary tree killing in the San Francisco Bay Area.

 

 

PUTTING ANOTHER MYTH TO REST: LIFESPAN OF BLUE GUM EUCALYPTUS

When the native plant movement began in earnest, about 25 years ago, its proponents weren’t expecting blowback from those who value the existing landscape.  As far as they were concerned, the trees had to be destroyed solely because they “don’t belong here.”

When they started destroying our predominantly non-native urban forest, they learned that it wasn’t going to be as easy as they thought.  They began to defend their destructive projects with cover stories to convince the public who didn’t share their devotion to native plants that it is necessary to destroy non-native trees because they are a threat to public safety and to wildlife.

One by one, we have debunked the myths that were used to justify the destruction of our urban forest:

Great horned owl in eucalyptus. Courtesy urbanwildness.org

  • About 20 years ago, one of the first myths was that eucalyptus trees kill birds. It is an absurd claim that is completely unsupported by reality.  With a lot of careful research, we were eventually successful in convincing the public that birds are not harmed by eucalyptus.  In fact, many bird species are dependent upon the trees for safe nesting and winter nectar.   That myth is dead.
  • The claim that eucalyptus and other non-native trees are more flammable than native trees was a powerful narrative that was more difficult to kill. As wildfires have increased in frequency and intensity in California, that claim is no longer credible because every wildfire occurs in native vegetation.  Again, this myth was eventually disproved by reality.
  • More recently, we have finally put to rest the claim that “nothing grows under eucalyptus.” This myth was based on a theory that eucalyptus emits allelopathic chemicals that prevent the growth of plants in the eucalyptus forest.  Thanks to a recent, rigorous study done at Cal Poly, we know with confidence that the allelopathy story is another myth.

It was not surprising that the nativists, having run out of bogus justifications, created a new narrative.  In parks that the East Bay Regional Parks District had been planning to thin, we began to see clear cuts.  When we inquired about why it was necessary to destroy ALL of the trees, we were told they were hazardous.  Then, in the minutes of a meeting of East Bay Regional Park District Park Advisory Committee , we saw the claim that eucalyptus lives only 50-60 years.  Simultaneously, this claim was made in San Francisco by proponents of destroying all eucalyptus trees there.

We eventually tracked down the source of that lifespan estimate to a website called SelecTree, which originally said that the longevity of blue gums is only 50-150 years.  We knew that isn’t an accurate estimate because of how long blue gums live in Australia and how long they have already lived in California.  We provided that information to the authors of SelecTree and were able to get the estimate corrected to “greater than 150 years.”  That’s not nearly long enough, but it is the longest lifespan estimate available on that website and it corresponds with many other trees, including native Coast Live Oak.

In the process of researching the lifespan of eucalyptus, we learned several interesting stories about blue gums that have lived in California for 150 years and are still going strong.  We would like to share some of this information with our readers today.

BLUE GUM EUCALYPTUS IN AUSTRALIA LIVES 200-400 YEARS

Blue gum eucalyptus and all other species of eucalyptus are native to Australia.  They were brought to California shortly after the Gold Rush of 1849.  Since they haven’t been in California 200 years, we don’t know how long they will live here.  But how long they live in Australia is obviously relevant to answer that question because longevity is specific to tree species.  We can expect some variation by climate, but not much, and the climate of Australia is similar to the climate in California with wet, mild winters and hot, dry summers.

We know that blue gums live in Australia about 200-400 years because Australian scientists tell us that:

Growth Habits of the Eucalypts by M.R. Jacobs, (Institute of Foresters of Australia, 1955, 1986): Blue Gum eucalyptus lives in Australia from 200-400 years, depending upon the climate.” In milder climates, such as San Francisco, the Blue Gum lives toward the longer end of this range.

That reference was corroborated by John Helms, Professor Emeritus of Forestry at UC Berkeley and an Australian who said in response to our question about blue gums in California, “Blue gums would commonly live for 200 – 400 years, although I presume that some might live longer.”

We also asked the Australian National Botanic Gardens.  They said, “It’s possible that the average lifespan of a native species growing in the wild in Australia would differ to the average lifespan of the same species introduced in northern California, since introduced plants can often “escape” their natural predators when such introductions occur.”

In other words, since eucalyptus trees have more predators in Australia than they do in California, we should expect them to live longer here.  This is called the “predator release” hypothesis.  Ironically, that hypothesis is used by nativists to support their claim that eucalyptus is invasive in California.  (California Invasive Plant Council rates the “invasiveness” of blue gum as “limited.)  It’s only logical to apply that hypothesis to the question of how long blue gums will live in California.

MANY HEALTHY BLUE GUMS IN CALIFORNIA ARE 150 YEARS OLD

However, using actual experience in Australia to predict the future of blue gums in California requires some speculation.  Therefore, we turned to the question of how long they have lived in California for guidance.  We found several interesting local stories about blue gums that were planted in California 150 years ago and remain healthy and vigorous today.

There are many examples of blue gums being planted as street trees in California about 150 years ago.  One of the most well-known examples is the city of Burlingame on the San Francisco peninsula. When the City was founded in the 1870s, John McLaren was hired to plant trees to provide a much needed windbreak because the City was nearly treeless, as was the entire San Francisco peninsula.  McLaren planted over 500 eucalyptus (blue gum and manna) along the main highway through Burlingame, along with a row of English elms.  John McLaren was subsequently hired by the city of San Francisco, where he planted many more eucalypts while serving as superintendent of the parks department for 53 years.

The eucalypts in Burlingame are still thriving, but the elms have been dead for about 60 years.  SelecTree says the longevity of English elms is “greater than 150 years,” the longest category of longevity published by SelecTree and completely open-ended.

El Camino Real bordered by Eucalyptus trees. Burlingame, SF Bay area, California, USA

The people of Burlingame greatly value their eucalypts and designated them as “heritage trees” in 1975 under a local ordinance.  That local legal status did not protect them from several attempts by Caltrans to destroy the trees.  The people of Burlingame came to the defense of the trees and were eventually successful in getting permanent legal status to protect 2.2 miles of the trees.  That section of El Camino Real in Burlingame lined with eucalyptus was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2012.

Caltrans is now working cooperatively with the people of Burlingame to address safety concerns while “also keeping an eye to the prized grove of eucalyptus trees along the street.”  A task force was formed in 2018 to discuss these issues.  The City of Burlingame remains committed to the preservation of these trees, which suggests that they have a future there. (1)

The life span of street trees is generally much shorter than trees planted as forests because they are subjected to more wind and polluted air of heavily traveled roads, such as El Camino Real.  Although blue gums have passed the test of those challenging conditions with flying colors, they have not been planted as street trees for decades.  Their out-sized scale makes them unsuitable for that purpose.  If blue gums can survive as street trees on heavily traveled roads, they can surely survive longer in the protection of their neighbors in forests.

BLUE GUMS AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY

The blue gums on the campus of Stanford University are another example of 150 year-old blue gums that are very much alive.  Although blue gums were included in the campus landscape design of Frederick Law Olmsted in the 1880s, many of the blue gums actually predate his design:  “Several hundred mighty giants on the campus date back prior to 1870 when Leland Stanford acquired several farm properties, one of which already had avenues of gum trees.  They are mostly Tasmanian blue gums and red gums with a sprinkling of manna trees.”

Eucalyptus on Stanford campus

That description of the old blue gums was written in 1971.  The trees are still alive and well.  I worked on the Stanford campus for 10 years and walked among those trees at every opportunity.

AN EVEN OLDER OLMSTED DESIGN IN OAKLAND

Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland, California was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted in the 1860s.  Like most of the East Bay, the site was treeless.  Olmsted’s design was an eclectic collection of mostly non-native trees, including blue gums.  The cemetery is on steep, windward facing hills, where the windbreak provided by blue gums is particularly valued.

Eucalyptus in Mountain View Cemetery, planted on an unirrigated windward facing hill. 2017

Olmsted designed a straight avenue through the cemetery lined with magnolia trees.  Many of the magnolia trees have died and those that remain are in poor condition.  SelecTree claims that the life span of Southern magnolia is “greater than 150 years,” which is contradicted by our local experience.

The current owner of the cemetery destroyed many of the blue gums about 5 years ago, in the middle of the extreme drought.  He replaced many of the blue gums with redwoods.  The redwoods are irrigated and are still surviving.  I did not object to the removal of the blue gums because they are on private property.  I confine my advocacy to healthy trees on public land.

LONG LIVE THE BLUE GUMS!

SelecTree has revised its listing of blue gum longevity based on the information we provided.  The myth that our blue gums are dying of old age will not die as easily.  We will have to repeat this information many times and in many different venues, just as we did for every other myth.  If and when that particular myth dies, we can be sure there will be another waiting in the wings.  Ideologies stubbornly persist, despite contradictory evidence.  And yet, we just as stubbornly persist in defense of our urban forest.


(1) Here is the public record, on which my report about the trees in Burlingame is based:

https://burlingameproperties.com/articles/1607-burlingame-s-heritage-trees

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/future-plotted-for-burlingame-s-el-camino-real/article_a27c43c4-1dd1-11e8-8a5d-b31dfaa94144.html

http://www.burlingamevoice.com/2012/03/nationally-historic-100-years-of-protection-rewarded.html

https://tclf.org/landscapes/howard-ralston-eucalyptus-rows

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/aug/10/local/me-sbriefs10.1

Why a NO vote on AB 2470 (June 2018 election)

AB 2470, “Invasive Species” is a bill to “establish the Invasive Species Council of California, composed as prescribed, to help coordinate a comprehensive effort to exclude invasive species already established in the state. The bill would establish a California Invasive Species Advisory Committee to advise the council on a broad array of issues related to preventing the introduction of invasive species and providing for their control or eradication, as well as minimizing the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause…”

Fortunately, the Bill has been amended so no funds are being allocated to this effort. We still think it’s a dangerous bill that will result in a massive increase in pesticide use and environmental destruction.

LETTER FROM SAN FRANCISCO FOREST ALLIANCE

Here’s our letter on the subject:

——————-

Our members attended a recent budget town hall conducted by Assembly Member Phil Ting. It sharpened our appreciation of California’s needs in the fields of housing, education and health care.

With many thanks for removing funding for Weed Management Areas and Invasive Species Fund from AB 2470, we question the necessity of establishing both an Invasive Species Council of California and a California Invasive Species Advisory Committee proposed in the Bill.

When councils/committees are established – the requests for funding will follow.
We have observed that the current California Invasive Plant Council (Cal IPC) is an organization dedicated to eliminating plants which they deem undesirable, by the use of highly hazardous herbicides. We find this unacceptable.

Spraying of calla lilies here, in San Francisco, with a high hazard herbicide is but one example of these damaging practices. While calla lilies don’t endanger the health of the residents, there is plenty of evidence that the chemicals used to kill these lilies do. Just last year the Cal IPC added over 50 “potentially invasive” plants to the list of those where they claim herbicide spraying is justified.

Some of the plants designated as “undesirable” are “non-native” trees, many of which have been here for over 100 years and had long since became naturalized and habitats for insects, birds and animals both “native” and “non-native.”

Tree removals cause array of problems.

According to Scientific American: “from logging, agricultural production and other economic activities, deforestation adds more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads.” “Native” restorations/removal of “undesirable” trees are activities destroying forests, although they present themselves as environmental endeavors.
When trees are felled they release the carbon they are storing into the atmosphere, the future carbon sequestration is lost, so is the air pollution reduction. There are issues of potential landslides in hilly areas, increase in wind and noise, loss of wildlife habitat.

And, of course, the stumps of killed trees are treated with high hazard herbicides.

According to the Bill, the Invasive Species Council of California and the California Invasive Species Advisory Committee would be established “to help coordinate a comprehensive effort to exclude invasive species already established in the state…” We contend that the means of such “exclusions” are far more damaging and cause far more severe economic, ecological and human health impacts than the “invasive” species possibly can.

We urge the NO vote on AB 2470.

Thank you,

San Francisco Forest Alliance


We have been disturbed by the tendency in the established environmental movement to villainize “non-native” “invasive” species as a basis for declaring a “war” on them. It provides an opportunity to raise or deploy funding, to use a great deal of pesticides, and to “take action” by cutting down trees and tearing out habitat – even when it is environmentally destructive. We oppose the establishment of further institutions that will have a vested interest in these activities.

Why We Oppose Prop 68 (June 2018 Election)

Proposition 68 is on ballot in the upcoming elections. It would authorize the State in California to sell $4.1 billion in bonds for “park and water” improvements. Unfortunately, roughly a third of the money will be allocated for “protection of natural habitats.”

 

MONEY TO FELL TREES AND SPRAY TOXIC HERBICIDES

Over time, we’ve learned what that means, and it’s not protection of anything. In public agencies’ vocabulary “protection of natural habitats,” “native restorations,” “protection of endangered species” usually mean attempts to convert “non-native ” vegetation to “native” by killing trees and using high hazard herbicides.  The actual actions are: (1) Cutting down trees, often thousands of trees (2) Spraying toxic herbicides – including probable carcinogens – in an attempt to prevent the “non-native” plants from growing. When money becomes available, the pace and extent of these activities increases. See: Oyster Bay: Firehose of Funds Means a Firehose of Pesticides

We oppose the felling of trees especially in this time of climate change. Trees sequester carbon, clean the air, stabilize the ground, and provide habitat.

We also oppose the use of toxic herbicides in so-called “Natural” habitats and in these destructive “restorations.” Over time, we’ve understood that herbicides are often more toxic and more persistent than the manufacturers originally claimed. Using them in this way contaminates soil and water, creating unknown dangers for the future.

 

We expect that San Francisco will obtain some of this money to finance implementation of Natural Resource Management Plan.

How many trees can be killed, and how much toxic herbicide can be poured into the Earth for $1.35 BILLION dollars? We recommend a “NO” vote on proposition 68.

FISCAL IMPACTS

We cannot see any pressing fiscal need either.

From the League of Women Voters website: “During the past 17 years voters approved almost $27 billion in general obligation bonds for various natural resources projects, of which the State still has almost $9 billion available. Repaying the bonds is expected to cost an estimated $200 million each year for 40 years, resulting in a total cost of $7.8 billion. There may be savings to local governments in tens of millions of dollars because the bond money available will relieve the local governments from paying for all of a project. There are unknown costs and savings associated with the actual operation and impacts of the projects produced.”