Thoses those places will be used as an educational space theres a lot of passion but theyll remain open as multi use areas i would say that a lot of the trees on Mount Davidson are old they have lifespan of around one and 20 years and these trees are aging impacted by drought and disease and they didnt receive maintenance as they were growing so theyre not very structurally sound theyre on trails which put people realistic i hope you tree lovers dont go up there they whether or when windy roots not structurally sound i had a lot of time working in the presidio that was very hideous when that happened removed hundreds of healthy trees and replaced them with plant it took ifd thousand plants i was able to monitor what was there and keep statistics over what happens ether time it is successful and mammals use that thank you. Ive been here for 5 hours i took the day off work we all care thank you. Hi there im rachel and i first became aware of the plan on bernal hill a student at university of california, San Francisco any gut reaction because the hyperbole about how it will curtail access for folks with dogs i was directed by professors at the university of San Francisco to the rec and park for internship and respected to rec and park and found that the plan is modest and works the edges to try to preserve what we continue to have in terms of bio diversity and the department engaged me as a young person in the commercial dog Walking Community and actually had me do my Research Project on engaging the dogwalkers within the most contiguous places for dog walking he it thankless work but im standing up for 2 1 2 years i walked dogs i vufk thought that should be my lives work in allergy us and became a staff member and 5 years served the land despite the deep concerns from the compassionate people the department worked well, that the department of the environment the San Francisco puc nonprofit last week audubon and the California Native Plant Society and group the department is trying hard to get this right. I hope you move that forward understanding that project specific public process can continue to happen as these plans move forward so this big picture eir provides much needed guidance and xrienz for the department and still allows for us to move individual projects like Mount Davidson that involves the Community Process thats one of the nice things this is not an end stop but give us a nice a framework and something to look at it and take into consideration with each action and ill say in my time 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 youll moved this plan thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello commissioners. Im dennis the president of San Francisco since so 50 with the forest think Mount Davidson was 70yearold 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 cant believe our seriously going to adapt that im 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 couldnt prove that was impacting the frogs or snakes necessary talk about the snakes circled by moeers i dont believe theyve documented that the only make ive seen added the park was a hawk in the just a i couldnt 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 ive lived in San Francisco for 20 years commissioners, i urge you to adopt the eir and approve the Natural ResourcesManagement 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 im 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 nonnative indeed paupgs f states the longterm 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 citys forests were considered to be part of nature so they were included in nap now nap as rejected caring for the nonnative trees time to resign to the professional employees that want to keep the trees as part of citys companion and how to keep them healthy youve 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 ive 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 theyve been stressed by drought because of the draulth theyve 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 theyre 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 youve heard please dont use that is more responsible thing it should be forbidden and dont 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 im sure you understand the golf course is not a natural area natural areas theoretically dont include manicured lawns do you have a different definition from a golf course than a manicured lawn you must theoretically oppose the entire eir youve heard about the redesign not to be included in the natural areas plan youve heard the quote should changes to the sharp park course be proposed theyll 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 youre looking at at a proposal to raise the golf course and lock the lagoon closer to the ocean where redlegged frogs cant 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 weve 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 redlegged 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 im 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 well allow those plants to exist those plants have to go were trying to. That is silly and awkward that is true that were working with forces here and nature weve 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 years all of a sudden oak deaths since 1995 nature and nonnature trees will be important in the future especially in the urban forests. Consideration will need to be of considerations will need took species neutral were in at times shrubs and every piece of grass important lets not destroy them before theyre ready thank you. Next speaker, please. And is there any additional Public Comment . Youre up. You might want to try speaking into the hello is that better okay. Wonderful okay myself a mary i dont know why you didnt have any card by the way, i submitted one i have been a resident in the Sherwood ForestMount 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, 83d 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 well 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 neighbors 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 were 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 theyre nothing like the ones in australia i understand theyre short and our trees dont reach the ground their dangerous. Youre 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 were looking to rec and park to set the policies on the eir a couple of questions im sure for Planning Department staff or rec and park staff can someone explain the sharp park the reason why were doing a project level eir for the sharp park changes in a Program Level eir weve seen this in other areas but maybe clarify to us why this is happening in this case. Im going to turn it over to don to talk about how anymore specifically prohibit in the documents its been a long hearing and passionate voices i think want to be clear were 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 redlegged frog and snake atheist im 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 im 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 its 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 thats 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 couldnt say were drudging cubit feet and didnt 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 coequal 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 doesnt 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 didnt include that visible detail and it was confusing weve 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, theres a lot of process still needed in and that i didnt understand some of the Public Comment people were asking to take that out of eir. He its 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 didnt 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 theres 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 thats 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 whats 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 im 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 theres 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 theyre 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, were 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 were not doing or not do for other reasons is bigger and bigger thats the severity of the criticism of what weve potentially overlooking today im concerned and a little bit more from the 70 thinking of eirs and have tried to maintain that perspective ive concerned about not giving in particular area more attention why are rerushing it i dont know the background if we discussed that in a program was it with the commission perhaps months ago more up to speed im concerned were 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 dont 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 youre 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 youre 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 dont 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 weve 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 gamechanger for the california redlegged 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 thats 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 thats 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 youre up a couple of other things within the major issues i got out of document from the Forest Alliance theyre 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 doesnt 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 weve 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 its comprehensive. It meets the criteria of transparency and full information. I do have a question for the parts Department Staff and thats 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 michaels 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 decisionmaking process by which you evaluate past problems and you look for the least toxic alternatives. Thats 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 its 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 awardwinning program. So thats kind of ipm in a nutshell. On the implementation side of things on the reparation and part department, we use over sides herbicides when theres 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. Theres 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 thisthe 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, its 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 theres 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 cant boast of the plan and you use my kids always had these [inaudible] theyre 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 were very proud of this program. Recent data good job of describing ipm is always above described not on an elevator. Like to addwithout 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. Its 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 whats available to reduce hazards and risk. This is its 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 its 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. Its 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. Theres no other alternative. Im 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. Thats a very [inaudible] approaches are most like doing Structural Engineering but not doing the whole structure in one day. So this is perhaps very simplistic and i. E. Intentionally kept the one size which is a special discussion out of the thing. Of which at the end of 20 years about 3450 would be removed. That means about all this linear mathematics. Nothing else. In means about 174 four trees per year over the entire area of 32 areas. Its not going to be like picking 10 trees out of those 20 areas but if you break it down and unfortunately dont have any flow charts or graphics with particularly layout of the zine over time. I think people would feel significantly more comfortable because the Management Areas of invasive trees within the larger park acreage of those parks where it occurs are far far [inaudible] smaller parks theyre not affected at all. See you can read across on the summary charts and it does not look haphazard or finger in the wind at all. It looks like a very scientificlike a very deep we studied piece of work and the question is, theres a leap of faith and there is trust. Since whenever you move into scientist doing these kinds of things, it gets quite difficult because i have to at least speak for myself, i am [inaudible] in listening but im inexperienced in fully getting to the depths of all findings. Its the best and most honest way about to describe my expertise here. Im quite quite capable of putting one to one together. I can use enough judgment to judge on an eir and i believe that what is in front of us has all the substance of what is necessary to support the plan and again im bracketing out one area which is too complex and particularly because its not joining the larger city proper its in san mateo, further away. In light of that, if you have to create a cover exhibition for all areas with an equal level of attention, i believe that is been achieved. If, over time or sixmonth updates could be developed if, over time there would be illustrations of where interventions would be, to what extent in what particular areas of the park you could put on a screen would be able to see if that would be wonderful. Commercial trademark water minus were focusing on the eir. Im trying to figure out i do believe as i said and i preface my comment would also maybe its a leap of faith and i think its ultimately building trust. This type of an undertaking and we are plenty of added up evidence of people being concerned about what would happen. Where they live or what is the history of their being in owns. All it means i think in order for this particular eir to really be as effective as it needs to be we need to at least be allowed to raise those kinds of questions because we need to bridge what we decide today the next 20 years when this is going to happen. So that are my comments on it. Thank you. It appears theres no further comments. Call the question no further comment commissioners this emotion that has been seconded to approve excuse me me Environmental Impact report on a motion commissioner hillis aye johnson aye koppel aye mell other skype muscat richards aye fong got so moved that motion passes 61 with commissioner moore voting against. I leave it to the Recreation Department we could ask use the Planning Commission if they want to run. I dont know how long we have a lot of questions . A lot of them have been asked. Let me start with commissionershould we proceed and with commissioner low. Just a followup on commissioner moores statement it staff can also confirm the calculation on the trees. Were not clearing trees. How manyweve heard 18,000 days, 3400 trees. Can staff comment on the Forest Management . Commissioner, i can start and if anybody else wants to kind of jump in. Commissioner moore was corrected enough to look at this in different sides and i think Mount Davidson was the product of much discussion today. So let me just kind of flip up there if i can find it quickly. At Mount Davidson, the proposal calls for a total of 1600 trees over a 20 year period. 9400 of them would remain. That isthat is what the plan would also be allow. Other specific sites that came up. I think glen canyon if i can find it. Glen canyon, 5880 trees. The plan discusses the removal over a 20 year period of 120. I do one or we emphasize the 121 the planting that was my next question. Can iwe are not removing them correct. We are doing a onetoone removal removing and replacing and doing a lot of other good habitat. Removing mature trees and planting trees that need to grow but youve heard a lot a lot of Land Management agencies [inaudible] the presidio needs to be regional parks. Just to name a few. There is aging and it he spoke from his expense [inaudible] theres not a Land Management agency that is an actively manage and maintain its urban forest. Its critical. Weathers opportunity, would we be looking to 4221 replacement . The urban speed forced to counsel recommended a more aggressive approach but i think the plan says 121 which is the minimum we would do. Its also resource dependent and some of it is i think has some depends on the environmental conditions of a particular site but overall the departmentswe operate with atheres a stock called annette tree game which is looking at the trees removed versus the number of trees added in our system and i think over the last few years we are around 1. 8 so were averaging more trees planted then removed. I would like to tell you that we could get to three 21. I think more trees are better so we continue to plants. Commissioners . Do you have a question. Go ahead. To speak to [inaudible]. To speak to [inaudible] i am just going to speak to i agree. The Planning Commission asked the pertinent questions that you get down to it is the [inaudible] is not a golf course about when its a habitat plan and we have looked at it as requiring greater focus sooner which is a better thing. So i think that is a positive move and i think the number of trees actually if i use the calculation on Mount Davidson over a 20 year period, keeping a mind that we dont even have funding for this at this point, its less than 1 per year. So that is just a framework for it and i would go back to a comment made earlier. This document, which is had in a normas amount of work and enormous amount of staff time, and now in the environment will Impact Report is the framework to get give guidance. This doesnt mean tomorrow theres going to be chainsaws out clearcutting dont davidson or any other part of the city. So with that i would entertain a motion. I like to move to have this approved based on the resolution that materials. I do agree this was the very thoughtful document, conference of, well founded on scientific evidence. Scientists and disrepute maybe like lawyers can disagree. It was a very thoughtful document and i would like to commend staff and staff before staff, and the hard work they did to put this together. Is there a second second. Moved and seconded. Before i asked for a roll call about i do want to thank everybody that showed up today because i think it showed and a normas amount of interest and i share the comment that how proud we are that San Francisco takes this old sears. With that could you call roll call commissioner anderson fuck aye bonilla in favor, harrison aye low yes and buell aye it passes unanimously thank you we moved to adjourn . Moved and seconded. All those in favor say, aye. [chorus of ayes] thank you. The meeting is adjourned. [gavel] [adjournment] everyone thank you for coming out on a beautiful sunny summer afternoon although i guess the first day of winter im ed reiskin and this huge interest in low income intersections in San Francisco so great to so, so see many of you here to celebrate a accomplishment for making streets of San Francisco safer as people know hopefully most people know city leaders in the mayor and board of supervisors and the commissions as well as stakeholders decided 3 years ago no longer tolerant and accept that people will die as they try to get around San Francisco so we adapted vision zero back in 2014 to eliminate traffic fatality by 2024 a number of ways we are work toward to goals and with an is redesign the streets to make them safer for all road users were doing that in all vision zero using date to drive us to where we can make the most impacts and when it comes to the streets we know from research by the department of health that a small amount of our streets 12 percent of our corridors and intersection are responsible for more than 70 percent i have our facility collisions where we are standing lights up on the map of San Francisco the unfortunate location for people are gotten seriously hurt or killed trying to get around San FranciscoPolice Department thats why that is the treatment the first of its kind protected intersections we wouldnt be here without the leadership of mayor ed lee the support of board of supervisors, i want to acknowledge jane kim its r hes been a strong supporter of the streets a great work by the department of public works to help design and implement just kind of work and strong advocacy from folks like the San FranciscoBicycle Coalition to pursue us thats why ear here wouldnt have been possible without the the leadership of city hall is please help me welcome mayor ed lee. clapping. thank you ed reiskin and thank you to the mta for working closely with many agencies to put the citys very first protected intersection together and to see how this role can help safety been the premium policy for the streets so thank you to the Bicycle Coalition, public works and walk sf and livable city working with our city agrees as well right here in a z inspector duffy, see the craft above you on the streets everyone using walking and bicyclists in particular intersection we have now to the data we have done prior to this change documented over 2 hundred people ride there to intersection to get to work thats as a an invaluable piece of data at the looked at the Accident Data the fatality date to inform us this was an important intersection to make that change so hopefully everyone driving a vehicle will appreciate pleasant users for this inspector, next item. People using different modes of transportation from walking and biking thats why that intersection was designed in. Way in which of the turns or more safer and slowed down and that the need to have much more alert of everybody users the intersection will be appreciated by that design i want to congratulate everyone for doing this because that will be a good test how integrated most transportation will work in a urban city like San Francisco i appreciate the design here i want to allow it to really flower to if we have data that informs us on challenging intersection well do those kind of safer ways to get everyone to appreciate the multiple you used going on i see tom livable city is here an advocate along with the coalition im here to more than obvious to support in effort in getting to vision zero and make sure that every project we identify regardless of whether we put a ballot measure if pass were trying to make that happen no matter what were committed to making vision zero and reality in the next few years and need to work with everybody thank you for cooperating and make sure were always doing the right thing and add my thanks to supervisor kim not here but a strong advocate for this to happen thanks. clapping. thank you, mr. Mayor the mayor mentioned the design of this intersection is being unique and design as the mayor said to slow down people and improve the visibility no matter how youre coming out or the mode you can see each other and reduces the conflict this unique design was the first for us in San Francisco it is relatively new in the United States though its a been designed used elsewhere in the world a lot close work between our agency and public works we the mta staff do the preliminary kind of the comprehensible and engagement them with the engineers over at the public works that is new to the design and public works contractors come in and do the physical work and the sfmta folks come in and that but in the stripping and the so forth a collaborative effort and mayor ed lee directed all city agencies to Work Together in a coordinated way to get the improvements done i want acknowledge of the sfmta our livable city section is here and mike one of the explosive wife designers and crews coordinating with public works and the sign shops to get those projects a lot of folks Work Together and the public works grateful to have a Strong Partnership want to welcome our public works director mohammed nuru. clapping. thank you e line e ed and thank you, mayor ed lee since 2011 when we passed the road bond we really had quite a few a number of opportunities role to improve how people move around San Francisco and seen more people bicycling and Walking Around the city our agency has been working closely with the Bicycle Coalition and sf works really to make it easily for people to get around the city as you heard from the mayor and ed this is a critical spot that is an intersection where people connect to various neighborhood and market to downtown or up to the castro or towards the financial district our designers work and this is the first protected zone that we are rolling out there will be several and as you can see light areas for people that can feel safe when we cross the street and making that easier for people that are using this and so weve very, very happy to be part of the design you know it is what San Francisco needs at that time more people are walking bicycling and our agency will continue to make our