Mayor Lee: Stop NAP from destroying trees and thickets, spraying dangerous herbicides, disrupting healthy ecosystems that support hundreds ofspecies, and restricting access to our city parks
  • Petitioning Edwin Lee

This petition will be delivered to:

Mayor of San Francisco
Edwin Lee

Mayor Lee: Stop NAP from destroying trees and thickets, spraying dangerous herbicides, disrupting healthy ecosystems that support hundreds ofspecies, and restricting access to our city parks

    1. Petition by

      San Francisco Forest Alliance

The Natural Areas Program of SF Recreations and Parks Department (NAP)
was originally intended to protect and nourish a sampling of San
Francisco's plant heritage where it existed. That is worthwhile.

Yet today the program has morphed into an empire that is claiming
control of one-fourth of city parkland to create barely-sustainable
native plant museums. It will drastically alter our parks in a program
that:

-Cuts down 18,500 healthy trees, simply because they are considered non-native.

-Uses more toxic pesticides than the rest of SF RPD put together,
though it is only 1/4 of SF RPD's total area.

-Closes nearly 10 miles of popular hiking and jogging trails.

-Destroys impenetrable thickets and trees that provide shelter and
protection for wildlife.

-Replaces existing vibrant green landscapes with dry, brown grassland
and piles of brush.

Please do not let NAP destroy our parks in a misguided attempt to turn
back the evolutionary clock and re-create an idealized "better"
environment from a time before European settlers arrived, a time when
San Francisco was mostly sand dunes and rocks, with few trees. Our
city faces strict prioritization of scarce resources that when
allocated to parks should be to keep them safe and accessible, not
create fenced-off gardens in the process destroying what we already
have. This so-called “wholesale habitat conversion” would require tens
of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding and unprecedented
broad-scale volunteer hours for modest gains, if any.

We, the undersigned, do not want to return our parks to such a barren
landscape absent for centuries. We ask that you stop NAP from
destroying trees, spraying dangerous herbicides, ripping out
understory habitat, disrupting a healthy ecosystem that supports
hundreds of species, and restricting access to our city parks.

To:
Edwin Lee, Mayor of San Francisco
Stop NAP from destroying trees and thickets, spraying dangerous
herbicides, disrupting healthy ecosystems that support hundreds of
species, and restricting access to our city parks

Sincerely,
[Your name]

Recent signatures

    News

    1. Despite the outpouring of concern, it didn't happen. The ROSE passed, 8-3

      Greetings SFFA Supporters:

      We've all been hoping that San Francisco's Board of Supervisors would vote NO on the ROSE (Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan), mainly because of the egregious Policy 4.2 that would potentially expand "Natural Area" management principles to all open space in San Francisco, with tree-cutting, access restrictions, and use of toxic herbicides.

      Please take a moment to write a thank you to the three who opposed it: Supervisors Wiener, Yee, and Campos. You can merely state the following: "Thank you for your No vote on the ROSE last Tuesday; it was an important statement about the issue of open space and how it will be treated by the city Recreation and Park Department Natural Areas Program".

      Their email addresses are:

      Scott.Wiener@sfgov.org (Phone: 415-554-6968);
      Norman.Yee@sfgov.org (Phone: 415-554-6516);
      David.Campos@sfgov.org (Phone: 415-554-5144)

      Some people who spent the last few days talking to the Supervisors' aides report they were told that City Hall was deluged with emails and phone calls, overwhelmingly requesting the Supervisor not to vote for the ROSE. Thanks to everyone who wrote or called in. We're disappointed that many of the Supervisors didn't listen this time, but we're grateful to the ones who did.

      And we're not going away. We will write again soon about next steps.

      Thanks and Best Regards,
      Carolyn Johnston
      President, San Francisco Forest Alliance

    2. Call / Email By Monday, July 7th - URGE A "NO" VOTE on ROSE

      Attention San Francisco Residents:

      URGENT ACTION REQUESTED

      Please call/email the entire SF Board of Supervisors NOW tell them to VOTE NO ON THE ROSE!

      Despite our tidal wave of opposition, the ROSE is up for vote next Tuesday (July 8th). The problematic Section 4.2 has not been eliminated or changed; therefore we need your assistance. You can cut and paste the model letter below (or send your own message) and sent it to EACH of the Board of Supervisors via e-mail (you can also call their office, but ask to speak to the aide who is handing the ROSE matter).

      Reason for another email drive by our supports: When we last wrote for your assistance the Board was expected to vote on the Rose on June 24th; they did not, it was extended to July 8th - at which time there was a chance that changes would be made; but they were not made and now the ROSE is to be voted on next Tuesday by an up or down vote.

      Here is the model letter for you to "cut and paste" into your e-mail (note: the last 2 lines – salutations - are for you to include your name and address):

      BEGIN: model letter
      -------------------------------------------------
      Attention Supervisor ______

      Please do not vote for the ROSE until Policy 4.2 is removed. This Policy (4.2) positions the SF Dept. of Environment's Biodiversity Office to be a major player in land use and land management decisions in all open space throughout the city, including private lands:
      - Language similar to language of the ROSE Policy 4.2 has been used in a recent Dept. of Environment grant application (denied at the state level) and will be used again by the Dept. of Environment as a way to control open space according to this ideological model.

      - This is a major land grab by these two offices (Dept of Rec. and Park & Dept of Environment). Neither of them is controlled by elected officials, and there will be little oversight of their inventory and management plans. Do not let them get away with deciding and controlling how our city's open space can be used in the future.

      - The language of this Policy centralizes all such decisions about all open spaces into some undesignated governmental agency or conservation district, but that is generally for agricultural land and has to do with soil erosion, water retention, and water runoff. The likelihood is great that the governmental agency would the Dept. of Environment's Biodiversity Office in conjunction with the Natural Areas Program.

      Additional reasons to oppose the ROSE:
      - The ROSE does not adequately protect those people and neighborhoods most desperate for open space, defined as “high needs,” e.g., Districts 3 and 6, and ensure they get highest priority when the City uses the Open Space Fund to acquire new open space. No acquisitions to date have been made with such funds in these highest needs communities. These existing residents need the ROSE to ensure they get critically needed open space.

      - The ROSE does not adequately protect open space from the construction of new large buildings. Unlike the current ROSE which strongly advocated for purchase of new land for recreation and cultural buildings, this revised ROSE opens up our parks as building sites for any undefined “cultural” buildings.

      - The ROSE does not include per capita guidelines for recreation, e.g., numbers of pools or tennis courts, and thus provides no way to measure whether or not San Francisco is meeting the recreational needs of its residents. Because future decisions will be based on usage studies, currently unmaintained – and therefore unused, but still needed – recreation facilities could be eliminated.

      In conclusion:

      Please do not create a policy in the General Plan (by approving the ROSE) that follows the management model of Rec. and Park's Natural Areas Program (NAP), which manages its areas based on removal of non-native trees to restore San Francisco back principally to grasslands and native shrubs. NAP's ideology is to cut down trees, use toxic herbicides, and restrict access, all to favor "native plant" gardens.

      Please vote no on the ROSE

      Best Regards,

      (Name)
      (San Francisco address)
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      END: model letter

      Please write to the entire Board of Supervisors using the model letter above.
      John Avalos John.Avalos@sfgov.org 415-554-6975
      London Breed London.Breed@sfgov.org 415-554-7630
      David Campos David.Campos@sfgov.org 415-554-5144
      David Chiu David.Chiu@sfgov.org 415-554-7450
      Malia Cohen Malia.Cohen@sfgov.org 415-554-7670
      Mark Farrell Mark.Farrell@sfgov.org 415-554-7752
      Jane Kim Jane.Kim@sfgov.org 415-554-7970
      Eric Mar Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org 415-554-7410
      Katy Tang Katy.Tang@sfgov.org 415-554-7460
      Scott Wiener Scott.Wiener@sfgov.org 415-554-6968
      Norman Yee Norman.Yee@sfgov.org 415-554-6516

      Let the Mayor know your views as well: mayoredwinlee@sfgov.org (415) 554-6141

      PLEASE SEND THIS NO LATER THAN MONDAY, July 7th: Send an e-mail to each of the above and use the model letter via "cut and pasting" into the body of your e-message.

      Thank you for taking this important action!

      Best Regards,

      Carolyn Johnston
      President, San Francisco Forest Alliance

    3. Reached 1,500 signatures

    Supporters

    Reasons for signing

    • Leslie Smith SAN FRANCISCO, CA
      • 4 days ago

      I have many reasons for signing but will list only one. I regularly see dead trees that are allowed to stand all over McLaren Park -I worked in the forest service and these are called "widow makers" because branches that unexpectedly fall can kill a person or child.

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Julie Jones SAN MATEO, CA
      • about 1 month ago

      Save our trees in sutro mountain. Why ruin it for future generations

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Tenaya Smith SAN FRANCISCO, CA
      • about 1 month ago

      I do not want to see McLaren Park destroyed by NAP, it is perfect as is!

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Frances Raab QUAKERTOWN, PA
      • 4 months ago

      There are times when I almost believe that we have actually been invaded by creatures who can only breathe the poisonous air and who thrive on the corruption of the planet Earth. Why else would this destruction be tolerated? Lets get HUMAN and start healing this planet before we are all annihilated.

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Barbara Curry-Kaufman SAN FRANCISCO, CA
      • 4 months ago

      We love the trees, landscapes, wildlife areas, and human activity areas (hiking, jogging) just as they are. To honor and nourish San Francisco's plant heritage where it is still in place is admirable, but to destroy beautiful areas which have developed that may not be "indiginous" is heinous! Please preserve our city outdoor ecosystems, and prevent use of chemicals which may be used to clear areas. We love our San Francisco!!

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:

    Develop your own tools to win.

    Use the Change.org API to develop your own organizing tools. Find out how to get started.