who sing through the city. and now we may not have the green gart error the red frog. this is what i want to ask you. if you give a fish -- if you give me or anyone a fish, you have fed me for a day. if you teach me to fish, then you have fed me until the river is contaminated or the shoreline seas for development. but if you teach me to organize, then whatever the challenge is, i and we can come up to we can [speaker not understood] together with the people [speaker not understood] that we will fashion our own solutions. you started out talking about community organizing today, and i think this is part of what community organizing is for the bayview, whether it's pacifica, whether it's the sunset or the tenderloin or the mission.

it is really all about cesar sanchez, [speaker not understood]. it's time for people to organize new civil rights, make thing this earth provides for us all. i hope that's the message tonight. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. hello, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is douglas yip and i have lived in san francisco for 63 years. i would like to thank the citizens that came here for public comment on this issue. i think it's very important that the supervisors know that they are being observed. so, this way they know for the record it just isn't the federal government observing them. secondly, i would also like to say that since san francisco

prides itself, so much as being a green environmental city, why would two major agencies be against a full e-i-r? if you look at it logically, if you have nothing to hide, you would just do the e-i-r, get it over with, and then the opposition would just be satisfied and there would be no argument. when you oppose an e-i-r, one has a suspicion, a suspicion there is something there. and i use for my other example something called treasure island which had plenty of e-i-rs and now we know that it still grows at night. so, i would say that why not do an e-i-r. this way it would be logical -- logical that we pride ourselves as being an environmental city

because if we went to all the trouble time and effort to deal with something as basic as bottled water, why can't we do an e-i-r and it would just alleviate all the disagreement? as i always say, there's a long litany in san francisco of errors done by the planning unit and also by the park and rec starting with a w. >> next speaker. any other members of the public wish to speak in support of the appellant? okay. seeing none, at this time why don't we go to presentations from our city departments. first with a presentation from the planning department. you have up to 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, president chiu, members of the board. i'm rick cooper, senior environmental planner with the planning department. joining me today are sarah

jones, the environmental review officer and [speaker not understood], the environmental coordinator for the final mitigated negative declaration or smd which is the subjects of your appeal today. don [speaker not understood], director of planning capital management, lisa waynn, open space manager, and stacey bradley, a planner at the recreation and park department are here as well to address any questions you may have about the background, scope, or timeline of the proposed project. we say in the memo dated march 17, 2014, responding in detail to the issues raised in the appeal. the decision before the board is whether to uphold the department's decision to issue an ssmmd [speaker not understood] or return to the department for the preparation of an e-i-r. i'd like now to turn my presentation over to kay sushi who will briefly address the main points of our presentation. thank you.

>> thank you, rick. president chiu, members of the board, i'm [speaker not understood] of the planning department. and to continue the department's [speaker not understood] the proposal would not result in any significant impact on the environment that could not be mitigated, that a mitigated negative declaration was appropriately prepared. the [speaker not understood] is very limited in scope as all of you know. it involves habitat enhancement and minor infrastructure improvement at sharp park [speaker not understood]. further includes components that are analyzed in and required by [speaker not understood] issued by u.s. fish and wildlife service. and includes construction of [speaker not understood] realignment of personal existing golf cart task, removal of sediment and emergent [speaker not understood] and connecting channel that links the pond to

[speaker not understood]. construction and maintenance walkway, horse stable ponds, [speaker not understood] and [speaker not understood] existing retaining walled with concrete retaining wall at the exist being compound. the primary purposes for the proposed project are to restore habitat in several locations within the wetland complex for the california red leg frog and san francisco garter snake and improve safety for worker by improving access to the pump intake structures. [speaker not understood] the opinion, the u.s. fish and wildlife service issued a statement to authorize the proposed activity with conservation measures which were incorporated into the project and smmd as appropriate. the department's responses to the concerns raised by the appellants can be [speaker not understood] as outlined in the appeal response. i'll touch on some of the nine points in my presentation here.

to summarize the points, i'll address the appellant has presented no such such evidence that [speaker not understood] would result in [speaker not understood] environmental impact. despite the appellant's assertion, mitigation measure bio m2b is enforceable. [speaker not understood] because the project will not result in any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated. the appellant's assertion that [speaker not understood] would ip crease the [speaker not understood] wealth land complex is incorrect. [speaker not understood]. the appellants have said [speaker not understood] 2b is not enforceable. [speaker not understood]. this is not correct. first, the [speaker not understood] was approved by public hearing by park and rec

commission january 23rd, 2014. and the commission adopted the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for mmip. ~ for the project as additional project approval. san francisco recreation and parks department and the planning department, city departments are themselves appropriately -- appropriate regulatory bodies in the c-e-q-a to ensure that mmlp is fully enforceable. as for the appellant's assertion, it must be considered as part of the environmental review for the project. let me first clarify it is the planning department that conducted the environmental review for the project and not the rec and park department and determined that the -- any old terms not required under c-e-q-a for the project. however, this does not preclude that rec and park department from proposing any other

alternative to the project. these agencies not because of c-e-q-a to consider [speaker not understood] alternative, there are no significant impacts identified resulting from the project. [speaker not understood] level [speaker not understood] surrounding the project. as discussing the smmd with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in any significant impacts. this consideration of alternative -- the consideration of alternative to the [speaker not understood] is not required under c-e-q-a. the appellant also implies that there are one or more alternatives that are superior to the product in terms of the frog and snake at sharp park. under c-e-q-a, these agencies require to disclose the environmental impact of the project [speaker not understood] whether or not there are any other occurrence hees ~ occurrences [speaker not understood].

[speaker not understood]. the appellant also asserts that the [speaker not understood] will increase the rate of water flow of the wetland complex and this would result in adverse impacts on endangered species [speaker not understood] by wetland complex. this assertion is not correct. as mentioned previously, no changes at all are proposed to the pumphouse operations as part of the project that the project would not increase or expand the pump operations. [speaker not understood] and the amount of water flow for the wetland [speaker not understood] is controlled by the ingoing [speaker not understood] which are managed

by san francisco recreation park department. and these existing [speaker not understood] would not be altered [speaker not understood]. therefore, the appellant's assertion that the [speaker not understood] would expand the operation of the existing pumps and change the velocity of the water flow in the complex is not correct. the appellant has not presented any hydrological or hydraulic modeling prepared by a qualify professional that it would increase availability or amount of water flow in the laguna solano complex. finally, the appellant asserts that smmd failed to consider cumulative projects because removal will be undertaken by rec and park department and the smmd did you not include any analysis of future sediment removal. however, the rec and park department does not have any plans for future sediment

removal. the smmd fully analyzes scope of the project. before i conclude, i'd like to briefly acknowledge that [speaker not understood] it is clear from the speakers that there is a great deal of concern about the effects of the progress at sharp park, and i found the speakers' further testimony -- i especially note, however, that no new information has been raised that change our conclusion that smmd was appropriately issued and prepared. a couple points i'd like to just make for the record. first, further environmental review would not change the result of our analysis and conclusion, nor it would provide further information for a second potential impact for environmental review topic.

and in conclusion, the department has found that with mitigation, the proposed project would not have a substantial impact on the environment and would fit in the criteria for a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to the c-e-q-a guidelines. staff believes that the appellant has not provided any substantial evidence to refute the conclusion of the smmd. for these reasons the department, therefore, recommends the board uphold smmd and deny the appeal. that concludes our presentation. thank you. >> thank you. i have one question to start off the conversation. i know we have a number of colleagues with questions, but the appellant mr. plater had raised in his opening arguments the exchange that he had with fish and wildlife staff around the fact that there weren't resources that have been identified to implement the mitigation measures. could you directly address that

contention that there had not been communication with the federal agency on whether or not these mitigations can occur? >> absolutely. under c-e-q-a, as i mentioned previously, san francisco park and rec -- rec and park department as well as the planning department can be enforcing agency, that can make sure this mitigation measure in bio2b is enforceable and implemented. so, regardless of the level of availability of staff at u.s. fish and wildlife service, this mitigation measure is enforceable and we'll make sure that this will be implemented. >> so, you're saying that we will be spending local resources to enforce the mitigation measures? >> yes. >> okay. >> that's correct. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you.

and that was actually one of the questions i had. just to be very clear, the city is responsible as the wrote et sponsor for implementing the mitigation measures, right? >> that is correct. >> okay. and i think that is important because i think it would be an odd scenario if we have a federal agency over whom we have no control in term of their budget and resources saying we don't have the capacity to do this. so, therefore, somehow the project grinds to a halt or finally changes the environmental review. it seems like a rather arbitrary way to proceed. so, i think it's an important point that the city is responsible for implementing the mitigation measures and that's regardless of whether fish and wildlife has the ability to help or not. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

sarah jones, environmental review officers. yes, that's correct. the mrrp identifies the city as the responsible party for implementing this mitigation measure. the mitigation measure stipulates that various reports or different results of the process be submitted to fish and wildlife for their information. there's no reason that fish and wildlife would have allocated resources to this effort at this time. it would be similar to us assigning staff to a project that we he don't even have in front of us ~. also, fish and wildlife was consulted during the preparation of the mitigated negative declaration and, of course, it was circulated to them in its draft preliminary phase. >> great, thank you. so, another questions i think was referred to in the presentation, but i think it's

important we need to be clear about it. there was a lot of discussion in the appellant's presentation about the alternative or alternatives to the project. and just to be clear, i understand correctly, in order to get to the alternative analysis, there has to be a significant impact. is that right? >> that is correct. i mean, we as the lead agency is not required to analyze [speaker not understood], unless any significant impacts are identified by the environmental review process. >> okay. and that's a nontopic here, right? there were no significant impacts identified? >> we have measures included in that smmd. we did not identify any significant impacts on the environment. >> okay. thank you.

and then also i think you mentioned this, but i have a question for rec and park, for planning, that in terms of the pumping volume or pumping protocol, that would not be affected by this project? maybe ms. waynn can comment on that. i think it's important to have the facts and the actual c-e-q-a law clearly articulated. >> yeah, lisa waynn, recreation and parks department open space manager. that's correct, we have pumping protocols that have been approved and outlined by the fish and wildlife service that we are following and we have no intention to veer from what, what their guidelines include. so, pumping protocols are very, are very detailed and they include surveying around the wetland area for vulnerable [speaker not understood] and adjusting the water level to

protect those egg masses through the winter months when the animals are breeding. and we have -- we can't say for certain, but, you know ~ one year we'll have more or less water removed from the site or what the water levels would be in a particular season because it's really dependent on where the frogs deposit their eggs and where we set the water levels at. i hope that answers your question. >> yes. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president. just going back to the issue of pumping, can you talk about whether or not there is a change in the amount of water that's going in? i know it's one of the contentious -- contentions that are made. so, i'm wondering if you can address that issue. >> absolutely. so, this entire wetland complex

is a [speaker not understood] complex system. there is a huge amount of water going into the system itself. that's that, you know, ongoing dynamic situation we have currently regardless of whether or not this project moves forward or not. this project will remove some of the sediment, also vegetation from the horse stable pond in the collecting channel, but because of the entire wetland system is managed by and dictated by the pump operations, and this will not change the pumphouse operations [speaker not understood]. this project will not change that amount and the velocity of water flow in the system. >> wasn't this a change, though, to the pump in 2008? i mean, that actually increases the amount of water that goes in? >> i'd like to defer to rec and park staff on that question.

>> i know this is a little bit in my presentation, but in 2009 we developed protocol that had been in place since that time in response to a law enforcement action by the pond, by federal fish and wildlife service. so, those pumping protocols have been put in place since 2009 and i'm happy to report that this year we observed no stranding of egg masses. so, the protocols do seem to be working quite well. >> after you install this new pump in 2008, was there a c-e-q-a, was evaluation of that? >> good afternoon. sarah jones again, environmental review officer. c-e-q-a is done when project

approvals are being sought. that's what triggers environmental review as a project. so, this was not submitted to us as an approval for ceqa review. >> so, there was no c-e-q-a, no environmental evaluation of the impact of the new pump? >> it was not. c-e-q-a evaluation not not required. >> that question remains, you know. i'm asking about whether or not environmental review that was done. i'm not asking whether it was required or not, whether you believe it was required or not. just wondering whether it was done. >> it was not done because it was not required. >> okay. all right. so, is, is part of the project expanding pumping operations? because that's one of the claims that is being made by the appellant.

is that one of the, the goals, objectives, the points of the project? >> the proposed project, the pumphouse project does not -- would not change the amount of water that would be removed or the rate of water that would be removed. that is determined -- the rate of water is determined by the capacity of the pumps. there's two pumps. they're either on or off. they operate at a set rate. so, the rate of water does not change and would not change any of this project. the amount of water that is removed from the system is determined largely by the amount of precipitation in a given rainfall year and where we set the pumps at and where we set the pumps at is determined by where the frogs deposit their egg. >> so, what exactly is changed by this project in terms of

water or the pumping operations? >> nothing. the pumping protocols, as i said, are spelled out in our biological opinion, our agreement, and our permit with the fish and wildlife service. and we are not changing those pumping protocols. >> so, they're just completely -- so, they're completely wrong when they say that this is changing pumping operations? >> with all due respect, yes. >> okay. and if there is just a question for the city attorney, if there is in terms of, you know, legally -- if there is a difference of opinion as to whether or not there is an impact, you know, where they're saying that pumping op raytions are being increased and the department is not saying that that's not true, ~ if there is a difference of opinion legally, where does the benefit of the doubt fall?

>> deputy city attorney marla byrnes through the president. i think what you may be getting at, and please clarify if i'm not answering the question that you're asking, is what is the project that's being reviewed under environmental review here. and c-e-q-a requires that we look at what the wrote et is as proposed in comparison to what the baseline conditions are. ~ so, this project doesn't propose to change pumping protocols, then the city is not required as lead agency to look at potential changes to pumping protocols. pumping protocols are taken as a given as the underlying condition of the project and we compare whatever changes the project proposes. so, i think one of the questions here is, you know, what is the project the rec/park is proposing, that which is reviewed under environmental review. >> so, so, if the project is defined to include pumping

operations then it's a different project description? >> exactly. and it's a different project description -- rec/park as a policy matter can propose changes to the project and then environmental planning would be required to look at those changes under the environmental review. but here, it's not really characterized correctly as a difference of opinion. rec/park can propose as the agency with jurisdiction whatever project if you [speaker not understood] and then planning [speaker not understood] conduct environmental review of the project as proposed. >> so, i guess the question for rec and park, is one of the project's key objectives to operate the pumphouse more expansively or extensively? >> no, it is not. >> okay. and if there is evidence that suggest that, in fact, it is

one of the objectives and we agree with that evident, what is the significance of that? >> deputy city attorney marly byrne. because you have a negative declaration in front of you, the question for you is whether or not there is substantial evidence in the record before this body to support a fair argument that the project could result in significant environmental impacts. however, the question is what environmental impacts would the project as proposed result in. so, again, you're looking at substantial evidence not to support the project description which is what is proposed by the recreation and park commission, but rather to support whether there is a fair argument can be made supported by such substantial evident there will be an impact. >> so, if there is a fair argument to be made, even though it's a fair argument on the other side, what does that mean when you have two fair arguments? what's the implication of that? >> the question is whether you have substantial evidence.

so, substantial evidence, c-e-q-a defines it as fact, expert opinion based on fact. other assertions based on fact, it all comes back to whether you have factual support in the record. >> so, let me ask it this way. if one believes that the appellants have submitted substantial evidence as to the inaccuracy of the project description, does that mean that we have to rule in their favor even if the department disagrees with that? >> it does not because it's not -- they have to show substantial evidence to support an argument that the project would have an environmental impact. so, just because there may be disagreement about exactly what the project is proposing or what effects the wrote et may have, if that is not substantial evidence that shows an environmental impact, an adverse environmental impact

may result, then that's really what the board needs to be considering today. >> okay. the question where i'm confused, how do you know that there's no environmental impact if you actually haven't done the environmental review, right? i mean, one of the points that they're making that planning said was that environmental review wouldn't change the outcome. how do you know that if you haven't actually analyzed -- >> i'll defer to my colleagues in the planning department to address that question. >> with regard to this project, sarah jones, environmental review officer, we conducted this project, we have completed environmental review. we performed an initial study of specified by c-e-q-a of the project as proposed. ~ a specified other than the contention that the project is different, then the wrote et sponsor represented it to us. we have not seen substantial evidence supporting that

contention. we are obligated to conduct environmental review of the proposal that they submitted to us, which did not involve any changes to the pumping itself or the amount of water being pumped out of the wetland complex. so, we are in a position where we did perform environmental review. we did an initial study. the initial study determined that with the mitigations there would be no remaining significant impact on the environment and therefore an e-i-r was not warranted. an e-i-r is one mechanism through c-e-q-a to perform environmental review. it is required when there are significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. that environmental review was completed for the initial study. >> thank you. i do think there is a certai