More hearings on Water Quality and Groundwater Safety concerns

Guest writer:

Dear Water Warriors,

If SF has plenty of water in storage*, why is the city blending?
The state may be requiring SF to do so but…why?
How much is DPW involved in this “blended” water project?
After all, pipes are repaired, re-routed by DPW…& if there is an “emergency,” aren’t there federal funds?**  Could this be part of OneBayArea Plan to support the 1 million people for our future city? But since we don’t have the $, do they need to mess with it and then “fix” it? Hate to think so…but really, why? See some detailed information about other city experiments with changing water sources in the links below:

“San Francisco Ordered to Stop Using Century-Old Water Rights” (KQED 6/26/2015)
https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2015/06/26/san-francisco-ordered-to-stop-using-century-old-water-rights/ according to Steve Ritchie: “We have plenty of water in storage.”

“Fight over senior water rights splashes into the Capitol” (SF Chronicle 3/21/16)
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Fight-over-senior-water-rights-splashes-into-the-6932476.php

Senior water rights data – California
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_data/ca_water_rights/

PBS link to “Poisoned Water” video about the Flint, Michigan, water crisis:
http://www.pbs.org/video/3001355667/

** Flint received $10 billion from the federal government to “fix” the water emergency problem (subsidies ran out, water rates increased): http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/senate-approves-bill-water-projects-millions-flint/

Flint said it was costing them too much for their water system so was this all just to get $$$? to be used like wherever the officials wanted? This is so weird.

There’s a bunch of other articles on Flint on the pbs website:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/flint-water-crisis/

SF apartment project faces delay for casting shadow on park

By J.K. Dineen : sfgate – excerpt

It was a showdown between badly needed housing and precious open space on South of Market’s hardscrabble Sixth Street.

And on Thursday, open space won out — at least for now.

In a rare decision, the Planning and Recreation and Park commissions forced the developer of a proposed 84-unit apartment complex at 301 Sixth St. to redesign the project after residents and community advocates complained that the 82-foot-high building would cast a shadow on the Gene Friend Recreation Center(more)

This is a rare moment indeed, and shows a new respect for preservation of natural light on open space that has been losing a lot of ground lately. The hows and whys of this decision including the likelihood of it being repeated on other outdoor areas is hard to gauge, but we remain hopeful that the commissions charged with preserving our quality of life will continue to do that.

 

Timeline: Lawyers for Developers Share Tactics to Blunt CEQA

By Kevin Stark : SFpublicpress – excerpt

Why the rush to build on the lowest levels of the bay?

In 1995, the Diablo Valley Ranch, a drug rehab facility in Contra Costa County, planned to expand. The problem? According to neighbors, the land it wanted to build on was contaminated with oil and toxic chemicals.

The company made what was then an obscure argument: The California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, the state’s premiere environmental law, did not require developers to consider how the environment might influence its project, only how the project would affect the environment.

Today, developers are using the same reasoning to push back on the ability of Bay Area cities to regulate waterfront development and protect residents from rising sea levels, a product of human-caused climate change. Over the last two decades, as developers won over judges in more and more state courts, lawyers began peppering these phrases in environmental impact reports, lawsuits and responses to public comment…

November 2016: RULING

Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure; Golden State Warriors Arena LLC — The Court of Appeal rules in favor of the Golden State Warriors basketball team in its application for a $1 billion development including a sports arena and office complex. The legal challenge had focused on the effects on traffic and wind patterns, mentioning sea level rise only parenthetically.

Defendants argue correctly that CEQA does not require analysis of the wind impacts on the project. “[T]he purpose of an FSEIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the project.”

December 2016: ACTION

San Francisco’s Natural Resources Management Plan — The City of San Francisco, which owns a golf course and natural area in coastal San Mateo County, issues a wide-ranging parks management plan calling for keeping the level of wetlands artificially stable. In comments, the Sierra Club objects that the proposal “will lack any resiliency in the face of increased climate stress and inevitable sea-level rise.”

“The purpose of an EIR is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment.”(more)

Regardless of how your feel about global warming and sea level rise, pay more attention to who supports the candidates if you don’t like these rulings.

Moving away from “environmental reviews” that favor driving: San Francisco, Mountain View, Menlo Park

greencaltrain – excerpt

Three recent environmental reviews reveal the dramatic transition under way in California’s assessment of the transportation impacts of new buildings.

San Francisco’s Central SOMA plan is the first “Environmental Impact Report” (EIR) in the Bay Area that we know of for a land use plan that moves away from a method of analysis that favors driving and promotes car-centric place design.   San Francisco’s recent report, using new rules, is dramatically different from new reports in Mountain View and Menlo Park, cities that have been transitioning to less car-centric policies, but still use the older standard in environmental reviews…

Mountain View North Bayshore

The City of Mountain View also places a high priority on reducing the share of driving in the North Bayshore area, where Google is headquartered. The North Bayshore precise plan requires a reduction in drivealone mode share from the current rate around 60% to 45% in the time frame of the plan.  This year, the city is updating its North Bayshore Precise Plan to incorporate housing, transforming a single use office park into a mixed-use neighborhood with housing and services…

Menlo Park – El Camino near Caltrain

Menlo Park is another city that has been updating its policies and plans to more effectively support multi-modal travel, though its multi-modal policies are less strong than those of Mountain View.  Like Mountain View, Menlo Park has not yet made the shift to VMT. Menlo Park recently adopted a new General Plan. Updates to its Transportation Impact Analysis guidelines, including rules to incorporate the use of VMT, and changes to transportation impact fees, are proposed for a transportation guidelines update to be completed in 2018… (more)

SF Planning Rules Swirl with Sewage to Clog Affordable Housing Pipeline

By Lena Wenus : missionlocal – excerpt

All it takes to delay an affordable housing project in San Francisco is $578 and filling out a simple form.

Take the case of the affordable housing project at 2060-2070 Folsom Street, where one neighbor’s list of complaints – including one about sewage and flooding – could stall the project for as long as six months.

Margaret Eve-Lynne Miyasaki, a neighbor of the project, recently paid $578 to file a request for a discretionary review of the 127-unit, nine-story project. The Plannign Commission approved the project in July 2016 – some thought, finally – after a multi-year process that included multiple changes including making it taller.

No matter. Miyasaki’s form, filed on Feb. 8, triggers a new hearing of the seven-member commission… (more)

I’m not questioning the building so much as I question the design of the park that is covered by concrete. If an impervious groundcover can absorb runoff, why are they pouring concrete on every inch of the “park”? Why don’t they plant grass or ground cover or make it into an edible garden for the neighborhood to share?  How can they complain about a parking lot or sidewalks and streets when they are covering a park with concrete?

Not a good week for the earth

Bad news out of Washington and City Hall this week. I will not dwell on Washington as it is all over the news. Not so much on the decision at City Hall that could result in the killing of our urban forest in order to bring back the native grasses and brush that greeted the Spanish explorers when they landed.

poison

Poison is in. Human access to the parks and trails, and free dog runs are on their way out, or will be severely limited if the program, as planned, is executed.

The Board of supervisors voted 9-1 (Jane Kim was excused prior to the vote) to deny the appeal to the Natural Areas Plan that will kill many trees and spread what is widely considered to be a dangerous carcinogen on our parks to manage their demise. This decision was based on a Programmatic EIR, and may effect many projects city wide. At the same time, each project may face a potential appeal and budget constraints as it comes up. This is step one in efforts to force major changes in how the parks are managed. The battle is lost but the war continues.

In the words of Park and Rec representatives taken from the transcript: “We did an analysis that was appropriate for a project level review and that was-so the tree removal that we are talking about large scale tree removal was evaluated at a program level so what that means is we don’t have the information to specific information to do a very detailed project level analysis. That would happen during a subsequent review. When rec and park comes to planning later on and says here is our project and it fits under the category of large scale tree removal we evaluate in the EIR and if we find new significant impacts not were not identified another level of environmental review is required at that nt in time.”

For more details on this plan and to be updated on efforts to stop the projects as they come up, please go to this petition site for links etc. If you want to continue to support the efforts to stop this sign the petition and stay tuned to the messages coming out of this and many other environmental groups who oppose the plan.

Some notes from the February 28, Board of Supervisors Meeting:
http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/TranscriptViewer.php?view_id=10&clip_id=27241

1. SF Supervisor Norman Yee voted in support of saving the trees and stopping the pesticides! He voted yes to appeal the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the plan. This was the most important outcome because the Mt. Davidson Forest resides in the area he was elected to represent, District 7 in San Francisco.

This took an incredible amount of courage by Supervisor Yee, as the pressure from SF Rec and Park to support the deforestation was immense.

Please send Supervisor Yee a quick note of thanks for voting to save the Mt. Davidson Forest from chainsaws and pesticides!

Supervisor Norman Yee
Email: norman.yee@sfgov.org

2. Pesticide Issue Highlighted: Supervisor Yee is especially concerned about SF Rec and Park’s use of toxic herbicides like Roundup to kill the trees permanently. He was unsatisfied with the Department’s answers to the questions about increased pesticides and the potential runoff into the Miraloma Elementary School. He doesn’t feel these issues were adequately studied. “That bothers me a lot. I will be supporting the appeal,” said Supervisor Yee.

New SF Supervisor Jeff Sheehy for District 8 launched an epic line of questioning about pesticides. He started with, “Walk me through the herbicides and the use of Roundup in parks” and then asked every single tough question one could imagine. “Will these chemicals migrate into the groundwater?”… “It doesn’t sound like you reviewed it.”“How can you say that you are using the same amount when you will be using more?”… Supervisor Sheehy concluded, “These herbicides make the parks unusable.”

Please send Supervisor Sheehy a quick note of thanks for standing up for public health and saying no to Roundup in our parks!

Supervisor Jeff Sheehy
Email: jeff.sheehy@sfgov.org

New Supervisor Hillary Ronen for District 9 also noted that the answers SF Rec and Park provided about the pesticides were “unsatisfying.”

Supervisors Sheehy, Yee and Ronen have valid concerns. Glyphosate in Roundup is a probable carcinogen according to the World Health Organization. A 2014 study by the U.S. Geological Survey showed that glyphosate accumulates in groundwater and even in rainfall. Do we really want it raining Roundup in San Francisco? Groundwater is now being mixed into our tapwater, and the risk of poisoning residents is real.

SF Rec and Park tries to pass the buck on pesticides to the SF Department of the Environment. They say they are just following SF Environment’s Integrated Pest Management Program which allows poisonous chemicals like Roundup, Aquamaster, and Garlon to be sprayed in parks where children play.

RELATED News:  Judge Blocks Monsanto’s Bid to Stop California From Listing Glyphosate as Carcinogenic California could become the first state to require Monsanto to label its glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup, as a possible carcinogen following Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan’s tentative ruling on Friday… The OEHHA made the decision following the France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) findings that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A)” in March 2015… (more)

3. Old Trees Matter:  Both SF Planning and SF Rec and Park went on the record as saying that old trees sequester more carbon than young trees. That is an encouraging sign. Back in November 2016, they were asserting the opposite which is one of the reasons I started this petition. Recent studies prove just how valuable large, old trees are in the fight against climate change. So let’s plant trees and save trees both!

4. Craziest Lines: Here are some of the craziest things people said last night:

“Eating bacon has the same risk factor as Roundup” – Lisa Wayne, SF Rec and Park

”Wild places do not take care of themselves” – Phil Ginsburg, GM, SF Rec and Park

“You can walk into Home Depot and buy Roundup” – Lisa Wayne, SF Rec and Park

“These trees don’t matter because they are all going to die at some point anyway”  SF Planning describing trees that can live another 200 years

“The environment is under attack. This plan represents best practices” – Phil Ginsburg, GM, SF Rec and Park

“This arena is going to cause more traffic congestion!” – from a member of the public who crashes every meeting

FORESTRY vs. NATURAL RESOURCES: Trees under the Forestry division of SF Rec and Park get managed. Trees under the Natural Resources division get cut down. This is a distinction that virtually nobody understands.

People are persuaded to support the Natural Resources plan because “our forests need to be managed.” This is supposed to be the job of Forestry. The intention of Natural Resources is to take San Francisco’s landscape back to how it looked in the 1700s. It was a fairly desolate place with sand dunes, scrub, and limited trees only in creek beds. Many of these park forests haven’t been “managed” because they were transferred over to Natural Resources who has been trying to cut them down for 10 years.

THE FUTURE: In the future, SF Rec and Park may try again to destroy the Mt. Davidson Forest. Hopefully not! If so, this would be subject to public review, and we could ask for your help again in standing up for the trees.

For San Francisco residents, if you see a Park Bond on the ballot, please scrutinize the fine print carefully. If you see language about “restoration of parks”, this can mean cutting down healthy trees and converting them to bushes. Please advocate in advance for what you do want in the bond. SF Rec and Park has $1 billion in deferred maintenance. SF taxpayers would rather the Department spend precious dollars on basic maintenance and new playgrounds, rather than deforestation… (more)

 

 

 

Oroville Dam Crisis Shows Why We Must Invest In Infrastructure

huffingtonpost – excerpt (including video)

WASHINGTON ― Every few years an actual or threatened disaster highlights the state of America’s crumbling infrastructure. President Barack Obama, for example, pointed to a 2007 bridge collapse in Minneapolis, which left 13 people dead and dozens of others injured, in his push for more federal funding to overhaul roads, bridges and waterways.

Another potentially catastrophic situation arose in California over the weekend.

Nearly 200,000 people were told to evacuate on Sunday as workers labored to repair a severely damaged spillway below the country’s tallest dam, which holds back California’s largest reservoir. Heavy storms in recent months had pushed water levels to historic highs at Lake Oroville, which supplies water to central and southern portions of the state.

The situation was so dire at one point that officials issued warnings to multiple communities near the dam. Water levels in the reservoir receded somewhat by late Sunday, giving authorities additional time to bolster an auxiliary spillway. But a new storm system arriving later this week could fill Lake Oroville to the brim once more, with no indication of when the thousands of displaced people will be able to return to their homes.

Failure to invest in infrastructure comes at a heavy cost. Collapses in the New Orleans levee system led to mass flooding, billions of dollars in property damage and hundreds of deaths in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

One of Trump’s biggest promises for his first 100 days was to deliver a $1 trillion infrastructure plan to Congress. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) poured cold water over the idea of a large spending package in December, telling reporters he hoped to avoid “a trillion-dollar stimulus.” And with other items on Trump’s agenda ― including the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and an overhaul of the nation’s tax system ― seemingly stalled on Capitol Hill, a major infrastructure bill could take years to land on the president’s desk…(more)

RELATED:

Report: Officials ignored Oroville Dam spillway concerns 12 years ago

abcnews – excerpt

Our media partner the San Jose Mercury News reports the environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, filed a motion with the federal government in 2005, urging federal officials to require that the dam’s emergency spillway be armored with concrete, rather than remain as an earthen hillside.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rejected the request after the state department of water resources and other water agencies said the upgrades were unnecessary…(more)

Spillway concerns have been ignored by federal and state officials for years because the government has a problem setting realistic priorities and policies. How do we reset a broken political system that ignores science ? We understand that seismic issues are not taken into account by CEQA.

How this is possible in a state as unstable as California?  These are the kind of CEQA reforms that we need to concentrate on, not administrative reforms that speed up the review critical process. How do we reform the broken system that is supposed to protect our major investments like dams and bridges? How do we turn the decision-making process into one that serves the public instead of corporate interests and political egos?

Neighborhoods all over the country are fighting  back with ballot measures like Yes on S in LA that would impose a moratorium on large development project approvals because the public does not trust the government to make the right decisions.

Oroville Dam: Motion to Intervene of Friends of the River, Sierra Club, and South Yuba River Citizens League filed on October 17, 2005: Motion

Scientific Reports Confirm Catastrophic Climate Change

By Jonathan Turley : Jonathanturley – excerpt

There are new reports confirming not only climate change but escalating losses of arctic ice. US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s annual Arctic report card has found that this is the hottest year on record in the Arctic and it is now twice as fast as any other place on Earth. Another international study found that the rapid loss of glaciers is caused by climate change to a certainty of 99 percent

The impact could well be catastrophic for the planet. The permafrost holds a huge amount of carbon which is released with the melting — releasing more CO2 and methane into atmosphere. That will further speed up climate change . . . which will result in more ice melting in an accelerating downward spiral. .. (more)

One wonders why any trees are being cut to release more carbon into the air if scientists are concerned by carbon release.

SF plan for natural areas likely to draw fire

By Lizzie Johnson : sfgate – excerpt

A comprehensive new plan for San Francisco’s natural areas could anger dog lovers, golfers and nature lovers in one swoop, while protecting delicate habitats and endangered species.

The plan — originally proposed in 2006 — will review the biology and geology of the Recreation and Park Department’s 32 natural areas and trails, including Twin Peaks, Bernal Heights and Mount Davidson. It will also outline maintenance and capital improvements within those areas for the next 20 years. The Recreation and Park Commission and the Planning Commission will vote on the document Thursday.

The biggest impacts that could come are changes in urban forestry management, the removal of off-leash dog areas in sensitive environmental areas and the rejiggering of Sharp Park’s golf course — changes with which the various groups will probably be unhappy… (more)

The public comments for on this EIR lasted for over 6 hours. This is  major project that is highly controversial. Thousands or trees are planned for removal, that will release tons of carbon into the air. People anticipate a lot of herbicides will be used and that this will go into the ground water that is now being mixed into the drinking water. More details can come later. Comments welcome.

There is no money for any of this according to the proponents of the Natural Resources Plan. This is a big messy project that will get approved and then swept under the rug until someone comes up with money and the contract will be approved and then the public will hear about it. That is what happens with these large broad plans.

Building over a shaky PG&E gas main

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

And on to another Bernal Heights issue: the supes will hear the appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying environmental review for a project on the south side of the hill that would be built on top of the only PG&E gas main that isn’t protected under a street.

Folsom Street has a 26-inch main, the same sort that exploded in San Bruno, and it’s from the same era and has the same sort of potential maintenance problems, according to a couple of engineers who have weighed in on the issue…

The politics are tricky: Sup. David Campos owns a home within 150 yards of the construction site, so by law he can’t vote on the project. Which means D9, where this is happening, is without representation.

If the appeal were delayed just one meeting, then Hillary Ronen, the new D9 supe, would be able to vote. But no: It comes up this week.

And with Campos recused, it may be hard to get six votes to overturn the Planning Department decision. Which is a bit crazy: The neighbors who are appealing aren’t against building housing on the site (although it means the loss of a community garden). They just worry about the pipeline. And they seem to have a point…(more)

You would think that after all the other “disasters” we have had lately, the Board of Supervisors would support the neighbors request to fix the pipe. How hard is that?