tv LIVE Entertainment Commission SFGTV February 28, 2017 5:30pm-8:01pm PST
controversial. but the eir should not be. it should present a factual information to make informed decisions. transparency and accountability are increased because we know the trade offs. sadly rsh this eir fail tooz provide a adequate accurate and unbias assessment of the natural areas plan. the rec park commission may make bad decision because impacts of implementing the plan are not revealed. public resisant will run high if the consequences are apparent once it is implemented. the laws make it clear what is supposed to happen today. that is what you are tasked with. we are not asking to vote on this, we are asking to evaluate the argument squz evident presented to you and decide if the eir provides the quality information it should. let's talk about there elfent in the room and that is
public access. over 2,000 pages of the documents the eir never addresses the impact of confining the public to trails. there are lots of comments about this during consultation on the draft but no response from planning. eve inen in the response memoes they never address this ground of our appeal. small. rpd smalled the signs in the natural areas in 2015. do they mean we cant walk off trail? the ramp says off trail access isn't allowed in ma 1 and 2. the signs indicate this applies to all the natural areas and last weekend i had the opportunity to watch lisa wayne leading a walking group in mclaren park and fielding questions from a grup of 30 people. when asked of the intent of the sign the
least sensitive areas will be off limits. this means the plan asks us to give a quarter of our park land in the city to this program instead of parks wealver a few trails to walk through the areas where we used to play, picnic and explore. these maps show two things, they show trail closures and fences implemented. many of these trail closures are out of the sin ramp and clearly violate ceqa. as wild equity said many of the romp proposals for san franciscos 31 other natural areas moved forward or implemented. i don't know if you can see this, but the reddish pink trails were planned for closure and purple trailerize trails closeed that leave only with the groan trail
jz what is left of the park of the natural areas are the two green lines. that is where you can go on bayview hill. same in glen canyonism not only all the trails on the west side closed but restricted to walkling on the green line jz rest is off limits. if you are neighborhood park is bayview or live in sunnyvale or visitation valee all most all the park land is closed. moving to new issue, ceqa requires the eir be recirculated for consultation when new information is added. planning added three pieces of new information to the final eir. the first the draft eir contained arguments about green house gas
emissions and argued against the validity. when the feir is released the old arguments removed and new green house gas calculations added. they claim it will reduce green house gas emissions. we were not allowed consultation. a new claim was added the plan could be implemented without herbicide use. this allowed avoiding accessing the chemicals-the plan can be implemented without herbicide is incorrect. we were not allowed consultation on this significant information and a huge section added to deal with asset sulfate add today the final eir. this puts protected speess at risk.
faille to provide consultation on the information is a clear violation of ceqa. >> thank you. before i dive back into this, i wanted to they think for the opportunity to listen to the black history mupth stories. they were really inspirational. i know it made us later than we thought, it was a wonderful event. so, now let me get back to our prezen itation [inaudible] is miscalculated. it is confusing stops kw flows and doesn't take into account that older trees actually sequester more carbon than young trees. it assumes trees stop carbon at 20 years old when that is often when they are just gotten
started. it ignores saplings under 15 feet remubed without coupting as trees that [inaudible] keep sequestering more carbon as they grow older. herbicide use. the big elfent in the room. is that my time? herbicide use, the natural resources department uses more herbicides than any comparable park area. in 2016 they used all most 3 quarters of the hericides if we exclude harding park and green match. so, it is not like [inaudible] thank you very much. is the whiled equity institute here for their 7 minute presentation? please
come forward. >> i'm here supervisors. attorney for wild- >> you will be their representative for the presentation about the appeal? >> they are in the haulwer way talking about a potential resolution. i think what would be prudent if we can see 7 minutes to the other appellate while i get conformation but i think they reached a settlement. how many of your 7 minutes that we are clear? maybe just see like two minutes for now and i confirm what is going on in the hall. >> if you want tocontinue with your presentation. >> should and continue then? >> yes. >> can i get tech help, please?
let me just continue. the reason why we are fairly convinced that we will need more herbicides because if you cut down 15 thousand trees you need to continuely dose them to represent resprouting. once you have a loss of shade from those trees, you will get weed growing up under where they were and if you try to go back to native plants the history of the natural resources department shows they use herbicides so that is a issue and that is issue that the eir really has hand waved. the third issue really is limited rec reaction access and that is something where we are told we have to explain how losing
access to most of our park areas in the natural areas is a loss of recreation. it seems to me common sense. if you got a park that networked with trails and then in the end those trails dont exist and you have just maybe 2 or 3 broad fenced in trails it is like walking through a prescribet property where you have a right of way easement, it isn't a park that blaupgs to the people where the kid can play and take photographs, close up of bird or animals or flowers or whauv it is. so, anyway-i'll close now. thank you. >> thank you very much. if the second appellate is not ready, i will move to the presentation from the planning department.
>> we are ready in termoffs we reached a resolution so with draw the appeal based on conditions that were reached. >> would you like to present on those during your time? >> do you want to present what the conditions are? my understanding is that the rec and park commission is agreeing to further alter the praunlect to exclude the deposit of dredge material on the golf course fairway squz degree not to include any raising of the elevation of the fairways in the project and they committed that in writing. the writing will be deposited in the planning commission file and further committing to bring the change in the project back to rec and park commission to adaument via resolution that the project has been changed in that manner. in exchange we
are agree to with draw the appeal. >> that is great news. any further comments? >> not from us on this but don't know- >> okay. then we will focus our appeal today on the second appeal rather than the particular one. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> with that, the planning department--before we go to the planning department presentation, we will open it up for public comment for anyone who is here to support the appeal with the understanding that one of the appeal s is with drawn. anyone willing who is interestedploiding public comment you have up to two
minute per speaker. >> many-the motives [inaudible] in fact we experience the proponent of cutting as reckless and experience the arguments as hate mongering. my name is dr. [inaudible] and residing in san francisco since 1993. my academic resuch folked on acacts of genocide and america and written 3 publiced books. throughout history those committed genocide have minimized our misrepresented the seriousness the actions. they exploit propaganda to condition the populous that their actions are good. yet they deny the very life of those who they enslave of the land they preoperative and of those who they harm and kill. today, i contest the parks department is unduly controlled by a radical and reactionary
contimpant of fundamentalist. the nativeest. they exploit language that demenize eucalyptus trees. nativeest mislead you when they publish reports on the benefits of deforestation. the past december [inaudible] stated in san francisco at the convention of geophysicist the twoe are chief factor accelerating climate change is use of fossil fuel and deforest station. one of the most glaring acts of this group of nativeest is repluvthousands of trees of one speess. this must be considered a act of ethnic clensing. i cant stress enough these trees are our neighbors friend and families. they are part of our community and work for suu us silently every day of their lives when they
sequester carbon dioxide chblt we are battling for ourselves our lives and planet and expect you to make a moral commitment to us our fate and future. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> my name is sally stephen son this is a question abouts the eir done adequately, accurately and without bias. i think if you read the presentation from the san francisco forest alliance, they raised significant doubts about the especially the green house gas calculations to the point of being like 70 thousand met rblg tons of co 2 is not sur questered. the doubts are so significant and the scale is so large where it will
cover 1/3 of the park lands rec and park manage including sharp park. if planning got it wrong it will have a huge environmental impact on the city and on the environment and those questions are strong enough that you can't just sweep them under the rug and have to be addressed and it isn't for your to address it or me to address it, i'm not a expert on green house gas emission and herbicide use, but planning are the people who should make these decision so urge you to send the eir back to planning so that they can basically e get every in a room. all the different experts and not let them out of the room until they find a consensus because we need confidence that the information that is provided in the eir is accurate and right now we dopet have that confidence so please send it back to planning
so we can resolve the issues especially about the green house gas emission and herbicide use. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. [inaudible] what happened to our ability to feel compassion for other species. how do we discuss the killing of 18, 500 trees? to realize the reverse the march to extension is reunit with other species. scientist estimate 150 to 200 species become extinth every day. why is homicide --we must change our
laws to recognize the right of the natural world to exist and thrive. these-we approach this like we decorating the living room to take back to had spanish style. maybe we want to return golden gate park to san dunes. i suggest like people in staning rock we listen to the voice of the lan and indigenous people who have done this. the
rights of nature become a part of law on the planet. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. michael oremark, district 4. in this time of accelerating climate change we need all the oxygen we can get so proposal to cut down 18 thousand trees blast the stumps with pesticides and replace with plant that are better than weeds is not only per poserous but boarder on the criminal. am i boring you supervisor peskin? auch a scheme has no basis in fact and science and fracticality or esthetics. rather it is a fiction imagined by a gaggle of idilogs and fantasize who improse their environmentalism on the rest of us. dictate how
shall live and what we shall live with. this is wrong. woe have enough ido log jz fabulist in waus wash and don't need them here. the scheme may have some benefit and merit in certain areas but elimination of 18 thousand trees is not one of them. through the ballot box we hired you to represent us here at city hall not vice versa so i will ask you to please pay attention to these who speak today in opposition to this plan. the eir as it is delivered by rec and park is quike frangly a lie. toxic nonsense. not to intention is in defiance of your bos resolution and violation of several ceqa regulations. do the right thing, reject it, consign to the compost heap where the belongs. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> remember [inaudible]
>> before the next speaker begins i'll remind the audience that audible approval-please provide your supportive fingers instead. please proceed, ma'am. >> i'm nervous, nerve done this before. [inaudible] 20 year resident of san francisco. i took a half day off work today to represent the interest of my friend neighbors and colleagues. we are not sure the phone calls and e-mail tooz your offices were enough for you to realize the importance of this decision about the eir. we have major concerns about the natural areas plan primarily that it is a costly attempt to wage a battle that cannot be won, but that isn't why we are here today. we are here today to reject the current environmental impact report and support the appeal by the san francisco forest aleens. clearly there are issuewise the
eir or woulden be somony concerned citizens opposing it. $9 billion the city has a budget that exceeds that of seberal statesment we need fiscal restraipts. san francisco taxpayer dopet want to waste money cutting down healthy trees and . based on the san francisco legislative analyst report of 2007. these fund will be put to better use repairing playground and recreation centers and working down the 1 billion in differed maintenance that exists in the parks today. my neighbors and i urge you to spote vote yes . need more accurate and current research. what is the rush? the trees and trails are not harming anyone. let's take the time to figure it out, let rr figure out the best use of the
taxpayer fund and what is best for the park. as a san francisco supervisor, i'm sure you want to dpoo the rith thing for city citizens and children. take it time to be thoughtful and vote yes in faiv of the appeal, lead with prudence- >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'micate shier a local san franciscan high school stud nlt. i'm here in support of the appeal to reject the eir as i'm worried about the impact it will have upon our city and its environment. ov40 years ago rachel carson argued against herbicide use in her book a silnts spring. the work became a catalyst for discussion about the negative impact of chemicals including danger to human and environmentm health. clearly she did not go far enough. today the issue remains, even in san francisco. well the eir claims
there will be no increase enherbicide use, this simply isn't true. a problem in its own right the eir plans to cut down over 18 thousand trees all of which need herbicides not to recrew grow. the same is said of other areas effect. for this reason the eir needs to be revised and recalled. it endanger lives, plant animals and hupen will all be effected from 24 use of the deadly herbicides. i want a environmentally friendly city i can be proud of both now and in the future. i beg of you supervisors support the appeal to fix the current eir. while we may not be fully aware the critical choice our city faces one day my generation will think for it. thank you support the appeal.
>> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. linda garcia mim hone a resident of san francisco since 1972 and a resident of mary loma park for 37 years. first of all y want to be clear i urge you to send the eir back to planning deparchlt. i hope you will listen and consider all the comments you hear today and glad to see more supervisors coming in and being attentive at the point. it was disconserting to see so much activity. san francisco declared itself a sanctuary city. sanctuary a safe haven, a peaceful place. that's what the mount david son forest is for me. our city is one of the most densely populated ipthe yooustment we have noise of big city and traffic and automobile and air plane, constant
construction and repair add toog the stress of living in a dense environment. studies show all this noise triggers a stress response that has a adverse effect on our physical and psychological health. stress effects our childrens cognitive development and our memory. we need to have access to the restorative benefits of nature. a sanctuary to maintain our health especially in these trying times, yes of trump. this is a quality of life issue. i urge you not to allow the forest to be destroyed by mismanagement, dont allow trail tooz be closeed restricting access to parks stop the use of poison in the parks and vote to snd the eir back to planning deparchlt. thank you. >> thank you for the comments. next speaker, please.
>> commissioners, my name is vick malhone a resident of mera loma park and want to underlying concepts that might be influencing how this whole remodeling of the eco system is going on. the conspt of restructuring a ekey system to a prior time may appeal to personal vanity but challenges realty. applying the label invasive species sumes there is a no baseline or eco system populated by non native species. is this realty? who defines what constitute said a eco system. what date was choseen. 10 million or 5 thousand years ago or yesterday? we are dealing with a artificial contruckt
here and obvious the definition of a native habitat is artificial construct and simply a guess. it also implies desire for a static eco system oppose today one that is dynamic which is realty again. it assumes the echo system can be created opposed to evolving. new species become a part of a environment and echo system by intentional and unintentional introduction of seed, which also are spread by animals, it isn't just human beings. so given the short time we have here i'll close with creation attempt to reser rect eco system fail to achieve the desired goal but very effective achieving uninteneded consequences pose public safety and public health hazard. at
this point i ask you to do due diligence--thank you. >> next speaker recollect please. >> thank you. my name is bridget kelly from district 7, so supervisor yee i'm all yours. i am a dezoo injure artist so a visual person so when i come i try to bring picture jz can pass them to you as well. i dont know if that is a doobl thing. the sergeant will be there to pick them up. what i have a picture sof little kid walking through the hills of glen canyon eating sower grass not staying on the trails with their parents so it sft like they are following the signs and if they did follow the signs here is a picture of the signs one tiny little sign on one side of the park of mount davidson. does that give people enough warning
to say maybe that isn't the place to go? the other-erosion is a second thing. if you take a walk through glen park you see that this is the park that a lotf work was done on with this whole new rebuilding happening. here is a hillicide that is eroding right on to the path and this is where trees were cut down. there are seberal pictures of this go ing on. when you see a dead stump you see erosion. this has not been measured well enough. trying to work fast here. you can see on all side of the ishillside and one other thing i want to show you was storm water manenment. a tree was removed a gaping hole was left and water all over the trail because the tree is no lauchck thrr so this process doesn't
work. it isn't working now the way it is and this plan-this is the plan and implementation so i ask you to please send the eir back to planning and do it right. thank you. >> thaupg thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. ron proctor, resident of district 7 for 37 years. i was asked to read a letter from a neighbor who couldn't be here tonight. we are [inaudible] district 7 residents living at 221 wuneta way. we are 50 year resident of san francisco and libed enour current home since 2003 mount davidson is our backyard literally we enjoy the birds and tree jz raccoons and skunks who frequent the yard. this year we were viz td by a unwelcome guest. we had a stream growing to a river flowing to the
bottom level of the home. this nev happened sin we lived here. sins the february 7 storm the area is flood would the stream continuing today. they can't be here because of that. it apoors the rising groundwater is the cause. of course our home owner insurance won't pay for the damages caused. the impact both physically and emotionally is devastated leaving us on fixed income wondering what to do. we beg you to reject the certification of the environmental impact report at the hearing today. the trees and vegetation are holding the soil and rock together and secking up sons of water. if a significantner of trees are cut down as proposed the erosion will be severe causing more of our neighbors to suffer our fate or worse. climate expert said tell us our feature is more severe period of drought followed by storms. please listen to us and send
the eir back for review. when it was written we didn't know what we know today about climate change. we must learn and act with wisdom not just steam rolling something forward that can injure so many resident. thauj thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> thank you good evening, edward [inaudible] live in south beach and want to thank the supervisors that remained and paying attention, that is awesome. i will ceech my point very brief. i'm a 6 year resident of city of san francisco and no affiliation with a group, i speak on my own as a private citizen i moved here 5 years ago- 6 years from new york city with plenty famous parks. wanted to live in a city that also has great parks. i applaud the parks department on
the wonderful parks they have but shocked what happened here. i will hold up the picture hopefully it can be seen on the camera. >> you can use the overhead projector. >> thank you very much. this is mount davidson one side. has trees and quite nice. i will show another picture on the other side. this is cleared already. what they are talking about is making entire mount davidson look like the second picture. i think it is very much a move for 24 worst. you dont have to be a environmentalist to know that. i think destroying 19,000 trees in the sit aef of san francisco seems a reckless and rash approach to land management and ask the board of supervisors to carefully consider the appeal and ask the remaining board to also
forward the thoughts to the ones who left. thaumg thaupg very much. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> my name is frank tris caught in district 8 and request you return the natural area eir back to the planning commission. first lack of formal oversight and evaluation. i don't know if you had a chance to read the document but the plan lacks formal mechanism for ovvite and evaluationism examining the general plan for natural area one find statement where native seed bank [inaudible] you never find are statements like native plantings examines after-6 month jz one year to determine mortality and develop guidance [inaudible] i participated in two native plantings at billie goat hill
in both all the plant died due to hostile vire 6789 i heard similar statements from or the people and parks. subsequent plantings have also failed. guidance to prevent waste is critical and missing in the document. taxpayers are general jen generous to parks and deserve to know the money is well spent. hericide give [inaudible] they help plants can go longer compete with non native species. park staff fall emanufacturer instruction but all the [inaudible] safe. earlier thist month at a law firm ran a san francisco chronicle to develop class action leaked round up use to non hodgkins lymphoma. at the end of the hearing you will
vote and if you do vote to maintain the eir you are ipfact endorsing the use the compound. potential harm to the health of park employees and visitors hangs in the balance. air on the side of safety snd the erkts ir back. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good evening supervisors. eric butch representing san francisco green party and local grassroots organization our city. i'm going to ask you to refocus and pay attention because i will introduce a more deeper argument than the appellates were able to put forward because of my expertise following the climate crisis. this has to do with green house gas. as you heard from the appellate presenters, there was new information vast new information on both pesticide and green house gas emissions added very
late to the document which was then not recirculated for us to put in comment said on it. among the claims in the document is the lewd chris idea that trees stop absorbing carbon after 20 years. i have follow thd climate crisis sthins 80 ptell you the older a tree get the more carbon it sur questers and when you cut down a forest it takes 100, 200, 300 or longer year tooz get back tohad condition where it will reabsorb carbon and become a carbon net carbon sink again. even if as some of even my alis anded the park it department and you folks we replace the trees 3 to 1 and that isn't happening but if we did 3 to 1
replacement of trees the climate crisis would still beimpacted because it hit in the next 10 to 20 years not a 200 years from now when the forest become carbon sinks. because of the late addition of the carbon information in the eir, i did not get a chance to see the argument in the formal al eir prautss and it is critical you sepd it back and-- >> thank you for your comment . next speaker, please. >> karen bruslen a merea loma park resident and lived there 50 years. this plan i know says they cut down about 18 thousand plus trees, 1600 of these are in mount davidson and the long term goal
is slowly convert the area to scrub and grass land so this is deforest station which is a contributing factor to global warming. this is pretty well documented by now. the herbicide use is scary because it is documented they are using herbicides and this mount davidson is two plaucks from a elementary school where they take the children on field trips quike frequently and this is a area where people can take the children and let them run around. if they close the trails they won't be able to geoff the trails anyway. that is a huge issue and think a health issue that they allow this many herbicide to be used. i was at a commission on the environment hareing and stated
they must use herbicides to keep it natural and too expensive to do it otherwise. they cost to the health isn'tker considered but that statement was made. also the slide is a big issue. we just had a neighbor had a big problem with slide. if you cut down all the trees if you look that hill and go up there, you can see what would happen if they cut down the trees. there is a lot of digging into the hill in general which is past history, but that is what happened, so i support this appeal and ask you to send it back. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> i didn't to comment the east side--[mic cut off. >> ma'am yourks time concluded. next speaker, please.
>> good evening. robert gee and lived in san francisco over 50 years. i'm a board member and past president of mera loma park club. 200 homes along mount davidson is impacted by the plan. i speak on behalf the club. the club support the san francisco forest alliance requesting resnd the certification the eir and back to planning for revision to minimize the damage to our parks including mount davidson. as state today planning and rec and parks the eir doesn't address the fact evidence and issue arising from the plan and that is removal of healthy trees and impact on green house gas, use of herbicide and closure of significant number of trails
that limit public access to the parks nor have mitigation measures identified to eliminate the impacts. i eir says the concerns i just mentioned have a less than significant impact. really? we do not want healthy trees destroyed especially 1600 trees or 18 thousand city wide. we condeem the use hof herbicides to kill unwanted trees and vegetation. we do not [inaudible] the public only has access to 6 acres. please support the motion to reverse the eir societyication. the plan and send back to planning.
>> the u.s. forest service recommends 3 to 1. if we dopet replant a minimum of 18 thousand trees or 1 to 1, trees not bushes this eir will cause climate change and threaten san francisco. second, the dpreen house gas assessment for san francisco is inadequate as it only used a qualitative questionnaire that didn't ask a question about saving trees thmpt green house gas assessment has error squz 90 percent of trees are mising. people who hate eucalyptus admit this is wrong. when you fix the errors you see a loss of
carbon [inaudible] and causes climate change. third, the eir says the plan will cause significant air pollution but there is no mitigation. fourkt, the plan sprays more toxic herbicide but the eir doesn't acnaunl or mitigate this. december 15 it was explained this had to be approved because the plan was 20 years old and so much work had already gaup into it. 20 years ago nobody cared about climate change accept maybe al gore. climate change is a serious threat and cannot afford to kill 18,000 large trees and replace them with bushes using a eir that is inadequate. please vote yes on the eir appeal to repair the-- >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.
>> good afternoon supervisors. i'm mike burton ety, a cranky older person from merea loma park. i don't claim to any special expertise in environmental law or climate change but where still have a good gripe on common sense and hope you have it on yours. if you have something beautiful and pressure you should hang on to it and conserve and it not want wantingly destroy it. the spectacle of the city hacking down trees right and left is certainly going annoy people far beyond the small neighborhood in which i live and is going to bring reaction at a ballot box that may involve you. i hope you will consider that when you consider what is in front of you today. i know that after i'm done talking and the rest of the
speakers the planning department will have somebody up here to explain why it all makes sense to do what they want to do enthe name of the sort of crank botanical ethnic clensing. i learned years goy ago in the court rooms up stairs of the building any time you have to explain your position you are losing ground. common sense doesn't have to be explained, it does the job for itself. hang on to the trees, dont lose them, you won't be able to replace them in anybodys lifetime here. let's keep them for ourselves and next generation. >> thank you and next speaker . >> good afternoon commissioner. michele [inaudible] resident of member of the golden gate park association. the golden gate [inaudible] association and eir
is deeply flawed. it doesn't take into consideration that park and rec is going to dump huge amount of herbicide in the hill which will perminate [inaudible] learned a few weeks ago san francisco water department is going to add 5 to 10 percent of white water in our drinking water and we have no idea if any study is going to be done or has been done to those amount of tier 1 and 2 herbicides considered carcinogen by most the european community. it is such a great issue that herbicides are banned to be used on any public space in france starting january 2017.
i urge you to send the eir back to the planning department. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good evening, robert suten and representing myself and neighbors near my mount davidson that couldn't be here. we are very concerned about the eir. whether you like trees or not or certain vegetation or not there are real consequencess to altering the landkaip in a residential area. the plan to remove trees will create significant problems. first being run off and flooding. mud slides, erosion. second is toxic chemical in the backyard streets and children play areas. third is contaminated
drinking water. cover landslide and erosion you know there are houses that slid in the area and some were damaged and had to settle for $5 million and it wasn't a big deal compare today what could happen when you change the flow of the water and groundwater coming off mount davidson. half the mountain is forest so it acts like a sponge and soaks it up. accelerating that floods yard and undermines foundations and other problems. second, toxic chemicals in the backyard, when they spray-when they do the cuttings when they started-all these pictures were taken last week so when they do cuttings there is a lot of chemicals that are involved. if you notice the chemicals run down the hill less than a block
away. miraloma elementary school. this is the groundwater map for san francisco from the sfpu c and it shows all the xs those are chemical-- >> thank you for your comment, sir. next speaker, please. >> hello have supervisors. glen roger, a landscape architect and member of california native plant society. i wanted to mention that yuke eucalyptus trees have a condition which poisons soil limiting other plant material creating a mono culture of eucalyptus trees. it is not that eucalyptus trees are foreigners we want to
decimate and not we hate them because it is because thee trees are killers. with 85 percent of the eucalyptus trees considered in poor health walking on trails under these trees is-- >> are you a republican? >> please continue with your remarks. >> in poor health walking on trails under the treeicize dangerous. sick yuke eucalyptus trees shed branching to remain viable. considering carbon sequesteration with 80 percent of eucalyptus trees unhealthy, it is difficult to consider these trees would be able to remain viable into the future. remember that oakland had tru-minds fire and in the eucalyptus trees were the fuel of the
fire. >> thank you. let me remind members no outburst are allowed and if you are here to speak in support the appeal this is your opportunity to make public comment. if you are here to speak in opposition of the appeal, you will have a opportunity to do so later in the meeting. next speaker. >> sky charles in miraloma park. upset san francisco would consider a large scale deforeststration praunlect using a eir that is so deficient 18, 448 trees would be killed and 3448 trees would be replanted without guarantee survival. that is about 15
percent replacement. regarding the guarantee of survival , many plant i planted died. this plant unleased chain saw and pesticide is a [inaudible] the city deserves a eir that is adequate complete and in good faith. please vote yes to support the appeal of the eir for inadequacy of herbicide, green house gas, recreational access and air quality. i want to say i live near mount davidson and do agree the health of the eucalyptus treeerize poor and i love them but i think the heth is poor because i people expect them to be cut down in the future so haven't been taken care of so the plants need to be kept and taken care of. thank you.
>> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> i'm a resident of miraloma park and mount davidson. i'm crned to cut down the trees. there is a mention of possible replacement even if they replace it but replacing at 1 to 1 or 3 to 1 the likelihood of live oaks thriving is low. live oaks prefer sheltered habitat like ravines canyons and north side. not exposed windy like on the crown of mount davidson. non native trees will not be cut down and not have replacements, they will be weakened by the loss of wind shelter from other trees and
increase soil instability from the 1600 trees cut down. when all the non native trees die and they will, the crown to mount davidson will be bare accept for a scrub, grass and a big 100 foot tall cement cross. i move to miraloma park partly because of the forest on top of the mountain and i love it. i dont want to see it to turn into grass land. thank you. >> thaupg thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. anastasia [inaudible] here. and first of all please do reject the certification, it is [inaudible] whatever is the word. it
is wrong. the eir is bias because why would discuss 1 to 1 replacement when the replacement no where in the plan, it just makes it look better. it claims that amount of herbicides donot incretion, which is friction. [inaudible] treat would those herbicides. [inaudible] talking about poor health of those yuke eucalyptus [inaudible] i observe since 2001 [inaudible] the herbicides are there all the time. [inaudible] the forest is supposed to remain so they cut trees presumably to for
safety. some of them right and some wrong but if you cut them you shouldn't [inaudible] the herbicideerize there and damaging tree. one neighbor was crigeing and couldn't come today like she had extreme flooding of her basement. she isn't the only one. it will increase with the analysis say squz the forest is a organism and quh you kill tree jz put herbicides if gesynchronize to the root system and damage all surrounding trees. now, another neighbor just last week had a mud slide and she took-[inaudible] >> thank you for your comments, ma'am. next speaker, please.
>> alex aldrich. the eir claims doesn't single out bisicalest i does not include actions directed at bike use and the nep has installed signs on all our natural areas prohibiting bike riding without public input or bringing bikes into the park areas managed under that program. this is the sign that says fail and designated trails no bicycle squz site 302 as the park code and put that in february 2015 with no public input. each year you see the park has increased in citations. this shows the fines associated with the
that. goes from 100 to 200 or 600 or 6 month or jail time or fine. people will not ride the bike tooz the park if they have to leave them at the park boundary. this action flies in the face of transit first green connections and childrens outdoor bill of right said. this is impact on the city. the eir misstates the facts and fails to analyze the prohibition. the eir is enacterate inadequate and bias. >> thank you for dwrour your comment said. next speaker, please. >> i'm conducting a urban forest council #3450e9ing upstairs and have to have a vote in about 5 minute so i want to speak on behalf of the eir and the urban forest council. my name is dan
flanagan. >> are you speaking in support or opposition? >> unfortunately we can not do that at this time. >> i have to go back to the meeting then. >> i would have to to make a exception. >> when do you expect that to happen. >> we are just taking public comment. next speaker, please. >> i was going say good afternoon, i get guess good evening. jack [inaudible] found orthf tree spirit project. i can be brief. how is this, we will cut down in progressive san francisco 18,000 healthy carbon sequestering trees in a era of climate change. what
happened to city, how can that be? san francisco parks and rec kills and poiseps thousands of healthy productive trees and plants and in the process poisons the soil, waterways and people who use the parksism we are all connect, you can't poison one element without harmling other squz this is becauseinateb plant extremist label plant, sorry about this but it is true, just as donald trump does labeling people harmful foreigners. so hard working park personnel hired to do the important work of caring for plant and planting plant are killing trees and plant they protected using the poison you see. these are herbicides like round up and [inaudible] that numerous agencies including the united nations have tested and classify as
carcinogynic. again, prodwresive san francisco and question when these thingerize bad. 15 second. the real threat responsible for harm isideology of innovation biology which teaching people and children to go into the nature and label plant good and bad and kill and poison the bad ones. please i beg you don't kill our beautiful wild plants that effect animals and all of us. i can i continue i have lots to say. >> 4 seconds. >> thank you in 4 seconds. >> [inaudible] eir, i don't trust the eir at this point and why i'm up here. you heard the people
spoke today and i just walked in and have a idea that the process isn't working. like you had the ball park arena, the eir want fully vetted, the will the people want democratically accepted, the mission bay, potrero hill dogpatch didn't want that arene aso why i'm here to say if you vet the proseir you do it with the people. we at the mission day dogpatch potrero hill didn't feel the eir is vetting any projects. a lot of projects come before you and still speak toog the supervisors on board here now. aaron peskin, i believe he is a good man. he fought for the project 6 over there in the district. we fought with him in potrero hill but when they brought that arena he didn't get a chance to
speak out and question the eir on some hof the projects that come through the pipeline. eir i think is against the people. preparation of findings reversed. take this serious now. let rr fully vet this and come up with the right answers for all the projects. amen. >> thank you for the comments. next speaker. >> if there are any other members of the public specifically in the overflow room, room 263 who like to speak in support of the appeal, please line up. if not thris this will be the last speaker. >> hailey mu likea clark, i live up the street have been a resident of san francisco for the past 10 years. it is interesting it
note we are talking native and non native species the same day we talk about devesting from the dakota pipeline. i wonder but the local community have to say about their land. having thought on the subject i concluded with this, leebing a grass land with a grave yard of stump said covered in round up which goes into the soil, groundwater harm our pets and our sebl said is not a great offering back to the natural landscape. we need to take into consideration the population that is here that wasn't here before the trees were planted.
of the natural areas and intended to guide natural resource protection, habitat restoration, trail and access improvements, other capital projects and maintenance activities over the next 20 years. rec park will provide a more detailed praunlect overview later on. the appellate made a number of comments regarding the merits of the projected . commented on tree removal and public aspects.
rec park will provide more information regarding these matters later on. comments on the merits of the plan unrelate today the environmental analysis are comments on the praunlect it is lf, not on the adequacy of the final eir. therefore, they are not appropriate ground for appeal of a eir. in regard to the analysis of green house gas impacts, the eir accurately estimates tree removal and replacement quantities. the eir evaluating significance of potential emission impacts base oden a qualitateb assessmentf ocompliance with the city green house gas reduction strat agency and discloseed analysis based on acceptable methodology and protocols from represent sources. in regard to herbicide use,
herbicide use under the management plan is expected to be similar to current lechbls levels of use. rec park will continue to apply herbicides in accord wns the city integrated pest management program and tree removal would occur gradually over a 20 year period. in regard to the public access, this was addressed in [inaudible] of the eir which found trail closure will not increase the use of trail such that substantial deterioration would result. and in regard to recirculation of the draft eir the additional information and response to comments did not change any of the conclusions of the eir and did not constitute significant new information under ceqa and do not require recirculation under ceqa. before i conclude, i like to brofely acknowledge the public
testimony today regarding the merits of the project or past actions of rec, park. i respectfully note however, that no new information is raised that changes our conclusion and the eir is adequate and accurate. for these reasons the department recommends the board uphold the eir and deny the appeal. this conclude the department presentation and available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor sheehy has a questions for the planning department. >> so, can you walk me through the herbicide bit? what i understand you are putling putting round up on park land and so this is no additional burden because you put the same amount on? >> yes. jessica rainge planning department staff.
yes, what we are evaluating the promect is the existing baseline condition. rec and park currently has natural areas plan and they apply herbicides. when the ei r evaluated impact it was against the existing baseline and as mu lynnea mentioned we found the impacts are less than significant. >> what is your safety data on the safety of round up? because the international agency for cancer researched it-which is who and looking at the studies and read over some last night. the case control studies are not bad. >> that is a very good question and as mu lenda mentioned, rec i park is must comply with the integrated pest management ordinance and
under that ordinance there are a number of requirements. the very first part of what is ipm is to avoid having to use pesticides in the first place. there is a number of different typeoffs controls such as hand removal and other biological controls and only if those controls are not effectivethen is chemical control warranted. each pesticide has to be aprubed approved by depament of environment and undergoing a fairly rigorous process and have staff from department of environment here who can speak on that issue, the process for approving. >> i will come tothat, i like to hear that in a second, but you mean there is no difference between limited plant removal or control and actually when you cut down a birch of trees and poor
pesticide on it for a extended period of time to keep the trees-that is the same amount? >> we are not saying the same amont, be are say tg is similar to existing levels and that is because they are already applying pesticides to the natural areas and they will continue to do so. the removal the trees is not going to happen toferm or the next day, it is over a twen year period so it is fairly gradual. >> so, what is your evaluation-you take a lot of cover away, so did you look at the impact of the migration of the chemicals both in the groundwater and through the natural flow of water in the deforested areas into inhabited areas, is that part of your eir? >> we evaluated on water
quality and we do have mitigation measures that rec and park is required to implement to am sure that not just herbicides and pesticides but other actions are not effected the groundwater. >> but i guess i'm-did you in the eir you take away a lot of cover so have the pesticides able to flow down the hill, right sphbecause you take away so much coverage. j i will mention they are also-the rec and park will be replacing the vegetation with ort other types of vegetationism as a example in a area of trees are removed they may be replanted with grass land and not left bare. >> so did you evaluate whether the grass land will hold back the migration of water laced with
herbicides as well as what is currently happening? >> 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 subsquents 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 nat identified another level of
ceqa. i think there are two questions that have been brought up by what you have raised and one is what is the project description versus the environmental analysis of the project conducts. the project description is really the creature of the project sponsor. here because the project is reckoned park they are the ones that are using the project.and then they will use whatever project rec park proposes. planning cannot change whatever project that rec park changes here it what is done is the existing baseline changes that staff laid out that the recreation
and parks department uses compared to what was proposed under the natural resources management plan and that is sort of the ceqa was proposing under the proposed project and that is what that board needs to consider when looking at the delta which is the current practice of rec and park under their description under the research and management plan and it planning do an adequate job in examining the potential for environmental impacts and that delta.i would like to just
add i would like to just add there is a plan like the water improvement project that the puc did several years ago. that is actually good analogy because they are the san francisco puc proposed a wide scale of seismic retrofit all the way from head hetch hetchy and they did an environmental analysis of what that eir had planned and then they did further analysis and further
then planning will look at that and say what level of environmental review on the plan that is proposed and if that does require a declaration that would be part of the environmental appeal. >>chemicals are used to sharp part. to shed i will defer the question to recreation park supervisor. >> it has undergone green ribbon
panels and influence by nearly 2700 written comments and it is the product of a considerable amount of collaboration and at a time when fundamental notions of environmental protection and natural resource preservation is under his literally tonight we will do our part so that it can drive for our children and their nation. this covering nearly 25% and 1100 acres and 30 miles of trail these lands
are considered wild and native and are known for their rich habitat and biodiversity. on these lands, we are charged with protecting hundreds of different varieties of significant and vulnerable species of this flora biodiversity without active management and maintenance they will disappear.this is critical for our city allowing us to maintain these 30 miles of trails and ensures our next generation will learn about ecology and stewardship and by protecting these natural resources these plan ensures that nature is for everyone and not just the privileged. the
plan is actually rather straightforward. it offers a collection of science-based strategies to care for wild spaces. back in 2006 when this all began the plan was really considered very cutting-edge but the practice of kids serving nature and our city has now passed us by as new york and cities like paris have already surpassed us with their plans and now turned over to lisa and am very pleased that we have reached the sierra club with the wild equity with one of the most critical and time sensitive projects in the entire area and i believe that the
letters have been passed out and i have submitted a letter to you and the board and not only are drenched soil but our habitat for the snakes on the fairways and also any part of this project and the letters can be sent to planning and then wii will include the modification letters in the file and this will allow the project to move forward. so, as i handed over to lisa, and she will answer questions about pesticides and i will be happy to come and answer any questions you may have i have a state why they award-winning plan that we use and i'll take why we use it in a second but i want to show my gratitude to lisa and all the men and women who have devoted their careers
to our natural resources. this is a very critical moment. until now we have done what is right and invested in the species they are incredibly talented and knowledgeable and san francisco has a healthier future because of them. lisa can talk us through it. >>all right well in the two minutes remaining here on our time i will do my best to get started and again, i am happy to answer any question. there are 32 interconnected natural resource areas encompassing 1100 acres as phil mentioned. and the unifying characters of those are unique soil, plant life and animal life. and the habitats of these plants and
animal lives are interconnected and their habitats are as well. i would like to say that the levelof input that we've engaged till this point in time will continue until we implement this plan. this will evaluate the richness of the habitat and will stem from the detailed analysis and classification. before we move into the details of some of those recommendations i just want to take a moment to remind us as phil did and that is the reason why we are here and why biodiversity is important throughout the world and here in san francisco. biodiversity is the notion of interconnection s with lots and lots of species and lots and lots of connections between them they make a net that is
really stable. the plants rely on the animals the animals rely on the plans and the insects in the soil and it's important that we keep the balance of that net. i will give you an example this is the mission blue butterfly. this is a down-home example. this is an endangered species. this is a nickel-sized butterfly and it is only here and it is in southern marin and in certain counties and it depends on certain species of plants are and that they are dependent for their larvae's and if you take some of those plants and you take some of those ants out
then the blue butterfly disappears disappears and this is critical for the have been slow. >>i have just one question about the pesticide management around children in schoolsif you can talk about the integrated pesticide management plan that you and the department work with and walk us through that. >>so we are guided by the past and management program and we go through a very rigorous annual screening of the pesticides that city workers are allowed to use on city lands and those many of those products we have are restrictions on how we can use the bite you is a citizen can go into home depot and use them without telling you or without telling your neighbors or they
can use them on their driveways or their sidewalks but we as the city can do a fantastic job by looking at what chemicals are potentially hazardous and reducing the chemicals that are potentially hazardous but also, again, notifying our fellow citizens and people in our community that we are using these materials. we have thousands of volunteer hours to remove weeds. we as mechanical methods, we use, you know, like organic materials, you asked about sharp parts, the materials they use there are bonemeal and organic things to control the weeds and the fungi
and in many of our parklands that we do the same thing. but there are those circumstances where hand removal, mechanical removal, alternative methods, simply do not work. and in those limited cases, we use small amounts of herbicides. what that amounts to in the natural resources areas for last year is .08 ounces per acre of active ingredient. that is .08 ounces of active ingredient per acre of land. so we are talking about very, very , very are strategically small amountmixing these herbicides for plants that cannot be controlled without another method and using the least amount possible that they can use to control this problem.
>>can you speak to how you oversee and regulate and oversee >>oversee and regulate how you oversee this at the parks and recreation department? >>good evening supervisors. he is not here tonight but i will do my best to reduce this. we work together using pesticides with the parks and recreation department each year. last year we looked at the product roundup more closely and with scrutiny and we created a whole long list of restrictions now being employed since last year and it's such a rigorous list that we are still working
through being able to comply with the departments on the ground. >>and what did you say your name was sir? >>peter brassstone.. >>the if there are no other questions for mr. brass stone i will recognizesupervisor tang. >>thank you mr. chair. i'm sure that many of our colleagues have received many emails and questions and concerns about the tree aspect of this program. for example i heard a lot ofexamples about cross cutting around mount davidson and i was wondering if you could address some of those concerns that have been raised? >>yes, thank you. the plan
itself promotes uurban forest for many generations there are 2000 acres of preserved forest in san francisco that are not in the best condition. the trees are aging, or they are dying or they are unsafe and they are all about the same age which is not good for a forest. you want to have a diversity of ages and a diversity of trees in order to avoid pathogen outbreaks which we've seen a lot of in the last few years. the plan recommends a 1:1 replacement of every tree in san francisco and i want to go through some of these because i think there's a lot of misinformation that was stated with regard to the number of trees. so in san francisco the
plan recommends the removal of 3400 trees over a 20 year period of time. and as i said, each of those trees would be replaced 1:1 ratio and it seems a bit unrealistic but we want to do more if we can. >> i know sometimes if you plant a new tree to replace the tree it doesn't always survive and things like that but are you saying that's unrealistic at a basic level or will your arborist be able to go and
potentially evaluate and be able to plant more? >>treeplanting and any kind of vegetation requires follow-up and monitoring right. they need to be watered and they need to be tended to. typically, if something gets planted and it doesn't survive you replace those trees. so you're constantly monitoring them, are they healthy, are they growing too quickly are they falling over on their sides, as well as removing competing weeds and vegetation. it's all part of the follow-up. the planting is in some ways easy part, right? so, to continue on the numbers if that's helpful for the supervisors, san francisco has about 136,000 trees in our parklands and about half of those roughly are in natural resource areas. so that is around 65,000 or so. so, of those 65,000 or so, around 3500
of those are recommended for removal. so that is where you get the 5% of the trees in the natural areas are removed and that's where you get the 3400 trees in san francisco. i'm hoping that make sense. then when you move to san mateo county, we have a huge watershed around the park and we have a huge amount of trees that sits between two federally open spaces that have endangered species and this is a wild, wild place that is very. remote and we have a huge watershed and canyon. in
that area, about 25% of these trees will be removed as a recommendation of the plan. that's how you get 15,000 trees. when people talk 18,000 trees, 3400 of those are in san francisco and the remainder of those are in this remote watershed in san mateo county. so when we look at places like mount davidson, the slide that's in front you hear is a rendering of what a current condition at mount davidson looks like as you can see, , the trees are failing, there is iv growing up the trees and it is choked and it is dark and there's obviously not a lot of regeneration or recruitment up through that dense understory and compounding that is the eucalyptus trees that do present some species from growing. then, the lower half or the rendering at a typical thinning scenario would be amount davidson as you can see it's there's
it's there'sdefinitely more variety of trees in the understory and the deathly going to be later than the one you see in the crowded condition it at the top. >>can you speak of the cross- cutting issue that i've been hearing about? >>cross cutting? >> clearcutting am sorry it's getting late. >>clearcutting there's nothing
really typical when were talking of this but at mount davidson for example this type of thinning for biological diversity would occur on about 25% of the land and then about 50% of the land is going to remain the dense, urban forest that is shown on the top. so it's not-- it may be improved but it's not going to be cleared for the purpose of protecting biological diversity. so there's not a clear-cut a answer for us because i think that is something that is information that has not been cleared. and finally, i would note and it's really important to note and i think it's that a little bit ago but independent arborists have looked at the condition of our trees in these natural resource areas and they have found that 80% of these trees are in fair or poor conditions. they are losing ground die
off. their aging there overcrowded, and they are not in a great state. so when we are going these removals, those are the ones that will be prioritized for removal are those aging, unhealthy dying off trees. >>okay so justcan you speak to the trees that we lost in the storms this last year. can you speak to that? >>just in his last recent storm hundred 50 trees came down one storm. >>supervisor yee. >>so i would like to follow up with that particular question. the question that i had which may be an overlap of what supervisor tang just asked but
on a typical year, how many trees are actually considered dead or fallen or whatever within san francisco? >>well, you know, i think every tree is going to be different and i think that as time goes by we are seeing more and more of these trees that are coming down. so it's a little bit hard to say. obviously this season for storms has had epic proportions obviously. >>can you give me a range. it doesn't have to be super accurate. is it like 10 or is it 100 >>significantly more than that supervisor and then in san francisco we have over hundred thousand trees and parks all over the city and we've had discussions with you to make sure that we are having tree
assessments and engaging in the health of our trees to protect people and we focus on areas that are closest where people are. and their homes and their cars etc. unfortunately we cannot do enough. and there is a whole another group of trees in our forest and that's another 50% were not even counting. is a joke that says if you hear tree in the forest can you hear it. so that our trees are actually falling. there's trees that are falling and we are not able to manage their health. >>i've already heard the answer to that question.but now what i hear is 170 trees per year for--
>>and how many did you say we lost in the last storm? >>150. >>that seems like an unusually high number. >>i just wanted to check on the answer. >>our parks and recreation dir. of landscape estimates about 175 -200 per year. we have a number of diseases that can affect our urban canopy drastically we have a number right now. so based on your assessment is be a total of 4400 trees and 20 years and just faced on this
are you talking about 170 trees on top of that? >>no, the interesting thing is that some of the trees that are identified as is in poor health over this 20's your cycle frankly might fall on that their own. these are trees that we find in our system now that are in poor health. >>and i'm sorry i'm deviating from the eir a little bit but this is just a curiosity question. in replacing trees that you removed, would it be-- is there a certain type of tree that you would like to plant regardless of what you have removed? do you want to answer that questionthere are a number
up in the canyon that has a number of native treesand in oak park there is another area that we want to promote the revegetation of the oak trees. in the urban forest the rejuvenation of the urban forest as i said at the play and wants to diversify and were looking at things like eucalyptus and pine and cypress and douglas for and a variety of species again because if we want to have that urban forest 50, 100 years from now we need to think about having a diverse
urban forest to protect against disease outbreaks it might affect one species but not another. so it's conditions to be resilient to climate change and other environmental factors. >>let me just add one little addendum to that school thought. limit just mention the work they were doing with our focus on habitat restoration biodiversity versus our neighborhood park program where we work with community groups and we think through what types of trees and net where we find out what park avid kids tell us what they want to have planted there is a lot offocus on community influence in our park's and recreation system and here we're talking more about
creating this urban forest of biodiversity. >>can i speak to someone from staff from the department. inasmuch as this is not part of the eir the question that i have just as some points were raised about whether or not any of the pesticides would drift into for example, miraloma elementary school yard, or something, is there anything you do to test for something like that at all? what do you go to the schools that are like the backyards and downhill to some of these mountains? >>are you asking me if we test school yards for these pesticides? >>yes. what i heard you say was that you come up with plans for rec and park and you're being very careful with the environment so is that testing
of the schoolyard site something that you taken a consideration when you a reckon park to do a certain thing? >>well, testing the actual schoolyard not to my knowledge but you remember were talking in terms of this flowing down the hill and underneath the houses in each of these schoolyard's .08 ounces per acre per yearif you can just imagine that quantity. >>yeah. but you can say per acre but if you don't >>i know that's an average r >>but, you don't put it all in one place.
>>i just want to mention that we only use herbicides that are safe and we don't use them near children's area has and we use them only when they have a purpose and we only use .08% per acre and again it's always used as a last resort and again, this is different than any parks and recreation system anywhere.it is only used as a last resort and it's used when the environmental value it is a judgment call but it outweighs the risk of use. in other words, if we are going to use it where we think there are reasons that support either habitat restoration or biodiversity. so there is a lot of policy and there is an interplay to one were doing this. the one thing that i would mention is in respect to testing the puc the
groundwater testing. >>thank you. are there any more questions by the members of the board? seeing none. at this time if there any members of the public who would like to speak this is your time. you will have two minutes. >>good evening supervisors my name is pat ski i am a member of the pine lake neighborhood association. and i was appointed to the citizens advisory committee to the natural areas program and i was appointed by supervisor sandoval and supervisor mall.
decide to oppose the application before you to put together a master plan for my park to allow park and recreation to bring it to the planning commission and allow it to make changes in our parks. we have rated too long. i grew up in the city. him third-generation i've been to mount davidson numerous times and most times the year it is dark and it is the up. the park is secluded. my park suffers from some of that as well. i know many eucalyptus trees in my park need to be pruned and trimmed and some need to be removed. the two that fell behind my house are both marked. 1048, and 1052. there are still too many back there after 20 years. this is step, i think this is an important step. i asked you to seriously review the environmental impact report and considerate andapprove it. thank you. >>i respectfully request that
you reject the appeal of the eir and approve the plan. the plan is a good plan. is not a contract, it is a plan. it will be implemented over the next 20 years as we heard in the eir is adequate. the plan is approved by both commissions. the planning commission and the recreation and park commission has been more than a decade and this is critical for the city's biodiversity and for the eco-justice and i'm concerned with the imperial greenbelt where we support the management of that plan to again help to support the ecological integrity of the forest. i have solved a significant loss
in biodiversity of plants and animals and significantly the decline of other trees other than eucalyptus. most recently, a tree file on our street up into a house and luckily no one was hurt by it is showing that that it is time for quick action so and i just want to say that in my view the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the plans are insignificant and the eir is correct. based on my quick calculations we could replace about four cars on the road and i know again i ask that you reject the appeal and i be happy to answer any questions thank you. >>thank you. next speaker please. welcome back dan. i am sorry about earlier. >>[timer dings]
>>i am d and flan again i am the director of the urban forest council. and my job is to advise the supervisors on all issues regarding the urban forest in san francisco we have heard a number of hearings on this subject. we've seen many people speaking. we see these people speak before counsel on at least three or four occasions. we have taken this very very seriously and we feel there is a lot of energy and great passion around the subject and considering the eir. we believe that we have, i think, five departments represented on our urban forest cancel and we have additional great minds really do know a great deal about the urban forestry on the councilwe look at this objectively and we looked at this from a objective point of view we unanimously
supported the eir so we urge you to reject this appeal. we believe it's imperative that the board of supervisors look to the future and see that we can now start managing these open spaces. i think lisa wayne has spoken incredibly eloquently on the fact that we need to diversify the urban forest on citro and davidson. and were not looking for the next 5200 years we are looking at the next 150 years. so i thank you very much. >>thank you very much. next speaker please. >>i was born and raised in san francisco and i have worked here every day of my life so far.this is a little bit off the specific topic but about 50 some years ago i managed to get through most of these parks as a child and played in them and
today, you would be silly to take your children, grandchildren, what ever because of the danger they possess. if you decide not to accept the eir, you better put some fences around these parks because they are dangerous. they are dangers that is the bottom line. you need to get rid of these trees. thank you. >>thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >>good daysupervisors and park passionate people. i'm dylan hayes. i'm here on my own time as a proud recreation and parks department staffer and local labor. we at the recreation and parks division are committed to creating safe open spaces for all species.
emerging everyone here to leave behind and recognize the commitment for the recreation and parks department to keep areas clean and safe for all of us. we at the division are the 311 response responses for the spaces. for the last 20 years we worked on the best practices in the spaces. we have no guiding framework. please uphold the commission's finding that this eri's has found. it's come a long way to turn around. we here want to preserve. we all hear want to preserve san francisco's natural and historical heritage. in holding with the eir as well vetted public process, san franciscans deserve research today and we actually make progress by recognizing our investment in responsible stewardship. by rejecting the
appeal of the natural resources department. i think you very much with your trust of us as professionals who care about the well-being of our families. we are here raising our families. i am in need of san franciscan this parks has helped usin these areas help me to care about my environment and i spent my life and my career doing so. i think you for having us here today and for your my comments. >>thank you for your comments,next speaker please. had a >>when i began this relic to the coastal wetlands in the san francisco peninsula was infected with ivy it was a haven of transient and
outgrowth and much more needs to be done but we can see a clear path in the eir. the trail is now planned and funded that will carry public access to the woodlands. it will facilitate the policing of encampmentsin the parks. it will preserve the parks as natural beauty in the city. the eir will ensure that the work of preserving this area and the other 32 natural areas in the city will continue for the benefit of future generations. >>thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >>thank you. my name is so links. harry truman was
president when i arrived at mount zion hospital 67 years ago. i've lived in district 1, i've lived in district 2, and for the last few years i've lived in district 7. i know that there have been some settlement issues but i want to remind the board that sharp park was designed by alastair mckenzie and even more than that this was the brainchild of a great visionary, a man named john mclaren i'm proud to
mention his name is night. he is the man that gave us golden gate park. he would say maybe what phil and lisa and those folks haven't exactly said. please, let me do my job. this plan was cooked up in somebody's garage last week. i attended a lot of these scoping meetings and i testify to the number of them. this is been transparent from beginning, to metal, to and. it is a world-class plan for a world-class park system and i must say it was prepared by a world-class staff. we are lucky to have them, we are lucky to have this, and the time now is to recognize these assetts. the coastal commission recognize sharp park as an endangered affordable recreational resource. it deserves to be preserved and the main reason in my view for proving this plan is that in messages approved, we cannot go through with the habitat work at sharp park. that alone should compel you to go forward to approve the eir [timer dings] and allow this work to pursue. thank you. next speaker please. >>hello my name is amber hosteling i am a 15 year
resident of san francisco it and i am a member of the advocacy group and there's so many groups are out there on the ground doing this work and they are directly working with the gardeners advocacy agency and some of these are nature and the city friends of khufu health park, rec and park, and a world-class trail system was included in top was already there to help maintain natural areas and keep them from eroding and degrading in the
future. as far as tree replacements go.the civic tree replacements are so important because the eucalyptus that are an issue are one of the issues of trees. were talking about replacing sycamores and willows and oaks and these trees are the basis of the ecosystem they attract insects which attract songbirds which attract mammals and i just ask that you reject the eir today move forward with the finalization of the natural areas plan. thank you. >>thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >>good evening my name is steve phillips i will keep it very brief. the plan should go forward. there are no ceqa
violations and the plan should be rejected and the eir should be upheld. please uphold the eir. the planning department has done an excellent job and in further delay of that and ramp would be further degradation of the species and habitat in all the cities and all the natural areas. i just wanted to finally say that what makes the city unique is its natural areas and what gives it its character in the short time that we have on this earth, we can be stewards and preserve that which is true to san francisco there are many plant communities and species here that are only here worldwide and
miraloma elementary school because they are small amount so they won't go through with that school. but if you would like to test, i think you should but i think that is a big stumbling block. cutting trees is not the real issue here. eucalyptus, if you look at them skyhigh for a minute they look like a patch of grass. when i was flying through on the care argue they look like flies on a piece of meat. and this is a western toad [timer dings] >>he lives here too. >>thank you sir. next speaker please. >>i followed the toad i am rob wako ima richmond community
district resident for 30 years i've been looking to restore this golden gate park for 20 years. i heard the name john mclaren this is the guy that decided to leave those precolonial oak grove's there. we have cleaned up brush and garbage in transient camping and were about to finish off a mile long trail. we plant trees , we plant a variety of trees as i mentioned before of amber and shrubs. we managed to see before the return of the a woodpecker. this is a wonderful place in san francisco and it's all because of the vision of the management is because of the community supporters and the wonderful people my neighbor and
including michael who just spoke earlier on. i cannot as a nonprofit director. i cannot go to institutions and asked them for money directly without a management plan. the management plan part of it is to encourage community stakeholders and without this management plans i am asking you we need it now and i think the eir is very reasonable. we should add it tonight and all these items have been discussed and sign with san francisco to get on with this. it is a plan and it is not a contract. thank you. and were not turning perks into dunes either monaco to cut down all of the trees. i have that charge leveled at me 20 years ago by a guy, a supervisor, now in federal prison. >>[timer dings]
>>thank you, next speaker please. >>good evening supervisors my name is christopher campbell and am in my orange i'm a member of o61 i'm here speaking on behalf as a resident of mount davison in district seven. san francisco has an amazing natural history. of 32 natural areas are comprised of a biodiversity found nowhere else. that represents our unique ecological heritage. the heritage that we have now. few cities have embraced their natural environment like san francisco. we have developed an extensive plan to help guide us in the conservation and
restoration of our natural areas. the plan benefits the species and habitats of all these areas including our urban forest the mission blue butterfly, the california red league at frog, and the san francisco garter snake. without this plan, the special places and animals will not flourish and when you risk the loss of some of our city's most beautiful treasures. this is the opportunity to demonstrate our city's commitment to a healthy environment and to validate the legacy of environmental stewardship. i urge you to continue with the city's environmental stands and upholds the eir is adequate and exhaustive and there are no violations in please reject the appeal. thank you very much. >>[timer dings] >>thank you. next speaker please. >>hello my name is katie. thank you for having us back. i am part of the environmental
district and i love san francisco it is a place of diversity not just the people but the plants and animals and we of these wonderful places and there are so many areas for the public to picnic and enjoy themselves and for wildlife and plants to survive and it doesn't occur other places and we have to give them the space and i love that san francisco created these different zones were that can happen and thank you for creating this really great well thought out plan for the next 20 years of natural habitation and vegetation over the next 20 years in these areas thank you. >>thank you. next speaker please. >>my name is rachel keefo and i live in district 9 and i am a dog walker at from 2001-2008 i
walk dogs for personal homes and as a dog walker i was also a student i now live in district 11 but as a dog walker i ended up with an internship with recreation and park and my first gig was logging some of our addresses to make sure that people heard about these hearings so that people could hear about these plans. i got the privilege of working for san francisco in these open spaces for five years from 2010-2015 and i can say this crew, this team, is very dedicated. they are dedicated to professionalism and when it comes to prioritizing the work
that they do including tree removal and herbicide projects that they would undertake and in addition to being regulated by the department of environment, i would like to add that they are also regulated by the department of california pesticide regulations under the epa we of the fall under those structures. i do not and the you because you to be experts on everything urban and you have very challenging jobs but i can say that the planning department and the parks and recreation department and the commission has been a really great job and as you to accept this plan based on their science and their calculations and move this forward base and all these years of them working towards his goals. thank you very much. >>thank you. next speaker please. >>hello, my name is adrian stroganoff and i do volunteer work with habitat-- habitat restoration in san francisco and i just urge you to deny the
appeal and keep the eir as it is. it is good. and listening to lisa we speak about it it is a very reasonable plan and a lot of clearcutting. anyway, thank you. >>thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >>good evening supervisors, thank you for your stand among and taking so much public comment. my name is doug johnson. i am the executive director of an environmental nonprofit organization in california i just want to say that we strongly encourage you to accept the cir. >>thank you. next speaker. >>my name is michael byrd. i have no plans. i have no toads. i have no tadpoles to show you. i'm here on behalf of the seniors and other
golfers that use sharp park on a regular basis. i have used it for many, many years. the program and the plan for sharp park has been in development for years. i would urge that you would reject the appeal and i would point out also that the wildlife equity institute was appealing on the basis of the sharp park plan and they have withdrawn their appeal and it's just an indication that in fact that eir should be approved. thank you. >>thank you. next speaker please. >>and i just want to say before the next speaker speaks that the appeal for the plan for
sharp park has been withdrawn but i just want let you know that before the next speaker speaks. thank you. >>i just wanted to speak on behalf of our golf course. i just wanted to say that myself growing up playing golf and the speakers here the public access and opportunities for children here there are a lot of opportunities for me and i thank for your time you and for the work that recreation and park has done and continuing to work with the golf course and seeing the potential that is there and hopefully just fill all the obligation to the wildlife and to the recreation users. thank you. >>thank you.next speaker. >>i have waited about five hours to comment on sharp part. >>[laughing]
my name is paul sure way and i am president of the historical society and the sharp park golf course is a significant historical and cultural resource. also the city specific and general plan officially designates the course as a historical site and san francisco planning department determined in 2011 that sharp park was a historic resource property under ceqa this is as it should be. sharp park was designed by dr. alastair mckenzie one of the
greatest and influential architects in the history of the game. he built sharp park as a rare east side municipal course. a links land course. like the legendary old course and st. andrews where we earlier worked as a consulting architect. the golf course is a living entity evolving over time and seizing the season and year to year. trees grow and bend to the wind and storms rush in and recede but after 85 years of wind and weather and heavy use and minimal maintenance of a public golf course, sharp park today is as beautiful as the day it open. as just as enjoyable. >>[timer dings] that is the unsolvable mark of an alastair mckenzie golf course and night urged the supervisors to deny the appeal and except the eir thank you. >>thank you. next speaker please. >>thank you. i live in
district 5. i have been playing golf in sharp park since the early 60s. i'm here to urge your board to reject the appeal. i am here to thank the recreation and parks department further careful balancing that they have been doing with the golf course with the need for human use and the need for preservation the native species. golfers, are recreation is in nature we are nature worshipers as well. and so, this working together of the human use and the natural resources is important to us as well.