San Francisco Forest AlliancePublic Parks for the PublicPhoto by Paul HudsonCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized u...
Meeting Rules• Please hold questions until afterpresentations• Please deliver your questions in less thana minute• It is O...
Agenda• David Emanuel – meeting conduct rules• Eric Miller – threat to our parks overview• Arnita Bowman – details on Glen...
SFFA and Glen Park• The SFFA is comprised of concerned citizens without anyprofessional, business, or political associatio...
San Francisco Forest AlliancePresident: Eric MillerDave Emanuel, Arnita Bowman, Rupa Bose, KarenBreslin, Alma Hecht, Janet...
Neighborhoods supported SFFA withresolution to dismantle NAPBalboa Terrace Homes Association, Forest HillAssociation, Fore...
SF Forest AlliancePreserve Public Parks for the Public• For budgets that reflect community values– Transparency– Accountab...
Debunking Myths and Misinformation• Not about hazardous trees• Not about preventing recreationalgardening or park voluntee...
SF has a Significant Budget Deficit –Budgets Reflect Priorities$263 million: SF budget deficit in 2012-13Rec & Park Dept. ...
Problem – while essential city servicesare cut, NAP ExpandsYour 2008 bond debt and your tax dollarsare diverted from essen...
NAP + Glen Park ContractsBased upon RPD records and contracts some obtained with“sunshine” requests (similar to freedom of...
Anti-tree agenda at RPD, especiallywithin the NAP program• NAP originally created to preserve a fewremnants of SF heritage...
Blur distinctions to convey crisis…urban “non-native” = invasive threatCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use pr...
Non-native trees in our city!Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
This placecould usesome treesCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
San Franciscans  non-nativetreesCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
NAP’s Future Budget is LargelyUnspecified but has Extreme ScopeThe next 20 years?• Minimum of $34 million in direct staff/...
Long-term misalignment of budgetpriorities against public interestsCost: $3.4 million“The neighbors don’t like it, thecost...
NAP - Better than traditional parkprojects?A Native Garden Example – McLaren• Overall significant spend of $ Millions• Eli...
High-maintenance Native Plants -Sensible?Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.Glen Canyon Park
National Recreation and Park Association stats• Typical municipality - one outdoor pool per 34,200people or one indoor poo...
Why can’t the emphasis be ontraditional and popular recreation?Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
RPD NAP – “Only 120 trees of 6000”• 6000 estimate is misleading• Unlimited removal of willows• Forest thinning and suppres...
9 TreesRPD’s Plan Will Degrade GlenCanyon ParkBeautyHabitatTrailsAccessible areaClimate/shadeNeighborhood Air QualitySound...
Past performance shows risk of RPD “replanting” in Glen ParkFailed Reintroduction of “native” Oaks after Eucalyptus Remova...
“Native” oaks dying after removal ofhealthy eucalyptus treesCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
“This variety of habitats helps explain whymore than 100 species have been recorded inGlen Canyon, making it a haven for b...
Yes, it is as absurd as it seemsFatal Flaw 1:Destroy rare urban park habitat inthe name of “biodiversity?”Fatal Flaw 2:Dis...
Public priorities: stop “fixing” vegetation - fixour park facilities and recreation programsThe Public wants…• Budgets ref...
San Francisco Forest AlliancePublic Parks for the PublicPhoto by Paul HudsonCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized u...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

SF Forest Alliance Presentation (10/2012)

791 views
682 views

Published on

Stop the Natural Areas Program (NAP) from destroying trees,spraying herbicides,disrupting ecosystems in our city parks

NAP proposes misguided, expensive objectives that will restrict access to popular walking trails and deliberately cut down healthy and beautiful trees and plants

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
791
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • We’re here today as your neighbors, park users, people who care deeply about stewardship of our parksSFFA represents 20 neighborhood groupsWe are united to halt wasteful destruction of urban wilderness
  • We’re here today as your neighbors, park users, people who care deeply about stewardship of our parksSFFA represents 20 neighborhood groupsWe are united to halt wasteful destruction of urban wilderness
  • SF Forest Alliance Presentation (10/2012)

    1. 1. San Francisco Forest AlliancePublic Parks for the PublicPhoto by Paul HudsonCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    2. 2. Meeting Rules• Please hold questions until afterpresentations• Please deliver your questions in less thana minute• It is OK to disagree - but let’s keep this amature meeting• Disclosure rule – please state anyprofessional, financial or politicalassociations with SF RPD or City PlanningCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    3. 3. Agenda• David Emanuel – meeting conduct rules• Eric Miller – threat to our parks overview• Arnita Bowman – details on Glen CanyonPark 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 toxinsCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    4. 4. SFFA and Glen Park• The SFFA is comprised of concerned citizens without anyprofessional, business, or political associations with our city or theSF Recreation and Parks Department (RPD).• We wholeheartedly want the upgrades to the tennis courts, reccenter, and playground to move forward. In fact, we feel theseupgrades should have come much sooner.• We seek transparency from RPD – Glen Park citizens deserve a sayon important changes within our community.• If the majority of citizens of Glen Park have been properly informedand the removal of 300+ trees from Glen Canyon Park is truly apriority, the SFFA will wholeheartedly respect such a decision.Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    5. 5. San Francisco Forest AlliancePresident: Eric MillerDave Emanuel, Arnita Bowman, Rupa Bose, KarenBreslin, Alma Hecht, Janet Kessler, MaryMcAllister, Jacquie Proctor, Avrum Shepard, SallyStephens, Cathy Bayer,and othersAdditional SFFA Supporters2600+ petitions against Glen Park deforestation3000+ petition signatures to stop NAP20 SF neighborhoods vote to dismantle NAP
    6. 6. Neighborhoods supported SFFA withresolution to dismantle NAPBalboa Terrace Homes Association, Forest HillAssociation, Forest Knolls Association, Golden Gate HeightsNeighborhood Association, Greater West Portal NeighborhoodAssociation, Ingleside Terraces Homes Association, LakeshoreAcres Improvement Club, Lakeside Property OwnersAssociation, Merced Manor Property OwnersAssociation, Midtown Terrace HomeownersAssociation, Miraloma Park Improvement Club, Monterey, MountSutro Woods Owners Association, Neighbors of ArdenWood, Pinelake Park Neighborhood Association, Saint FrancisHome Association, Sherwood Forest HomeownersAssociation, Twin Peaks Improvement Association, WestwoodHighlands Homeowners Association, The Woods of SanFrancisco Homeowners AssociationCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    7. 7. SF Forest AlliancePreserve Public Parks for the Public• For budgets that reflect community values– Transparency– Accountability• Against habitat destruction: preserve existingnative and non-native habitat.• Pro public access: prevent further restrictions.• Precautionary principle: children, pets andwildlife are first priority – minimize toxins.Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    8. 8. Debunking Myths and Misinformation• Not about hazardous trees• Not about preventing recreationalgardening or park volunteering• Sustainable native plants are great!– Many need little maintenance and cost– Many can thrive without herbicides• Not about Yosemite – common senseCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    9. 9. SF has a Significant Budget Deficit –Budgets Reflect Priorities$263 million: SF budget deficit in 2012-13Rec & Park Dept. cuts: $3.3M in FY 2012-13Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    10. 10. Problem – while essential city servicesare cut, NAP ExpandsYour 2008 bond debt and your tax dollarsare diverted from essential services to:• Remove or kill in-place 18,500+ beautifuland 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 prioritiesThe public is largelyunaware of theseplansCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    11. 11. NAP + Glen Park ContractsBased 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): 32trees• SNRAMP Large, Healthy Tree Removal Proposal (2013): 120trees• SNRAMP Young Tree Thinning Proposal (alreadyoccurring): unknown number• Willows (native) for daylighting creek (alreadyoccurring): unknown number• Documented Past NAP Creek Projects (2008): 24 treesCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    12. 12. Anti-tree agenda at RPD, especiallywithin the NAP program• NAP originally created to preserve a fewremnants of SF heritage landscape whereit existed (and as they existed)• Now advances an extreme “nativist” (killnon-natives) habitat conversion agenda• NAP now controls one-third of SF parkland• NAP is not about managing hazardoustreesCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    13. 13. Blur distinctions to convey crisis…urban “non-native” = invasive threatCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    14. 14. Non-native trees in our city!Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    15. 15. This placecould usesome treesCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    16. 16. San Franciscans  non-nativetreesCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    17. 17. NAP’s Future Budget is LargelyUnspecified but has Extreme ScopeThe next 20 years?• Minimum of $34 million in direct staff/ops. costeven 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 reportCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    18. 18. Long-term misalignment of budgetpriorities against public interestsCost: $3.4 million“The neighbors don’t like it, thecosts are egregious, important documents havenot been made available to the public, and it hasno scientific basis.” – Coalition for San FranciscoNeighborhoods (2003)Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    19. 19. NAP - Better than traditional parkprojects?A Native Garden Example – McLaren• Overall significant spend of $ Millions• Eliminate thousands of healthy trees• Fence out public• High maintenance – “native” gardenrequiring ongoing herbicide applicationsCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.Is RPD management capable ofsetting coherent priorities?
    20. 20. High-maintenance Native Plants -Sensible?Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.Glen Canyon Park
    21. 21. National Recreation and Park Association stats• Typical municipality - one outdoor pool per 34,200people 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 forrenovations), 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 wantto, near-drownings mostly,” saidWillson, whose son, Zachary, is 5.“It’s hard, especially withchildren.” interview of 2 SF EMTsSF swimming pool dearth leaves kids highand dry for lessons By: Amy Crawford 06/24/12 SF Examiner Staff WriterCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    22. 22. Why can’t the emphasis be ontraditional and popular recreation?Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    23. 23. 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 treesGlen Canyon ParkCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.Too hard to read
    24. 24. 9 TreesRPD’s Plan Will Degrade GlenCanyon ParkBeautyHabitatTrailsAccessible areaClimate/shadeNeighborhood Air QualitySound barrier and screenMoney that could be spent on recreational facilitiesCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    25. 25. Past performance shows risk of RPD “replanting” in Glen ParkFailed Reintroduction of “native” Oaks after Eucalyptus Removal(Tank Hill Open Space)Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    26. 26. “Native” oaks dying after removal ofhealthy eucalyptus treesCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    27. 27. “This variety of habitats helps explain whymore than 100 species have been recorded inGlen Canyon, making it a haven for birds in thecenter of San Francisco.”Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    28. 28. Yes, it is as absurd as it seemsFatal Flaw 1:Destroy rare urban park habitat inthe name of “biodiversity?”Fatal Flaw 2:Displace or kill valued nativespecies for the “nativism” cause?Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    29. 29. Public priorities: stop “fixing” vegetation - fixour park facilities and recreation programsThe Public wants…• Budgets reflecting public values, notfringe priorities• Traditional park services and programs• A true “public service” approach for allRec & Park departments• Transparency and accountabilityCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
    30. 30. San Francisco Forest AlliancePublic Parks for the PublicPhoto by Paul HudsonCopyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

    ×