because the only people who are allowed to speak arguments, and if the wildlife, the war actually the majority of the world, were able to speak for themselves, you would get an earful, and they would support the restoration of habitat, and that would be a lot more just than to just tear one point of view, the human point of view, and basically the selfish human point of view. thank you. thank you for your proposal, and i support it 100%. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hanel, my name is -- i am a recent graduate, and i work and live in san francisco as a

personal fitness trainer. i know from experience that the survey that san francisco parks and recreation as did, their findings are true. san franciscans will be one more trails -- really want more trails, and golf ranks low for recreational activities. i think this is a great opportunity for several other reasons. it would relieve san francisco of the burden of maintaining sharp park in its current stake, and $50 million in potential costs in the future that we would have to eat. it would create new opportunities for more equitable and diversity recreation. even within the golf community, even though it might be accessible, it is not accessible to most in san francisco, so i

do not see why we should be subsidizing it when it is losing money and it is in a bad location. it would be wonderful if of could coexist and be sustainable, which may be possible in other locations, but i think based on the science here, that is not compatible. i think we have an opportunity to give over these challenges to the national park service. they have a 95-year track record of excellence land management, and it has proven their ability to deal with these challenges in the face of climate change and comply with the federal endangered species act to protect these two species that live there and of nowhere else to go, where is the golfers have other places to go. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> but added.

my name is douglas, and i have lived in san francisco for 59 years. i am not taking a position on this item. i want to say a few ideas that relate to it. first, we have to be careful of extreme environmentalism. if the cave men were too environmentalists, none of us would be around here, and there would be no such thing as civil- rights. it would be a male-dominated society. if i remember my catholic school education, god is the one who determines what happens to the animals, some may be as humans should not stop -- should stop acting like god and trying to determine how they should live. if god wants them to live, he will see to it. if he wants them to paris, they will. i have a couple of words for environmentalists.

in the plaza, in my be declared a toxic waste. according to my reading of the cleanup and los angeles, it was so bad that they had to wear toxic cleanups its, so we do not want that to happen in san francisco, and for all of the pro golf in people, i sit petition your representatives. build a golf course on treasure island. what a beautiful sight. i seem to have forgotten, according to my interpretation in my opinion, i think treasure island has been sold. maybe that is -- you cannot put a golf course on treasure island. treasure island should be used for the good of the people, for the homeless, occupied -- occupy sf, so let's go clean up china and india to. we should not worry about these

animals. god will take care of them as he sees it. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker. >> i have done a lot of hiking and biking. i am against this ordinance. i am for keeping a sharp market golf course. 80 years ago, sharp park was given not just to the board of supervisors to be at their disposal but to all of the public, like the museums, like the academy of sciences, the opera houses and light golden gate park, and the beauty of it is it has provided a habitat for the endangered snake and fraud for the last 80 years. sharp park is one of the jewels of the san francisco bay area. if you had to recreated, the cost would exceed tens of billions of dollars. in other words, we would not be

able to afford to replace this very asset we have today. not only does it provide a habitat for two endangered species, it also provides entered -- recreation for a broad spectrum of the public. by now, there have been numerous studies, reports, and reviews. recently, there was also a lawsuit. all have conclusively determined that the ballpark does not harm the species nor lose money. so is is essentially working as a golf course and essentially working as a habitat, why fix it? leave sharp part of a golf course. thank you. -- leave sharp park a golf course. thank you. supervisor avalos: next speaker. >> i oppose this ordinance for a number of reasons.

taking in all or none position based on the ordinance, i think it has been shown that the golf course and the habitat can coexist, and there have been all sorts of efforts to try to make that happen. i grew up here, and learning on the golf course. my son and went to high school here also learned there. it provided an opportunity, a fairly inexpensive way to keep kids off of the street. teenagers got out there to play. i take issue with the fact that lincoln park is a totally different golf course than sharp park. unless you are in very good shape and in your mid 30's or 40's, there is no comparison. you are going to and m&a's all of the elderly from playing if they are forced to go to lincoln golf course. you cannot do it unless you take

a car or ride. i think there is an opportunity to coexist. i would also point out that i do not think i saw one person today who was alive when that park was the way it was thought to be. i think we're getting a lot of misinformation. they keep. >> hello, supervisors. i am a member of the club who voted to support this legislation, so i am speaking in support. this support was made about 1.5 weeks ago when this started. this is not to expand the national park. this is the highest priority for new hiking trails, and golf is far down the list with people's desires.

that has to be taken into consideration. and specifically this golf course is a drain on recreation and park funds, whichever and dwindling every year. let's be clear, folks. the decision to close sharp park was made years ago by nature. trying to fight this office been increasingly desperate. one choice is an incredibly expensive we construction, maybe with the help of san mateo, and the other is something new with ggnra. this is not going to happen with nature and climate change and the rise in sea level. let's consider these options. while we so afraid of having a choice. this does ms. albright to have an alternative. in san mateo or someone else wants to come in with a magic plan, let's see it. bring it on. this does not close them off.

ok, i have heard differently. that is fine. my point is that the important thing is to get resources over to city jobs that are sustainable. it give a better job about supporting this elsewhere, let's hear it and stop stalling about it. thanks. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is -- and i understand there are people who enjoyed playing golf. many people in korea do that, too, but according to the service, like many other speakers mentioned before, it is low, bottom of the rank, like 16 out of 19 options.

there are five other golf courses in san francisco, which should be enough, and i cannot see the point of subsidizing this golf course with taxpayer money while killing endangered species. the least expensive land use option, the best for flood control, and if we create a park with a trail-based situation, it was up san francisco and pacifica, and you've got a great chance to save the endangered species with many other wonderful effects. i believe you should use this with the park service, and please support the legislation. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. we represent the groundskeepers, and we adamantly oppose this legislation.

i am here to speak on another endangered species, and that is the working class, the ones that maintain the grounds. there are actually faces and families behind the grounds, and we would like you to keep that in mind. there has got to be a better way to coexist out there. we can preserve their right to gulf of the golfers. we can preserve the live limits of these members and also preserve the right for these species to adapt to their environment and to thrive, so, again, we adamantly oppose this legislation. we encourage you to do the same. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. i turned in a card, but perhaps i was mispronounced or something. my name is mike ferrera. i now live at moss beach.

i have been a planning commission member and mayor of a few years of a small coastal city in the coastal zone. i am a co-founder of the san mateo league for protection. i have been a co-appelant for the benefit of red legged frogs. i am currently serving my retirement serving with a national environmental organization. when i first looked into this situation a few years ago, i was kind of put off by the tone of it. i mean seriously put off. i was reading these emails that said "they are killing frogs and snakes at sharp park. this was going all over the world. "they are killing them, they are killing them. i called my friends, and they said that san francisco is the

most compliant that they deal with. i have talked with people who are conversant, and all in all, it looked to me like you're parker -- parks and recreation department was trying to do the right thing out there. in the documents the process, in the consultants they hired, in the choices they were making. i followed all of that. it looked like they were doing it right, so i could never understand all of the heat and all of the email blasts, and there is the judge's decision last week. the judge does not buy into that narrative. she thinks san francisco is doing a good job, and i think san francisco should be congratulated for that. we can have on the spot focused solutions. thank you.

supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. i had a lot more cards, and i stopped calling them because we had a long line. we have lost some people. if you just want to line up on the side or approach when we get down to the last speakers, that would work, as well, and i apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your weight. >> i am barbara, the director of the pacific historical society, and a lot of people have done my job today by talking about alistair mckinsey and the perspective. i am here to put in the record a resolution. passed on june 14, 2011, stating about the historical and cultural resources value of this golf course. i have also heard a lot of things about money.

this is my fifth anniversary. 2006, i officially entered the ranks, said the five hours i have spent here this morning just adds to the five years i have had in this cause. i have heard every different slant on this story, and the bottom line, of course, is the preservation of life, but i do believe that there are serious measures that have gone forward and that they will be successful and have been successful. the other bottom line is money, and i hear a lot about that, but when you think about all of the park and recreation programs that you have, what other recreation programs do you have that pay money to you? real money? the golf courses will, and if they are taking care of the better, they will pay big money, and the reason they talk about alistair mckinsey, he is a draw. you have got a golden goose.

i told you this two years ago. you have got a golden goose that is laying golden eggs to bring in money to san francisco. i am a taxpayer and san francisco and literally have been all of my life, so the point is you need to really think about -- people have been singing music lately, and i would say it seems to me like a joni mitchell song. you pay money to put up a walking spot, but you do not know what you have got until it is gone, and if you lose sharp park, you are losing more. you are losing a potential moneymaker. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. >> hello, my name is -- and i am share of a dog group.

we oppose this. this will not work. they will promise to make joint division -- decisions and do whatever they want. we have a long history with them, and it is not a good one. they were given beaches. they promised to respect previous uses, and they did not. they said they would talk with the planning department for making substantial changes. they did not. why do you think they will start doing it now? some say this should be managed in a certain way. do you know what that means? they will manage these areas for, and this is a direct quote, back country types of visitor experience. they talk about controlled access an aggressive administration. this is what sharp park will be managed under with this ordinance. you will effectively be kicking people out of sharp part.

it also says sharp park should be managed in accordance with the organic act. that act has been used for years by the people pushing this ordinance to justify kicking people with dogs out. it is interpreted to mean no recreation. people have talked a lot about enhancing access to sharp park if they get rid of the golf course. that is not what will happen. it will be restricted access. this is about protecting lots of different kinds of recreation. look around at the types of people who have been in support of golf and in opposition of this ordinance. you have seen all sorts of ethnic groups, all ages. look at the other side. it is not a particularly diverse group. do not move this ordinance forward. it sounds like there are other things going on, and it may be good to find out what is going on in january, and then we can perhaps revisit it. preserve this at sharp park.

supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i am the current mayor of the city of pacifica, and i am here representing the city of pacifica. i just want to remind you that we have followed this, as barbara pointed it out, five years. we are one opposed to the idea of adding more -- this is the heart and soul of our community. this is literally the center of pacifica, and possess a gun has been a very good environmental story. i remind you of the point and soon to be the hill. we have contributed to the ggnra. this particular golf course, you have heard about what is going on in terms of the environment. i want to point out that it is

also something that is near and dear of pacifica, and if we had been a city at that time, we may have been owning this property, as well. however, we were not, and you do. so we have to talk to you about it. san mcdata county, the congresswoman, the city of pacifica, we stand ready to work with you on this project and to come forward with a plan. you ever heard from our supervisor, her staff. you are hearing from me now. we want to make a difference. you also know the environmental issues, and you have heard that the frogs have increased, that we have not seen a snake in three years. we are talking about something that pre-existing, and we really want to maintain that in the best way possible. i also want to point out to you one other thing. we have a very serious concern about our neighbor and right

now, and that is on palometa. there is flooding every winter, and every winter, that keeps getting worse. why? there is a large storm drain, and as a result of no longer maintaining that, we have seen the silt and the reeds take over. i really want you to consider all these factors and consider that the city of basra but that is absolutely opposed to turning this into something other than a golf course. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for serving the city and county of san francisco. this is an amusing one and a tough one, but somebody has to make a decision, and it falls on your plate. you are the elected

beneficiaries of this issue today, and you are going to have to make a decision. i am in total agreement with everything that has been said here. there are several issues on two different sides of a golf course, if you will, but you, again, have to make that decision. many oppose this legislation on the terms of, i think they are passing the buck. this is something that we, the people of san francisco, should need to resolve. this is the greatest city in the united states of america, and you represent us. we have got a lot of smart people and resources. figure it out. our current mayor, i remember one of the statements was get the job done. why shine of the responsibility and pass the buck to the b --

ggnra? figure it out. you guys are smart. figure it out. recreation and park, it has been dysfunctional. there have been a lot of leadership changes. you have a tough job, but keeping an house. do not pass it off. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i have three letters for your board. i am with an alliance. i have a letter of december 5, today. [inaudible]

[no audio] supervisor avalos: now. >> thanks. i have a major procedural point here, which is that there has been no environmental impact report on this. your vision on the legislation seems designed to avoid the necessity for an environmental impact report, but even your revised legislation directs the

city to negotiate with an entity that is on the record on september 15 that it will not do anything other than close the golf course, so when you are directing your agency to negotiate on the record, and their official position is that they will not do anything other than close the golf course, that is an action under ceqa, because that is the only place it can go. we have been here for five hours. you bet that no one here from the ggnra is said they were reconsidering it or did not mean that or taking it back. that is the point. the notion that you're going to spend six months or are thinking

about it is an avoidance of the requirement for environmental impact study. what are you afraid of? it is like the other gentleman said earlier. bring in on. get the environmental statement. the issue is not only a historic a golf course. you have very substantial scientists on the record. can i have a number minute? i represent a very large number of people. supervisor avalos: no, that is your time, mr. harris. it is the same as everyone else's. >> documentation. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is drenched.

i am a director. i fully support this ordinance because it was a san francisco money and help us save two of the most in peril species in the bay area. if the ceqa process says so, a public park that everyone can enjoy, not just golfers. i want to talk about the legal issues. i am also an attorney. one is about whether the california act needs to apply now or if it can happen sometime later when a project has actually been proposed, and this is important for a reason has to do with the long history of this issue. the city of san francisco has produced a draft environmental impact report for -- sharp park and others. many submitted a large body of evidence and said you should include an alternative that

would partner with the other area, and even considering that alternative, the city rejected it without consideration and refused to even presented in the eir said that public bodies like yourself could evaluate it. this fixes the problem. this was a fundamental problem with that existing ceqa document, which makes it fundamentally liable in court. ask the ggnra if they would partner with you. put it together, and we would consider alternatives would san mateo county and others, and pick the best alternative at the end of the day. what this does is good government. it gives the policymakers of the city the ability to see the alternatives in the light of day and not have it precluded in backroom deals before the decision makers ever get a chance. we are also involved in litigation with sharp part.