meetings and puc commission meetings. in support, of course, is the puc commission and the rec and park staff, and also listed in your staff memo are selected lake merced advocates who do not favor it. with that, that concludes my report on this particular agenda item. >> thank you. >> do we have any public comment on this item? did you want to comment on this item? please come forward. hi, carolyn johnston again. the only thing i have to say about lake merced is i've spent a lot of time there. my observation is we need more trash collection there. we need -- i don't know what natural areas management means, but i'm concerned that it may mean excessive funds being used for things like native plant restoration and things like that at the expense of funds being used for people who are enjoying recreation at the park. i'm just hoping that the budget

will be targeted mostly for people using that park and not for -- not for native plant restoration. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to make public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> i entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> moved and seconded. all those in favor? >> aye. >> so moved. >> thank you. as a reminder, item 8 is off calendar and we will now hear items 9 and 10 together. 9 is the open space contingency reserve fund, funding for the environmental review of the significant natural resource areas management plan. and 10 is the open space contingency reserve plan funding for [speaker not understood] restoration and investigative sampling at shark park. as a reminder, as they are being heard as one item, you will have three minutes for

public comment as a combination of those item. go ahead. >> commissioners, [speaker not understood], planning and capital director. just wanted to again overview the capital committee provide a brief kind of big picture overview of these two items and the context for them within the broader goals that we have for shark park. as some of you may remember in 2009-2010, the board of supervisors asked us to explore a number of alternatives for sharp park. keeping it as an 18-hole golf course, making it as a 19-hole golf course or making it [speaker not understood]. we went through that process and the commission directed staff to pursue the development of plans to both restore laguna sala -- a which is a wet park at sharp park, but also maintain an 18-hole golf course. we are moving towards that goal ~. and as part of that and along the way we've had litigation, a

number of other obstacles that we continue to work through. but we can't actually wait until we have the funds and all the permits necessary to do the larger project that was envisioned, which is a much larger habitat, also involves work on the golf course. in the interim, we do continue to need to have a working compound to help us maintain the water levels at laguna salada to deal with some of the overgrowth of the leaves that continue to choke. as a water body. so, we moved forward with fish and wildlife and fish and game with a proposal to improve access to the pump house. and also as part of that proposal, fish and wildlife requested that we also do some habitat restoration as part of that project. so, we are moving forward with a pump house improvement project as well as the habitat restoration. so, these are two -- interim steps on our way to our larger

goal of having a fully restored laguna salada and also an improved 18-hole golf course at sharp park. so, with that, just wanted to provide that as context. if you have any questions, commissioner mcdonald, happy to spend a few hours with you to explain -- [laughter] >> it remains the most complicated thing i've ever worked on here. and staff will be happy to walk you through the two projects. >> thank you. >> [speaker not understood], i'm stacey bradley, planner with capital planning division. item moving forward today is the funding request for allocation of $237,70 5 from the open space contingency reserve fund for the environmental review for the significant ~ natural resource areas management plan [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] our

management plan that would govern 32 natural areas totaling over 1,000 acres. the sites range in size from an acre to just over 400 acres and include sharp park in pacifica that don was talking about. this is a long-term management plan to guide our department's natural resource protection, habitat restoration, trail and access improvement over time. the environmental review history on this [speaker not understood] the ramp itself draft plan was released in 2006 and this commission adopted the final draft plan as a project to be considered under c-e-q-a and 2006 as well. the environmental impact report, e-i-r, started officially in 2009 with scoping meetings after two years. in 2011, the draft e-i-r was released for public comment. we had two public hearings to

hear public comment. at the historic preservation commission and the planning commission. and then the first comment period ended in 2011 in october. it was done -- public comment was reopened in 2012 for two months in april and june -- to june. three months. since june 2012, we have been working with the planning department and with consultant support in organizing, characterizing and developing responses to public comment. during this time we included a supplemental climate change analysis as prepared. and we anticipate with this additional funding that the final e-i-r was released in late spring or early summer in 2014. so, we are -- the funding request before you today is to finalize the e-i-r. looking at the environmental -- finalizing the response to comments as well as providing a draft for our review, and then

preparing the final e-i-r. so, we recommend that you fund this so we can finish the environmental review on this project. if you have any questions, thank you. >> thank you. >> powerpoint. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm matt jasmine, project manager with the recreation and park department capital division. the item before you today is discussion and possible action to approve allocation of $250,000 for funding open space contingency reserve fund for

habitat restoration of a half acre. and investigative sampling and staff resources for planning, design for the sharp park safety infrastructure improvement and habitat restoration project. this is the project that don was describing a little bit earlier. the sharp park -- sharp park is a unique project, a park for the city. it's located in pacifica but [speaker not understood] but is owned by san francisco. it includes 27 acres of wetlands. you can barely see it in the image above. that's the entire area of sharp park and the wetlands located to the west of [speaker not understood] in the blue area next to the coast. it also has a number of special status species including the california red legged frog and the san francisco garter snake.

as don mentioned the fish and wildlife has provided us with a biological opinion and that includes 32 mitigation or cultivation measures. one of which is the up land habitat restoration. and to comply with the biological opinion, we need to complete that work by october 31st of this year with a short window during the summer months to do work. so we don't have an adverse impact on the special status species. the up land habitat restoration work includes three locations for a total of a half acre. you can refer to the diagram up here. two of those locations are the horse stable pond and one is near laguna salada. primarily it's to remove ice plant anacacia an invasive species and will be replacing those with native vegetation that will provide more robust habitat for the special status species.

the second request that we bring you today is for the removal of sediment and vegetation within the channels connecting horse stable pond and [speaker not understood] and in laguna salada itself. the [speaker not understood] we're requesting is for four location and will help us determine if there is any acidic soul fates, it's unlikely, but if there are, we want to actually start to mitigate our construction so that we don't have an adverse impact on the special status species within the channels or horse stable pond. our final request is for additional funds to provide staff resources for design around the larger shell park project and that includes the pump housework that don previously described. in conclusion, rec and park staff recommend that the commission approve the allocation of $250,000 from the

open space contingency reserve fund or both the half acre of up land habitat restoration as well as investigative sampling and additional staff resources for the larger sharp park project. and i'm available for [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. >> we do have public comment. we do have public comment. i'm just going to read all of the cards off. so, we have sally stevens. kermit [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. mike walak. and amy vering. so, if you can just come on up. and then when we're done with those, we'll have some more folks come up. thank you. hi, my name is sally stevens. this is funding for a third consultant to finish the final e-i-r. why a third consultant? there actually was a version of the funding e-i-r that was done by the first consultant, but was deemed unacceptable.

why? if the original consultant was not qualified to do the work, why were they hired in the first place? but if they were qualified, then why was their draft unacceptable? is this a case of consultant shopping where rec and park basically continue to hire new consultants at great cost until they get the results they want? i'd like to remind you the commissioners that the draft e-i-r identified the maintenance alternative in which map stays at current levels only and does not expand beyond any work done so far. as the environment is superior alternative, not the [speaker not understood] ramp that is not the map plan. that's because the implementation of the map plan will have a significant negative environmental impact as existing habitat in the quarter of our city's park land is destroyed to create this replica of a pre-white colonization of the habitat. because this designation [speaker not understood] as environmentally superior supporters were furious with the draft e-i-r the is this why we now need a third consultant?

is rec and park going from consultant to consultant at great cost until they find one that will [speaker not understood] data similar map maintenance alternative is better? in the august 5th, 2013 we wall street journal article, [speaker not understood], native and nonnative plants would be environmentally superior. there are officials at the city's rec and park department that said the report used a no definition of environmentally superior set forth in california law. so, with this third consultant, is rec and park consultant shopping until they find one that will tell them what they want to hear that [speaker not understood] is better, not what the law and the facts dictate, which is that the maintenance alternative is better and will cause less impact on the environment? the open space contingency fund is for acquisition of new park space. it's not a slush fund for [speaker not understood] produce a report.

it's not a slush fund to pay for a change in gardening at sharp park which is what a lot of the restoration proposed really is. more importantly, the proposed restoration at sharp park is an implementation of plans in the [speaker not understood] before the e-i-r has been complete. we really can't implement what's in the plan before the e-i-r has been finalized and that point should have been made with fish and wildlife. so, i'm very concerned about the idea of this third consultant and we have a fourth one and [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. [inaudible].

good afternoon. my name is kermit kubitz, i'm a resident of sherman forest neighborhood around mount davidson. and i've attended several meetings including a prior bond briefing from the park and rec department. i'd like to reiterate the comments that the speaker before me just made, which was that the underlying e-i-r found that the conclusion was the maintenance alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. if i can get this up on the board, i don't know if that will come up. >> [speaker not understood]. it doesn't show up. it doesn't matter. the draft e-i-r reached a

conclusion the maintenance alternative page 2 of the environmentally superior alternative. page 5 25 and 526, which is the handout i just gave. the reason is environmentally superior is because it has substantially less impacts on the environment, including unmitigated impacts. the common sense reason it's superior is because it doesn't reduce recreational use of san francisco parks. it doesn't close trails. it doesn't impose logging activities. it doesn't require herbicides for native plant restoration. it doesn't require expensive gardening for native plant restoration, which is as the lady from west portal pointed out, a detraction from other park budgets. so, the maintenance alternative is economically superior and it's environmentally superior as the draft e-i-r found on page 5 25. it can be adapted. the maintenance alternative can be adapted on mount davidson we

have two areas, a tree urban forest on the west side, a grass side on the right side. as you maintain or replace trees, you can do what you need to do with the grass land without having logging trucks coming in and tearing out half an acre of trees over how many years in closing public access. the draft e-i-r, the 5 62-page e-i-r that's already been produced, unnecessarily combines the park and laguna salada with mount davidson and public access in san francisco. so, it's a poorly drafted e-i-r. it should consider project by project specifications. and the final point i'll make is this commission must guide the staff because you're about to allocate 170 acres plus an added 70 acres in glenn canyon

to [speaker not understood] habitats as a result of recommendations by the staff, which i'm not sure you're aware of to the fish and wildlife service. and i can provide maps. [inaudible]. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. lad a i called names. those are the people who should be coming up. okay. let me just [speaker not understood].

i'm speaking today for the san francisco forest alliance and i will be speaking both on items 9 and so. ~ 10. the [speaker not understood] you've heard is highly controversial. over 3,000 people have signed petitions online and on paper opposing maps planned to cut down thousands of healthy trees, restrict access to open space, and increase the use of toxic herbicides. we question the large amounts of money that are being spent on the same round e-i-r. please look at the slide and that has the data for what is actually got so far. the papers show only $1 million, but the data that we have sunshined from the city shows that the actual numbers crossing $2 million of expenditure with this new request. this is the third consultant that we've used so far.

and you can see the data. that's just for the reports. that's just for the paper. that's not for any real underground work. and then when you start talking about the implementation [speaker not understood], it's enormously expensive. right now map costs about $1.8 million per year. that's $36 million over the 20-year period of the plan. if this ramp is implemented as written, that's going to go up to $4 million a year or $108 million for 20 years. if the maximum restoration is implemented, we're talking about $10.8 million a year in new spending for highly controversial and unpopular program. where will that money come from? and as far as these numbers are

concerned, we know where they come from. they come from the city. they're not making them up. so, if you would like to meet with us, i think we can substantiate all of them. on sharp park, it sounds like the [speaker not understood] planting program is already in implementation [speaker not understood] even though the e-i-r has not been certified. and a quarter of a million dollars is a large amount of money. half an acre, we're wondering if this represents the kind of costs we can expect if the same ramp is actually implemented. furthermore, if the same ramp [speaker not understood], then we don't see how it qualifies for a mitigated negative declaration on the c-e-q-a which is what was requested earlier. it feels like we're just throwing numbers around. but to put it in context, that's $2 million is everything that was paid out to an outside -- [speaker not understood].

we have to have another such festival to fund this? >> thank you. >> actually we've got a couple more seconds. >> oh, i thought i heard a buzzer go off. >> go ahead. i'm done. i just wanted to emphasize we're talking about a whole lot of money for a program that really came from oppose rather than support. >> thank you. >> next speaker. and just as a reminder, you'll hear two bells. the first one tells you you've got 30 seconds left. thank you, good morning. my name is bill [speaker not understood]. i'm a lifelong san francisco resident. i live in golden gate heights. i'm an avid golfer and i frequently play at sharp park golf course. first of all, i wanted to thank the staff for all the hard work they've done to bring this before you. you know, this isn't some proposal thats was cooked up at the 11th hour in the dark in some smoke filled room. this is a process that stretches back to 1995 when the

soon ramp was first adopted and it's gone on in public. it's been transparent. and now is the time to finish what we started. the work is in and we're ready to move forward. what i wanted to add is this, however. for all the talk about sharp park golf course, i simply would politely remind everybody, this is a very historic property. sharp park was designed by all i stair mckinsey who is one of the greatest golf course architects in history. the city is lucky, our community is lucky to have an asset like this, which is a rembrandt on the ground, that people can enjoy for very, very modest fees. this is a treasure and part of the work that you should fund with this action is to move forward one more step so we can see the day when that golf course and the surrounding habitat is fully and properly restored in a responsible manner. and i think what you've got

here is a very responsible plan. i know there are people who don't agree with it. there are people who want to shut the golf course down. we've been fighting them for years. now is the time to approve this and move forward. thank you for giving me the opportunity and thank you and the staff again for all the hard work on this most important matter. >> thank you. >> i'll read a few more names. mike walak. amy [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. lisa [speaker not understood]. paul [speaker not understood]. and anastasia. if i've called your name, please come forward. hi, my name is mike walak. i am aes ~ resident of san francisco, bad golfer, and patron of our sharp park golf course. i am here in support. i want to first say i'm specifically talking about the

sharp parka expects of this issue. i'm not really familiar with some of the other issues related to the certificate wood forest, some of these other areas. ~ sherwood forest. i am in support of moving forward with the national significant reoretion management plan to restore the habitat and help restore the habitat for the endangered species we have on our course and park down there in sharp park. i'd like to take my three minutes here to point out something that i feel like should be obvious. but seems to be missed by a lot of people, particularly related to the issues around sharp park and the endangered species and the issues that we have there. and that is this is often being characterized as an environmentalist versus golfer's issue. it's not, okay. i mean, this is san francisco. this is the most environmentally greenest, most ecologically conscious city in the world. we have a really great park and

recs department that is absolutely committed to environmentally sustainable practices. if this was really about golfers versus environmentalists, there would be no contest. the issue here is we're dealing with environmentalist versus environmentalist. and there are two different views on sharp park in terms of how is the best way to promote, manage, and support and improve the habitat for the endangered species that are in this park. and i would characterize this as kind of -- my characterization, kind of practical real world environmentalist versus some of the more idea logically motivated. among the real world environmentalists, it comes down to a fundamental issue that you need to kind of start with, which is laguna salada, the habitat for the red legged frog and the san francisco

garter snake is ahab at that time because it was created 80 years ago. that's why they live there now. it is freshwater. that's why we have the snake and frog living there. to continue to improve that habitat for the snake and the frog, we need to actually start moving forward and taking an aggressive posture in terms of managing pet habitat in the most positive way, and that is what is represented by the plans that have been developed by the various constituencies here and the rec and park department. and i say it's time to move forward for the frog and the snake, improve that habitat. and [speaker not understood] working on it. >> thank you. >> amy. hello, my name is amy [speaker not understood]. i'm here with the wild equity institute. i would like to first begin with the section from the 2009 scoping report that was prepared by tetra tech that

said sharp park golf course will not be included or evaluated as part of the proposed sun ramp project analyzed in the e-i-r. should changes to the sharp park golf course be proposed, they should undergo a separate regulatory review including c-e-q-a environmental review. yet we're here today talking about analyzing the plans for the sharp park golf course within the sun ramp. no additional funding should go to the sun ramp c-e-q-a process until the promises made in the scoping report are fulfilled to [speaker not understood] separated. the rpd has made a promise to separate it and it's been broken. as a result, it's a very controversial issue sun ramp report and it will be continued to be controversial until it's separated and we would like to see the sun ramp go forward

with sharp park golf course plans analyzed separately. also there was a comment in the written comments from the planning and department saying that the public comments that were submitted were complex and numerous. were they not prepared for well informed people to ask questions about what they're proposing? i would hope they would be prepared for them and giving them more money. won't make the questions any less complex. regardingedth funding, this is mostly related to the operation of golf course. ~ regarding the funding therefore, the money that is given to the restoration around this area and for the golf course should come from the golf course fund. recently the board of supervisors has proposed a 2.5

million subdifficult for the golf course fund. therefore they have the money within the golf course fund budget to fund whatever additional studies that they need do. ~ subsidy and in regards to the comment that this is a historical golf course, at best it [speaker not understood] controversial. it has not been determined to be historic. the other golf courses that are more historic and we would hope that you would want to give the money to the golf courses in san francisco that serve san francisco ans directly. ~ >> carolyn. greater west portal neighborhood association -- now can you hear me? >> yes. the greater west portal neighborhood association and the west of