PROPOSAL TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF SOME FOREST CONSERVATION INITIATIVE LANDS ON SUPERVISORS’ AGENDA WEDNESDAY

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

 

 

East County News Service

December 13, 2016 (San Diego) – Tomorrow., San Diego Supervisors will consider a general plan amendment that would allow additional development on some Forest Conservation Initiative Lands. These properties were protected for 20 years by a vote of the people countywide, but the measure had a sunset provision. The issue pits environmentalists’ conservation goals against rights of private property owners.

The hearing starts at 9 a.m. at the County Administration Center, Room 310, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego.  Below are arguments on both sides of this contentious issue impacting inholding sites within or adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest.

OPPOSED:  Jack Shu, President, Cleveland National Forest Foundation

Friends and Activists for our Environment and Forest

Currently we are being flooded with national news that protections to our quality of life and environment may be taken away by the next administration.  Meanwhile, in San Diego County, our Board of Supervisors may weaken or take away something we won 23 years ago, with nearly a 2/3s vote, the Forest Conservation Initiative.  If you are not familiar with the FCI, I’ve attached several documents which explain why we should oppose anything but actions to strengthen or at least keep all the land use designations the measure has put into place for over 20 years.  On behalf of the Cleveland National Forest Foundation, Shute Mihaly & Weinberer has submitted a lengthy letter explaining why the County cannot legally go ahead with the proposed amendment to its General Plan.  The biological reasons why we need to hold this line for the forest were explained by Dr. Michael Soule in his Op Ed.

A short video message is available at the web link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBeSxuknzQ

I ask that you take action now to help protect our local forest.  We have to stop sprawl at its boarders. From a planning perspective, it’s the most minimal step we can take to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles, lower risk of wildfires, protect our watershed, keep open space and save wildlife habitat. Contact your Board of Supervisor before this Wednesday (December 14th) by phone or email and ask them to strengthen the FCI rather than allow what county planners have proposed. The contact information for the Supervisors can be found at the site below.

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/general/bos.html

Please use the social networks you have available to spread this request. Our Supervisors need to hear from as many people in the county as possible, not just those who have a special interest in using a part of it for their own gain.

If you can, come to the Board of Supervisors meeting on Wednesday, 9:00 A.M., (or a bit later) to express your opposition to proposed changes by submitting a letter, filling out a slip or speaking.

Thank you

Jack Shu

President, Cleveland National Forest Foundation

CNFF.org

transitsandiego.org

FOR:  GEORGE BARNETT, ALPINE

As you know, the community of Alpine seeks to residentially develop portions for former Forest Conservation Initiative lands falling within the eastern area of the Alpine township.   The argument for “preserving Cleveland National Forest” lacks clarity as it may pertain to the Alpine township for two-fold reasons.  One is, “Where exactly is there a forest, and is there a forest boundary?”  The other is that the “save CNF” argument dismisses the matter of private property rights of people that owned their lands preceding the sporadic and haphazard creation of CNF.   

First below is a map of eastern Alpine with “private lands” shown ‘hashed’ and “forest lands” shown ‘clear’.  There is no boundary between the two.  There are forest lands completely surrounded by private lands; and nearly vice-versa.  It’s incomprehensible!  All four numbered Areas marked by the ovals have been in dispute one time or the other over the “save CNF” issue.  Area #1 is now settled, and its provisionally approved primary land use designation is mostly semi-rural residential.  Area #2 is fee-land north of Hwy I-8 owned by Viejas, and that land use is provisionally approved as mixed-use commercial/residential and semi-rural residential.  Area #3 has been designated primarily as a mix of semi-rural residential.  These land use designations have been approved by the Alpine Community Planning Group, and to a large extent by the Planning Commission.  The Board of Supervisors requested a “Special Study” of Area #3 to determine the needs of infrastructure; notably for imported water and sewer.

The BOS noted that there are 100s of families already in that area lacking the basics of infrastructure and safety the County is obligated to provide to its tax-paying residents.  As a practical matter, given the tremendous elevation slope falling from Alpine Boulevard southerly down to the Sweetwater River, the only portions of Area #3 remotely developable is the top 2/5th that is along Alpine Boulevard.  The “environmentally best” lands along the Sweetwater River are obviously prime candidates of mitigation conservation.  The land between the two may not be developable due to extreme slope.  For the most part, the potentially developable parts of Area #3 (indeed a lot of the entire area) has no trees; consists of small flattish areas on the tops of rocky bluffs (suggestive of residential clustering?), lands in some cases disturbed by nearly a century of grazing and farming.  There are no known “environmental resources” to protect.  It is otherwise rocky, barren granite bluffs falling away to the south.  There is no forest, and with the exception of just a couple of ravines, there are no trees.  The picture used on the SOFAR/CNFF website (see second below picture) is not in Area #3.  For Area #4, the Alpine Community Planning Group approved 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres versus County Staff specified 1 per 40.  The reason is simple.  Many of the individual parcels range a shy less than 80 acres. Property owners wishing to build a 2nd home cannot at 1:40. The next designation “down” is 1:20.  There’s zero impact of this designation on the forest.

As to CNF, their best argument against this modest residential development of part of Area #3 has been that residential development poses a fire danger.  The Alpine Fire Protection District has already begun the process of annexing east Alpine.  With the modest residential development of east Alpine will come a 2nd Alpine Fire station.  Between Alpine Fire, Viejas Fire, County Fire and a Forest Service fire station already on east Alpine Boulevard, east Alpine will likely have the best fire protection, fire-fighting, and emergency medical services in the County.    

What about private property rights?  Jack Shu, President of Cleveland National Forest Foundation came to a recent Alpine Community Planning Group meeting.  He was given the floor and generous time to present the “save CNF” argument.   The meeting was packed with towns people because the matter of updating the Alpine Community Plan was up for discussion and vote.  To be as polite as possible, the towns people were not supportive of Mr. Shui’s presentation.  The Planning Group board went on to vote unanimously for a complete overhaul of the Alpine Community Plan – something undone for decades.  That will be an 18-month process, and within that process will be many recycles and discussions on the BOS-directed “Special Study” for Area #3 and on the “save CNF” issue.

Earlier this year the Alpine-based Back Country Land Trust, of which I am an officer & director, and with many public and private partners, took into conservation 1,500 contiguous acres of land east of La Posta Road.  Rather than fight the property owners or seek to deny them their property rights, the approach was to raise funds and buy them out at a negotiated fair market value.  BCLT and partners did that a few years ago on nearly 2,000 acres in Long Potrero Valley.  These lands host multiple flora and fauna environmental resources and astonishing Native American cultural resources too.  If 2,000 acres in east Alpine is indisputably important to Cleveland National Forest, the forest ought to simply buy-out the owners at a fair, negotiated price.     

Respectfully,

George Barnett

PS: although I am an elected member of the Alpine Community Planning Group, the above comments are mine; and are not intended to represent any official position of the elected Group.


Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at https://www.eastcountymedia.org/donate to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.