Wall street journal article, [speaker not understood], native and nonnative plants would be environmentally superior. There are officials at the citys 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. Its not a slush fund for [speaker not understood] produce a report. Its 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 eir has been comple
Is destroyed to create this replica of a prewhite colonization of the habitat. Because this designation [speaker not understood] as environmentally superior supporters were furious with the draft eir 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 citys 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 cau
We realize what a long process its been to put together the significant Natural Resource areas, managements plans. Weve 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 eir for sharp park would be to obstruct the excellent work thats going on right now and would just needlessly endanger what we consider a municipal masterpiece. Thank you. Thank you. Richard. Commissioners, im richard harris, the San Francisco public park alliance. We have 6,000 members. Im 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 eir which is what is good for you on agenda number 9 of the sun ramp. This is 18year process. You hear the controversy here. There were two or three hearings here by the Planning Commission on the eir. There was the extra hearing. I dont know how many
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. Its not a slush fund for [speaker not understood] produce a report. Its 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 eir has been complete. We really cant implement whats in the plan before the eir has been finalized and that point should have been made with fish and wildlife. So, im very concerned about the idea of this third consultant an
Commissioners, im richard harris, the San Francisco public park alliance. We have 6,000 members. Im 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 eir which is what is good for you on agenda number 9 of the sun ramp. This is 18year process. You hear the controversy here. There were two or three hearings here by the Planning Commission on the eir. There was the extra hearing. I dont 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 eir. Some of the comments youve 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 eir. 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 prom