It’s always best to include personal comments about your experiences in natural areas in SF city parks. However, if time is short, here are a few quick points you can make to show the Planning Department that the NAP EIR is inadequate and that additional work must be done. For more information on these points, and to see additional points that you can add to your comment, go to: http://www.sfdog.org
Please email your comments by 5pm October 31, 2011 to: email@example.com
1) The NAP EIR repeatedly says: “dogs MAY be impacting” plants or wildlife, yet offers no evidence that any impacts are actually occurring now or ever have occurred. An EIR must be based on solid scientific evidence. Because the NAP EIR’s analysis of impacts from dogs on plants and wildlife is based on unsubstantiated claims, the analysis is inadequate.
2) The NAP EIR’s analysis of the impacts of the closure of all or part of Dog Play Areas (off-leash areas) is inadequate. The NAP EIR must consider the impacts on other DPAs and other parks, on recreation, and on transportation, global warming and climate change because people must drive to other DPAs because of DPA closures if up to 80% of the total off-leash space in city parks is closed (the amount of off-leash located either within or adjacent to natural areas).
3) The NAP EIR defines dogs as “nuisances”. The EIR does not consider the impacts of DPA closures (especially the 80% potential closures) on the physical and mental health benefits of people who walk with their dogs. The EIR does not consider the impacts of DPA closures (especially the 80% potential closures) on the social community of dog walkers in parks and in the neighboring communities surrounding the parks.
4) The NAP EIR does not consider impacts on recreation of NAP plans to plant threatened and endangered species throughout the natural areas. Because of their special status, these plants trigger automatic restrictions on access and, therefore, have much more negative impacts on recreation and access than planting native plants that are not threatened or endangered.
5) Support the Maintenance Alternative and the Maximum Recreation Alternative. The NAP EIR identifies them as “environmentally superior.”