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
numerous picnics and social gatherings at the triangle and they plan to continue doing so. the m-o-u before you establishes the framework for collaboration between rec/park, the parks alliance, and the friends [speaker not understood] this project. the agreement [speaker not understood] assigns roles, responsibilities to design construction of the project. specifically the m-o-u includes the following provisions. the san francisco parks alliance as fiscal agent to the friends shall provide all labor, materials, and project and construction management services necessary for the completion of design and the construction of the project in accordance with this hopefully commission approved conceptual plan. the parks alliance again is the fiscal agent shall provide funding and services necessary to implement the conceptual plan. the proximate budget value in place of the landscape improvement is valued at up to $650,000. in addition, there will be a cash gift to support the cost o
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 though
city that we all loved. and there were avid gardners and nature lovers and i have a background in the arts. so, what followed was what inspired me, anyway, was two things. the wonderful [speaker not understood] in the presidio. and in new york, if you ve been to the jai-alai, you know these are two projects that have brought artful interventions to lots of people in an urban setting. so, i love that idea. so, that led me to phil ginsberg who is very enthusiastic and he arranged the tour for me to look around all their wonderful sites. and it was kesar triangle that really took my heart. so, there was something about it, it s kind of under loved and a little scrappy, didn t seem to interrupt any activities that were going on. what i really love was that you could not only experience maybe something artful on the ground, but it is as well when you drive by, maybe there was some way you could catch people s imagination. ~ as well when you re up in csf looking down there is an
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. th