Grand View Park’s 3.9 acres have been designated in their entirety as a Natural Area.  NAP intends to make the following changes:

• Removal of majority of non-native vegetation and replacement with native plants
• Removal of 5 non-native trees
• Closure of many of the social trails
• People and dogs will be limited to designated trails which may be fenced if NAP feels it is necessary to prevent erosion
• Reduction in “predation pressure”.  This would refer to the killing of feral cats and any other wildlife NAP deems unacceptable

There is clearly a huge problem with erosion at this park.  NAP places the blame for erosion upon people, their social trails and access habits.  However, the surrounding neighbors of the park believe that the erosion is being exacerbated by the NAP practice of removing non-native plants and replacing them with native plants.

The neighbors are right.  Native plants are inferior to non-native plants in controlling erosion – as was evidenced by the failure of Natural Areas at Fort Ord, along Great Highway, and at Fort Funston.  Ice plant is the proven solution to sandy slopes which must resist erosion. Furthermore, trees are known to prevent erosion.  The NAP plan intends to remove 5 trees merely because they are non-native.  For these reasons, this plan is in violation of the performance standards established in the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department’s (SFRPD) own Operational Plan.  The first mandate is to protect public safety.  Public safety is not protected by implementing an inferior erosion control plan which may threaten the homes of taxpayers surrounding the natural area. 

There are no species of plant or wildlife that are considered threatened or endangered by the State or Federal government present at this site.  Because there are no pressing ecological reasons to declare this a Natural area, it would seem prudent to leave the non-native vegetation alone, and augment it further to prevent erosion and the subsequent damage it may cause to neighbors.  

In public meetings, neighbors have attended and warned the Recreation and Park Commission of the possible liability of the City for damage they expect to suffer. Liability could be costly for the City, in addition to the cost of creating this new habitat.  NAP has refused to disclose the cost to create this habitat.  Are these funds that could better be spent elsewhere in the park system?  Will there be the manpower and funds to maintain this new habitat?  Will it be sustainable?