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

1. San Francisco Forest Alliance
Public Parks for the Public
Photo by Paul Hudson
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

2. Meeting Rules
• Please hold questions until after
presentations
• Please deliver your questions in less than
a minute
• It is OK to disagree - but let’s keep this a
mature meeting
• Disclosure rule – please state any
professional, financial or political
associations with SF RPD or City Planning
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

3. Agenda
• David Emanuel – meeting conduct rules
• Eric Miller – threat to our parks overview
• Arnita Bowman – details on Glen Canyon
Park tree removal plans
• Alma Hecht – an arborist’s view
• Paul Rotter – story of Tank Hill and RPD
• Jacquie Procter – threat to Mt. Davidson
• Rupa Bose – increasing RPD use of toxins
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

4. SFFA and Glen Park
• The SFFA is comprised of concerned citizens without any
professional, business, or political associations with our city or the
SF Recreation and Parks Department (RPD).
• We wholeheartedly want the upgrades to the tennis courts, rec
center, and playground to move forward. In fact, we feel these
upgrades should have come much sooner.
• We seek transparency from RPD – Glen Park citizens deserve a say
on important changes within our community.
• If the majority of citizens of Glen Park have been properly informed
and the removal of 300+ trees from Glen Canyon Park is truly a
priority, the SFFA will wholeheartedly respect such a decision.
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

5. San Francisco Forest Alliance
President: Eric Miller
Dave Emanuel, Arnita Bowman, Rupa Bose, Karen
Breslin, Alma Hecht, Janet Kessler, Mary
McAllister, Jacquie Proctor, Avrum Shepard, Sally
Stephens, Cathy Bayer,
and others
Additional SFFA Supporters
2600+ petitions against Glen Park deforestation
3000+ petition signatures to stop NAP
20 SF neighborhoods vote to dismantle NAP

6. Neighborhoods supported SFFA with
resolution to dismantle NAP
Balboa Terrace Homes Association, Forest Hill
Association, Forest Knolls Association, Golden Gate Heights
Neighborhood Association, Greater West Portal Neighborhood
Association, Ingleside Terraces Homes Association, Lakeshore
Acres Improvement Club, Lakeside Property Owner's
Association, Merced Manor Property Owner's
Association, Midtown Terrace Homeowner's
Association, Miraloma Park Improvement Club, Monterey, Mount
Sutro Woods Owners Association, Neighbors of Arden
Wood, Pinelake Park Neighborhood Association, Saint Francis
Home Association, Sherwood Forest Homeowner's
Association, Twin Peaks Improvement Association, Westwood
Highlands Homeowner's Association, The Woods of San
Francisco Homeowners Association
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

7. SF Forest Alliance
Preserve Public Parks for the Public
• For budgets that reflect community values
– Transparency
– Accountability
• Against habitat destruction: preserve existing
native and non-native habitat.
• Pro public access: prevent further restrictions.
• Precautionary principle: children, pets and
wildlife are first priority – minimize toxins.
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

8. Debunking Myths and Misinformation
• Not about hazardous trees
• Not about preventing recreational
gardening or park volunteering
• Sustainable native plants are great!
– Many need little maintenance and cost
– Many can thrive without herbicides
• Not about Yosemite – common sense
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

9. SF has a Significant Budget Deficit –
Budgets Reflect Priorities
$263 million: SF budget deficit in 2012-13
Rec & Park Dept. cuts: $3.3M in FY 2012-13
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

10. Problem – while essential city services
are cut, NAP Expands
Your 2008 bond debt and your tax dollars
are diverted from essential services to:
• Remove or kill in-place 18,500+ beautiful
and healthy SF park trees
• Close popular 9.2 miles of trails
• 19.3 acres of dog play areas
• Increase use of toxic pesticides
• Other misaligned budget priorities
The public is largely
unaware of these
plans
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

11. NAP + Glen Park Contracts
Based upon RPD records and contracts some obtained with
“sunshine” requests (similar to freedom of information act)
• Rec Center Capital Project – 2008 Bond (Fall 2012): 68 trees
• Forestry Capital Project – 2008 Bond (Fall 2012): 160 trees
• Trail Restoration Capital Project – 2008 Bond (Fall 2012): 32
trees
• SNRAMP Large, Healthy Tree Removal Proposal (2013): 120
trees
• SNRAMP Young Tree Thinning Proposal (already
occurring): unknown number
• Willows (native) for daylighting creek (already
occurring): unknown number
• Documented Past NAP Creek Projects (2008): 24 trees
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

12. Anti-tree agenda at RPD, especially
within the NAP program
• NAP originally created to preserve a few
remnants of SF heritage landscape where
it existed (and as they existed)
• Now advances an extreme “nativist” (kill
non-natives) habitat conversion agenda
• NAP now controls one-third of SF parkland
• NAP is not about managing hazardous
trees
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

13. Blur distinctions to convey crisis…
urban “non-native” = invasive threat
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

14. Non-native trees in our city!
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

15. This place
could use
some trees
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

16. San Franciscans  non-native
trees
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

17. NAP’s Future Budget is Largely
Unspecified but has Extreme Scope
The next 20 years?
• Minimum of $34 million in direct staff/ops. cost
even if DEIR is defeated*
• If DEIR goes forward?
– $68 - $112 million in direct staff/operation costs
– $??? Millions in tree-removal charges
– Fewer trees, trails and play areas
– More high-maintenance native plant gardens
*RPD Finance Division, March 11, 2012 report
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

18. Long-term misalignment of budget
priorities against public interests
Cost: $3.4 million
“The neighbors don’t like it, the
costs are egregious, important documents have
not been made available to the public, and it has
no scientific basis.” – Coalition for San Francisco
Neighborhoods (2003)
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

19. NAP - Better than traditional park
projects?
A Native Garden Example – McLaren
• Overall significant spend of $ Millions
• Eliminate thousands of healthy trees
• Fence out public
• High maintenance – “native” garden
requiring ongoing herbicide applications
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
Is RPD management capable of
setting coherent priorities?

20. High-maintenance Native Plants -
Sensible?
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
Glen Canyon Park

21. National Recreation and Park Association stats
• Typical municipality - one outdoor pool per 34,200
people or one indoor pool per 42,000.
• Oakland has one pool for every 65,000 residents.
• SF - just eight public pools (a ninth is closed for
renovations), or less than one per 100,000 residents.
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/06/sf-swimming-pool-numbers-
leaves-kids-high-and-dry-lessons#ixzz1yw6f95Dp
“We both see more than we want
to, near-drownings mostly,” said
Willson, whose son, Zachary, is 5.
“It’s hard, especially with
children.” interview of 2 SF EMTs
SF swimming pool dearth leaves kids high
and dry for lessons By: Amy Crawford 06/24/12 SF Examiner Staff Writer
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

22. Why can’t the emphasis be on
traditional and popular recreation?
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

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 trees
Glen Canyon Park
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.
Too hard to read

24. 9 Trees
RPD’s Plan Will Degrade Glen
Canyon Park
Beauty
Habitat
Trails
Accessible area
Climate/shade
Neighborhood Air Quality
Sound barrier and screen
Money that could be spent on recreational facilities
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

25. Past performance shows risk of RPD “replanting” in Glen Park
Failed Reintroduction of “native” Oaks after Eucalyptus Removal
(Tank Hill Open Space)
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

26. “Native” oaks dying after removal of
healthy eucalyptus trees
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

27. “This variety of habitats helps explain why
more than 100 species have been recorded in
Glen Canyon, making it a haven for birds in the
center of San Francisco.”
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

28. Yes, it is as absurd as it seems
Fatal Flaw 1:
Destroy rare urban park habitat in
the name of “biodiversity?”
Fatal Flaw 2:
Displace or kill valued native
species for the “nativism” cause?
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

29. Public priorities: stop “fixing” vegetation - fix
our park facilities and recreation programs
The Public wants…
• Budgets reflecting public values, not
fringe priorities
• Traditional park services and programs
• A true “public service” approach for all
Rec & Park departments
• Transparency and accountability
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.

30. San Francisco Forest Alliance
Public Parks for the Public
Photo by Paul Hudson
Copyright - SF Forest Alliance. Unauthorized use prohibited.