the board, however, i must say i am disappointed that this is a fairly toothless resolution. i would prefer to see one that held phones nancy pelosi accountable for their actions in these wars. i would prefer resolution of condemnation of those women them to appear before this board and be answerable for their actions. a resolution aimed at generally of the federal government knows -- goes nowhere because we are so small, but those women live in this town. they are our elected representatives. we should pay heat on them to end this war. they are two of the most powerful people in washington. hothis resolution does nothing o mention either one. please reconsider and put more teeth in this.

thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. my name is sandra schwartz. i serve on the steering committee for the new priorities campaign, and i would like to thank all of you for bringing this resolution. i look forward to a passing. so much has already been said. i would like to offer this, because i think a picture says 1000 words. here we have the discretionary budget, and those of you better here for the parks see there is 1%. those of you that are here for the park, 1% of the discretionary budget goes for the environment parks, 1% for the department of interior, and go through all of the things we care about until you get to the military budget, which goes on

and on. the 2012 budget is now projected to be 60% of discretionary spending. at the same time we are experiencing deep and painful cuts that are experiencing so many hard chips. -- so many hardships. this issue is not simply a lack of money. as we said, it is an issue of how we're spending money. right now the u.s. is spending 1.9 $8 million every minute. that is nearly $2 million every minute of every day on systems devoted to violence, aggression and military might. to my mind this is shameful and must be stopped. we're spending $2 million in wars while letting our children go hungry, cutting essential home health services for people. this is not acceptable, and it

is everyone's responsibility to say so. if any elected official and any level, it is even more critical for you to stand up and say no. we need to demand military and budget cuts and redirect the savings to take care of the people at home. i have a lot of copies of this if people would like. supervisor avalos: 3 cards left. anyone else that like to speak, please come forward. >> hello, and good morning. thank you again for having these hearings. it is really an opportune moment in our history when it looks like the u.s. people are searching for transformational change. hence the cry, attacks the 1%, their taxes on corporations.

we would integrate those messages with, bring the war dollars home. there is lots of talk about the deficit reduction in military spending, and the plan is in 2013 to do 50% reductions in military spending, as well as social needs, which is very unfortunate. the truth is the scholars to do research on military spending say we're not talking about real money in the pentagon until we get to 50 billion. 50 billion would be what is cut in 2013 if it the opposite plans go through. remember, barney frank and ron paul did a bipartisan commission on military spending in 2010. they found this -- that one trillion dollars in pentagon

waste could be saved over a 10- year time. we're now talking about 100 billion that could be cut every year. that is real money. this summer the congressional progressive caucus did an anti- austerity budget, and they came up with 2.3 trillion savings in military spending. that would be an incredible -- coupled with taxing the wealthy and corporations, that would be a real important step forward for our people. we hope you will. representative nancy pelosi does talk about saving entitlement programs, but it is very contradictory, because she has voted for every single war spending measure. it would be great if you could speak to her when you have time. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> my name is lori readerman. every year the board of supervisors struggles with the budget. we argue over the relative to imports of health care, education, senior programs, parks and recreation, transportation, infrastructure, and so on. the federal funds - 4 and wars and weaponry would go along with desorbing -- solving the shortfalls. it is therefore totally appropriate for the board of supervisors to insist on this resolution. the fact of the u.s. congress and mainstream media treat this as sacrifice it must be challenged in every available public platform. this is what democracy looks like. thank you for sponsoring this resolution. thank you. supervisor avalos: 6 speaker,

and anyone else that would like to comment on this item, please come forward. >> thank you for submitting this resolution. i happen to agree it should take on the of the policy and feinstein. a couple of points, i think this idea that in our locality we cannot deal with these issues at our level is a form of cowardice politically, because what it really says is we will let the 1% direct every aspect of our economy, direct everything going on in the country, and when local people say what are you doing with our tax dollars, what are you doing -- doing killing but millions of people, they say it is a local issue. it is cowardice and political cowardice. i agree with the speaker earlier that said he believes all 11 supervisor should support this.

what we have to see is a 1 percent occupied the entire country in every aspect of our lives, and occupied most parts of the world, and it is time that the people who really occupy the world have a real control. it has to start locally at every locality, and we need to push back. i can recall when i was in law school, i basically gave that up because the war in vietnam was going on, and people did not know about it. i spent all of my time talking to people about the war. we helped build an anti-war movement that helped stop the war. i think what is really important is the push back. this is part of that. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> go ahead and cut the budget. go ahead and cheap a friend.

-- cheat a friend. there will not be any trumpets blowing on the budget day. when you bring it back, the budget for the military and bring the budget back today. [applause] supervisor avalos: i am not sure we need another speaker after that. seeing no one else come forward, we will close public comment. colleagues, we have this item before us. i want to thank the new priorities campaign for there's work on the resolution coming forward. labor and faith and community groups that are here today and in touch with constituencies around the city and in the bay

area. thank you for your work. this is a small resolution with the big message that is clear. we are going in a direction that is leading us to a future that is very bleak. if we cannot look at our future generations and take care of veterans and continue to cause damage around the world with our military spending, we are heading off a cliff. this is a voice in the other direction that i support. i want to thank my colleagues for supporting this resolution as well. supervisor marc, thank you. that would like to motion we move this forward with recommendations. -- supervisor mar, thank you. >> on the motion to forward item six to the full board with a recommendation, supervisor

mar? mar aye. elsbernd, no. avalos, aye. there are two ayes, and one no. i will go to the full board with recommendation. one more item before us. it will be the longest one of the day. i do need to take a five minute break before that. we will return 1/4 to 12. i appreciate you colleagues.

supervisor avalos: are back. if you could please call item no. 8. >> item #8 to require the recreation and park department to offer long-term management agreement to the national park service for certain property under the jurisdiction of the recreation and park commission located in san mateo county that is within the golden gate national park area legislative boundary sharp park and making environmental and other findings. supervisor avalos: think you, madam clerk. before us we have an ordinance and have an amendment of the whole for this ordinance. i will bring this forward right away, allowing us to discuss

this item is pretty -- not a major change from the ordinance i submitted a week and a half ago at the full board for this hearing, but it does allow us to hear this item. this item does not constitute a project, so therefore this ordinance would not require a sequel of review before it comes before the full board, and i have a letter from the environmental review officer at the planning department who states that as well. i want to submit this as we begin. to go i just want to be clear, the intent of the of them is to ensure we did have to do any

environmental review of the legislation? of this very ordinance before us. >> in other words, the legislation before we adopted this would require environmental review, but we can avoid seat what to pass legislation? >> it was not the intent of the legislation that we introduce a pointd we introduced a week ana half ago that we would not need a sequea review. we did not get a chance to get that. we have a measure that does have his approval. >> what are the changes that are on page 5 that says should include the option of closure of sharp park? that seems to be the key difference. >> rather than saying the city

must close, we're saying we shall include the option of closure. that seems to be with the informant review office -- supervisor avalos: inline 3 of page 5 is what you are referring to. there is also language in the findings that discusses that as well. >> anyone here from the national park service can -- that can operateanswer a quick question? we're going to get over this land and no one here. supervisor avalos: this legislation does not give over any land. >> we discuss it, and the people are not even here. the national park service did put out a statement we have seen, and i saw the response to

your e-mail. they make it abundantly clear they will not take this land unless the golf course is closed. >>supervisor avalos: let me stat and given introduction before i have this conversation early about the amendment of the whole, which i just submitted for our review. this legislation does not hand over sharp park to the national park service. essentially what it does is allows the rec and park department to offer to the national park service the opportunity to go into negotiations to create a joint agreement between the rec and park department and the national park service. the land would be under the ownership of the city and county of san francisco. it is part of that discussion at

-- part of that discussion would be an alternative, which would be the potential closure of the golf course and the reprogramming for other uses. >> when you say one alternative, should we take from that the implicit argument that there is an alternative, some scenario where they would take the land and keep the golf course open? supervisor avalos: offering from the city is multifaceted in terms of what different outcomes that could come out of it. one outcome that this ordinance would provide for would be the offering of joint management agreement that would not include golf, but does not preclude the other possibility as well. the national park service in negotiations could reveal what they would like to do with the

land itself. >> i get it, but let's not stop playing the game. the national park service has been clear in their e-mail to you, they will only take sharp park if the golf course is closed. i really think what is happening is we're doing this amendment to avoid saying it is an environmental review. if we were being honest with everyone here, we would say this legislation allows us to discuss with the national park service, handing over the land, but only if the golf course closed. all the people that are here in support of it, they're not here because they think maybe the golf course will be around, they are here because they think it closes the golf course. [laughter] [applause] [applause] let's be honest.

i and is asking for honesty in legislation. supervisor avalos: this is not a question of honesty. i have made perfectly clear what i would like to see happen. and close the golf course? supervisor avalos: i have talked about that, yes. i believe as a city we need to be able to discuss what is the right way that we program sharp park in th. in the past five years we have had a cumulative deficit of $1.7 million. this is beyond a subsidy. we're seeing a huge hit to our rec and park department over the years that we can not be able to fund and continue to program golf in certain places that we

cannot afford that has a major impact on other parts of our mission of the rec and park department. we also have a liability of endangered species in the short park area, and the red-legged frog and the carter state guard to endangered species -- gardner snake are endangered species. we are at liability to continue the golf course without a permit that would allow for the killing of these creatures. this ordinance is a way to move forward with possible changes on how we program the park, and i think it is important we move forward to a gauge in that discussion. i believe the official discussion about how sharp park will be