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 twin peaks central

council which represents, i believe, 20 plus neighborhoods west of twin peaks all unanimously oppose map. they've communicated that through the recreation and park department and to the mayor. mount davidson, aside from sharp park which i don't know anything about and which is not within the boundaries of san francisco, mount davidson is the most affected by map. i mean, their proposal is to cut down 1600 trees on mount davidson and the neighborhoods surrounding mount davidson all are opposed to this plan. spending another $200,000 to make this plan possible is throwing good money after bad. i believe that mount davidson, based on the neighborhood response, should be excluded from map. apparently there is a proposal to exclude sharp park from map, too. while people are trying to get huge parts of this program excluded from it, can you

please not spend precious funds on this program and instead spend it on thing that are really needed like basketball courts and tennis nets. thank you. >> thank you. >> lisa. good morning. thank you for the opportunity to speak. my name is lisa villa senior. i'm an eight year resident of pacifica, sharp park ladies golf group and minimum berg of the sharp park golf club as well. my husband is the president of that golf club, and i'm here in support of items 9 to the extent it affects sharp park, and number 10. we're stewards of this golf course. i played it yesterday. diverse players, all ages. it needs to be preserved. i second the comments of [speaker not understood], but also i would like to see no delay in furthering the habitat

restoration. we walk that course. we try to make sure people obey the eas areas and to have any delay in the continuation of the work that's being done to maintain and respect the habitat would be really a waste of the resource he that all of you and the public have already spent. ~ resources so, i thank you in considering to approve those two items. >> thank you. >> paul. commissioners, good morning. my name is paul rotter. i'm a resident of district 5 in san francisco. by now all the commissioners are aware of the controversies of the map program in san francisco. it's been going on for sometime. and as private citizens like myself become aware of the map program, we feel that controversy is a negative element for the city. the notion that we can stop and

reverse evolution, that the notion that only plants introduced california prior to the advent of europeans into the country should be protected is a poor philosophy. and here again, you're asked to plunder a good program to spend money in a bad program. i think part of the things you saw lots of -- should have seen lots of figures here today. that [speaker not understood]. that maybe the commission doesn't know how much money it's spending. maybe it's not getting the full story from the recreation and parks department. perhaps some good money that could be spent on an audit of those programs, of the nap program in general, and the e-i-r process in particular. a question was asked you

before, why is the city hiring a third outside consultant on this program? do they have a -- made any kind of written report to the commission of why that's happening, why that money is being spent, $250,000? i would say spend that money on an audit to find out what you're really, you know, being asked to do. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> anastasia. then julie [speaker not understood]. and paul slavin. my name is anastasia [speaker not understood] and i'm talking about number 9 and number 10 or is it two together? >> two together. two together, okay. so, first of all, i want to take issue with the statement that this nature of the [speaker not understood] program puts environmentalists

against environmentalists. it's totally untrue. how can anybody who wants to craft 18,000-1/2 houses and mature little tree then count [speaker not understood]. how can such person call himself an environmentist? right now department of environment, which is not doing a very good job, is spelling out the proposal for greening san francisco, planting more trees. at the same time there is the program which is going to kill 18-1/2 thousand trees, and now what you're saying it's doing is using herbicides. i'm complaining about those herbicides in natural areas. i didn't even know they were natural areas provide [speaker not understood]. it's more and more. 300% increase in tier 1 and tier 2 herbicides and i am not

[speaker not understood] by now, but [speaker not understood] linked to several cancers with the herbicides. [speaker not understood] nonhodge kin limb foe ~ lymphoma, and breast cancer. [speaker not understood] and all sorts of problems including sodas, [speaker not understood] look it up and [speaker not understood]. miscarriage, low sperm count, [speaker not understood], there is more evidence the bacteria is for [speaker not understood]. there is no excuse for use herbicide in city park in any quantity, forgetting about 300% increase in [speaker not understood].

one has the number for all the increases, but it just outrage. these people are not environmentalists. they just throw out environment. anyway, i would like this program, this concept all together. but the very least, [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. >> julie. and then paul. and if there is anyone else, if you could just line up against the wall, that would be great. go ahead. thank you very much.

i just -- i'm here basically to thank the city of san francisco for moving forward on the protection of the species in making efforts to protect the species in sharp park golf course. i'm a pacifica resident. i've lived there for nearly 30 years and almost the entire time i've lived there, i've been involved in environmental projects as a member of the open space task force, the open space committee, and also as a councilmember. and in the process, we preserved more than 500 acres of open space through our efforts, political efforts in our community, our preservation efforts in our community. so, i just want to say that as a preface to my comments about sharp park golf course, in the entire time that i worked on these projects in our community, no one ever considered taking away the golf course. the golf course was always viewed as kind of an ideal

situation where you had endangered species, habitat that had actually evolved over time by the creation of freshwater habitat there. and the issue of the work at laguna salada which really began i think almost six years ago was to remove some of the tooling around the edges so frogs could get to the edge more easily and prevent flooding because laguna salada was filling in. and that was the beginning and it was a very sensible thing. and i really want to commend san francisco for bringing in actually the key scientific people who are experts in the areas of these species and their protection in the process. and i think we all know what controversy it has become, a lot of assertions have been made back and forth that

contradict what i would say -- actually, i don't even want to go there. i just think it's been really difficult for me as an environmentalist to see other folks, you know, making assertions and claims to the contrary. so, i want to sincerely say that it's wonderful that san francisco is taking the step forward. i think it's in the best interest of the species there. and i just want to thank you so much for persevering and working -- it's been really honestly san francisco [inaudible] is leading the way in this, but i think it's worthwhile and i think it's very important. and i think, you know, it's a wonderful thing and a great example of coexistence of two activities, human and species activities. so, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> paul. commissioners, i'm paul slavin. i'm a director with the

pacifica historical society. we have long appreciated the historical significance of the sharp park golf course being designed by one of golf's greatest and most famous architects, alastair mc kenzie. it's been the cultural center of the sea side community. we appreciate greatly the work that park and rec has done -- rec and park has done to improve the conditions at the port for the golfers and most importantly for the protected species. we realize what a long process it's been to put together the significant natural resource areas, managements plans. we've watched that process for years, attended many of the meetings.

and we hope that you can now go forward with that as it stands and not to remove sharp park from the plan. to do so and rechoirv a separate e-i-r for sharp park would be to obstruct the excellent work that's going on right now and would just needlessly endanger what we consider a municipal masterpiece. thank you. >> thank you. >> richard. commissioners, i'm richard harris, the san francisco public park alliance. we have 6,000 members. i'm also a san francisco resident and have been a golfer in sharp park for most of my life.

we support funding for the completion of the e-i-r which is what is good for you on agenda number 9 of the sun ramp. this is 18-year process. you hear the controversy here. there were two or three hearings here by the planning commission on the e-i-r. there was the extra hearing. i don't know how many thousands of comments there were, but there are a lot of comments which has engendered the meeting. to spend more money to finish the e-i-r. some of the comments you've had today go to the ultimate merits. there will be time for discussing that. right now the issue is to finish the funding of the e-i-r.

we support that. we are opposed to dropping sharp park out of that. sharp park has been part of it for 18 years. there is a reference by a young woman earlier in the comment period, she thought there had been a promise that sharp park would be separated from the e-i-r. that's not so. i submitted a letter to the capital committee on april -- on august 7th which is part of your packet. exhibit 3 to that packet is the thing that she refers to, she is specifically referring a paragraph on page 3.10 which is in the middle of the page of e-i-r recommendations. what's being referred to there was when the board of supervisors in 2009 directed rec and park to study three alternatives at sharp, they

said study eliminating the golf course. study turning into a 9-hole golf course. study having an 18-hole golf course, all of which would have to be consistent with habitat restoration [speaker not understood]. what's referred to here is because sharp park has been designated by the planning department under the california environmental quality act as a historic resource property, if sharp park were to have been eliminated or reduced to 9 holes, that would require a separate e-i-r. and that's what is [speaker not understood] there. not the [speaker not understood] that has been contemplated here. we also support the habitat restoration number 10 on your agenda. >> thank you very much.

thank you very much. >> is there any other public comment on this item? being none, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> commissioner low. >> yes, this came before -- both items came before the capital committee a couple -- at the regular capital committee in august. regarding item 9 on completing the e-i-r, i do agree with the comment that we have to finish what we started. and while the contents of sin rap or the natural area plan may be controversial or will be a matter of later discussion, we do need the tools to complete the e-i-r so we can evaluate those alternatives. so, i am in favor of item 9 on completing what we started. responding to the public comments to the draft e-i-r so we can move that finally forward to final e-i-r so we can evaluate both plans. regarding number 10, i think

whats was overlooked on sharp park is we're under federal directive to get this work done. and we just have to comply. so, on item 10 we also have to move that forward. >> thanks, commissioner. my own observation, i couldn't agree more on item 9. i think that this is not a debate about whether there should be a plan or not a plan or how many trees should or shouldn't come down. this is finishing a job that was started. i think no one anticipated would be as complex or as extensive as it was. and with added elements relating to climate change late in the game and lots of comments coming in [speaker not understood], whether a third-party consultant for peer review is an asset or not is a recommendation of staff and this is ultimately going to be a planning department analysis when they look at what come in.

as to sharp park, i've never hidden the fact that i'm a fan of not only golf, but alastair mc kenzie. i was told literately two days ago and i don't know it to be a fact, but it was told me by a golf historian. when sharp park was built it was ranked as the number one course in america. now it's been compromised over the years by the ocean, by highways, by frogs, by snakes, and it's been modified. but this effort is to restore it to the greatest extent possible that's compatible with providing a good environment for both frog and snake and golfer. and i think it's a good plan. i've looked at it carefully and wholeheartedly support it. with that, let me ask

commissioner, you had a com? ment? >> yes. ~ having served as a commissioner during all of these discussions, i can unequivocally attest to the fact that we had numerous -- we had countless number of experts come before us to discuss the merits of the nap plan, the existence or the continuation of the sharp park, and all the different configurations for how -- how to preserve sharp park and have the coexistence and protect the species there. it was always the discussion of nap plan along with sharp park. we're always front and center together, as i recall. there was never any discussion that i heard of to do separate

e-i-rs and there was ways -- there was always discussion that we should -- i mean, although the -- there was controversy during the -- during all the comments and there were numerous subcommittee meetings and so on. it was always -- from my understanding, there was continued agreement that we should have a plan, that we should put forward this plan and that we should invest whatever resources we could to make this plan happen. and i am fully in support of both items 9 and 10, of

finishing the job that we started. and actually it will be -- i will feel most gratified having spent hundreds of hours of my time to see something come of this plan. so, i am fully in support of item 9 and keeping the nap plan with sharp park front and center until we continue -- until we complete this project. >> thank you, commissioner. seeing no other commission comments, i would entertain a motion. >> and we do need to vote on these separately. >> right. so, let's take item 9 first. >> move. >> second. >> been moved and seconded. all those in favor. >> aye. >> so moved. item 10? >> so moved. >> second. >> moved and seconded. all those in favor? >> aye. >> so moved. thank you very much. >> commissioners, we are now on item 11, golden gate park

[speaker not understood] triangle conceptual plan approval. excuse me. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is abigail mayer. i work on park and recreation partnership team and i'm here to present on item 11. before you today, we are requesting four independent actions all of which are interrelated and are therefore being presented to you as a single item. the first is to approve a conceptual plan for landscape improvements and temporary art

installations at [speaker not understood] triangle in golden gate park. the second is to approve a possible donor recognition plan for the project. 3 is to recommend that the board of supervisors accept from the san francisco parks alliance on behalf of the friends of kito triangle a cash grant in the amount of $19,000 for the cost of the department project manager. and in addition to that, an in grant valued at up to $650,000 of design and construction services for the project. the fourth item is to approve a memorandum of understanding with the san francisco parks alliance for the design and construction of the project. i'm happy to give you some background on this project and then i'll turn it over to jeff miller, the landscape architect who is working on this. about two years ago karma crane and [speaker not understood]

approached the department [speaker not understood]. since karma has a personal connection with golden gate park and the particular area known as kifa triangle, department staff decided to move forward working with sam and carla on the landscape improvement project. carla has been involved in many bay area art projects and institutions and sam is the executive director of green museum.org. so, together they funded the friends of kifa triangle with the intent of creating a more inviting and beautiful entry to golden gate park at kiva triangle. carla and sam reached out to the parks alliance for the fiscal sponsorship and support and they have volunteered in golden gate park the support of the cost of new trees and they've hosted numerous public events and picnics. the friends engaged company mayer landscape architects to work with the community and with the recreation and park department. jeff miller and carla have been committed partners on this

project. the planning process for landscape improvements and temporary art installations at kiva triangle wrapped up in may with the third and final community meeting held jointly by rec/park jeff miller of parks alliance and the friends group. at that meeting jeff presented the final plan for landscape enhancements which included [speaker not understood], stabilize access entrance and [speaker not understood] such as the kiosk and possibly log benches. at this meeting sam bower presented the plan for temporary nature based art installations. so, like i said, jeff miller is with us today to walk you through the conceptual plan. as he wraps up his presentation, i will then show you the conceptual ideas for the art part of this project and give you a brief summary on the m-o-u. so, let me just load the presentation.

>> hello, commissioners. i'm jeffery miller, miller landscape architects. it's been a real pleasure to work with the friends of kiza and the members of this project. we're happy to be involved. so, we want to take you through the presentation that was given to the committee and want to share with the whole commission what the plan consists of. you can see in the first slide

the context. we are at kiza triangle just west of the stadium. what we noticed is a lot of people don't even know this is part of golden gate park. but it indeed is part of the park and is where the project is located. the next slide is showing an aerial of the triangle. you can see some of the issues immediately in the triangle. there, there are two pads that are beaten in through what is dedicated as a meadow in the park master plan. what really is happening is people are working at u.c. medical center parking -- parking going back and forth to move their cars so they don't get tickets. so, they're beating these into the park over the years. the next slide is showing those

pads and the character, the erosion that's happened in the park. there is a lack of accessibility through the park. so, this became one of the goals of our plan was to establish an accessible pathway through. another issue that is clear when you visit this area is that it's somewhat -- you can see on the top right slide, looks kind of like a used parking lot. cars facing immediately into the park. no buffer, no sense of really being in a green space there. so, this is one of the thing that we wanted to address. one of the uses that came up in the public meetings that's a kind of sacred use of the area, the discus throw which was located outside of kesar stadium so people didn't get

hit by the disks during track meets. it's used for various events and we've worked with coaches and athletic directors in the area to preserve this in our plan. the park is presently irrigated by a quick coupler system that's manually operated. there are pipes underneath the park and quick couplers all over it. if you visit it, you'll see gardeners moving sprinklers from one quick coupler to the next. and it's resulted in somewhat marginal maintenance of the lawn. so, a part of our plan is to install an automatic irrigation system in the area. this is the plan and you can see by the plan there is a new accessible path leading from lincoln way across and through to the main body of golden gate park. we did reach out to