 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Action Alerts! Join Save Our Sonoma County-Town Hall Coalition is working with Save Our Sonoma County to monitor applications for development of wine factories, industrial vineyards, and agricultural support shopping complexes and special event facilities in rural areas. Contact Town Hall Coalition or Save Our Sonoma County 823-5695 to find out about the next meeting. Participate in the Sonoma County General Plan Update 2020. Contact Save Our Sonoma County 823-5695 or Greenbelt Alliance. Defend
democracy: Contact Sonoma County Election Defense Committee. Events: Russian
River Beer Revival-25 of the Best Microbreweries and 20 BBQ
Teams cooking ribs! Benefit for Western Sonoma County Environmental Groups Tickets Available at Town Hall Coalition office 707-824-4371 Forest Protection Updates:
Town
Hall Coalition Helps Protect Sonoma County's Forests from Conversions Sonoma County's remaining redwood forests are threatened by encroaching development and conversion to vineyards. Town Hall Coalition has been working since 2003 to get a County Ordinance regulating Forest Conversion. If you are concerned about a forest conversion or application for forest conversion in your neighborhood, please contact Town Hall Coalition and Forest Unlimited at (707) 632-6070. Be sure to check out www.redwoodsforever.com, a wonderfully-crafted expose' of the current problem and why now is the time to take action. On February 7, 2006, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 for a Timber Conversion Ordinance which gives the County a voice for the first time in conversion applications. March 17, 2006 the Board of Supervisors approved the ordinance on the Consent Calendar (with Supervisor Paul Kelly dissenting). The good news: This is the first time a County will be able to have a say in land uses resulting from timber conversion applications (Santa Cruz's ordinance was overturned by the California Supreme Court). It is a small step forward, and hopefully the ordinance can be strengthened over time. There was huge citizen involvement on this issue. Thank you to everyone who wrote letters! The bad news: The ordinance currently has very few teeth, and we have to cross our fingers and hope that the County Permit and Resource Deparment (PRMD) will enforce the ordinance, and be able to deny, rather than just rubber stamp, applications which do not provide public benefit. Other problems: The ban only covers 5% of timberlands (not Site Class III), Public benefit is loosely defined, there is only a 2:1 land swap, with no slope or conservation easement requirement. Next public hearings on Forest Conversions: The PRMD will be putting together a proposed amendment to the ordinance which will stipulate for "like kind" properties in the 2:1 land swap. More information coming soon, or call the Town Hall office.
October 4, 2005- County Acts to Restrict Forest Conversions by Larry Hanson On Tuesday, October 4, Sonoma County staff presented the Board of Supervisors with a report on ways to restrict the increased permits for converting forestland to vineyards. From the Mark West Creek area in the east, Valley of Moon to the southeast, and Gualala River area to the northwest, acres of forests have been purchased for the purpose of planting vineyards, as well as putting in wine factories. On the issue of conversion to vineyards, the Board of Supervisors considered proposals to curb this trend. At a previous meeting the month before, the Board Chambers were filled with citizens and environmental organizations clearly giving a message to their supervisors that they wanted a ban on forest conversions for vineyards, known as Option Three, that came from a previous staff report. The Supervisors responded to this unified message, but some supervisors wanted more “flexibility”. So, on October 4, the supervisors voted 4 to 1 (Paul Kelley voted no) to finalize language with “flexibility” to allow some conversions on forestland to take place. In the next issue of the West County Gazette, I will report on this finalized version. For now, it appears the restriction, which may be in the form of an ordinance and general plan amendment or update, will outright ban conversions of bigger, denser forests usually found in river bottoms and flatter areas. For the forests that occur on slopes and ridges, there could be land swaps that would allow conversions to take place. The way this works is if you had 10 acres and wanted to convert your forested area to vineyards, you would swap 20 acres of forestland to be protected from converting in the future. The details of this are to be worked out in terms of the nature of the protection, the type of forest to be protected, how this is to be monitored, among other considerations to numerous to mention at this time. For the time being, the public paying attention to this issue has mixed feelings. On the one hand, many are relieved to have our Board of Supervisors start implementing a restriction on a situation that appears could get much, much worse if nothing were done to stop it. On the other hand, most of the forestlands in Sonoma County are of the type that may allow this “flexibility” of land swapping. So, when a person evaluates the loss of watershed areas, the loss of forest habitat, and lowering of water tables and wells in some cases (vs. another new vineyard), how “flexible” do you want to be? Previous Forest Conversion updates (Archive): Update from January 19, 2006.The County Planning Commission Talking points include: The Planning Commission should accept public comments. Our public comments were that they were clearly wrong when they forwarded Option 1 earlier, and they should go on record that they now understand the need for regulating forest conversions. We request they tell the Supervisors that they want a higher restocking ratio, and to also add the ban to Site Class 3. Commissioner Murphy (appointed by Paul Kelley) made the erroneous statement that more acreage is "converted" from timber use by parks acquisition and preservation. No other Planning Commissioner pointed out his faulty logic, and they agreed with him. This is why we need a better Board of Supervisors. The Commission made no substantive change and sent it back to the Board of Supervisors. Update from December 13, 2005 the Board of Supervisors discussed the staff report and draft language. On the one hand, new regulation is better than no regulation, and the County having a say in forest conversion is better than only CDF. The 4 Supersivors who voted yes should be commended for recognizing the need for this important regulation. On the other hand, the proposed ban only applies to Site Class 1 and 2, which comprise about 5% of forestlands. Site Class 3, the largest grouping, only requires a use permit, and a restocking or preservation ratio of 2:1 (the infamous No Net Loss Provision which was opposed by 200 people and 2000 postcards, yet still supported by 3 Supervisors). The Supervisors sent the draft back to the Planning Commission. Update from October 4, 2005 Sonoma County staff presented the Board of Supervisors with a report on ways to restrict the increased permits for converting forestland to vineyards. From the Mark West Creek area in the east, Valley of Moon to the southeast, and Gualala River area to the northwest, acres of forests have been purchased for the purpose of planting vineyards, as well as putting in wine factories. On the issue of conversion to vineyards, the Board of Supervisors considered proposals to curb this trend. At a previous meeting the month before, the Board Chambers were filled with citizens and environmental organizations clearly giving a message to their supervisors that they wanted a ban on forest conversions for vineyards, known as Option Three, that came from a previous staff report. The Supervisors responded to this unified message, but some supervisors wanted more “flexibility”. So, on October 4, the supervisors voted 4 to 1 (Paul Kelley voted no) to finalize language with “flexibility” to allow some conversions on forestland to take place. County Staff discussed draft forest conversion regulation language at Board of Supervisors. Supervisors are looking at a ban on conversion in site classes 1 and 2, and vineyard prohibition for site class 3. Update from August 23, 2005- The County Board of Supervisors considered Timberland Conversion regulation in the General Plan Update. Over 200 people came to the hearing and joined environmental groups in advocating for Option 3, the best option to protect our forests. The public also said Option 5's "no net loss" is a misnomer. The Board agreed 4 to 1, that timber conversions are a problem, and that the County should develop a regulation. However, rather than adopting Option 3, they directed County Staff to come back with some ideas for performance standards, etc. Update from June 2, 2005- The County Planning Commission decided to forward Option 1- "No action required"- to the board of Supervisors by a split vote 3-2. Town Hall Coalition feels this Option is based on outdated information, and ignores the current situation where vineyards are planning thousands of acres of timber conversions. The Supervisors can still choose Option 3 or Option 7, but need to hear from constituents that the Timber Conversion problem is real and strong regulation is required, not no action. Update from May 12, 2005- On April 21, the County Planning Commission discussed the Timber Forest Conversion issue. Permit and Resource Management staff discussed a "dramatically altered" Option 3 as "Option 5" which contains a "no net loss" provision which forest activists believe is really simply "net loss." Forest activists promoted the original Option 3, and also Option 7 which calls for a ban on forest conversions. The Planning Commission heard public comment, but made no decision. In June 2003, the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) voted 7-4 in favor of Option 3, recommending that 80% of our timberlands be effectively protected from conversions to vineyards and other uses. In May 2005, the Sonoma County Planning Commission voted in favor of Option 1: No New Regulation Needed after 3 meetings discussing and finally rejecting the Staff Recommendation for Option 5, which contained the nefarious "No Net Loss" provision. The Commission was split. A majority felt that a new regulation was needed, but could not decide on any of the seven options. A majority rejected the complexity and difficulty of enforcement of Option 5. In the end, Option 1 was a compromise, but should not be read as a true endorsement of no action needed. Option 3 and 7 are the most environmentally sound options. Be sure and check out www.redwoodsforever.com, a wonderfully-crafted expose' of the current problem and why now is the time to take action.
1st
Disrict: Richard Fogg, Charles Cooke On behalf of Sonoma County’s remaining forests, I urge you to follow the recommendations of the General Plan Citizen’s Advisory Committee to adopt Option 3 on the issue of Timber Conversions. This option would extend protection of over 194,000 acres of timberland from being converted to other land uses. Protecting our remaining forest ecosystems is a crucial and integral part of maintaining the overall ecological health of Sonoma County’s future. While I recognize the importance and support the maintenance of viable lands suitable for agricultural uses, there are already many protections for agriculture within the existing General Plan under agricultural zoning designations. I firmly believe that agriculture and forest protection can coexist while protecting remaining forestland against further harmful development. The protection of our remaining forest ecosystems is a crucial and integral part of maintaining the overall ecological health of our future. The protection of Sonoma County’s forestlands is as critical to humans as it is to the wildlife that depends on them for sustenance. Sincerely, __________________________________________________________________ (name) __________________________________________________________________ 1st
Disrict: Valerie Brown - vbrown@sonoma-county.org On behalf of Sonoma County’s remaining forests, I urge you to follow the recommendations of the General Plan Citizen’s Advisory Committee to adopt Option 3 on the issue of Timber Conversions. This option would extend protection of over 194,000 acres of timberland from being converted to other land uses. Protecting our remaining forest ecosystems is a crucial and integral part of maintaining the overall ecological health of Sonoma County’s future. While I recognize the importance and support the maintenance of viable lands suitable for agricultural uses, there are already many protections for agriculture within the existing General Plan under agricultural zoning designations. I firmly believe that agriculture and forest protection can coexist while protecting remaining forestland against further harmful development. The protection of our remaining forest ecosystems is a crucial and integral part of maintaining the overall ecological health of our future. The protection of Sonoma County’s forestlands is as critical to humans as it is to the wildlife that depends on them for sustenance. Sincerely, __________________________________________________________________ (name) __________________________________________________________________ 2.
WHAT ARE WE PROTECTING THESE FOREST FROM? 3.
WHY IS NOW THE TIME TO TRY AND PROTECT THEM? 4.
WHY SHOULDN'T THE FORESTS BE CONVERTED TO AGRICULTURAL USES? 6.
WHAT ARE THE CHOICES WE HAVE REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF OUR FORESTS? 7.
WHAT IS THE BEST OPTION? 8.
WHAT ABOUT OPTION 2? WON'T THAT PROTECT FORESTS? 9.
WHAT ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT OPTION 3? 10.
HAVE ANY STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCIES TAKEN POSITIONS ON THE FOREST
PROTECTION OPTIONS? 11.
WHAT IS THE PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION OF WHICH OPTION IS BEST? 12.
WHAT ARE THE FORESTS THAT WOULD BE PROTECTED BY OPTION 3? 13.
WHAT HAPPENS IF OPTION 3 IS NOT PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN?
Below
are excerpts from this wonderfully-crafted expose' of the current
problem and why now is the time to take action. "It's
a tremendous mistake for the wine industry to cut these trees, and
I'm sure many of them wish this wasn't happening. But it is, even
with the glut of grapes on the market. I hear all the time about
new proposals to convert forest land to pinot noir, and we should
be looking proactively at it.'' 1999
- Andrea Tuttle The director of the California Department of Forestry on Monday said she will be reluctant to approve large timber conversions for vineyard planting, and at the same time expressed strong support for the timber industry. Andrea Tuttle, recently appointed by Gov. Gray Davis, said the public has much to appreciate in a sustainable timber harvesting program. The alternative, she said, is further fragmentation of the landscape as California's population grows. "My concern is that we're losing the big blocks of timberland to this expansion,'' Tuttle said. "As a general theme, I will be very hesitant to approve large-scale vineyard conversions.'' How large are the vineyard deforestation projects that have been proposed? There have been several large vineyard deforestation proposals ranging from 100 to 10,000 acres each. But
the real problem is the accumulation of smaller vineyards ranging
from three to forty acres each. Experience has shown that often
developers apply for three acres to start with and then begin a
process of incremental expansion of the small vineyard to much larger
ones. Sometimes the vineyard deforestation is being done illegally.
News
VICTORY!!!
click
here for the County Staff Report and summary in Text Format Please
consider calling the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
or writing a letter (feel free to use the Sample
Letter below) to voice your concerns. Please also consider
showing up to the hearing on: * Be sure to send a copy of your letter to your Supervisor. SONOMA
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
|
