Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 29, 2014 7:00pm-7:31pm PDT

7:00 pm
california red legged frog and these red legged frogs are protected under the law. so, any project that will harm these creatures shall at least be subject to considering alternatives especially [speaker not understood] alternative. [speaker not understood] was letting the waters rise above the vegetation they tolerate. so, i suggest -- i urge an environmental impact report be done otherwise these alternative will not be considered. thank you. good afternoon. my name is rose [speaker not understood]. i'm a resident of san francisco. when i came in, supervisor campos was speaking very eloquently in the way in which society takes care of our nonhuman creaturers reflects on our communities. and i think that is what is at issue right here. what we have right now is an opportunity to look at
7:01 pm
alternatives. alternative that are cost-effective and more environmentally friendly to sharp park and the surrounding areas and endangered species that call sharp park home. a very modest ask to ask that san francisco look at those alternative through a full e-i-r process, particularly when the current mitigated negative declaration includes measures that we've learned recently have no way to be implemented by the federal agency. so, i would ask you to -- for a full e-i-r. thank you. >> next speaker. thank you, my name is cathy seigel and thank you so much for your careful consideration of this really important issue. c-e-q-a is our safety net for the protection of our health and environment. and you can't accomplish c-e-q-ases goals to avoid and mitigate, but preferably avoid all together. significant damages. riskseses to the environment without a full environmental
7:02 pm
impact report and specifically the alternatives analysis. it is so important to send this back to the drawing board so it is less damaging a 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,
7:03 pm
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 in a productive manner. so, i'd urge the board of supervisors to consider the preparation of full environmental impact report and thank you so much for your time. ~ mmd hi, my name is hanna [speaker not understood], environmental science at city college. ~ i study environmental science at city college. i want to encourage you to complete a environmental impact report. the frogs have it really tough since the 1860s when they were eaten to death.
7:04 pm
and they're currently facing massive like 90% or more habitat. if there is any chance that we could be -- that we can prevent this, we should. so, an environmental impact report is [speaker not understood]. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is philip gary. i'm a resident of san francisco. i also am in full support as needed to adequate [speaker not understood]. the negative declaration did not consider any alternatives of the pumphouse project. experts have stated even a mitigated pumphouse project that have significant effects on the california red legged frog and the garter snake operation. [speaker not understood] and
7:05 pm
hydrology at sharp parka mr. potter has stated. they are great with legislation in the wetland they [speaker not understood]. so, please vote for a full e-i-r to discuss all these things and make this can them. >> next speaker. good afternoon. my name is lee ah thompson. ~ leah thompson. i don't think we can definitively say no harm will be done with that one and that should be priority it's not just an environmental and financial issue. it's a moral issue about what our priority is and what precedent we're setting. our recreational wants of the
7:06 pm
bio[speaker not understood] needs of others. i would like to leave you with a quote from chief seattle. if all the beasts were gone, none would die from great loneliness of spirit. so whatever happens to the beast also happens to man, whatever fall to earth befalls the sons of the earth. i'd also like to ask you if you can imagine a world without this sound, because i think that's where we're heading without really careful consideration. [sound effects] >> >> hold the fire alarm. any further comments? hi, my name is ron sundergill. i'm the regional director of the parks [speaker not understood] association here in the city. our organization has 800,000 members and 113,000 members in
7:07 pm
california. we urge the board to put aside the controversial and preliminary mitigated negative declaration for the pumphouse project. we further request that the direct the department to prepare an environmental impact report for the project. we are deeply concerned that the rec and park's judgment it would cause ecological harm that is not mitigated. the department prepared a mitigated negative declaration rather than environmental impact report. and as a result, no alternatives to this proposal were considered that means that none of us, you, the supervisors, the public, the commissioners have had an opportunity to review that accomplish the exact same goals the department has. which is to tree deuce aquatic vegetation. these options are less ecologically damaging and less expensive to i am metv. in fact, those appealing the
7:08 pm
mitigated negative declaration have submitted alternative to the department that preserves the ongoing availability of kwing and this alternative is better for the environment and is less expensive, to boot. the board in texas deserve to have an option on the table than [speaker not understood] the fundamental values the public supports, mainly protecting the environment ~ and spending taxpayer dollars wisely and i would also like to close by thanking the supervisors for hanging in and hearing out the public here today. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. my name is kerry kaiser and i am with the national parks association and we would like to ask the board to ask the park and rec or rec and park to do a environmental impact report for the pumphouse project.
7:09 pm
we need this e-i-r because the project proposes to destroy aquatic vegetation in the wetland which is an important part of an ecologically sensitive landscape. it will cause cumulative respects to the systems. as we heard before, there are alternatives that are less ecologically damaging and are better for the budget of san francisco, and by letting the waters rise during the spring and the summer. this is an all teshvtive that will meet the project's objectives and will not relief that to the blinds and will not release flood risks at all. maze support doing an e-i-r for this pumphouse. thank you very much. good afternoon. my name is barry herman son. i'm a member of the san
7:10 pm
francisco green party. i'm attorney counsel. i stand here to support the request for the e-i-r briefly, as someone has had it before. it will cost less and what's not to like? i hope you will decide to support that request. thank you. good afternoon. my name is mike the katz. i'm a philosophy student at san francisco state university and i have been a san franciscoes are department for the past five years. i am here to encourage the board to require a fuel e-i-r for the project. as highlighted by mr. later, the [speaker not understood] in its current form [speaker not understood]. mitigated water levels and acidity have impact on two federally protected species. red legged frog and garter snake.
7:11 pm
letting the water level rise is not omaha, nebraskav feasible but much more prudent. they would save a lot of money than would otherwise spent fully. thank you. >> next speaker. hello, my name is [speaker not understood] oz good. i'm a resident of san francisco. and i urge the board of supervisors to consider the full environmental i am ~ impact pumphouse project so they can consider [speaker not understood] less damaging and more fiscally responsible. thank you. hello, i'm larry pettit, i'm a citizen of san francisco and proud to be so. ~ but sometimes i'm a little embarrassed. i find it ought that san francisco at this time is choosing to pump out water from the wetland, at the same time there are heroic efforts being made to preserve wetlands.
7:12 pm
certainly an e-i-r is certainly called for in this case. sadly. but -- and at a time when -- well, i mean, the california red lake frog is our most famous amphibian. it can jump well without buck shot. and is certainly in need of our kerrization. and i appreciate you hearing me out. thank you. hi, my name is lynn stein, i'm a long-time resident of san francisco. [speaker not understood] to advocate for the red frog and san francisco garter snake. [speaker not understood] eloquently speak for themselves.
7:13 pm
the package you need is ordinary people. [speaker not understood]. if i make a civic argument [speaker not understood] this is my experience with the park fa [speaker not understood]. the two transit systems and several block walk discouraged me, even though i did recently go to the [speaker not understood]. it was intended for ordinary san francisco ans. out of curiosity the sf park and website to [speaker not understood], the other rec and park golf course he. according to their rate chart, there were five other golf courses besides [speaker not understood] park all in san francisco, two units. [speaker not understood].
7:14 pm
one is the golden gate golf course as an example, [speaker not understood] of $20s as opposed to southpark's 45. [speaker not understood]. basically endangered species, whether or not -- were they [speaker not understood] for humanses to protect the endangered humans? [speaker not understood] certain ier, we have time. and again, i also heard supervisor campos talking about [inaudible]. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is maureen wooden, i'm with golden gate audubon. golden gate audi you bun
7:15 pm
supports a full e-i-r of this project. the same can be said about the pass 1 facility, marshes in san francisco bay and many thing we which are our predecessors not done. now we have the knowledge to make more information choices. [speaker not understood] to dredge the wetland at sharp park laguna lad i, or have a sear alternative by experts in the field. to quite all bert iain stine. [speaker not understood]. both the red legged frog [speaker not understood] their home is sharp park. given the population of these species, golden gate audubon supports a full e-i-r for this pumphouse project.
7:16 pm
thank you. >> hello, my name is val aye horton and i work with wildlife institute. you have heard today a lot of wagons why the rec and park should [speaker not understood]. first, the inevitable cumulative impacts of dredging at shard park. it mean education and continues to drain the wetlands year after year. more overgrowth and they'll have to keep druckving. the rec and park set to address what will happen when the vegetation grows back, and it will. [speaker not understood]. i believe that the individual impacts of even just a one-time judging project at sharp park would be significant. however, even if the individual impacts were limited, the impacts caused by future
7:17 pm
druckving would [speaker not understood] to environmental effects that are significant. [speaker not understood] needs to analyze these effects in a full [speaker not understood] especially now that the implementation of the proposed measure in light of the fish and wildlife [speaker not understood] the project would result even in significant effect with the measure that there should be no pressure it cannot be avoided or mitigated to less than a significant level. a full e-i-r is needed [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> next speaker. thank you for receiving all of us. i live in pacifica. i've lived there since 1992,
7:18 pm
and i also support four robust e-i-r in this. negative declaration is a shortcut that's probably going to come back to haunt you. we've heard about the deleterious effects on dredging the marsh to the endangered species. i'd like to also talk about the berm. the berm is something that created that whole zone in there and it's not long for this world [speaker not understood] and periodic el nino [speaker not understood]. so, you're maybe facing some involvement with the san mateo supervisors. i've heard the san mateo county supervisors, at least two of
7:19 pm
them, are dead set against what they call [speaker not understood] or beach armoring. beach armoring has wiped out pacific [speaker not understood]. all of that has happened dows -- and then, increased or exacerbated because [speaker not understood] having [speaker not understood]. so, please, have a full e-i-r so hopefully that issue will be brought up in the e-i-r. thank you. >> next speaker. my name is tom bennett and a golfer, [speaker not understood]. been on several trips with sharp golf club members. i'm here not to argue against sharp park, but for good environmental [speaker not understood].
7:20 pm
for over 40 years or almost 30 years, 20 in the army and 20 at lawrence liver moore, conducted research materials, more familiar with conducting risk assessments and e-i-rs. that said, i want to point out that e-i-rs should be triggered when experts legitimately disagree over the impact of the environment. while that study has provided that evident in the past as well as what you've heard today. but during the planning commission's herebition, one of the commissioners said, i'm not a biologist, but i can't imagine anything new that an e-i-r would show. ask one of the staff member. they couldn't come up with anythingnessv. after that statement, he he voted against the e-i-r.
7:21 pm
the wrote et plan, in fact, section 2b that mr. potter talked about, i want to make a couple comments about that. in that it requires [speaker not understood] samplings analysis of water. and making reports. but during that time, operations will continue and in terms of quality assurance procedures, you shouldn't be conducting operations while hazardous materials could be released into the wild. i urge you to conduct a full e-i-r. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, my name is [speaker not understood] brian. i am a former intern at the [speaker not understood] and a law student at hastings college of the law. i have to get back to class so i'll try to be brief in my support of a full e-i-r of the
7:22 pm
sharp park pumphouse project. one of the things i love about the bay area compared to any other city or [speaker not understood] that i ever lived in is the way that the natural world and the urban environment are combined. pacifica exemplifies this. it is one of the more beautiful places in the bay area and i've sure it's a lovely place to play golf. i do not do so. but if you go down there, there's not just people playing golf. there are people biking. there are people walking on the beach. there are people running. and there are people going to look at the threatened and endangered species that live there. these recreational opportunities are appreciably harmed when we lose wildlife if maintenance of the golf course is made paramount. i don't think it is pretty complicated but one of the requirements is to recognize, mitigate environmental impacts and the science is also clear. this project will harm the california red legged frog.
7:23 pm
there are feasible alternatives as have been recognized and we can and should do better for this city's environmental legacy. thank you very much. >> next speaker. hello, my name is [speaker not understood]. i'm a resident of san francisco. i'm also with the [speaker not understood] and i'm very active in that coalition to save city college. [speaker not understood] i'm also the secretary at the [speaker not understood] institute at u.c. berkeley. and for all these reasons i'm here today to speak -- i learned about this issue from wild equity institute through [speaker not understood] work. and i think this is a critical issue. i think you can tell from the commentary it's a very important issue. [speaker not understood] based on how it treats its most vulnerable. we can't imagine san francisco
7:24 pm
[speaker not understood] with privatized city college, we can't imagine sharp park without the frogs and snakes that are living there right now. it seems like a no-brainer, the environmental impact report is the basic step that should be taken. we may not be able to [speaker not understood] and other current [speaker not understood] system. we can do our part in the meantime and i urge you all to do that today. and we need our wetland. we need our creatures and you have a lovely place. thank you very much. good evening, supervisors. thank you very much for hanging in there on this marathon public comment. i know it's been a long evening. hopefully you will hear what i have to say. it's very important to me. my name is don crouch. i live in the city of pacifica, and to me this is not a [speaker not understood]. to me sharp park is a community
7:25 pm
i live in with my family. two minutes is not enough time to go over the science on this, so, i'm not even going to try. [speaker not understood] is very important in pacifica. it is part of our community as i mentioned and it belongs to the city of san francisco. we have no control over it, you guys do which is why i took time away from work and came here tonight. i'm not a member of the wildlife equity institute, but i'd like to point out that u.s. fish and wildlife service is frequently too under staffed to deal with issues like this item before you [speaker not understood], and they should be the ones addressing this with san francisco rather than wildlife equity institute. if it were not for the efforts of groups like we, projects like this would be able to get by without addressing proper c-e-q-a or without addressing the c-e-q-a laws properly and not have flawed negative declarations challenged as is done in this case. for myself and my family, i ask that you look at the area and
7:26 pm
the wildlife and the community and not just see a bunch of regulations. there's people that live there. my family lives there. please proceed with diligence by obtaining an e-i-r. it's the right thing to do for the wildlife and our community. thank you very much. hello, good afternoon, my name is ann silvester. i'm a resident of san francisco. i've been following the sharp park story for several years now and i've come to the conclusion that the people of san francisco do not need to damage the environment and endanger [speaker not understood] species. not enough. [speaker not understood] strategies to do that. this precious asset was given to the citizens of san francisco by [speaker not understood] to enjoy, not to wreck. let's abandon this whole
7:27 pm
strategy and go back to the common sense plan to transfer sharp park to the golden gate national park. mr. avalos, you remember when [speaker not understood] vetoed that transfer a couple years ago. as they put it to the citizens of san francisco because it's our property. thank you. ~ mayor lee good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for hearing all of our concerns here today. a lot of information has already been provided about the reasonable alternatives [speaker not understood] at sharp park. the thing that's interesting is we're not considering the fate of the entire golf course here today. this is very simple, it's about getting more information about alternative that [speaker not understood] manage one particular pumphouse project so that we can move forward with an informed decision on the best way to manage one specific part of this property. we're not asking you to take a vote on whether or not there is golf there.
7:28 pm
golf will continue no matter how we move forwardth with this e-i-r. we're not even asking that the outcome of the environmental review. we're just asking you to do your due diligence because we have alternative. we have presented concerns about [speaker not understood] in the park. and it is an intense management strategy to go in and dredge a wetland. please look at the alternatives after a full e-i-r and then make your decision then. but without that full e-i-r you are only given one option and i think because of the [speaker not understood] there, supervisor campos said about the treatment of our fellow travelers here on this planet, they at least deserve to have all alternatives considered. thank you. >> thank you. next singer. good afternoon, board of supervisors. ♪ where do all the frogs go we got no city [speaker not understood]
7:29 pm
back to the open arms of polluted [speaker not understood] and if some city says they'll love you and they'll always be there and care i know they will be there and thank you always be aware ♪ thank you thank you, [speaker not understood]. my name is larry edmonds. i live in san francisco. first at ethics, now i'm here in the peninsula. y'all been there before. frog stand for fully rehe lying on god's services. so, when a frog jumps, he fully relies on god's services.
7:30 pm
so, they're very important ~. and the california green garden snake, seems like we all need this ecology and land in this city and county. things like it's no place for animals. you know we have screaming green parrotts, family parrotts 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


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on