Sharp Park restoration in EIR draws sharp opposition; critics call for separate review

A prominent thread of testimony at the Dec. 15 joint hearing centered on Sharp Park and the Laguna Salata restoration. Environmental groups, independent scientists and nearby residents told commissioners the golf‑course realignment elements included in the final EIR were not part of the original scoping process and require their own, separate review.

Opponents said the design concepts included in the EIR—raising fairways, moving holes and dredging lagoon sediments for habitat creation—were developed outside the earlier public scoping and were presented late in the process. Brent Plater, executive director of Wild Equity Institute, and speakers from the Sierra Club, the National Parks Conservation Association and local university students argued the package “was jammed into” the EIR and that the proposed actions could threaten the federally and state‑listed red‑legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake.

"Should changes to the Sharp Park Golf Course be proposed, they would undergo a separate regulatory review," several public speakers reminded commissioners, quoting an earlier scoping promise; many said that promise had been broken. Scientists who reviewed the golf‑course redesign told the commission they had raised technical concerns about hydrology and sea‑level‑rise resilience and said habitat enhancement in the proposed form might be inadequate to ensure long‑term recovery of the endangered species.

The Recreation and Park Department defended its inclusion of Laguna Salata as a project‑level element within the EIR. Don (identified in the record as Don Kamala) said the department developed the restoration to roughly 30% design to pursue permits because the lagoon’s habitat was deteriorating; staff argued that, with those designs available, it was appropriate to include the restoration in the programmatic document so that environmental impacts could be analyzed and mitigations identified. Staff described multiple, co‑equal options for dredged‑material reuse (upland habitat creation, city green‑waste facilities, golf‑course regrade or a driving‑range site) and said further site‑specific review and permitting would guide final choices.

Both sides also raised climate‑resilience concerns. Opponents warned that raising fairways and installing berms could lock the lagoon in place and prevent inland migration as sea level rises, increasing salinity and endangering the marsh and its species. Speakers from Pacifica and local scientists urged commissioners to remove the golf‑course redesign from the EIR, saying the lagoon and its endangered species require careful separate study that fully accounts for sea‑level rise. Supporters and some technical witnesses said that properly designed restoration could improve habitat connectivity and long‑term species outcomes if done with agency coordination and monitoring.

Commissioners and staff noted that the EIR included project‑level analysis for Sharp Park and that staff had developed the description in consultation with regulatory agencies; staff said that if subsequent project designs reveal new significant impacts, additional CEQA review would be required. The dispute over inclusion, alternatives and long‑term resilience was a central fault line in public testimony and could shape legal, funding and design choices as implementation moves forward.