sf forest alliance presentation (10/2012)

Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

San Francisco Forest AlliancePublic Parks for the Public

Photo by Paul Hudson

Meeting Rules

• Please hold questions until after presentations

• Please deliver your questions in less than a minute

• It is OK to disagree - but let’s keep this a mature meeting

• Disclosure rule – please state any professional, financial or political associations with SF RPD or City Planning


Agenda

• David Emanuel – meeting conduct rules• Eric Miller – threat to our parks overview• Arnita Bowman – details on Glen Canyon

Park tree removal plans• Alma Hecht – an arborist’s view• Paul Rotter – story of Tank Hill and RPD• Jacquie Procter – threat to Mt. Davidson• Rupa Bose – increasing RPD use of toxins


SFFA and Glen Park

• The SFFA is comprised of concerned citizens without any professional, business, or political associations with our city or the SF Recreation and Parks Department (RPD).

• We wholeheartedly want the upgrades to the tennis courts, rec center, and playground to move forward. In fact, we feel these upgrades should have come much sooner.

• We seek transparency from RPD – Glen Park citizens deserve a say on important changes within our community.

• If the majority of citizens of Glen Park have been properly informed and the removal of 300+ trees from Glen Canyon Park is truly a priority, the SFFA will wholeheartedly respect such a decision.


San Francisco Forest Alliance

President: Eric Miller

Dave Emanuel, Arnita Bowman, Rupa Bose, Karen Breslin, Alma Hecht, Janet Kessler, Mary McAllister, Jacquie

Proctor, Avrum Shepard, Sally Stephens, Cathy Bayer,

and others

Additional SFFA Supporters

2600+ petitions against Glen Park deforestation

3000+ petition signatures to stop NAP

20 SF neighborhoods vote to dismantle NAP

Neighborhoods supported SFFA with resolution to dismantle NAP

Balboa Terrace Homes Association, Forest Hill Association, Forest Knolls Association, Golden Gate Heights Neighborhood Association, Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association, Ingleside Terraces Homes Association, Lakeshore Acres Improvement Club, Lakeside Property Owner's Association, Merced Manor Property Owner's Association, Midtown Terrace Homeowner's Association, Miraloma Park Improvement Club, Monterey, Mount Sutro Woods Owners Association, Neighbors of Arden Wood, Pinelake Park Neighborhood Association, Saint Francis Home Association, Sherwood Forest Homeowner's Association, Twin Peaks Improvement Association, Westwood Highlands Homeowner's Association, The Woods of San Francisco Homeowners Association



SF Forest Alliance

Preserve Public Parks for the Public• For budgets that reflect community values

– Transparency – Accountability

• Against habitat destruction: preserve existing native and non-native habitat.

• Pro public access: prevent further restrictions.• Precautionary principle: children, pets and

wildlife are first priority – minimize toxins.


Debunking Myths and Misinformation

• Not about hazardous trees• Not about preventing recreational

gardening or park volunteering• Sustainable native plants are great!

– Many need little maintenance and cost– Many can thrive without herbicides

• Not about Yosemite – common sense


SF has a Significant Budget Deficit – Budgets Reflect Priorities

$263 million: SF budget deficit in 2012-13

Rec & Park Dept. cuts: $3.3M in FY 2012-13


Problem – while essential city services are cut, NAP Expands

Your 2008 bond debt and your tax dollars are diverted from essential services to:

• Remove or kill in-place 18,500+ beautiful and healthy SF park trees

• Close popular 9.2 miles of trails• 19.3 acres of dog play areas• Increase use of toxic pesticides• Other misaligned budget priorities

The public is largely unaware of these

plans

NAP + Glen Park Contracts

Based upon RPD records and contracts some obtained with “sunshine” requests (similar to freedom of information act)

• Rec Center Capital Project – 2008 Bond (Fall 2012): 68 trees• Forestry Capital Project – 2008 Bond (Fall 2012): 160 trees• Trail Restoration Capital Project – 2008 Bond (Fall 2012): 32 trees• SNRAMP Large, Healthy Tree Removal Proposal (2013): 120

trees• SNRAMP Young Tree Thinning Proposal (already

occurring): unknown number• Willows (native) for daylighting creek (already

occurring): unknown number• Documented Past NAP Creek Projects (2008): 24 trees



Anti-tree agenda at RPD, especially within the NAP program

• NAP originally created to preserve a few remnants of SF heritage landscape where it existed (and as they existed)

• Now advances an extreme “nativist” (kill non-natives) habitat conversion agenda

• NAP now controls one-third of SF parkland• NAP is not about managing hazardous

trees


Blur distinctions to convey crisis…urban “non-native” = invasive threat


Non-native trees in our city!


This place could use

some trees


San Franciscans non-native trees


NAP’s Future Budget is Largely Unspecified but has Extreme Scope

The next 20 years?• Minimum of $34 million in direct staff/ops. cost

even if DEIR is defeated*• If DEIR goes forward?

– $68 - $112 million in direct staff/operation costs– $??? Millions in tree-removal charges– Fewer trees, trails and play areas– More high-maintenance native plant gardens

*RPD Finance Division, March 11, 2012 report


Long-term misalignment of budget priorities against public interests

Cost: $3.4 million“The neighbors don’t like it, the

costs are egregious, important documents have not been made available to the public, and it has

no scientific basis.” – Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (2003)


NAP - Better than traditional park projects?

A Native Garden Example – McLaren• Overall significant spend of $ Millions• Eliminate thousands of healthy trees• Fence out public• High maintenance – “native” garden

requiring ongoing herbicide applications

Is RPD management capable of setting coherent priorities?


High-maintenance Native Plants - Sensible?

Glen Canyon Park


National Recreation and Park Association stats• Typical municipality - one outdoor pool per 34,200

people or one indoor pool per 42,000. • Oakland has one pool for every 65,000 residents.• SF - just eight public pools (a ninth is closed for

renovations), or less than one per 100,000 residents.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/06/sf-swimming-pool-numbers-leaves-kids-high-and-dry-lessons#ixzz1yw6f95Dp

“We both see more than we want to, near-drownings mostly,” said Willson, whose son, Zachary, is 5. “It’s hard, especially with children.” interview of 2 SF EMTs

SF swimming pool dearth leaves kids high and dry for lessons By: Amy Crawford 06/24/12 SF Examiner Staff Writer

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/06/sf-swimming-pool-numbers-leaves-kids-high-and-dry-lessons

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/06/sf-swimming-pool-numbers-leaves-kids-high-and-dry-lessons

http://www.sfexaminer.com/files/blog_images/poolsshortage_062412.jpg


Why can’t the emphasis be on traditional and popular recreation?


RPD NAP – “Only 120 trees of 6000”• 6000 estimate is misleading• Unlimited removal of willows• Forest thinning and suppression• “Safety” = lost trees• “Trail improvement = lost trees

Glen Canyon Park

Too hard to read


9 Trees

RPD’s Plan Will Degrade Glen Canyon Park

BeautyHabitatTrails

Accessible area Climate/shade

Neighborhood Air QualitySound barrier and screen

Money that could be spent on recreational facilities


Past performance shows risk of RPD “replanting” in Glen Park Failed Reintroduction of “native” Oaks after Eucalyptus Removal

(Tank Hill Open Space)


“Native” oaks dying after removal of healthy eucalyptus trees


“This variety of habitats helps explain why more than 100 species have been recorded in Glen Canyon, making it a haven for birds in the center of San Francisco.”


Yes, it is as absurd as it seems

Fatal Flaw 1:Destroy rare urban park habitat in the name of “biodiversity?”

Fatal Flaw 2:Displace or kill valued native species for the “nativism” cause?


Public priorities: stop “fixing” vegetation - fix our park facilities and recreation programs

The Public wants…• Budgets reflecting public values, not

fringe priorities• Traditional park services and programs • A true “public service” approach for all

Rec & Park departments • Transparency and accountability


San Francisco Forest AlliancePublic Parks for the Public

Photo by Paul Hudson

sf forest alliance presentation (10/2012)

News & Politics