Thank You and Update on December 15

THANK YOU for rising to the occasion and standing up for the Mt. Davidson forest, nature, and public safety! We are eternally grateful. All of your signatures and petition comments were delivered to the SF Planning and the SF Rec and Park Commissioners. Over 5,800 people signed on to save the trees and stop pesticides, and you were an incredible wind beneath our wings on December 15, 2016. GOOD NEWS The meeting lasted for over 6 hours, and my hat is off to the Commissioners who listened to all of the testimony from the public and then asked outstanding questions. There was some good news that came out of the day: 1. The Mt. Davidson Forest will be at least temporarily preserved as the head of the SF Rec and Park Commission promised that “chainsaws will not be coming to Mt. Davidson” in the near future. 2. On December 15, the press covered the threat to the Mt. Davidson Forest. ABC News and the SF Chronicle (main San Francisco newspaper) both did stories that raised awareness. 3. After listening to over 6 hours of testimony from both sides, the Commissioners asked the Department the best questions and inquired about all of the public’s key concerns. 4. The head of the Planning Commission, Rodney Fong, said, “This will not be the last time the public will have to comment on this plan.” 5. SF Rec and Park said, “San Franciscans cherish the preservation of open space in the urban environment. Citizens fought to acquire these hills. We are committed to conservation. There will be opportunities to negotiate around the edges of the plan and around individual sites like Mt. Davidson. We are committed to continuing those conversations about how the plan will be implemented.” This is the beginning, not the end. 6. Per SF Rec and Park, the public will have a say about each area that comes up for consideration including Mt. Davidson. The EIR will be consulted, additional environmental review will be required if more negative impacts are found, Planning may be involved again, an arborist will be hired, a community meeting will be held, the project will go before the SF Rec and Park Commission and so forth. This is where it will be critical for the public to plug back in. We are grateful for these future opportunities. 7. A replacement rate of 1:1 actual trees appears to be materializing. It was voiced at the beginning of the meeting by Lisa Wayne who said, “For every tree removed, a tree would be planted in its place.” It was confirmed at the end by the head of SF Rec and Park when he said, “We will replant 1-to-1.” It was featured on a new flyer from the Department. The SF Chronicle even wrote about it on December 16. This is a departure from a month ago when the “replacement rate” was flexible and could mean bushes or vegetation. I am hopeful that SF Rec and Park will keep their word and implement a 1-to-1 replacement with trees in San Francisco. I am personally committed to reviewing annual reports and to visiting new trees that have been planted. 8. Given the momentum and support for the trees from the public, the broad plan will be appealed by groups to the Board of Supervisors. With your signatures, comments and calls, you raised awareness about all of the key issues – the number of trees to be taken down, the replacement rate, the toxic herbicides, the wildlife at stake, climate change and more – and you made a significant difference. Thank you for your amazing help! MORE DETAIL ON DECEMBER 15 You have to give the Department credit for brilliant political strategy. The hearing chamber was initially taken up one-third by City union workers who would have jobs cutting down the trees, spraying pesticides, and planting bushes. Many people who had arrived to speak for the trees couldn’t get in. I barely got in. These extras were taken to an overflow room where they could watch the proceedings on a screen. Thankfully, all of these people were eventually allowed to enter the room in groups. The Commissions graciously gave each person 3 minutes to speak. The following organizations also sent representatives to speak on behalf of cutting down valuable wooded forests and replacing them with scrub and grasses. Organizations Who Supported Deforestation & Pesticides SF Parks Alliance Nature in the City Sierra Club SPUR Trust for Public Land Sutro Stewards SF Environment Dept. (Peter Brastow) Nobody from these organizations said anything about the value of trees to San Francisco. It was shocking and disappointing. They were in a tough position because these organizations are partners with the city and collaborating with them on projects. The trees could not speak at the meeting, so we tried to speak for them. I have to be honest that I felt kind of disillusioned after the hearing. I have spent the last 12 years raising money for environmental organizations and the last two years working for a foundation. I had to listen to hours of testimony whereby supposedly eco-conscious people ganged up on the trees and advocated for chopping them down. Almost none of these speakers mentioned climate change, and the few that did tried to claim that deforestation is good for the climate somehow. “Scientists agree to disagree about climate change” was the conclusion. And this is in San Francisco. It almost makes one want to give up, buy a Hummer and go work for an oil company. Almost. Enlightened people also endorsed the use of extremely toxic herbicides like Roundup and Garlon in our parks where children play as long as they are being used “judiciously.” That was the word of the day that made everything ok. Environmentalists with chainsaws and herbicides, the latter used to ensure tree eradication. It felt like a sad day for San Francisco. The SF Department of the Environment let me know afterwards that they are actively trying to reduce herbicide use across the City. Not to over-generalize here, but many environmental organizations work on saving trees and battling pesticides “out there,” but when it comes to our own backyard in San Francisco, where was everybody? They were not there. Granted, it takes an extreme amount of courage to stand up to one’s own city government, rather than an “evil corporation.” In retrospect, had I realized what I was getting myself into and what a thorny situation it was, I might not have even attempted it myself. Once the test petition took off, it became a choiceless choice to move forward and represent the voices of the over 5,800 people who had signed in just two weeks. I am grateful to all of you for caring and for encouraging me to go forward. Your voices and support shined a spotlight on the critical issues and helped to make sure that this plan did not move ahead under the cover of darkness. I am proud that together we stood up for the trees and for public health. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS The Commissioners listened to 6 hours of testimony and then asked wonderful questions about the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Plan. I felt like they really listened to everybody’s concerns and asked corresponding inquiries. This was deeply impressive and appreciated. Commissioners’ questions included the following: 1. Why is a program-level EIR being applied to individual projects? 2. Does this program have funding? 3. Will off-trail access in parks become more limited? 4. Why is a 1:1 tree replacement rate not in the original plan? What about a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio? 5. Why is there so much opposition to Sharp Park? It was supposed to be excluded from the plan? 6. Are the carbon calculations wrong? 7. Will San Francisco’s groundwater be polluted by the herbicides? 8. Responding to the concern of mothers, can you please explain more about the use of herbicides including implementation and worker training? 9. Is the definition of biodiversity wrong? 10. Why aren’t there any flowcharts or phases? This plan would require a leap of faith and trust. At the end of the question and answer session, Planning Commissioner Kathrin Moore voted No. LINGERING CONCERNS In a nutshell, I am not disagreeing with the need to protect species. I spend a great deal of my life dedicated to wildlife conservation. I am concerned about the methods and unintended outcomes. Here are some of my lingering concerns: 1. Outdated Plan On December 15, it was explained to me that this plan is 20 years old and that so much time and work have gone into it, it basically has to be approved because of sunk costs and inertia. Just because a plan is 20 years old, does that mean that it should be automatically approved? In the business world, a 20-year-old plan would be obsolete. Remember that the genesis of this idea began in 1995. Was anyone concerned about climate change back then? No. 2. Herbicides Converting eucalyptus forests to scrub requires spraying toxic herbicides like Roundup and Garlon in parks to kill the trees permanently. As SF Rec and Park said many times, “If you don’t treat a felled eucalyptus with herbicides, it will come back.” While Tier 1 herbicides have thankfully been reduced by 91% in San Francisco, toxins remain a serious concern for the public. As a hypothetical example, let’s say that arsenic in your drinking water has been reduced by 91% but that some non-negligible amount of arsenic remains. Is that a good thing? 3. Public Safety At the hearing, I strove to represent the thousands of mothers who had signed the petition. They are concerned that SF Rec and Park’s plan threatens public safety because it requires spraying toxic herbicides in recreation areas where children play and learn about nature. The plan also hurts public safety because it threatens houses with erosion and landslides (and the City would be liable), it worsens air pollution and asthma, it raises the risk that tress will fall on people from the wind (and the City would be liable), and it could poison groundwater with toxic chemicals. One speaker towards the end got everyone’s attention with his concern about groundwater. Starting in 2017, San Francisco will begin mixing groundwater into our tap water from Hetch Hetchy. The notice from the SFPUC says, “Groundwater is a renewable water source that is replenished through natural processes.” This process will not be so natural anymore if Roundup and Garlon are seeping down through the soil into the groundwater and coming out in people’s homes through their taps. Do the ends justify the means? 4. Value of Trees Underappreciated Ultimately, what motivated me to start the petition and continues to motivate me is people’s seemingly lack of respect for the value that trees provide to San Francisco. Trees make oxygen, sequester carbon, clean the air, provide shade, calm people down, house wildlife, stabilize soil, absorb stormwater, create microclimates and much more. As the story goes, the Buddha even became enlightened while sitting under a tree after exhausting every other option. People appear to be taking mature trees for granted, and this is dangerous because trees are helping to keep us alive. Wildlife are also living in these trees like the magnificent Great-Horned Owls that I now hear and see on a regular basis in San Francisco’s eucalyptus forests. Next time, perhaps I should bring 35 owls with me to the hearing. The thought process seems to be – it is ok to cut down a tree because you can just plant another one. Well, if a tree is 136 years old and is able to live for another 200 years, then that is tough to replace with a little sapling that may or may not survive. Per the U.S. Geological Survey, large older trees continue to sequester 3 times more carbon than younger trees as they grow. If you cut down an older tree, then you have to replant at least 3 trees or more to recreate the benefits. Nobody seems to willing to do this. I absolutely understand the need to take down truly hazardous trees in an urban environment and support that wholeheartedly. It is the replacement rate that has me deeply concerned. 5. Tree Vandalism I have seen many pictures of eucalyptus trees that have been deliberately vandalized on Mt. Davidson and in other parks. The vandals used a cruel process of ring-barking or girdling to slowly kill the trees. This is unacceptable. I encourage SF Rec and Park to set a no-exceptions policy for tree vandalism. Anyone who is caught vandalizing a eucalyptus tree in a park would be arrested for defacing public property. 6. Beloved Woods in Urban Settings The unique wooded urban forests like Mt. Davidson are people’s salvation from the noise, pollution, and chaos of city life. The majority of San Francisco residents do not want city government to destroy them. On December 15, a speaker made a very interesting distinction between the Forestry department and the Natural Resources department within SF Rec and Park. The speaker’s point was, “Why not turn these urban woods back over to the Forestry department if they need maintenance and that is a main concern?” Several speakers did complain about the lack of maintenance in the forests and the need for better management. Remarkably, this same dichotomy is happening in the Presidio. The Natural Resources department of the Presidio is also cutting down people’s favorite forests and converting them to scrub, grassland and bushes. It is the same film. I am not saying that all of this work is detrimental. Presidio residents are upset and complain about the resulting “barren hills” in some cases. Once a forest gets turned over to Natural Resources, it is likely going to be partially or totally annihilated. This same momentum is present within SF Rec and Park. The crux of the issue seems to be that all of these wooded forests are in an urban environment, the major metropolis of San Francisco. They are literally people’s backyards. Residents grew up walking in these forests. Now they take their own children and families there. The Natural Resources departments come in and say, “We are going back in time to how nature was before people were here.” This is the debate that we need to have. Is this appropriate in an urban environment? If so, how far do we go? At the end of the hearing, SF Rec and Park said that the Natural Areas plan will be one of the most ambitious habitat “restoration” efforts that they have ever attempted. How much is warranted? How much is too much? If San Francisco is determined to do this deforestation, what about planting redwood trees as replacements? Coastal redwoods can live to be 2,000 years old. The Jedediah Smith Redwood Forest in Northern California just set a record for the most carbon sequestered per acre in the world. Redwood trees are a native species to California, and redwood forests are lush ecologically. They love the fog. Less than 5% of coastal redwoods remain in the state because they were all clearcut by short-sighted logging companies. Let’s please discuss this possible solution. 7. Climate Change The fatal flaw of this plan is Climate Change. In the 1700s, there was no rapid climate change from industrialization. Sadly, we have it now, and the large trees are playing top defense through their superior carbon sequestration abilities. Forests absorb 10 times the carbon of grasslands. Every tree we cut down and replace with a bush just because it is a eucalyptus puts us one step closer to climate catastrophe. The Ferry Building, Treasure Island, our airport, human health, all biodiversity are at risk. If San Francisco wants to be a climate resilient city, then a replacement rate needs to be guaranteed in the plan and increased from a loose 1:1 with plants to a real 3:1 with trees. If not, this plan will cause climate change and everyone who voted for it will be responsible. Until this is fixed, I encourage the City and the public to continue to work to improve this plan for the safety of us all. The Urban Forestry Council had issued an official recommendation for a 3:1 tree replacement rate and annual reports of trees removed, trees replanted, and pesticides used. I was sad that more people did not speak about this in detail at the hearing. The City of San Francisco's top priorities on Thursday were deforestation and habitat conversion. Cutting down wooded forests to plant bushes and take nature back to the way it was in the 1700s. This went on for hours. The plan’s intent, when it was written in 2006, was pure habitat conversion from forests to scrub and grasslands. There was no tree replacement rate. Throughout November and early December 2016, when the Department was asked about replacement, they said, “Don’t be literal” and “It could be trees, or it could be plants and vegetation.” As Bill McDonough says in his epic keynote speeches, “It is a wise man who plants 10 trees for every tree he cuts down.” SF Rec and Park conducted a greenhouse gas analysis in the Environmental Impact Report initially only “on a qualitative basis.” How does one do a QUALITATIVE assessment of carbon calculations? They later added some strange math showing that cutting down over 18,000 trees and replacing them with vegetation would be “beneficial” for the climate. The conclusion on Thursday was: “What you have here is a disagreement among experts.” It was like being at an oil company shareholders meeting. This is a dangerous situation for San Francisco, a city that faces future flooding of its waterfront and more. Nobody seems to care that this plan poses a threat to San Francisco’s resilience, and that is perplexing. Per the USDA, eucalyptus trees are storing nearly 25% of the carbon in San Francisco right now. Deforestation causes 20-25% of all global warming emissions worldwide. If the City of San Francisco were able to add a 3-to-1 tree replacement rate and monitor that these trees were actually being replanted and surviving, then this plan would be less harmful to San Francisco's long-term climate resilience. Time Magazine’s Hero for the Planet, Bill McDonough says, “If we come here and say, ‘Well, I didn't intend to cause global warming on the way here. That's not part of my plan,' then we realize it is part of our de facto plan.” All of the people who advocated for deforestation on Thursday don’t want to cause global warming, yet they will unintentionally if they don’t replant trees at a 3:1 ratio or higher. We have only another 10 years or so to really turn around this perilous climate change situation. Otherwise, it might be too late. 8. Biodiversity The paradox is that climate change harms biodiversity, the very goal of the Natural Areas program. Rapid climate change is predicted to become the greatest menace to biodiversity in the future. Per the UN’s Global Biodiversity Outlook, “Climate change is already having an impact on biodiversity and is projected to become a progressively more significant threat.” Per Harvard University, climate change is expected to threaten with extinction approximately 25% or more of all species on land by 2050, surpassing habitat loss as the biggest danger to life on land. Ocean species and coral reefs are at great risk from climate change. Shells also become an endangered species as the ocean acidifies. Mosquitoes are projected to benefit from global warming. So by cutting down over 18,000 trees without replacement to "save biodiversity," SF Rec and Park and the SF Environment Department are threatening far more species with extinction than they are saving. 9. Native Plants Many people appear rooted in the belief that non-native plants are bad and must be exterminated, even if that means using toxic herbicides repeatedly and causing climate change. Where did this deep-seated belief come from? For example, I received an email from one organization who said that even if this plan does cause climate change, which they think it will, it is worth it because a reptile would have been saved. Let me get this straight. We are willing to sacrifice the entire planet to global warming to save one reptile. I am all for reptiles. I actually like reptiles a lot and all creatures. As climate change rapidly accelerates, we are going to have to start having expanded conversations. At the very least, if we are going to cut down 15,000 trees to save one reptile, then those trees need to replanted somewhere else. This anti-non-native mentality is changing as people wake up to the importance of all nature regardless of whether it is native or not. Two new books were recently published on the topic: 1) “The New Wild: Why Invasive Species Will Be Nature's Salvation” by Fred Pearce in April 2016 and 2) “Beyond the War on Invasive Species: A Permaculture Approach to Ecosystem Restoration” by Tad Orion in July 2015. I am not saying that all native plant restoration is bad, and I remain open to dialogue and ideas. What I question is the balance. To many people, this plan appears out of balance because it allows for the deforestation of over 18,000 trees and habitat conversion into scrub and grasslands across 32 areas and parks. Can we really afford that when we are going to need every large tree to fight climate change and therefore preserve biodiversity and humanity across the planet? I support removing concrete barriers in streams for salmon in California for instance. Creating pollinator habitat on marginal farmland is another fabulous program. What bothers me is that certain deforestation projects are billed as “restoration” and “renovation of our urban forests.” Whenever someone is promoting a “restoration” project, read the fine print and ask the tough questions. What is really going on? HOW TO STAY INVOLVED Thank you again for being so wonderful. I realize now that this is a marathon, not a sprint. As each specific area comes up for deforestation and habitat conversion, there will be a process whereby the public can get involved and make your voices heard. We are grateful for that. Please continue to stay engaged. The trees need you! If a Parks Bond comes up in the future, we encourage everyone worried about deforestation to look at the projects that would be funded by the bond. “Restoration” can be a code-word for creating the nature of the 1700s. Most importantly, please advocate for projects that you DO want in the bond, such as children’s playgrounds. Going forward, if anyone sees a tree being cut down or pesticides being sprayed, I encourage you to ask why. Take a picture. Document. Post on Nextdoor. Will this tree be replaced? Do not just walk by and assume that everything is ok. It might be, or it might not be. This is your backyard and your home. We urge citizens to remain aware and engaged. A huge shout out goes to the SF Forest Alliance and individuals who have been researching this plan for years and who have read thousands of pages, been to countless meetings, engaged the community and much more. Never doubt that a village can make a difference. Thank you again for your amazing support and for coming to the aid of the Mt. Davidson Forest! The human spirit renewed by nature is a force of nature.