mr. president, members of the board of supervisors, my name is [speaker not understood] i'm a resident in san francisco, i live in potrero hill in [speaker not understood]'s district. i think i just messed your name up. anyway, i'm in your district and i voted for you. [laughter] this whole thingv thing has been going on for years and years. i was a member of the ~ original task force that was designed to study this. our staff person was with [speaker not understood] -- i'm sorry, i can't get her name out without a couple tries. but she acted in good faith. i thought that the golfers who appointed to that committee acted in good faith. and the environmentvalist, mr. plater was on that committee. he didn't like the result that came out. i wasn't 100% behind it either,

but he kept going and he's taken bite after bite of the apple. they concluded that commission and the appealed that [speaker not understood] at the golfer's report. the lawsuit was dismissed on the motion for summary judgment. he lost that lawsuit. now they're trying to say that they need an environmental report, a complete environmental report. probably you all know that these are going to take at least a year, more likely longer, up to two years to complete the environmental impact report. it's just another tactic, there will be another one to follow that. don't fall for this. this is going to resolve it because it's never going to be resolved. the city staffers have worked hard. you hired them to be experts on this and they have presented their expertise here tonight and i hope that you will adopt the proposal of the report of the planning commission and

accept this environmental mitigation because is going to move forward and it's going to [inaudible]. good evening, supervisors. my name is [speaker not understood], lifelong san francisco resident. i was born in supervisor mar's drifted. i lived in supervisor farrell's district and i now live in supervisor yee's district. i'm the co-founder of the san francisco public graph alliance and our 6,000 members fully support this project. let me say something that ought to be obvious. the good staff, the dedicated staff, the hard working staff that put this project together is not an army of [speaker not understood] killing mer narc is and they're not a band of rampaging ma rawedersedthv they are responsible environmental stewards taking care of a landmark property ~. this golf course which was created by the greatest golf architect in history, alastair mc kenzie, with the help of john mclaren who gave us golden gate park.

it's an international treasure. and it is the creation of this golf course that we're fighting over. the golf course [speaker not understood]. that's what made the habitat possible and allows the sustaining of these populations. this is a project that wasn't cooked up last thursday in a garbage can in somebody's kitchen. it's been debated out in the hope. open. it's been transparent from beginning to middle to end ~. and the time is now to stand down and let rec and park do the job that fish and wildlife has tasked it to do in that biological opinion. that's where this came from and that's where it should go. please, allow this project to proceed. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

good afternoon, my name is victor [speaker not understood]. i'm a [speaker not understood] of san francisco, i'm also a senior golfer at sharp park. i'm here to support saving sharp park as an 18-hole golf course. the sooner the better. this environmental issue has delayed improving sharp park for too long. [speaker not understood] and many supervisors ago. [speaker not understood]. sfgov-tv, please.

>> why don't we move to the next speaker and we'll have someone work with you on the volume so we can hear this. why don't we hear from the next speaker, please. sir? my name is dan devries. i'm a 25-year resident of san francisco. i'm a member of the lincoln park golf club. and i would like to point out something that [speaker not understood] have both pointed out already. and that is that this is not entirely about frogs and snakes or even about the environment. there is plenty of evident that the snakes and the frogs are only around the golf course because the golf course is there.

there's no reason to believe that turning that environment to another purpose or no purpose at all would make it any better habitat for reptiles, amphibians, birds or mammals, including the human being mammal. the people who want to close sharp park claim that golf is an elitist activity for the wealthy and the powerful. very few of the people who play golf at sharp park are either wealthy or powerful. many have limited means. i'm one of them. sharp park is one of the few golf courses in the bay area that most anyone can afford to play. people of limited means are the people that those who want to close the golf course are going to deprive of their opportunity to play. it's the individuals who want to close sharp park who are the real elitists in this affair.

thank you. >> thank you. now, if we can go back to the last speaker. [audio/visual presentation] [speaker not understood]

>> thank you very much. next speaker. good afternoon, mr. president and board of supervisors -- good evening, i guess, now. my name len stone. i am [speaker not understood].

immediate past mayor. i want to thank the staff for the great work that you did leading out over the last couple days here examine ~ and also the planning commission's hearing. very thought out analysis and comments. and speaking from our city, which is a very unique, i know it's weird to come here and speak in san francisco on your topic. since it's right in the middle of our city, i thought it was important to come. the golf course is vitally important for our residents as it is for san francisco residents in providing diverse recreation. i live right adjacent to the golf course and i'm out on maury point in the ocean and in the beach almost on a daily basis. but the golf course providing that diversity of recreation, especially for low-income people that can afford golf, is very important. also, as someone that represents the public in pacifica, i am very concerned about the species and the environment and this plan here i think is the biggest thing,

is that it's going to improve that habitat. and we really need that. and we need to move forward on this and not push it back again. i know it started originally in 2009, which is a long time. going forward with an e-i-r is going to take another couple years, countless staff hours and financial resources. and i think we have a nice, very well thought out solution [speaker not understood]. so, i support going forward on this. thank you. >> thank you, councilman. thank you for being here. next speaker. my name is tony [speaker not understood]. i'm a native san franciscan, living here almost 60 years. this is about the third time i've come to this room to testify about sharp park golf course. i want to thank mr. plater for allowing me to come in here so often. i was sitting here thinking what was i going to say. this isn't about environmental restoration. this is about mr. later's

stated goal to shut down the golf course. he said so in a presentation where they presented a restoration plan that included dredging and bulldozing over 200 acres of sharp park. and removing over 13,000 trees from the acreage. the next time i came here, mr. plater talked about how the golf course maintenance activities were killing the wildlife so i did some research and found out that the current management practices meet the requirements of both the audubon cooperative sanctuary program for golf courses and the ratio he will carson council green medal suggestions for running environmentally sound programs. now, this is all about shutting the golf course down because if you agree on the appeal, you're going to now be in violation of a permit that will force the golf course to be shut. so that everybody is out in the open, if you vote for the

appeal you want to close the golf course, there is no doubt about it. >> thank you. next speaker. (applause) >> if i could just mention in this chamber we have a rule not expressing support with applause or hissing or booing with opposition comments for obvious reasons to make sure that we can move through our agenda. i'd ask folks if you could abide by that. next speaker. my name is doug morgan. i'm a resident of san francisco, 94 1 27 zip code. my purpose in being here today is not so much to save sharp park, but to refute mr. later and his approach he. they are becoming an absolute terror on this town ~. whether it's whether we're going to close the dog walking areas in the ccnra or close the golf course. he doesn't care about the residents of katrina voss. he cares about ~ san francisco.

he cares about his agenda. his agenda includes his website, first thing is make a donation, first option. that's where he's going with this. he doesn't care. on the other hand, he has got some great people in the city who as a group have told you what you should do. you ask them to tell you, they responded to what was said as required by the federal government, and he has done that. he wants to throw another wrench in it. don't let him, thank you. hi, my name is jay [speaker not understood], i'm a golf course architect and i'd love to stand before you and talk to you about all i stair mc kenzie and how he's one of my heros and the importance of sharp park as a golf course. but today it seems more important to discuss the fact that these issues were brought forth by the biological opinion, that this project is a direct result of the biological opinion. and you've had a wonderful

devoted staff who has worked tirelessly and studied this situation in-depth. it's important to move this project forward. you've got capable people who have worked on this and have put forth the good project. it's time to move forward. >> next speaker. hello, my name is teddy collins and i'm a four-year resident of san francisco. i'd like to talk about the diversity that sharp park brings to the city, whether it be racial, economic, or age diversity. there are several high school golf teams that play on the course. the ncj also has a subsidized program where juniors can pay as little as $5 to play on the course, and that just doesn't happen on this caliber of course in this area or any other area, to be frank. a little bit about myself. programs like these [speaker

not understood] helped me when i lived in new york growing up and allowed me to play local and national golf tournaments and eventually make my way to play on the stanford golf team. i think there are many juniors in the area who are coming up who use sharp park as a means to have similar career paths and to eventually make their way and do things that are [speaker not understood] they would have [speaker not understood]. so, i would urge you to do whatever you can to help save sharp park and to have a more speedy resolution to this issue. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. hi, my name is will [speaker not understood]. i live in zip skied 94 11 8 and [speaker not understood] and i want you to save the sharp park.

i am chinese american, i was born and raised in the city. but i am bilingual. today i renewed my city golf permit. i brought in some props, i play golf at sharp park. [speaker not understood]. i also play at lincoln park. i play at glenn eagleses. it's mostly san francisco municipal golf courses, okay ~. i urge you to save sharp park for san franciscans. this is my third time in this chamber. it always seems to be some [speaker not understood] if it's not sierra club or whatever they call themselves or it's eccentric neighborhood park or [speaker not understood], it's always some group coming here and trying to build a roadblock. they want to tear down sharp park. i only took up golf 11 years ago. before that i played -- well, i played baseball in the city.

i played a lot of softball for about 25 years until i got too old, can't play. so, i decided to take up golf. i took up golf in my early 50s and i got to be okay, i got to be a bogey golfer. at sharp park there are a lot of minorities. there are a lot of minorities. and if you take away this -- our opportunity to play out there, you'll be part of san franciscans [speaker not understood] to play golf. do you represent san franciscans? do you represent those of us -- or do you represent special interest groups? so, i urge you to save sharp park for san franciscans, people that like -- you need to go out there and do something as we get older. and for young people. so, save sharp park. thank you. good afternoon, evening. my name is lisa diaz senior.

[speaker not understood] i'm a mexican woman. as you've seen from the people that come before you, we're of all walks, we're mexicans, we're blacks, we're asians, we're everybody and that's who plays at sharp park. one other thing that's important and i echo he everyone who help us today with support going forward with the project, ~ you can't delay and doing nothing is really bad. let's move forward and stop delay. this has been vetted. everyone hasv been here before. it's been researched, it's been reviewed. stop wasting researches and stop wasting your time and go forward with the project. i'm a secretary with the san francisco public golf alliance, i'm a co-captain and past [speaker not understood] champ with the ladies group. i'm a lawyer and i've lived in pacifica for eight years. this place is a core of that community. it's not just a golf course. it's a place where people come and meet. they have banquets. it's a heart beat in that city. there is a youth walking around that course that probably wouldn't appreciate the environment and our species if they didn't get a chance to go

out and walk around rather than sitting at a computer. isn't that nice? look at the young people you've seen today. so, i urge you to let us continue with this wonderful historical site and use it for golf and stop the delay. thanks for your time. >> next speaker. hi, my name is [speaker not understood], i'm the chair of s.f. dog, i'm not a golfer, but i support active recreation in bay area parks. it's really important to remember the history of this issue and that is that the people that have been coming to you for years and years and i've been coming here -- i've been against it. basically come with a plan they've been pushing for years. to close the golf course and to convert the park -- the golf course to wetland and to give sharp park to the ggnra. and that's what this is about. it's been alluded to by a few speakers on the other side, but that's really what this is about. it's kind of giving lip service

to the frog and the snake because all of these things that they're putting -- these barriers they're pushing forward are in fact delaying the things that will in fact help the habitat and create better habitat for the frogs and snakes. and i think that the point that was just brought up most recently, which is that in order to do this, what was implied was a very small little flooding would be so wonderful is actually more on the order of 3 feet flooding the [speaker not understood], that's the crux of this. point of this is to get rid of the golf course. and please don't give in to this sort of legal temper tantrum of people who have been coming to you for years trying to get what they want. this is about their alternative, not about trying to consider everybody [speaker not understood]. it's about what they want. please don't give it to them. and preserve recreation at sharp park. thank you. >> next speaker.

good afternoon. maybe i should say good early evening to you supervisors. my name is clarence bryant. i am a member of the san francisco public golf alliance, also a member of the western states golf association and the u.s. golf association. so,s as a golfer, i'm really involved with this project. the project as i understand it is a forward thinking and progressive venue. progress sometimes is misunderstood and not well accepted during its time. but now is the time for us to make the decision to continue to provide those kinds of activities and entertainment that sharp park provides for its citizens of san francisco.

it is often said that you don't let where you are define who you are. so, make a conscious decision to help those that you have been charged to help. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. i'm sherri lewis wood, a 25-yeares are debt ~ resident of san francisco, and i, too, vote. thank you, president chiu. you're in my district or i'm in your district. this is my first time to come to a board of supervisors meeting. i've been reading about them in the chronicle for years. and it's wonderful that everybody who is willing to speak for two minutes gets a chance to make their comments. i am proud to be a city -- a resident and taxpayer of the people who have been on the parks and recreation and the planning department.

i can see that they've done a great deal of work, that they know their material, that they're experts in their field. for you supervisors who may be new to this issue, i hope that you've listened to people who have cared deeply about sharp park. i am hopeful that you, our elected board of supervisors, will recognize the importance of meeting our commitments to citizens of san francisco and to the commitments that we as citizens made to the snakes and the frogs. thank you. good evening. my name is robert sanchez. i was born in san francisco and have lived in pacifica for 57 years. the majority of my 57-year working career was in the city. when i was 15 i had a job opening at sharp park golf course. so, i went down there and got

the job working and see the professionals, taking care of the caddy carts and renting them out. when i was a boy i started playing. outside of a four-year navy hitch, i've been playing golf ever since. for over 60 years. sharp park is a great course and it's affordable. most golfers i meet there are from san francisco and love the course. now let's talk about mr. plater and his group. they sue the city on behalf of the frog and snake who have been flourishing and coexisting with golfers for over 80 years. golfers usually stayed out of the dense rough where they were and only occasionally heard a frog and hardly ever a snake. or ever saw a snake. but the city in good faith commissioned a study for the outcome that they would connect laguna [speaker not understood] wetlands with those in the

national recreation area. that would make a better habitat and would cow some golfers to be changed. this seems to be in most golfers to be a reasonable response to the lawsuit and the court agreed. so, why is plater back? he's throwing up a smoke screen just to delay the project and ultimately to close the course. so, please tell mr. plater to go back to wherever the hell he is from and leave the golf course alone. thank you. good evening, supervisors. i'm richard harris with the san francisco public golf alliance. there is a close connection between the lawsuit to which the city is still party, which is on appeal, and this matter

that is before you tonight. mr. -- the plaintiff in the lawsuit also the entity that is here before you tonight telling you to delay, to disregard the deadlines that have been set on you by the u.s. fish and wildlife service, it is based on that opinion of the fish and wildlife service that the lawsuit was denied. if your board accepts and agrees to the appeal, then delays infinitely the directions of the fish and wildlife service, you are out of compliance. you are subject to take in a resurrection of the lawsuit that [speaker not understood]. which is to say you are jeopardizing the golf course,

which is why the golfers who are talking about golf [speaker not understood] on the golf course, they see that the golf course itself is being jeopardized. not just by the modest proposal that the fish and wildlife [speaker not understood] which turnout to be 3 or 4 feet which floods the golf course, but by disregarding orders of the fish and wildlife service and the [speaker not understood] who have told you to get this done shortly. please deny the appeal and move forward. thank you very much. i have, for the record, a [speaker not understood] additional historical material on the golf course [speaker not understood]. >> the deputy clerk will pick it up in just a second. good evening, supervisors. my name is chris [speaker not understood]. i'm a partner at the law firm of morris and [speaker not

understood] in san francisco where i head up environment energy practice group. and we have represented the sfpga court in court in litigation where the city prevailed and is now on appeal, and we also represent the sfpga in this matter ~. and i just want to address some of the alleged legal vulnerabilities that wildlife equity has raised. and the first is the ability of fish and wildlife to enforce the mitigation measures. mmd simply cannot be attacked on the grounds that its conditions will not be enforced, but also there are reasons for that. obviously as was pointed out much through testimony [speaker not understood] to wonder whether that will happen. and as was explained, the city and fish and wildlife have for years nearly a decade worked collaboratively and cooperatively. that's all they're going to continue to do.

wild equity's implicit threat to intervene before the agency and increase its work burden shouldn't be rewarded. it would be another error in law to the heckler's veto. the board really doesn't want to go down that road. second, no alternatives were analyzed for the black water law reason that no significant impact what identified in the initial study. the assertions by wild equity that they think that no pumping is taking place than is specifies in biological opinion does not amount to substantial evident and that's what you have to find as a legal matter, is substantial evident to support a fair argument that there was significant impact. finally why not do an e-i-r when it is an legally rewired? a number of reasons. money obviously is one. [speaker not understood].

>> thank you very much. thank you very much. any other speakers wish to speak in public comment on behalf of the rec and park department? okay, at this time why don't we hear from our appellant for a rebuttal of up to three minutes as well as any questions that, colleagues, you may have. >> a couple of very quick points. a few very wii questions were made by the board of supervisors at the conclusion of the department's presentation. one of which was is it really the case that this project can