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 cl

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

mr. plater discussed, can be be brought back for your consideration. thank you so much and i hope you will uphold the appeal. >>> hi, my name is [speaker not understood]. i'm a lifelong pacifica resident. i currently study at u.c. davis. i had a tremendous opportunity to work both with the golden gate national park conservancy [speaker not understood]. i had an opportunity to understand the true value of all the wetland habitat encompassed within this area. and i say similarly to all others because it's critical that we look at alternative to the proposed projects and alternatives necessary. i'd like to add on to the point made by the previous speaker, one of the main purposes of c-e-q-a is public disclosure of information. and i think that an environmental impact report is critical and it will enable the public to view with alternatives that are considered and disclose more information about the projects and the mpd that was prepared. it seem to me it was an attempt to mitigate against significant impacts versus actually address them and discuss them

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

mr. plater had distributed to the board. so, i don't have the page number in front of me. i apologize. i can try to look for it. >> so, i believe the question is whether or not the fish and wildlife is required to review and approval -- approve this mitigation measure. i believe the answer is no. the mitigation measure requires us to provide information to the u.s. fish and wildlife, however, their review is not required to implement that mitigation measure. >> so, actually -- sorry. i'm going based off what the appellants have distributed. so, it would be helpful for you to clarify that so i can understand the importance of the evident that they're submitting. so, for example, on page 87 -- actually, there are several throughout the document. on page 87 it says the first two lines at the end of the sentence, the s.f.

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.

mr. plater was on that committee. he didn't like the result that came out. i wasn't 100%