working for the department i worked with a program very dedicated to reducing reflex with pesticides to in protecting trees with the ones not native and protecting the land in general, i hope you'll moved this plan thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners. i'm dennis the president of san francisco since so 50 with the forest think mount davidson was 70-year-old that forest in mount davidson area has not been a nature area since 1980 and try to turn that it probation officer a scrub lands i put it into the category to tear down hetch hetchy dam i can't believe

our seriously going to adapt that i'm against the plan always a speaker said a massive peshd pesticides goes into the ground water their mixing with the hetch hetchy water as for the golf course i advocate no changes at all for the golf course the frogs are thriving the people that tried to close the golf course couldn't prove that was impacting the frogs or snakes necessary talk about the snakes circled by moeers i don't believe they've documented that the only make i've seen added the park was a hawk in the just a i couldn't identify it as a san francisco garden snake and cutting you down 16 thousand trees at sharp park a waste of

money adjacent to that park several square miles of scrub land so if you cut down the effort our interesting the bio diversity you can look up that and if 90 san francisco has money to cut down the trees go to the other parks there or where there are dangerous trees one fell on a woman and sfta san francisco will pay a lot of money for that and thinning out the trees that are a threat for people that walk there, there at stern road several trees will take somebody out to spend a lot of monies to come out u cut down a forest is ridiculous i hope

you consider the management alternative and replace those with live oaks the grow at stern grief amongst the eucalyptus trees. >> thank you, thank you. >> hi i've lived in san francisco for 20 years commissioners, i urge you to adopt the eir and approve the natural resources management plan without delay it helps the landscapers and promotes soil and restore resiliency to climatic change and advocacy for viral justice and approaches to resource management the plan is

long over due it lags hidden the recognizing and protecting natural resources the city is behind the times the usda has a policy in 1965 the department of interior in 1967 over the past 5 decades having objectives have evolved like climatic change and environmental justice frankly our neighbors the presidio trust and california state parks have been roebs and protecting critical natural resources for many years time for the office of the small business commission to step up it is time for the city government to stop shirking the responsibilities and pitch in like the neighbors for years now your opportunity commissioners to protect our environment

demonstrate responsible viral leadership by adapting the eir and approving the plan >> good evening i'm nancy former member of the rec and park advisory committee and for 9 years educate i came today to ask to please approve the maintenance alternative for the natural areas management plan in the eir viral sensitive and superior i should say tomorrow i would like to you have request the general manager of rec and park department mr. ginsburg to prepare for your consideration a document that officially transfers the management and maintenance of the forest currently in the natural

bathroom, to the jurisdiction of the depth of urban forestry division that is on the - under naps control in the prior tilsz for maintenance because in their non-native indeed paupgs f states the long-term goal for the urban forest management in certain areas to slowly convert those areas from forest to native scrub grasslands the plan calls for 34 hundred trees to be removed and another 15 thousand trees to be removed from the sharp park nap wants the land having nap in charge of the forest not in the interest of preserving that efforts in nap gets money to chop down 18

thousand trees the department can invest and preserving our beautiful forest by the adequately funding the upper market to do the job in 1998 the first nap plan was proposed various parks were offended to be part of brand new program that then i building the city's forests were considered to be part of nature so they were included in nap now nap as rejected caring for the non-native trees time to resign to the professional employees that want to keep the trees as part of city's companion and how to keep them healthy you've heard testimony that our forests are not properly maintained by nap now that you know that you have the responsibility for taking the appropriate corrective action to insure the

work is properly managed by the flu qualified urban forestry division be proactive and protect our trees thank you, mr. frankie support him had the same experience of dead plants in the park thank you very much. >> good evening denise a native san franciscan i've golden on mount davidson for 4 decades a volunteer for the natural resources division in glen canyon and other resource areas around the city i urge you to support the eir and the enar ramp as is because we can trust that rec and park

department has vested the plan we need to understand that the stance see eucalyptus trees are not what person they've been stressed by drought because of the draulth they've slung even the shallow roots have slung back in heavy wind trees can easily topple and actually slide down the hill okay. so unhealthy trees should be removed please consider the urban forest council and the experts recently found that there is a dye back amongst the trees all trees need to be

managed but especially now so i urge you to support the eir and to help money to starts removing unhealthy trees neighbors and i live in fear the huge fire those are liability risk the city needs to address with our help thanks. >> next speaker >> i think i forgot any card my name is anastasia and, of course, i want to solve the problem not natural - i wanted that i wanted out i live in the

natural areas this is not natural i know that is not going to happen okay. but you heard enough the eir is not - by in any stretch of the mention why talk about one to within tree remove if not in the plan you discuss it while you discussing one to one removal not to be found why the administration is underestimated not accurate not whatever it escapes me, please do not certificate if you certificate it please do not approve the project please approve the maintenance and - within the gentleman if r f d

wants to know what they're doing i know i was there on november 2nd they were cutting the sprut of the eucalyptus tree that was in 2007 for one reason or another and putting herbicides on it i learned about this i was working from the set city on mount davidson and pesticides are there their toxic now about the responsibility you've heard please don't use that is more responsible thing it should be forbidden and don't make mistake many plan is not ambassador forest maintenance about replacement of forested areas for the scrub and grass 82 percent - this blessed california - not in danger so

you have to cut one thousand trees over there there are so many things people have assessing not true like the eucalyptus is 3 to 5 hundred years not one hundred years now on mountain davidson how many of the unhealthy trees like this same natural areas straight how many of you are - like if their unhealthy probably thank you very much for natural area program thank you very much. >> thank you commissioners

thank you for grounded patience and endurance i worked for you a long time ago i working closely with the natural areas program i have seen the staff work miracles in so many areas but i am a pacifica i strongly outburst to this project i respect request you remove it from the eir golf course i'm sure you understand the golf course is not a natural area natural areas theoretically don't include manicured lawns do you have a different definition from a golf course than a manicured lawn you must

theoretically oppose the entire eir you've heard about the redesign not to be included in the natural areas plan you've heard the quote should changes to the sharp park course be proposed they'll under go a separate regulatory review including ceqa piling dirt on top of the green not the green but the fairways in order to raise them is definitely a new addition to the f eir today you're looking at at a proposal to raise the golf course and lock the lagoon closer to the ocean where red-legged frogs can't live in salty water and 20 years for in plan if so not enough if you lock that

lagoon and in refuse it to migrate we've lost our frogs and snakes local experts in benign and botany have stayed quote habitat enhancement by the rec and park in their preferred 18 hole alternative is inadequate to allow the recovery of the san francisco garden snakes and red-legged frogs at the site and it is set up to fail with climatic change and sea level rise i repeat golf course is not a natural area if you choose to include the golf course resign as part of eir and approve that eir your choosing lagoon and extinction of the populations again, thank you for your

tolerance and endurance. >> commissioners my name is paul i'm a nature and resident of san francisco evolution continues not statistic and probably one of the concedes we can control things i suspect that nature and evolution are forces that is a conceit we can control that imagine from the idea we can postpone evolution in the challenge of plants and extend that to the previous years go about 8 thousand years when it is ice age was started to reseed sitting around to reviewing the

eir and somebody trying to say we have to stop here this we'll allow those plants to exist those plants have to go we're trying to. that is silly and awkward that is true that we're working with forces here and nature we've not resolved them i oppose obviously the eir but if it is necessary to certify that i ask you to adopt the maintenance alternative as a number of people have done described in the eir as the environmentally superior alternative to at least use of herbicides and the less removal of trees e , etc., etc. one

hundred and two native tests were dead in last year's all of a sudden oak deaths since 1995 nature and non-nature trees will be important in the future especially in the urban forests. >> consideration will need to be of considerations will need took species neutral we're in at times shrubs and every piece of grass important let's not destroy them before they're ready thank you.

>> next speaker, please. >> and is there any additional public comment? >> you're up. >> you might want to try speaking into the - >> hello is that better okay. wonderful okay myself a mary i don't know why you didn't have any card by the way, i submitted one i have been a resident in the sherwood forest mount davidson and afterward that is a home that we brought our two sons to live with us from the hospitals and they grew up and loved their homes and loved being in the neighborhoods from the start we appreciate the

forest study we moved to daily wood and across from us was covered with trees across from you say that was fabulous and wonderful i thought that was in heaven never until the strong winds of 1982, 83-d we have concerns of the at all trees across the street from us they were 80, one hundred feet tall through the storms of january 82, 83 my husband opened the door and my second son was an infant in the rear seat one of the trees from across the street from the storm came crashing down and knocked down the power lines i was so flabbergasted and grateful that i had not lost

half any family that day and a second incident we'll have problems from this he support the eir definitely but for the purposes of maintaining watching out for the unhealthy trees for keeping the place safe and this is something should have been done years and years ago and also another incident happened was in october right across the street from our neighbor's house a cypress tree came stumping down and the power lines went down none can explain this the city only took away the tree, of course, and so we're not against the trees it is just

necessary need to be maintained right now recently a lot of the trees are unhealthy having gone through a lot of lack of rain they very - and they're nothing like the ones in australia i understand they're short and our trees don't reach the ground their dangerous. >> you're out of time. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> and jonas remind of us action we will take. >> surely commissioner president there will be two acts the first will be taken been the

planning commission and the sec about the to certify the eir and the second action by the rec and park to adopt the plan and okay. so go. >> it has to happen concerning so the planning commission deliberate and on the environmental impact report and allow the rec and park to do the same for the plan okay. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis best part thank you and thank you for your public comment obviously people are passion about their parks we deal with the built in environment that is educational for us i want to make one clarification something

we grapple with with the eir versus the policy documents and the policies of natural areas the eir is here to to the policymakers in this case the rec and park commission adopting or changing out e all the natural areas our job so make sure the document looks the impacts and it comprehensively we're looking to rec and park to set the policies on the eir a couple of questions i'm sure for planning department staff or rec and park staff can someone explain the sharp park the reason why we're doing a project level eir for the sharp park changes in a program level eir we've seen this in other areas but maybe clarify to us why this is happening in this case.

>> i'm going to turn it over to don to talk about how anymore specifically prohibit in the documents it's been a long hearing and passionate voices i think want to be clear we're talking about the habitat restoration on an existing golf course not doing a golf course but this has been planned in consultation with the u.s. fish and wildlife and intents and purposes to help the red-legged frog and snake atheist i'm going to turn it over to dawn. >> as stayed the sharp park before you is not a golf course development a restoration project that has been

contemplated in with only form or another since so 92 that saves a lot of restoration at sharp park since 2006 the rec and park department decided to actually pursue a more robust restoration project that was than was initially contemplated in 2006 at lagoon and the action was needed in coordination with the regulatory agencies we developed that started as a pragmatic project like in the eir was more specifically it and developed to to thirty percent drawings to seek. >> permit necessary to conduct this restoration having completed that work that made tremendous sense the goals were relayed to the program

goals to wrap the park into the eir rather than to pursue i'm not sure what mosaic accomplished but by separating it at this point they were identical and came out of the praveng eir make sense to include that that more robust habitat restoration project included additional habitat between the stable pond that habitat necessary it's a in a domino effect causes a invbltd impact the golf course had to be analyzed per ceqa for impacts and had to explore not causing a historic impact that's all according to ceqa being drive by

by the restoration the golf course remodeling has an impact on the golf course and also in addition it relates to the errata submitted dredging has been a part of restoration project to help us to maintain open water habitat within this and to say complete project description couldn't say we're drudging cubit feet and didn't know where it will go it identifies the location for the replacement of those soils the errata submitted to you this morning makes many more clear 4 co-equal potential uses material or i should say material to be dredged the primary use for actually creation of up land habitat that

could be disposed or used on the golf course assuming all the uses not trig an additional impact and the soil itself was of a quality that made 2 appropriate for the user i think i want to refer to and help to try to clear up some of the miss existence that occurred the department has made a consistent commitment to insure that golf course renovation go through a review process required by ceqa that project doesn't exist yet the golf course drawings included as part of ceqa document for the purposes of demonstrating the existing conditions and the fact pass restoration project that occurs within the context of a golf

course to show f on the errata map shows the rifle range and also the green waste facility the first map in the eir didn't include that visible detail and it was confusing we've specified multiple used for the soil and you know done our best to clear up i think a persist miss understanding. >> not necessarily in the eir question but that project has funding autopsy the recreation project no. >> okay. so i mean, there's a lot of process still needed in and that - i didn't understand some of the public comment people were asking to take that out of eir. >> he it's not in the eir but. >> but the fact we analyze it

and certificate it gives us the built for the rec and park to do the project and do one of the alternatives and reduce that the maintenance alternatives in the project taking it out of the eir didn't help anyone that ties the hands with the rec and park commission to continue on with the status quo. >> commissioner hillis dave i want to make a few clarifications rec and park provided a good overview why they included the sharp park as part of project i thought to clarify the different roles planning department acting as the lead agency evaluates the project as it is promote by rec and park and we had as you can see from the there's a lot of design work that went into the project and had enough information to be be able to analyze the project at a project

level that's why sharp park recreation is analyzed at a project level versus the rest more pragmatic and to the pragmatic we heard a lot of testimony about mount davidson as that project move forward given a project level eir and funding becomes available and more specific project at the level maybe with sharp park what i mean what's the environmental process with the rec and park kind of planning community involvement is to that moving forward. >> for sure begin with the planning department process once rec and park has one of the pragmatic projects more clearly extended they will come to planning and we will evaluated their project and numerous with ceqa look to the either to so

whether or not the project has been fully analyzed if it has then the project can go forward if it not been fully analyzed and found additional issues then additional information will be required. >> okay. >> commissioners les can rec and park department so typically for our capital projects there is no current funding for either the rooms of the urban forest or for the tree 39 i'm aware of but a typical process for one of the praveng projects for the identification of funding we will have a tree assessment so an or not comes out and assesses the trees and gives us their opinions which trees will be removed and community meetings we will be back in front of the

rec and park department for approval of the concept plans as well as potentially depending on the funding amount the approval of the contract and so there's quite a bit of progress that will happen as parts of one of those renovation and capital projects. >> thank you there was a question of the use of trails i know the plan has restoring trails and eliminating some but there are a couple of commenters that said they're a policy you utilizing areas of the park that is off trail is that changing as a result of the natural plans seeing that in the eir. >> but kind of going off the trails i mean some folks mentioned now that is kind of disallowed has there been a change. >> i think it is good land

management to encourage people to stay on trails, of course, people wander off all the time that is standard if federal, state, and local and open spaces that you know when our trying to preserve natural environment you encourage people to go on trail that is generally speaking has been our policy for a long time and continues to be the case. >> for the existing policy now. >> it is kind of off people walking. >> again, we're trying to bring people to recreation and enjoy those places in a you know responsible manner. >> okay. then the one to one tree replacement issue that came up that is in the eir and analyzed the - there were discussed about. >> it is in the eir on page 92 of the description so it is part

of project description that has been property by rec and park all right. thank you. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> i like to perhaps laboratory to the comment that commissioner hillis made and get to the bottom why there is so much opposition to include the sharp park into the discussion i know bits and pieces many years ago this plan was in front of us, however, in the scoping of the eir that was to be constituent and studied with alternatives in a separate manner and 4 person that are engaged and many people speaking to that tell the court matter a disappointment because no alternatives are being discussed it is formulated in a manner

that deals with restoration or protection of natural areas that little big disappointment the robust discussion for an ian alternatives are basically going under the table i emphasize to my own big disappointment the nature of eirs since the early 70s has greatly changes and each time we have seven years between the scoping of the eir in front of us the disappointment for those people that are involuntarily actively active since the early 70s a disappointments of what we're not doing or not do for other reasons is bigger and bigger that's the severity of the criticism of what we've

potentially overlooking today i'm concerned and a little bit more from the 70 thinking of eirs and have tried to maintain that perspective i've concerned about not giving in particular area more attention why are rerushing it i don't know the background if we discussed that in a program was it with the commission perhaps months ago more up to speed i'm concerned we're looking it today as an inclusive part as a robust and stronger eir. >> and waiting to be convinced otherwise go ahead. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> several things popped up during the public comment and the materials were handed in today, the first one is the

definition of bio diversity and people kept on questioning that whether or not that relates to the eir and the project itself staff any comment on that. >> hi yes jessica planning department staff we did do are is a grossy glossary i don't have imagine to say think outside the box that topic. >> rec and park. >> thank you les can rec and park department i think that is important to think about you can talk about bio diversity as a overall number of species but really 72 hours not fair inform compare an endisagreed species around the landscapes whether

you're talking about bio diversity the indicators of bio diversities are the species limit in their range like the mission blue butterfly they become more important about the bio diversity they might be small in population and go extinct quibble but more the sensitive plant and mammal species to some that are more ubiquitous is not really comparing apples and oranges like when you talk about bio e bicycle in the scientific community you're talking about native species and putting more emphasis on those species. >> i guess another question

along the lines of what commissioner moore was talking about in terms of sharp park mr. ginsburg there is not a orders to do something in the department of finish and game. >> i don't think that is exactly rights maybe you want to talk about the quote/unquote alternatives. >> keep it the way it is. >> yeah. keep it the way it is option this is the whole purpose of the exercise bay that is important for people to understand the context sharp with 4 hundred acres the golf is one hundred three hundred acres and some it of it is extremely rich frankly habitat resources between two major regions a creek there was mission blue butterfly habitat

rich habitat as sharp one of the reasons frankly the potential tree removals a lot of sharp is in an unaccessible canyon there is tree ethiopian that is necessary there the project that we've been seeking there our primary focus it habitat restoration yes, we want to balance a reservation amenity but the mission of plan and an important mission of department is to conserve natural resources and preserve habitat that project in consultation with other agencies is an ambitious will be one of the most ambitious projects this department has taken on and could off and on be a game-changer for the california

red-legged frog so maybe staff and mr. ginsburg trying to look at those excluded the sharp partitioning is problematic eir it is included this is a. >> so in 2009 noticed the preparation and initial study was prepared that's where the notice of preparation the golf course was not included in the project between 2009 and august 2011 the draft eir was heals e releases that's when we analyzed the project has not changed since 2011 other than the errata i want to point out the alternatives that were analyzed we analyzed project level alternatives for sharp park. >> okay. maybe while you're up a couple of other things

within the major issues i got out of document from the forest alliance they're claiming the calculations for the carbon sequestration is erroneous from what they submitting comment on that. >> the green house analyze was not bans completely on quantify analysis the primary significance determination was bans a qualify active with the consistency of the green house gas emissions reduction strategy an approach the city used consistently on all the environmental documents the green house gas emissions from the plans based on that quantify assessment of compliance with regulations that are reduced g h g bans the comments on the initial studies their perfectly requesting the analyze the sir,

has an analysis bans comments on the draft eir critiquing that analysis the response to comments included an updated quantitative analysis the updated analysis in the response to comments was based on methods to quantitative based on protocols including do department an energy and others assuming that the comments submitted on the green house analyze your heard and assuming that those comments represent those of an expert at best what

you have a disagreement amongst the experts doesn't make the draft eir inadequate throughout this the department has made efforts to address the comments related to green house gas emissions a one other question we've already talked about the herbicides i completely am in argument with the herbicides their thank you, everybody, running off so the methods by which of the herbicides are applied are based on the guided by the im.

>> read like did statutes behind second is people focused; right? focused on the use of environment by people in the maintenance of the environment for mankind and this program is

about

>> i also i am proud of the eir document. i think it's comprehensive. it meets the criteria of transparency and

full information. i do have a question for the parts department staff and that's about the use of herbicides and pesticides. so what is an ipm program the and i also had a question about the implementation of application of chemicals. the training that the workers undergo before they can do it and who exactly make the decision to apply to michael's and what training do they have? what is the chain of command and quality control after application? >> you >> yes. riso wayne recreation

department and [inaudible] department of environment is here today. he oversees the idm program for the department of the environment. so there were a lot of questions in there. let me see if i enter them all. you will let me know >> such a recurring question. >> absolutely. integrated pest management or ipm is a decision-making process by which you evaluate past problems and you look for the least toxic alternatives. that's a guiding principle that we all in san francisco should be very proud of,, the fact that many years ago but by the department of the environment the adopted an ipm ordinance where it's very transparent to the amount of herbicides we use. we greatly greatly reduced the amount of chemical usage in our park lands since the adoption of this frankly award-winning program. so that's kind of ipm in a nutshell. on the implementation side of things on the reparation and part department, we use over sides

herbicides when there's no other options that are feasible to address the problem and to meet the land management objectives. keeping in mind that the people of san francisco are not only looking to us to protect biodiversity but they want of good ballfields to play on and softball pitches and lawns and everything else. there's a variety of different land use objectives that we as a land managers need to think about. in the process we go through first and foremost, can this-the first is this pest really a problem? is it really going to spread? is going to really be an impact to the biodiversity or to the playing field. if the answer is, yes, the next question is, what kind of alternatives do we have to address it? we use hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours every year addressing weeds grow our park system. so a lot of it is done manually.

occasionally, it's done with mechanics or equipment. in very few instances, we do rely on herbicides. i do want to kind of give you a little more on how these herbicides are pride in our lands because there's a lot of comments saying acid spraying >> children. >> yes. children. the way these herbicides are applied if we get down that road that is the only method of treatment among most of the times he herbicides are applied with what is called a cut and drop treatment that is you can't boast of the plan and you use my kids always had these [inaudible] they're kind of like liquid comes out like a shoe polish container. filled not with 100% chemical but

watered down chemicals. you are cutting something that might be that big and putting some herbicide on it. that is the lion share of what we do. sometimes we do use backpack sprayers and that is the staff walking around and treating individual plants throughout a big landscape. chris geiger can speak to this more, but in the last in these first three quarters of 2016 in the natural areas, there were 2.7 courts of active ingredients used on 1100 acres of land. so that comes to be .04 ounces per acre. very very very small amounts and as i said before, we are very proud of the fact we reduced our usage by over 91%. chris, you can probably add to this and i hopefully i answer most of your questions.

>> thank you. chris geiger department of the environment and i coordinate the pest management program. i been here for 13 years doing this that we're very proud of this program. recent data good job of describing ipm is always above described not on an elevator. like to add-without objection >>[laughing] anywhere for that matter. i like to add first of all what she said was correct but the amount used in the past year. it's pretty menacing smile if you consider how much land is being treated and we have a very good job with rec and park landscape meant maintenance staff over the years and allowed that is revolves around our training program. i think you asked what training.. something about a dozen trainings per year.. training events including a big springtime training. all the gardeners on a monthly meetings of the ipm program which includes half. were doing these

things and our objective is to stay in front of what's available to reduce hazards and risk. this is it's part of precautionary principle that we are required to do is called alternatives analysis to not just do with legal or even what is safe but what is the safest alternative that still gets the job done and one of the alternatives is not doing it all . so the list it's also worth pointing out as far as the kind of temples that are used on state properties, this is a constantly manage list of approved products. everything is prescreened to we have our own pathological review. it's another level regulation to we our own regulatory system that layers on top of the state and federal pesticide regulations. so we are very proud of that and

we are always trying to reduce whenever we can but we have we know there are some situations when we need these tools. there's no other alternative. i'm not sure i covered all your questions. >> thank you >> commissioner moore >> as a management plan and as a programmatically eir it is worth our while to get numbers. we have a lot of people talk about mount davidson, mcclaren park and 8032 areas which comprise about 2300 acres we need to look at the management area within the larger acreage of those 32 sites. we need to look at the existing trees and the numbers of trees which will be affected over a 20 year time frame. that's a very