one thing i think we can all agree on is a everyone needs a safe home. some can go elsewhere. the species living there cannot. we have been given the opportunity to transform the park to a safe home for the divorce species on earth. we need to embrace this opportunity. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am a san franciscans and a current resident. i am going to play a video of residence in joining golf at the park.

>> some of the gals are still alive. >> for 30 years. i have been on the golf course for 30 years. my grand kids are playing. >> the golf course. >> the golf course. it is beautiful. every sunday.

very nice and beautiful. a lot of people out here. >> to relax, to learn the sport, to get better at this board. >> to play more often. >> this is an area for everybody. for blacks, four hispanics, for the asians, and for the whites. everyone is playing. especially the scene years. they are over 55, 65. >> there are people who play here. where are they going to go? you're going to make the old

people sick. >> and melting pot of san francisco. >> to play here and get together. >> thank you so much. i hope you enjoyed that. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is -- i represent a golf association. we represent the millions of players, golfers that enjoy the sport. the usga has a particular interest in preserving and encouraging golf courses in the public sector. sharp park is such a course and

worth preserving. san francisco is an important golf destination for the usda and all golfers. national championships visit this area once every five years. the economic impact of that is obvious. in fact, in 2012, two national championships will be coming to this, including the u.s. open and the girls championship. the san francisco area can be proud of that contribution to the game. golf is good for the city and county of san francisco. the usga strongly urges that you sustained sharp park as a source of affordable golf in the area. thank you very much. i was given two letters by other associations. one of our fellows had to leave. he represented the northern

california golf association, and he would like to leave these two letters with you. >> supervisor, my name is -- i am a lifetime city resident and they called carrying public golfer. i reside in district 7, but i view myself as a resident of the city. i have been playing at the spark for almost 50 years, and this is a precious municipal treasurer. i say that because dr. alistair mackenzie, who created that work of art down there, built only two public courses by the sea. one is here. the other is in st. andrews, scotland. this says properly been designated a historic resources, and before we ripped it off of the map and tear it up, the least we ought to do is have a

study the environmental review. i think that there is no question that this ordinance is a project, and if anybody has any doubt about what it is about, let's have truth in government. this is an ordinance. page four, no later than march 1, 2012, the general manager of recreation and park shall offer to close sharp park. that to me would be a tragedy, a tragedy because the evidence shows that this golf course and the endangered species can coexist. in fact, across the street in federal court, while equity and others through the kitchen sink at that place, and what happens? -- thre the kitchen sink at that place, and what happened? they concluded that the golf course helps the species, does

not heard them, and they are driving down there, so the science is that this course can exist in conjunction with habitat restoration, but i would lastly say that if i was of the mind to close it down and re- purpose it, i would want to know are there philanthropic resources that will come to the table to save it and help to not only restore sharp park but restore the habitat. i would ask that first and not last, because i think those resources are there, and they will come forward. thank you very much for letting me speak. it has been a long wait, but thank you very much. please vote no. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. i believe you have an older version of the ordinance. i will get you a new copy. thank you. >> hello, my name is -- i of the tear in 26 years and have served

in public service, and the remainder of my time there has been spent on a variety of environmental protection measures, beginning with membership on the open space task force, followed by the open space committee, followed by the board of the pacifica land trust. i worked on approximately seven different properties in the pacific, which cares about the environment and has a history of environmental protection, as indicated by the committees we have in our community, and transferred approximately 600 acres into the ggnra, during the years we have worked with them. i think in this case, with regard to balance in our community, and i take a position of keeping the golf course, and the reason is because it does maintain a balance of activities and a balance for the community and has been very sensitive to the species there, and with the

new effort's going forward, it will continue to be. i think that there is no reason to transfer this property. currently, the county of san mateo is willing to work together with san francisco to work on these issues that required to perfect the relationship between the species and golf at sharp park, and they want to manage it in a way that protects and preserves them while maintaining public recreation, which is extremely important to have variety in a community of activities the same way it is important in nature, and i would also just add at the end that one needs to really look at the impact on these species that have evolved on this side under current conditions for nearly 80 years

and consider the impact to them that will take place if they restore the sharp park vision is implemented. i fear for them. thank you so much. appreciate it. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker. >> hello, my name is frank. i am a taxpaying residents of san francisco. i do not play golf. i do not like the game, but i do believe in diversity. often a rich man's game, and a number of golfers from sharp park testified, i did not see anyone% wheeler-dealer's. i saw some average joes trying to have a meaningful retirement. to me, adopting this resolution would be like tearing one's house down because the roof leaks. sharp park is a 440 acre track with an amphibious base. this involves maybe one or two

oholes -- one or two holes of 18. working to move one to the other side of a highway and working to improve the amphibian habitat. make no mistake. ggnra is a benefit. in truth, their management philosophy is not geared to active recreation, such as things like baseball and soccer. in this case, golf. furthermore, the capacity in san francisco is scarce, and the possibility of having an alternate course of course site is impossible. i was taken back by the quoted by supervisor avalos of a shortfall as the reason for getting rid of this course.

last year, when recreation and park could not afford to keep the arboretum going, the same supervisor argued it should be discontinued because recreational opportunity was more important than money. i like that supervisor avalos better. i think we should proceed with the remediation plan under refect to see if it works and do it in context of the 18th hole golf course. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is eric, and i am here to show my support for the legislation to restore a sharp bark. the reason i came on board is not really about recreational opportunities. i am here to speak today because i think the legislation to restore sharp park is a strategy a long-term impact, big picture thinking to the land use

down there. i understand that there is a sentimental value that people hold with this park, a history that they share their. it has been around since 1932, i understand. with these recreational opportunities aside, i would ask what they would just consider the big picture and think about this land impact on not only our environment but the community is that neighbor. the epa on its web site lists some pretty significant role that wetlands play, and more importantly erosion control is something that affects the residents of pacifica and the residents around the golf course, so i think that is a concern that will raise a great amount when we look at climate

change and the sea level rise, when that becomes an issue. and then there was something i wanted to talk about. there has always been a fresh to brackish lagoon. there is a report that indicates that freshwater plants around the lagoon, and these are very sensitive to salt water. sharp part is needed as a wetteland state to help for their protect the communities and the environment that surrounds it. and finally, with regards to the game of golf, i understand it is not an attack on the game of golf. this is one course that was built on a wetland. poor planning. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you.

>> my name is -- and i am with a local. we need more time to work together to determine what is the best option for san francisco. the workers believe that if we continue along this path that we must do so with full environmental review. thank you. >> hi there. my name is -- i am a member of -- i support mr. avalos. i think this is an important opportunity. on the other side, i think it is unconscionable for a city to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to subsidize golf in pacifica, when that money can be used in sf parks, where that money can be used, and whatever you think, in the next decade or two, this

golf course is in trouble. with the sea level rise, the cost will be at least $17 million, which can be saved and used in parks and golf courses here. that does not even mention the enormous value of these precious species which are almost nowhere else in the world. i am not against col. my dad is a golfer. i like going with him, but no matter, if this golf cart -- golf course is closed, golfing in san francisco will thrive, but these species, their survival is at stake, as is millions of dollars which belong to the residents of san francisco. thank you. >> i wrote to this 4.5 hours

ago, so, good morning, supervisors. my name is -- i am here to say a few words for the senior golfers who want to say a sharp part. i believe you saw a few in the video. i attribute my good health to playing in sharp park twice a week, mondays and thursdays, or rather thursday's mondays. in chinese, there is a word that means slowpoke. sharp park is the only affordable 18-hole, regulation four-part of course available to seniors in san francisco. because it is almost three times as much at another area than here.

thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor avalos and supervisor elsbernd. i am pleased to speak to you this afternoon rather than this evening, which i thought it would be. i am speaking against the ordinance and against the takeover of the park by any other government organization. i am a member of san francisco archers, and perhaps unknown to you, we maintain a san francisco's city archery range on the east side of a highway in east sharp park. we have an excellent archery range there, which is the envy

of other archer's all over the state of california. we are a four-state -- star range. we cater to hundreds or more adequately thousands of archer's every year, but are are we programs -- our our reach programs to grips, boys, girls, summer school boards, we cater to a large number of people -- summer school boards, we cater to a large number of people. if we are looking at recreation and recreation for children in san francisco or on the peninsula, this is an excellent place for them to come, and they do. we seem to have been lost in the rush here. the families that donated this land to the city of san francisco did so for recreational purposes. u.s. caretakers for them land

seemed to be doing a good job with that right now. i urge you to follow with the endangered species compliance plan put together by your own park and recreation department. keep archery alive. it is a respected, agent activity, and keep sharp park in the hands of san francisco. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors avalos and elsbernd. i am here for two things, one it is to submit into record talking about our processes with sharp park, and secondly just to make a few points about sharp park in san mateo and san francisco. in 2007, the board of supervisors unanimously went on

record to preserve it, and i quote, to preserve sharp park golf course as a public golf course. pursuant to that, we convene a meeting with the land managers of the county of san mateo, the city of pacifica, the golden gate national recreation area, and the city and county of san francisco and the parks and recreation department. further, there were comments by an bar mental scientists. in february of this year, the working group released a public statement about a list of findings, and they concluded that the consideration for sustainable species habitat and for the natural function of the barrier beach and lagoons system, the golf course needed to be redesigned to coexist with a viable populations of sensitive species in the long term, so basically what we are

saying here today is that the city and county of san francisco can give this to the city of san mateo. you will no longer have these $6 million in costs mentioned. they will be off of your books, and further our plans are to work with your parks department, the city of pacifica, and the ggnra to come up with a redesign of the golf course to not only enhances but to make it so it further protect the species and make it so they further flourish. we have to encourage you not to move on this proposal at this time and give us an opportunity to continue to work with your city to make this. supervisor avalos: thank you very much.

supervisor elsbernd: can i ask a quick question? there are going to be term sheets approved >> i hope so. supervisor elsbernd: you guys have been added for a while now? >> yes, about 1.5 years. supervisor avalos: our legislation does not preclude having a term sheet. next speaker, please. >> i am a legislative aide from san mateo county, and i have a letter here that i would like to read. dear supervisors. the san mateo board of supervisors has long been on the record for supporting the continued existence of sharp park for recreational activities. it was a generous gift of property to the city of san

francisco. it includes the abolition of the natural environment of the property. recent debates and even lawsuits have argued that the golf course should be eliminated and that the property should revert to a more natural state. there has been in rejected injunction for the maintenance of the golf course again she found no evidence that the seven plus years of operation have had an impact on the california red leggett -- when legged frog or another. the possibility of this being brought before the full board of supervisors tomorrow's an effort to bypass the collaborative effort between san francisco and san mateo county. a golf course it could be maintained alongside a more dedicated invar mental approach. it has been and discarded and

given in its entirety to ggnra. since no boundary steady has ever included the sharp park golf course, it is clear that the national park service even has a desire to acquire this property. the san mateo -- i would strongly encourages committee as well as the full board of supervisors to reject a proposal to donate the land to ggnra and to eliminate the golf course. i suggest a joint session with the san mateo for the supervisors and a san francisco board of supervisors. san mateo has already offered to take over the operation.

two more paragraphs? supervisor avalos: is that the end of your time? >> yes. i will give this. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is -- i live in the county which sharp park golf course is located, but i wanted to remind you that i think the last few speakers have made it pretty clear. it represents over 400 acres of present hiking and biking trails and is access to one point, where ggnra has additional trails. i think that the ordinance made a rather presumptuous

definition for modern recreation when it more or less excluded golf. and since the park exists outside of the city limits, to make these definitions for your residents but maybe not the rest of the world. today has been something of a reality television show, where i heard some contradictory defiance reduced to a song. i also have experience dealing with some of the contradictions and controversy over what is the best science as a longtime environmentalist, active

environmentalist. i think that the suggestion that was made at the beginning of your presentation today, reinforced by supervisor elsbernd: -- by supervisor elsbernd that there is still time to work out the details. a little short on details. thank you. >> would it be possible for the camera to show my back? there is a message on -- anyway, the back of my shirt says cities should be built on one side of the street, which basically says it all, if you think about it. it was written by an african- american poet, one of the ones you do not hear about too often. i am here to speak in favor of the proposal.

i would like the habitat restored. the person who said he was a lawyer is absolutely wrong. there is no requirement for an informal impact report when your project is not expected to harm the environment, and restoring habitat is not a harm to the environment. in fact, as many people say, it all courses are so wonderful, so good for the environment and the wildlife, why do we not have more of them? why do we not just fill of golden gate park with more golf courses? why do we not go to the amazon and cut it down and make more golf courses? because golf courses are so good for the environment, right? well, no, they are not, and if we were honest, we would say that meetings like this are kind of phony