we play golf just like doing exercise. especially for the people who are retired. also, there are many, many public parks already. of golf courses, there are only a few. please keep the sharp park golf courses opened. thank you. supervisor avalos: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor. we are retiring and finding out that we cannot go hiking, play tennis, basketball. all of those golf courses are beautiful and unique. i do not know why people want to close it.

anyway, please save sharp park golf course. thank you. supervisor avalos: next speaker, please. >> i am a 20 year resident of san francisco. i have been active in the lincoln park golf group for that entire time. i am currently a board member on the golf club. i have followed the issue for some time. it occurs to me that the real issue is not so much frogs and snakes, but technical details withthere are arguments on both sides. there is a strong desire on the a minority of people around here.

the affordability aspect is the issue. there are very few golf courses in this area that retired and junior golfers and people of limited income template. sharp is one of those and lincoln is one of those. it will deprive us of the opportunity to play. as much as we might want to and as much as might be good for us. i very much opposed this proposed ordinance. sharp park is a wonderful treasure and it needs to be kept open. >> next speaker. >> i am here to speak on behalf of the harvey milk democratic

club and our environmental caucus in support of this ordinance. we feel when you combine the needs of the world to have last act locally and think globally as opposed to a leisure time sport that there is actually no debate. it is important that we move forward and continue to save our environment for the betterment of the world and not just ourselves. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am a resident of san francisco. the first point is i am going to focus on why a management agreement between sharp park at the national park service would actually benefit golfers. closing at sharif -- closing a sharp park will allow san francisco to increase and as of stabilizing the declining gulf market. the bay area golf market is overbuilt and supplies 6 million

more rounds of golf every year that golfers demand. the only question is which ones close. sharp park and lincoln golf course are in direct competition with each other. they serve the same market and provide a similar caliber of a golf. because the gulf market is declining and they are ankara petition with each other, both sharp park at lincoln park are underutilized at each of them sell only about 40% of their available rounds every year. sharp park loses hundreds of thousands of dollars every year and is by far the worst performing assets and a rare major reason why the gulf problem is insolvent nearly a decade after it was renovated. i am a student at san francisco state. myself and my academic peers collected over 500 signatures in

support of making a national park out of sharp park. this is not counting the thousands of petitions signed and sent in online. thank you. >> and good afternoon. i am a san francisco resident and i am in support of this but deflation. i would like to bring it to the committee's attention a report issued by the san francisco planning and urban research association that makes several recommendations supporting building a national park. "the next 23 years, the city should proceed as quickly as possible to restore and protect frog and snake population. over the next three to 10 years, you should evaluate the feasibility of partnership with another entity to manage and or operate the site. finally, over the next five to

50 years, a change of land use should be considered for a sharp park, a naturalistic setting, including enlarged lake with an outlet to the ocean may provide better habitat at recreational opportunities as well as being less expensive to manage on a day-to-day basis. there of the invaluable recommendations made. recognizing the changes need to be made to deliver to process, the ordinance makes clear now that san francisco must only move forward with a new management agreement if that national park service agrees to partner with the city and in after scrupulously complying with the california environmental quality act. if compliance or partnerships with the national park service are not possible, the city obligations under the ordinance and. the legislation will allow all risks, cost and liability to be assessed ensuring the best

public policy outcome at sharp park is reached. i am going to submit this document for your review. >> [reading names] >> i am arthur feinstein, the chairperson of the san francisco bay chapter of the sierra club. the president of the democratic club had to leave. we voted to endorse this legislation after two very extensive debates over the issue. it was a well thought out endorsement and thank you for this legislation. i want to bring up a couple of points. somebody just mentioned the sea wall, but we have houses of falling into the ocean, we have our own ocean beach which is an intractable problem.

we will end up spending a lot of dollars correcting. you have a seawall in pacifica that is going to be the same problem. you have houses threatened with flooding and a golf course that will be flooded. the city is on the hook for defending that area and that millions and millions, $12 million or more, to deal with that seawall. why are we asking san francisco to take on that burden? it is coming up. if we transfer the land, that burden is no longer hours. there are endangered species and as the sierra club, we care about that. there has been a question about how such a project is funded. i passed chair and legislative chair the san francisco bay joint venture, a collaboration of 27 federal and state agencies as well as nonprofits and businesses who work together to restore wetlands are around

san francisco bay. we brought over $50,000,000.20 restoration funds in san francisco bay and we have a goal of restoring 200,000 acres. we are helping to restore wetlands at the big london and -- big all the data. we have money for these projects available for federal agencies through a collaborative process we help to facilitate. at the beginning, there was some suggestion that the cards or loaded in terms of who is coming to speak. i think you can see from the numbers speaking on this issue the reason so many people are speaking on it is because there is a heck of a lot of us who want this to take place. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> i support that legislation

and urge the supervisors to do the same. i grew up in san francisco and have lived here 44 years and i am starting a family here. kids who need to walk to a park avenue whether good options. they need neighborhood parks. golfers have other recreational opportunities. for people who can get to sharp park to play golf, there are other sports and activities to numerous to mention, including access to five other golf courses in san francisco. for a kid on foot, 8 life is different. if the park is closed, there is no where to go for healthy recreation. being around a golf course could be to some benefit for a child but not -- let's not spend gulf of -- let's not spend money on a golf and san mateo county. it is not what people san francisco what. speaking of the future of san francisco and the planet, there are few things more important

than preserving biological diversity. i would like to point out the words of the natural area program division of the san francisco recreation and parks. they are responsible for managing natural areas like sharp park. this is from their web site -- archetypes -- wetlands. although small, the but lands are essential to the survival of these and other species. appreciation has grown over the last few decades, but they continue to be filled, trade and dredged. only 5% of the state's coastal wetlands remain in tact. much of the plant life is dependent of the wetlands remaining and tact. this is from their web site -- much of the planet's life depends on the existence of wetlands. i can't believe we have the consideration of losing money for april are in favor of having golf on a wet lab outside of san francisco that you can do think

it to on a bus. it is preposterous and i hope this but chelation passes. thank you for the most sensible legislation that has been offered a long time. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> my name is sandy tatum. i am here because i am thoroughly concerned about what i think this legislation is having to do. that is to destroy a priceless recreational resources which also is a historic treasure. in the context of considering golf late political setting, the misrepresentations and misunderstandings about the game are legion. and they do mislead. the fact is gulf is not an

elitist game. -- gulf is not an elitist game. it's anything but. 80 percent of the golfers in this country are public course golfers. more than 90% of the games that are played in any given year are played on public courses. public golf is the heart and soul of the game. it has everything you could possibly want in terms of priceless recreational resources. apropos of that, what gulf does in -- what golf does in terms of being a recreational resources is that it caters to the process of dealing with the physical aspect of recreation, dealing with the mental aspects of recreation and dealing with the

emotional aspects of recreation. furthermore, it does not in the context of aesthetic features that make those assets very, very, very effective. when you consider the questions of environment in this setting, surely you ought to be willing to take a very realistic look at what in fact has happened historically on this property. [tone] thank you para -- thank you. i would urge that you act so as not to destroy something. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i am currently a resident of the panhandle. i am here to urge you to support the legislation and create a long-term agreement with the national park service at sharp park. today, i will be speaking on why this would be better for the golf market of san francisco. san francisco recreation and park department found 75 percent of all calls -- golfers are san francisco residence. the city decided to close sharp park, there several golf courses that are nearby and charge the same price. by encouraging that transition of the closure for sharp park, san francisco can help stabilize that bay area golf market by encouraging local golfers to play and the best in lincoln and

improve the overall performance of the fund which could be invest in an -- could be invested in the lincoln park golf course and others in the area. i live in san mateo county as the child and had the opportunity to golf with my friends and family and what fun adventure would be created if we went to san francisco to golf. it would not like catalyze more time with love once, it would give me pride knowing as a san mateo resident that we were respecting that natural habitat of our native frogs and state and going to san francisco for a golf adventures. the ordinance increases access to affordable golf to bay area residents by providing all pacific residents with san francisco resident rates at the city's other needed to build golf courses. [tone] one concern is the job stability once sharp park closes.

we have a solution. by encouraging investment and lincoln and other courses, the ordinance requires all full-time employees to be offered new job opportunities. this would also provide lincoln and other courses with staff to tap all the backlog of upkeep and maintenance currently impacting the courses pliability. thank you for listening. [tone] i urge you to support this legislation. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the district southern -- why district 7 property-tax bear. the first $10,000 i paid each year goes to the decision to make. i am tired of you using my money to buy subsidized golf for san mateo residents to pay not one penny of money into this course. at the same time, your closing

parks facilities here in san francisco. this golf course was built in an early era when ecology was not understood and would never be permitted by the california coastal commission today. whatever historical value it might have had washed out to sea decades ago with four of its original holes. because of rising sea levels, keeping the course operational will require investment of millions of dollars san francisco does not have at pacifica certainly does not have. the only sensible thing to do is stop propping up is drowning white element -- drawing white elephant at let it become the nature reserve it will ultimately become. this is a gut check moment. anyone serious about fiscal responsibility will support this legislation. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a 40-year resident of san

francisco and i support your legislation for this sharp park. i had some prepared statements to make but everyone pretty much has made the statements i was going to make. i have had a lot of time to reflect before coming up here and i am hearing -- this is a very difficult process, democracy, people have different points of views and all of the points of view for golfing does not persuade me 1 inch to go toward preserving a golf course. it's just the way i am and i have different values. we tried to persuade but i think everyone's mind is made up. i imagine your minds are made up one way or the other. i find it a very interesting process that we come up with these things, but i value the

wildlife and nature. i don't value playing games. i have always been that way and i'm never going to change. i read it through before coming down at the get exciting for the national park service to get involved with this and how it is crafted and the possibilities. it speaks very strongly. i have been here for three hours and it's a big chunk of my day to come down here and express what everyone else is saying, but hopefully this will pass and get on the agenda for tomorrow's board meeting and get done. i congratulate you for bringing this forward. thank you. >> next speaker, please. [reading names]

>> i am a san francisco resident and support of the legislation. i am here to talk about the historic value of sharp part. while the advocates have claimed the gulf part -- of course cannot be restored because of historic, evidence refutes this claim. the -- it relies on inadequate data and analysis. the historical resources evaluation report describes many alterations comparing course layout depicted in that to exhibits included in the a valuation report. one finds very few similarities

in how the course was designed and how it exists today. kohl number 11, which is now hold over 15 is similar to the original design. the remainder of the course has been substantially altered. the change to the order of a hole for plate is significant. it alters the nature of these people experience, making it up like what was intended by the designer. other major changes include the elimination and reconfiguration of several sand traps, construction of a sea wall in 1941 to prevent flooding of the golf course which did not work. it eliminated the beach and pacific ocean views which is the essence of the concept. [tone] preserving this part for historic value makes no sense. i've in support of john avalos'

legislation to partner with the park service to create more sustainable part for the future. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i was born and raised in san francisco. i went to abraham lincoln high school and i am a student at san francisco state university. i am urging all the today to vote yes to restore sharp park. partner in with the national park service's means the legislation has excellent planning and it will appeal to a greater audience compared to that of a golf course. in addition, voting yes on this legislation means you are choosing to protect to endangered species. as we know, this golf course is dependent on government subsidies. the majority of bay area golfers have already cast their vote on this issue by continuously choosing to spend their money to play golf

elsewhere. it is time to step out of the golf course comfort zone and recognize it has been financially and environmentally unsustainable. it's time to change the system rather than try to keep alive with temporary technological fixes. restoring sharp park means creating a more self sustaining recreational space that allows for san francisco dollars to be applied to more pressing issues. this is why it is imperative you vote yes to restore sharp park today. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am a resident of san francisco and i am 100% opposed to the effort to eliminate gulf operations at sharp park. -- calls operations at sharp park. when that likely has the greatest ethnic and

socioeconomic diversity golf course in the bay area. the ordinance is contrary to the conclusions reached by the recreation and parks department, recreation and parks commission and spur which issued an analysis before thanksgiving stating that the forcing nature of the legislation seems premature at least to be questions unanswered about the cost of liability the city would bear. that is what i want to talk about. i'm not here to offer my opinions on the many policy issues you have been hearing about today. instead, i want to talk about the process. i am an attorney. i practiced environmental law exclusively for 26 years. i deal with the endangered species act nearly every day of malpractice. i have reviewed the proposed ordinance, but its original version at its current version prebon -- current version. it would be a violation and

illegal for the board of supervisors to adopt this ordinance without having prepared an environmental impact report. that's what the planning department and city attorney told the supervisor regarding the earlier draft of the legislation. the same is true with respect to the second version. [tone] the ordinance would require the general manager of recreation and parks department to offer, which is a legal term of art, to shut down gulf operations and make the offer to the national park service. -- shut down golf operations. an environmental impact report is required by ceqa. [tone] before that can be done, the eir must be prepared.

>> your two minutes is up. we're going to turn off the mike and you will not be able to make your statement. we share the same amount of time for every person, proponents of this legislation or post. next speaker, please. >> victor carmichael, i'm not a lawyer. 20 years president of pacific up. i am here to urge the support of this resolution. i am understand the heartfelt resistance of removing an operation, albeit a money losing one, and i think it's unfortunate that the golfer committee and the environmental community is at loggerheads of this issue. the environmentalists need all the help they get for the impending ecocide of the planet. this golf course is an anachronism.

no one would build a golf course on top of what land. it's a perfectly good opportunity to increase that. -- on top of a wetland. it is an act for the greater good. another factor is going to be this is constantly going to cost the city money because of the sea rise and the burma will not hold for that many more years. -- the berm will not hold for many more years. this is a piece of legislation i strongly support and i urge that it be passed. >> next speaker please. >> i want to think john avalos for introducing this. [unintelligible] if it is about diversity, --

[unintelligible] if there was a golf course, kids would not be doing things there. we're living a time of major extinctions worldwide. this one is caused by humans and is a major contributor to habitat destruction. in the language of the occupied movement, we are the 99%. in terms of the biosphere and egos here, we are like the 1%. --