restoration. in valuing whether there will be adverse short-term impacts regardless of the long-term impact. you look at whether they presumptions all go one way. the second thing you look at is what is being considered and what is not being considered. are they looking at the relevant issues? we have maybe 150 years of managing these parts in our city balancing these issues. if you are finding they're making a radical departure in that general manager of strategy, you do not have a heightened scrutiny of it. a quick analogy is when we got our house, and i live on the east end of the sunset looking out, the biggest attraction was a blue heron flew right over the top what we were looking at it. i thought this was cool. we had blue herons and we have

hawks. there was a hill nearby and unnatural restoration plan which i favored. [tone] it was a good deal and subsequently lost habitat for the blue herons and all of those talks. i don't know whether that will come back, but now we have raven's all over the place. the question is what is the short term? i spend my childhood clearing out what we called greasewood which is coyote brush that grows when you let things grow wild around here. [tone] president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. thank you for your time on this. i'm a founder of the public gulf lines and we are concerned with issues having to do with the city's golf courses. we had submitted previously a letter with substantial exhibits on the history of the sharp park golf course. we want to assist you in your staff in knowing the history. we've done a lot of heat -- we've done a lot of research on it. they're all research articles and photographs, there are ridings from mackenzie himself. staff has designated the gulf course as a storage resource. we support that designation. -- as a historic resources. we support that designation. we've given a substantial amount of additional support than the

matter in the staff report. we will be submitting additional common -- additional comment. the notion of sharing the property between species and golfers, we support that. we think there are ways it can be done where the property can be shared to mutual benefit by the species and the golfers. there are some details in the draft e.i.r. we will make more detailed comment on. we have architects and engineers looking at. we will have detailed comments with preliminary comment in the letter you had. we will have much more detailed

comment about that. we look forward to continuing to participate in this process with the city and county and with your body and with your staff. this is very important property. it is significant and significant to the world of golf. i have some letters that have come in from the world golf association, the pga, the national golf course superintendents organization, and we will be submitting those as well. thank you very much. look forward to cooperating with you and with your staff. >> good afternoon. i live in the mission and i'm a commissioner on the veterans affairs commission of san francisco. thank you for service.

i do have a dog in this fight. she happens to be beautiful black lab mix we got from that spca some six years ago. that is what i want to take a moment to talk about -- the squeeze happening in this city over dog adoption numbers and the at the same time restriction of space for dogs to run free. i hope you recognize that we in san francisco have the most progressive and productive spca in the entire united states. the ratio of dogs adopted by families in san francisco is higher than almost anywhere in des united states and almost no dogs are utilized in san francisco. so you have this squeeze while

young families and people are adopting dogs and record numbers. at the same time, there is a squeeze it to restrict the places those dogs can run on the shore of fleece. this needs to be seriously looked into and addressed by any e.i.r. or planning for awfully dog areas in the future. do not restrict them. there are more dogs coming every day. >> hello. i lived in glen park. i'm for the maximum recreation alternatives. the golden gate national recreation area just proposed a dog management plan and they forcefully cited the dog play areas in san francisco parts as alternatives. if those areas are closed like a maximum plan is suggesting, people with dogs will not have places to take their animals for exercise with them.

i just want to point out this plan is a further reduction of those areas and please consider allowing our animals to have space because they are compatible with plans. -- with plants. >> good afternoon, commissioners. and invasive news since who rolled into town 20 years ago to a police riot in the castro. the ultimate natural resources plan happen but when the earth shake violently. this is something that has been proposed already. i don't believe it's covered in this. this should be on the table for analysis for this to be a complete e.i.r. president olague: is there additional public comment on this item?

public comment is closed. i want to repeat the comment time has been extended to october 31st. that is a monday. 5:00 p.m. commissioner antonini: thank you for your comments. just some overview and some questions. of the 31 areas in the city and county of san francisco, leaving sharp park out for the bombing, by happenstance many of them were accessible or various other things. i don't know if we have to look at what exists there as being the best use, i'm not saying these areas should be developed, but you have to consider the

situation and decide whether or what has developed over the years is what we want on these lands and of every inch of these plans should be maintained as public property. i often walk around 26 and the areas under consideration and one thing that is quite clear is many have become overgrown over the years. trees are wonderful things, but too many trees is not the best thing. sending them out makes for a healthier environment sometimes and it makes it safer and the ones that remain healthier and i think careful tree removal would be something that is important. however, on the other side is those who want everything completely removed back to the so-called natural environment. the pictures i've seen of san francisco in 1850 or before is mostly sand, wind, and almost

uninhabitable area. we've done a wonderful job making this a city people can live in. i don't know what native plants were really native. there could not have been much from the pictures i've seen, but maybe some scrub grass and occasional tree here or there. but not a lot. we have to look carefully at a lot of these areas. for example, take place is like bay view park, which is brought up here. parts of mclaren park, the puc lands are around laguna honda and parts of mount davidson. but make sure we are looking at this and maximizing our natural resources so that people can use them as well as possible. some of these areas probably need improvements just to leave them as they are may not be the best thing as people talk about dog walking areas, recreational

areas, we have a big shortage of playing fields and other things. these are things we need to look into. the other thing with regard to sharp park in particular, one speaker brought up the fact that before there was a breakwater, led to the silly the mend salt lake. it was basically -- laguna salida. it was an area that would not have supported the red legged frog or the garter snake. we created the environment and to eliminate the breakwater would eliminate those species. part of this whole thing is protecting something that was never there in the first place. i'm not saying we should not protect them, but they are not really indigenous to the area. the most important thing is to make sure my opinion that sharp

park is maintained. maybe staff can answer this question -- there is talk about removing one of the holes of sharp park and is there a replacement? i did not see that in the e.i.r. maybe it is in there and i did not see it. a 17-hole golf course does not work well for me. i did not see an alternative that utilize some of the space to the east of highway one, which now has four holes i believe, either three or four, and i always thought when i was golfing there it would be a great place to put a couple of extra holes. back in '91, -- back in 1981, i remember what happened to 16 and 17, they were washed out for a number of years and mostly you were playing golf in the sand.

i'm not saying you should never change this historic course, but some of the things you have to look at is, if you are losing a hole somewhere, maybe you can reclaim it on the other side of highway one and make sure the holes you do have can withstand the forces of mother nature and make sure is a playable course of all times. maybe you can answer my questions about these alternatives. >> we did identify their removal of the whole would be a significant impact on the sharp park golf course as a recreational resource. the recreation section identified a mitigation measures at the very end, which is to restore the play ability of the sharp park golf course as an 18- hole course. after that litigation section, there is a programmatic analysis

of the impact of the mitigation measure. there are two options proposed program radically. one is to restore the whole on the east side of the highway and the other is to restore the whole on the west side of the highway. that project would need to be further evaluated. it is only addressed programmatic lee and recreation and park would have to come back for environmental clearance to do that. commissioner antonini: thank you. i would say would every need to do to make sure you end up with an 18-hole course is important. also work with the gulf alliance and the other people he spoke to make sure we are as close to the historic design as possible, but where there are situations where even without the frog and snake habitat issue, it's a losing battle with nature.

we have to make sure we make a course that is going to work. thank you for your work on this. i will submit something in writing. -- commissioner sugaya: i will submit something in writing. president olague: we will be taking a 15 minute recess. >> welcome back to the planning commission meeting.

we are on the regular calendar, number 14. request for a conditional use authorization. there was a request for an interpreter and we do have one. >> could afternoon, commissioners. -- good afternoon. you have before you a request

for a conditional use authorization to install nine new panel and tennis -- pavel antennas. >> interpreter will par paraphrase. [speaking foreign language]

>> in the project is located at 199 leland avenue. the project sponsor has hosted a key meetings for this proposal. the project sponsor agreed to a continuance on july 28th to allow for extended communication. the dialogue has continued between the community, the project sponsor, and supervisor cohen's office. there was also an informational booths at the street fair. this has not resulted in a resolution.

[speaking foreign language]

>> the petition sponsor has a list of community members in favor of the project. there is also an updated edition and this will be submitted during the presentation. [speaking foreign language]

>> the recommendation is that the project is approved on the basis that it is consistent with the objectives of the plan and code. this is consistent with the wireless telecommunications siding facility guidelines for any commission resolution. the proposed location is classified as a preferred site for wireless transmission facilities and this is a mixed use of building. finally, that this will assist in maintaining the complete and comprehensive network within the

city of san francisco and provides a service. [speaking foreign language]

>> this concludes my presentation.

after the project sponsor, i want you to translate something to the public. >> good afternoon. i am here from town consulting and our site acquisition manager. they are licensed engineers that conducted the radio frequency testing and prepared the report in your packets. [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language]

>> at&t has a significant coverage gap in this area and increase and improve our coverage. this is included in your packet. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> on june 2nd, 18 t held its first community meeting where we learned of the concerns of this community. we conducted additional out reach. we reached out to some of them are vocal leaders who attended and spoke. -- we reached out to some of the more vocal community leaders. we had a second meeting. to move the internet to the waste site. -- move the antenna to the waste site. as you know, the commission continued to the item to today's date. [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language]