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 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