stan ? >> hello. my name is stan and i live in pacifica. rather than talk about what's going on the east, i would like to talk about what's going on in the west. some of you may know that a bag has completed a sediment study down to pedro point the sound end of pacifica. what this has shown, it hasn't been completed yet, but for the

first set of facts, rocca way beach will be no more. we are looking at 20-50 years here. linda mar beach which is one of our most beautiful beaches will not be recognizable and it's very iffy whether that will surprise or not. we leave our third beam, our park. if the berm stays up as the ocean rises, the beach will disappear. what that means, pacifica, a town of 40,000 people will be left with no beaches. i would strongly suggest that we need a complete e ir for the hydrology for the future. we also know that politically speaking, the governments are finally starting to get active and the

feds themselves will throw most of their money towards the east coast where most of the money is. the california's will throw most of the money towards the bay area where the money and people live. there is not a lot of money for our coastal towns. i would rather see multimillion dollars going to save parts of towns, the people's homes than a single business. i think there is a better way to spend this money and i would like to live in a town that has at least one beach left for my ancestors. >> my name is margaret goddel. i live in pacifica. i'm an advocate for pacifica and for keeping beach into future. i

ask you to consider not merely what people have today, what people want for themselves for the next 10-20 years. but to look at the possible effect that your actions may have on existence of a city and economic survival of the city down the line. if you agree to the negative declaration you very likely are going to be an approving a two pronged attack on pacific a. if you allow more pumping, you may ultimately destroy our rare coastal lagoon. this past summer with extra heat, right now with extra heat, with global warming, the surface water are below that recommended by u.s. fish and wild life. it didn't come up with the rains, it came

up to the minimum level and now it's back down again. if the pumping continues as it has, then they will move into that lagoon and it will get smaller. do you want to continue to dredge, continue vegetation. where do you want to put your money in a process that will end up with no lagoon in pacifica. if in order to do this project, the trucks that go back and forth on the berm almost certainly require more. that is a problem. you are looking to reduce an amount of armoring on the cost, not

increasing. global warming is a nasty fact. it's going to affect coastal towns and going to affect the area of sharp park. if you continue with the berm, ultimately, maybe 50 years maybe more, you will have destroyed sharp park beach. please look really hard at those harder facts that have to do with global warming. and do an e ir. be consider the of the people of pacifica as well as the current people who are interested in keeping things as they are. thank you. >> hello, my name is amy zerg. according to u.s. gs, 5 million acres of wet land was in california. today there is less

than 1/2 of 1 percent of these acres remaining. in san francisco and the bay area we have an oversupply of golf courses. there are more golf courses that can be utilized by the gofrs here because the popularity of golf is going down. we are not disputing diversity of the golf course, but it's not being used very frequently and if it were to close, there are plenty of other golf courses to attend. in the bay area we have 6 golf courses in san francisco. as i mentioned previously, this is a very dry year. but i fear once we get the rains we desperately need that it affects the golf that the people will be turning

on the pumps to drain the water and the frogs that need the water to breed will not be able to breed. these animals, the frog and the snakes and any other animals living in this area and the plants that are occupying the area, they are already struggling with compliement change. we need to give them the resources that they need to continue to thrive in this area and not complete the resources by draining the water away. the sharp park wet lands are for the california red leg ed frogs, the tad poles are not strong to swim away from the pumps. they are so small and their bodies are so soft that they are difficult to document this. we urge you to consider the significant

negative impacts and prepare a full environmental report. also, this golf course was built in 1917, well before we had laws to protect the environment and the species. if this golf course were proposed today, it is highly unlikely that it would be built because wet lands are so valuable to our environment and to the species and for our communities and place for people to visit the wild life that is so rich in the bay area. i encourage you to not approve this negative declaration. thank you so much. >> hi. my name is laura burton, a san francisco resident and

i'm here in support of wild life appeals and ask for a full environmental review of this sharp project. i have been involved with the effort to protect the frogs and the snakes for years now and it's difficult to see what's happening with these species as you drain the water that exposes the frog egg masses which continues to cause significant impacts to the species to this day. yet the environmental effects are not considered in the ceqa document. it seems the issues of not been addressed not even close. the direct course of action is to implement a full environmental review including experiment will a new golf course. these species are

highly i i mperilled and require an if -- full e ir to be done. >> hello, my name christian steal. i'm a san francisco resident. i'm not a governor and i don't have any particular investment in the snakes or the frogs although i do love wild life generally. i come her somewhat as an impartial observer to see what both sides have to say because i know both sides are concerns with the human and wild life

dimensions. it seems to me the golf course is in no threat of being closed. and i understand tlers trying to be responsible for the wild life as well. it does appear from all of the questions that have been raised on both sides that it would be very premature to approve this declaration. so i urge you to consider doing a full e ir. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is phil, a director for the conservation national organization. we are in strong support of the wild equity institutes appeal that the city should do a full eir. i would like to talk about 2 points that have not been discussed so

far today and are inadequately discussed and respond to you in the document that the department has sent to you today. the protocols are insufficient to protect the species because there are insult no constraints on the amount of pumping that is taking place during the non-breeding season. what we have is we have at the non-breeding seasons pumping taking place, water levels being artificially set and pegged as low and from that point additional pumping is taking place at a future time. this off-season pumping has not been studied. it adds to the cumulative effects of the type of project being proposed. ironically as dr. peters has debated with san francisco and

discussing with federal agencies along the coast, as the water is drawing down on the off-season, that creates the shallow habitat for the very same species that the department is proposing to remove to create habitat for frogs. it's bizarre, logic. it has not been studied and for these reasons as well as the other ones that have been brought forward it is premature to move forward with this negative declaration. the appeal to us seems virtually unchanged. the recommendation seems virtually unchanged. decisions such that implicate both state and federal laws should be based on legal merits and not what is speed i didn't. over the long-term this would save the city time and resources from legal challenges

which we know this site is due to on going litigation. it's asked the city to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars last year because of losing a court case. so, the department can do better, they should do better, the opportunity is here to do better. there is no reason to rush. multiple permits are needed for any of these actions to move forward. so it would be prudent for the department to move forward and it was nice to see the department is doing well financially. the resources are there to conduct such a review. thank you very much for your time.

>> duringel el nino events heavy rainy seasons they will close for one or 2 months until conditions are allowable for golfers. a small golf course like willow park regularly floods every year for part of the course. what happens when my wife and i go there is when we come to a fairway that is flooded, we just pick up our ball and write down our score that our handicap permits and

just move on. the other part of the issue from a golfing perspective is that we like to play by the rules and pay attention to them. there is from the reading of affidavits and depositions that i have read, the take authorization provisions of the endangered species act is clearly not being adhered to meaning you don't kill, you don't disrupt and you don't harass an endangered species. the other too is a habitat conservation task both include the san francisco garter snake as well as the red leg ed frog. tigly

with those i recommend a full environmental impact review be conducted. thank you. >> let me call a couple names. michael wallish. >> i'm here to support the environmental impact review. this really needs to be done because the salt water environment, this marsh is the only one existing in san francisco and they are one of the most endangered environments. the whole ecosystem if you lose it, it's going to cost that much more if you want to put it back. also it's proven that red leg ed

frogs do breed in fresh water. also i would encourage you to look into oakland lake. again i implore you to perform a full environmental impact statement. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is dan, you did pronounce it right. thank you. the wild equity institute, the definition of equity, the state quality or ideal of being just, impartial and fair. i questionnaire the impartiality. i question the give and take in this process. i would encourage you guys to stick with the path that you are going down. they

talk about an in equitable relation. this golf course has existed for 80 years. coexisted in a very good fashion. you talk about a biologically i mpoverished world you would not be able to find a wild life in a park. what's the creation of a more in just world. nature itself isn't always just and fair. we lose thousands of species every year on this planet. i'm for the work that you guys do, but i believe we can coexist and continue to maintain a golf course and save the snakes and the frogs which is what i think you are trying to do with this project. a couple of facts. in fact there are fewer golf courses per

capital in the san francisco metropolitan area than any other metropolitan city in this country. this is a public golf course. for context when i'm talking to you guys, elected officials that are dealing with complex problems like this. we need to have cooperation and compromise. in context, the golden gate national recreation area, 81,000 acres. sharp park is 400 acres but only about 100 acres of that are golf course. it doesn't need to be a walking park. taking sharp park to me would be a taking, usually a taking in an environmental situation rather to call it a reuse. i just, there is no where that's going to happen here on the coast. there is no

way that a golf course can be replaced. i'm asking four cooperation and cooperation and compromise. to me that's how you find a just world. we can save this golf course, safe this frogs and the snake and san francisco can coexist with wild equity institute. thank you. >> hi. my name is lynn stein. i'm representing myself and in favor of the eir. i want to talk about the major extinction events and this one is caused by humans. i think by now humans have taken up one

species and a lot of space. it's time for us to shift and consider the other species also. it's time for us to be first and what we are doing would cause harm to other wild species and second, the effects on humans. because we are not in immediate daring -- danger of extinction but so many wild life are. i would urge you to conduct the eir for so many reasons. it slows things down and looks at the consequences and how can that be bad? i would ask you to slow things down and think about how this affects species other than us. thank you.

>> good afternoon, my name is mike wallace. i'm a bad golfer. i'm here in support of the mitigated negative declaration for the enhancement project. i'm not a lawyer, i'm not a politician. i won't be commenting on the specific details of the declaration. i follow the bike paths and i want to make two or three larger points which i think are fortunate understand the connect of the over all discussion. the first is, the california red leg frog while

threatened, is not threatened at sharp park. this has been proven time and again over this process over the years this has been debated. i want to read two quotes from sharon swang who is a biologist who is working as a negative habitat and to the san francisco oversight committee and she's an expert in an interest in the survival of this species. this is what she said. "golf is no what is responsible for the garter snake. golfs are prolific, you need to have a fresh water managed habitat for

this species and that is all there is to it." that is what karen had to say. a second quote from courtroom of judge susan and her ruling regarding against any maintenance on this course. what she found and what she wrote in her ruling "" experts for both sides agree that the population has increased and neither dispute the amount of eggs found "just a suggestion that this is, that when you have an opportunity to go ahead with the plan and to enhance the habitat for the frog and snake and it will work out best in a cooperative manner for both the golfers and

the wild life. >> is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon. my name is robbie michael's. a resident of south san francisco right up the hill from pacifica and i hike in that region and i'm able to view the frogs and the area in question. i would like to say that my perspective is based upon my what i have heard today and also what i have researched. i have an impartiality. both sides of this argument agree that it is important to have these natural elements as well as the frog in the area. it does appear that the side and approval of this does proceed that there is value ignoring the

environmental impact review. i would thick thi it would -- think it would be in the best interest to make sure that an environmental impact review is completed to make sure there are no further implications. there are plenty of other local san francisco recreational activities available in that region. hiking, cycling are very popular as well iechl want to make sure that in order to proceed, that the environmental impact review would be the responsible action to take to make sure that future federal oversights does not mitigate the progress of this project. thank you for your time.

>> any additional public comment? public comment is closed. >> a member of the planning department. a number of speakers today mentioned about the project impact as well as on going operational pumps. this project is very limited in scope and pretty much regulated by all the terms and conditions and i'm pretty sure that parks and recreation further qualify regarding the scope of the project. but it's all protected. it's all regulated. i just wanted to make it clear in the record. also, in terms of on going pump operations, those are just base conditions for the purpose of ceqa review. the lead agency is not required to analyze the impact from the on going operational pumps. we are only required to analyze the project impact. and same

thing for climate change and global warming. those are on going happening regardless of whether or not this project moves forward or not. this agency again is not required to impact from climate change and global warming. we have analyzed the impact of the pmd. also 2 points, the appellant raised, one about the appeal. the standard deal was using is slightly different from what we are supposed to use as part of the environmental reviews. but the beale looked at the project as well as the pumps and previously approved habitat restoration project and the beale concluded that this

project would not jeopardize the continued existence of the california red leg frog or the garter snake. based on that we interpreted the analysis of the bo and pmd does not result for the purpose of ceqa. the second point the appellant raised is that there is a fair argument related to expert opinion disagreement. the appellant mentioned they hired hydroelectrical expert and the project might increase the hydroelectrical and can reverse the water flow. however, that