Legislative Analyst Report Natural Areas Program (File No. 021355)

(OLA #: 025-02)

To: Members of the Board of Supervisors
From: Office of the Legislative Analyst
Date: December 11, 2002
RE: Natural Areas Program (File # 021355)

Summary and Scope of Request

Supervisor Daly, through the Board, requested that the Office of the Legislative Analyst (OLA) study the City"s Natural Areas Program, contrast and compare this program to the efforts in other cities, study and report on all resolutions and ordinances concerning the program, and interview all the various stakeholders who are interested in or concerned about the program.

Executive Summary

After briefly summarizing the recent history of the Natural Areas Program (NAP), this report offers recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and the Recreation and Park Department for improving what was seen as a flawed public process and the NAP"s failure to operate in an open and publicly accountable manner. This report is issued on the heels of the Rules Committee"s appointment of members to the Citizens Advisory Committee and is released in an effort to maximize this window of opportunity so that the Natural Areas Program does not suffer from further criticism regarding its public involvement procedures.

Specifically, based on interviews with NAP stakeholders, the OLA recommends that the Board:

· Appoint Citizens Advisory Committee members who represent each of the eight diverse interests contained in the enabling resolution (and not simply four from each of the two categories, where possible) and who are open-minded, committed to the policy goals contained in Policy 13 of the 1991 General Plan and the 1996 Sustainability Plan, and do not collectively dominate one side of the politically contentious issues faced by the NAP (namely: policies for off-leash dog use, recreational use, and tree management);

· Carefully choose the two at-large positions available to the Board to appoint one member who represents broad neighborhood organizations, school interests or education programs and one who is otherwise skilled in conflict resolution;

· Direct the Committee to take the draft management plan to the neighborhood groups and hold regional discussions in the neighborhoods in late 2003 to discuss it once they have completed its initial review; and

· Formalize the meeting procedures for the Committee including Sunshine Ordinance requirements and inclusion of public comment as well as create a formal means of incorporating all comments into the final draft management plan.

The OLA also offers voluntary recommendations for the Parks and Recreation Department as part of the final section on next steps for the NAP.

Background

The idea to create a Natural Areas Program (NAP) originated with local environmental not-for-profit organizations and was mandated by Policy 13 of the 1991 General Plan1, to "Protect and Preserve Significant Natural Resource Areas." Formalized by the Recreation and Parks Commission in 19952, the NAP aims to "restore and enhance remnant Natural Areas and to develop and support community-based site stewardship."3 The Natural Areas Program:

· covers approximately 500 acres of San Francisco"s 3,500 acres of parkland in 35 Significant Natural Areas (ranging in size from less than an acre to almost 400 acres and including sections of Golden Gate Park, Lake Merced, McLaren Park, O"Shaughnessy Hollow, Mt Davidson, Twin Peaks, Bernal Hill, Bayview Park, Sharp Park in San Mateo County, and several smaller parks mostly in central San Francisco);

· contains an estimated 60,000 to 80,000 mostly non-native trees;

· is administered by the Recreation and Parks Department (RPD);

· has a budget of approximately $600,000; and

· employs nine RPD gardeners, one director, and one volunteer coordinator to oversee the program.4

Recent Controversy

The NAP drew heavy criticism in the last year when some of its gardeners and a few of its volunteers reportedly girdled mature trees and cut down nearly 1,000 non-native trees and saplings at Lake Merced, McLaren Park, Mt. Davidson, Tank Hill and Bayview Hill.5 According to Natural Areas Director Lisa Wayne, the NAP has girdled only 6 trees and removed approximately 60 mature trees (greater than 6" in diameter) and numerous immature saplings that posed a threat to bio-diversity. In addition, Ms. Wayne states that the NAP has managed to plant more trees in Natural Areas than they have removed.

Critics of the NAP have also contended that the program has been a failure of public process, lacking proper oversight, accountability, and involvement from all interests6. The 19-member, RPD-appointed Green Ribbon Panel (see Appendix A for a complete list of member organizations) assigned to review the June 2002 draft Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan was seen by some as operating secretively and favoring native plants and animals to the exclusion of other competing uses such as recreation, tree preservation and off-leash dog use.

The City"s Response

As a result, on September 23, 2002 the full Board unanimously approved Supervisor Yee"s resolution, amended by Supervisor Gonzalez, to replace the Green Ribbon Panel with a 12-member Natural Areas Program Citizens Advisory Committee (NAPCAC). The resolution (BOS file #021260) stated that the NAPCAC shall include;

· four persons "who are knowledgeable in issues related to natural areas, including: environmental interest advocacy, academic ecology, open space restoration, water and soil erosion",

· four persons "interested in access to and use of public parks and open space, including: recreational uses, persons interested in trees and plants in public parks and open space, youth activities, representation of neighborhoods that contain public parks and open space", and

· four persons appointed at large.

The Board of Supervisors, through the Rules and Audits Committee, shall appoint ten of the members and the General Manager of the RPD shall appoint two of the at large members.

According to Natural Areas Director Lisa Wayne, RPD is also revising a number of the recommendations of its draft management plan based on public comment, including for instance the treatment of feral cats.

Other State Programs

A number of other cities have Natural Areas Programs in place including Boston, Chicago, Denver, New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, and Tucson. The OLA interviewed program staff from Boston, Chicago, and Denver and found that, while each city was also in the process of evaluating a draft management plan for these areas, the political situation and role of public involvement was significantly different to warrant focusing exclusively on specific recommendations for San Francisco.

Recommendations and Next Steps for the NAP

The Rules and Audits Committee is scheduled to take up consideration of the appointment of members and forward them to the full Board on December 2, 2002. While the Board has already approved the formation of the NAPCAC, the selection of new advisory committee members represents a significant opportunity for the Board to guide the future of the NAP. In the interests of minimizing the antagonism and general misperception that derailed the Green Ribbon Panel as well as creating a transparent and successful process for the NAP, the OLA offers the following recommendations based on conversations with advocates both for and against the process that has governed the NAP to date7:

1.Nominate appointees to the NAPCAC who will uphold the goals of the NAP as well as represent its diverse interests. The most critical role for the Board of Supervisors will be to appoint members to the newly created NAPCAC. The primary qualification for appointment should be commitment to the goals for the NAP outlined in Policy 13 of the 1991 General Plan and the 1997 Sustainability Plan which value the existence of Natural Areas as unique regions distinct from other parklands. While this should go without saying, prior experience indicates that not all members of the Green Ribbon Panel were committed to these goals from the outset and some members were reluctant to compromise on critical issues. Within this group, the Board should make every effort to represent each of the eight "Community Interest Categories" contained in the resolution establishing the NAPCAC8 as well as ensure that representatives from each category do not dominate one specific issue (such as one side of the often-inflexible debate between off-leash dog use and preservation of native plants). In addition, the OLA recommends that:

(a) The Board appoint one at-large appointee who represents the interests of San Francisco school programs or broad neighborhood issues and one at-large appointee who is skilled in conflict resolution;

(b) The General Manager of RPD use at least one at-large appointee to represent additional scientific and/or resource-use experience;

(c) NAP staff give all appointees, once approved, the history of the NAP and the context of the NAPCAC"s mission in light of the passage of the 1991 General Plan and 1997 Sustainability Plan; and

(d) NAP staff conduct site visits with all NAPCAC members to familiarize them with the issues specific to each Natural Area;

2.Formalize the operating procedures governing the NAPCAC. Perhaps the single biggest failure of the Green Ribbon Panel was its failure to operate in an open and publicly accountable manner. The NAPCAC should therefore:

(a) Follow the City"s Sunshine Ordinance to the letter of the law including meeting notices and the posting of agendas;

(b) Follow standard parliamentary procedure including the inclusion of public comment at the beginning of each meeting and/or for each agenda item;

(c) Create a formal means of incorporating both NAPCAC review and public comment into the final draft management plan; and

(d) Report their findings to the broader 23-member, Board-appointed Parks and Recreation Open Space Advisory Committee (PROSAC) which is mandated by Charter Section 16.107 and Park Code Article 13.

3.Formalize the support structure available to the NAPCAC. There are currently no dedicated staff or supply resources made available to the Committee once formed. Given the likelihood of future budget cuts at the departmental level, the Board may wish to consider who will provide staff support to the Committee and how existing staff and material resources will absorb this increased workload.

4.Improve neighborhood involvement in the process from the beginning. Several Green Ribbon Panel members stated that neighborhood groups were underrepresented in the early consideration of the draft management plan and this more than likely contributed to the vocal criticism of the Green Ribbon Panel. The OLA therefore recommends that:

(a) The Board grant the NAPCAC the further mission of taking the draft management plan to the neighborhood groups and holding regional discussions in the neighborhoods in late 2003 to discuss it once they have completed its initial review;

(b) NAP staff expand and make more accessible to the public the Frequently Asked Questions page currently on RPD"s Web site - particularly the distinction between tree and sapling, anticipated future expansion of the NAP into other parks and, where possible, proposed trail closures or tree cuttings, coordination between RPD and the NAP, proposed policies for removal of non-native species, treatment of feral cats, and off-leash dog use. This could be achieved through signage at points of entry to the Natural Areas, distribution at future NAPCAC meetings, and/or distribution with sections of Chapter 6 below;

(c) NAP staff post the draft management plan on its Web site or send the appropriate section of Chapter 6 of the draft management plan relating to "Site-Specific Conditions and Recommendations" to established neighborhood groups (such as Friends of McLaren Park, Friends of Lake Merced, and others), including a cover memo explaining its origin, the mission of the NAPCAC and the necessity of public comment after NAPCAC"s review;

(d) NAP staff consider surveying a sample of Natural Areas users to determine times and primary types of use as well as proposed goals for the NAP;

(e) NAP staff continue to utilize the extensive volunteer network to maintain and improve the City"s Natural Areas. According to former Green Ribbon Panel members, this could be achieved by targeting a specific weed or promoting a specific flower each year to raise the importance of volunteer participation, formalizing volunteer docent programs in specified Natural Areas, or hosting annual Adopt-a-Natural-Area cleanup or planting programs.

Appendix A: Green Ribbon Panel Member Organizations

1. San Francisco Beautiful

2. San Francisco Tomorrow

3. Neighborhood Parks Council

4. San Francisco Dog Owners Group (SF DOG)

5. San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)

6. Friends of the Urban Forest

7. Commission on the Environment

8. San Francisco Zoo,

9. Recreation and Park Department"s Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Advisory Committee (PROSAC)

10. Golden Gate Audubon Society

11. California Native Plant Society

12. Sierra Club

13. San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners (SLUG)

14. Friends of Bernal Hill

15. Friends of Recreation and Park

16. Friends of Lake Merced

17. Friends of Corona Heights

18. San Francisco Weed Management Area

19. California State Parks

Appendix B: Recent Resolutions and Ordinances Concerning the NAP

1. Policy 13 of the 1991 General Plan (Resolution 13149) passed August 15, 1991 by the City Planning Commission, to "Protect and Preserve Significant Natural Resource Areas" and states that such sites "... should be protected and enhanced through restrictions on use and appropriate management..."

2. 1995 passage of Recreation and Park Commission Resolution 9501-008 providing for the creation and implementation of a Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan. The first NAP staff began work in 1997.

3. Passed by the Commission on the Environment in October 1996 and the Board of Supervisors in July 1997, the Sustainability Plan for San Francisco sets, "sustainable development as a fundamental goal of municipal public policy, and approv[es] the goals and objectives set out in the plan as ends that the City will strive to attain."

4. Ordinance (BOS File #020849) introduced by Supervisor Yee May 20, 2002 and currently pending in the Neighborhood Services and Recreation Committee to amend the park Code by adding Article 5A governing Voice Control Areas in City parks and providing the site requirements for Voice Control Areas, including requirements for location, size boundaries, surfacing and amenities; providing the procedure for establishing and eliminating Voce Control Areas, setting guidelines for the maintenance and management of Voice Control Areas; setting the rules of conduct within Voice-Control Areas; creating an Advisory Committee to advise the City regarding Voice-Control Area issues; describing the funding for Voice-Control Areas; establishing a procedure for handling complaints regarding Voice-Control Areas; and setting rules for the use of Voice-Control Areas by professional dog walkers. Amended by Sup. Leno September 26, 2002 and still pending committee action.

5. Ordinance (BOS File #020842) introduced May 20, 2002 and tabled by the Finance Committee June 12, 2002 exempting the San Francisco Conservation Corps from the prevailing wage requirements and waiving the competitive bid requirements for the Recreation and Park Commission"s award of a contract for construction of playgrounds, restoration of natural areas and implementation of erosion control measures in San Francisco parks.

6. Hearing Thursday July 11, 2002 in Neighborhood Services and Recreation Committee considering the long-term management plan proposed of the restoration and maintenance of 33 "significant natural-resource areas" including native plants or bodies of water in the city"s parks.

7. Resolution (BOS File #021260) introduced July 15, 2002 and returned to the full Board "with recommendation" by a 3-0 vote September 18, 2002 in the Rules and Audits Committee establishing a Board of Supervisors Natural Areas Program Citizens Advisory Committee (NAPCAC). The 12-member NAPCAC, once formed, will replace the 19-member Green Ribbon Task Force. Amended and unanimously approved by the full Board September 23, 2002.

8. Ordinance (BOS File #021464) introduced by Supervisor Leno and assigned to the Neighborhood Services and Recreation Committee August 19, 2002 amending the San Francisco Park Code by adding Section 3.19 to require public notice prior to removing or girdling trees. Currently pending in Committee.

1 City Planning Commission Resolution 13149 passed August 15, 1991.

2 Recreation and Park Commission Resolution 9501-008.

3 Significant Natural Areas Management Plan, June 2002, p. ES-1.

4 July 11 Hearing on the Natural Areas Program before the Neighborhood Services and Recreation Committee.

5 "Public Ire at Parks Habitat Program Rises" Ken Garcia, San Francisco Chronicle, July 19, 2002 and "Preservationists Vs. Environmentalists", abc7news.com, May 20, 2002.

6 Ibid, plus public comment at the July 11, 2002 Neighborhood Services and Recreation Committee hearing.

7 Interviewees the week of September 30, 2002 included Lisa Wayne, Director of the Natural Areas Program; Jake Sigg of the California Native Plant Society; Arthur Feinstein of the Golden Gate Audubon Society; Mike Vasey of the SFSU Biology Department; Barbara Holzman of the SFSU Geography Department; Pinky Kushner and John Rizzo of the Sierra Club; Carolyn Blair of the San Francisco Tree Council; Milton Marks of Friends of the Urban Forest; Bill Carlin of the McLaren Park Habitat Restoration Group; Steve Cockrell of the Parks Coalition, Karen Hu of the San Francisco Dog Owners Group, and Joan Roughgarden of the Parks and Recreation Open Space Advisory .

8 BOS Resolution #021260 approved September 23, 2002.