clearly the course would benefit from added resources and maintenance. this is just one example of the more need for maintenance and resources of other parks. the community would enjoy an increase in its economy by management from the national park service. this legislation is a smart economic decision for pacifica. pacifica will enjoy increased tourism, jobs, enriched educational opportunities. we will benefit from a better economy and a public park everyone can enjoy. it is also a smart economic decision for san francisco. it will no longer pay out for

annual operating losses. it will cost millions for a golf course that is not even accessible by muni. city resources will be focused back on parks located in the city. i really support this legislation. i think it will make my community better. it will make the parks in san francisco better-funded. here are many signatures from people all over the peninsula and other parts of the world also in support of that. thank you for the time. [tone!] supervisor avalos: next speaker, please. >> i am a resident of san francisco all my life. i am here to express support for the ordinance. last year from january to june

and was the director of the youth program. every year, we get budget cuts because there is no money to fund the program for high-risk youths in our communities. in 2005, we were at $400,000. they cut $100,000 the next year. they cut it each year to make it easier. at the end of the day, you are not giving this money reinstated. every year they cut you to the bone and marrow until there is only a corpse left. 2005 to 2009, the park lost over $800,000. that is money that could have gone to youth programs and groups in the city of san francisco. government talks about wasteful spending and thinks of community programs as being wasteful spending, but this is clearly a government wasteful spending. the city is in control of it.

it is not making any money. the country is losing money. we have young lives affected. each youth we serve is tied to a family unit. there are many people impacted by dollars and cents. it is not prudent for us to continue to invest in something that is not returning money. in any business, he will shut down if you are losing so much money. we have to consider what is best for our city. we're asking you to vote in favor of it so we can get response will government and stop wasteful spending. supervisor avalos: next speaker. >> today i seem to be representing the carter state -- garter snake.

if we do not do this, this is what our kids will have to see when we talk about a snake or fraud or any of the creatures that still lives and our city. tom spoke about a biodiversity hot spot. that is a term that means a lot to us in the environmental community. not everyone here is part of that community. san francisco is a biodiversity hot spot. our region is one of the places in the world where if you work hard to save things, it is a multiplier. there is so much great wildlife diversity here that we get more bang for the buck if we work hard to save things here. let's be clear. this is working hard. this is working hard for a global purpose. the biodiversity crisis that the planet faces seems like rainforests and problems in

countries far away. it is a problem for all of us. i ask all of you to consider what it looks like to your children or children's children when this is what you have to say a snake or frog looks like or used to look like. that is what is at stake. the other half of the argument -- [tone!] if we reinvest money into the city, we will have better jobs for all of the union workers and upkeep in parks that can be sustainable. we at the league of conservation voters implore you to endorse this. we endorse the legislation. we implore you to approve it. supervisor avalos: next speaker, please. >> i want to thank you for presenting the sharp park

petition and allowing me to speak. we are maintaining our golf course in a wetland system. it is highly unsustainable. there are a lot of environmental and economic problems associated with this. it is crazy. it is very problematic. we have a lot of partners on board with this campaign. this is a perfect example of wasteful spending. the golf course is losing $162,000 a year. it is underutilized. it is sucking a strike. it is killing our endangered species. -- it is sucking us dry. it is killing our endangered species. many groups have sent endorsement letters and support

letters that i can hand to you. we're over-supplied with golf. even parks studies have stated this. they have done a study that shows that out of 19 options, golf is 16 for recreational interest in the bay area. golfers, this is not and environmentalists against golfers issue. this is about sharp park and not golf in general. sharp park is highly problematic. we have golfers whose support the restoration of of the part because it is advantageous to close it for golf. pacifica residents will get resident rates. the affordable access to golf will increase. funds will be reverted to parks, including golf courses. there would be more usage at

san francisco golf courses. it makes sense to close it for golf. the funds could go to other golf courses. thank you. supervisor avalos: next speaker, please. >> i am is a bow wave -- isabel wade. thank you for sponsoring this legislation. despite the efforts of the media to trivialize the discussion, there are three important opportunities with the proposed restoration of sharp park. the first is that we have an opportunity to expand a national park. that is significant. it does not happen every day. this property has two and dangerous species. we need to do the right thing. we have an opportunity to

rebalance recreation. a 2004 study indicated the number one recreation need was for hiking trails. golf was no. 19. we need to prioritize our expenditures in the recreation field to balance recreation, to make sure we're covering the 99%. finally we need to do fiscal responsibility. golf is a drain of the parks to resources. we have an opportunity to do a good fiscal management. what could be more sensible? please support the legislation. thank you. supervisor avalos: before the next speaker, i will call out some more names. nancy are buckled -- arbuckle, michael stewart.

>> my name is neal desai from the national parks association. we are and abbas group for the enhancement of the national parks for all americans to injury -- we are and advocacy group for the enhancement of the national parks for all americans to enjoy. this is giving us an option to look at. we have been shortchanged. we have the opportunity to look at a willing partner. they have said they would be willing to take a step forward in forging a partnership with the city of san francisco. the city needs to do the first step. this ordinance does it. the national park service has stated they will assume responsibility by creating a new public park that will enhance

access, recreation, and the use of the clubhouse as a visitors center. it is within the legislative boundaries. they're legally allowed to except management of the property. you have all seen the national park service statement. the national park service is well equipped and mandated to protect. we need to look at an alternative that provides policymakers with partnership opportunities. [tone!] the national park service is the best-equipped agency to fund this over the long term. they have said they will meet the requirements. they will fund a long-term planning. it is in their statement on page

two. they will take on the responsibilities, assuming the management partnership moves forward. we have a willing partner. thank you. supervisor avalos: next speaker, please. >> my name is nancy arbuckle from the audubon society. we support the ordinance. we're here to ask you and the entire board of supervisors to do the same. the great environmental value of returning sharp park to coastal estuary has been obvious to our members for years. we recognize recreational and educational opportunities. birders, hikers, schoolchildren,

and others are denied the opportunity to enjoy this unique place. this is our opportunity to rectify that situation. a partnership with the national parks service offers the best means for protection and recovery for the endangered species in the park. sequoya audubon urges you to support the ordinance. it is one of the most important restoration projects in our area. it can proceed and move quickly forward. thank you. supervisor avalos: next speaker, please. to those of you disagree with the legislation, please be patient. eventually, you will get your turn to speak. we have some gamesmanship right now with the speaking. you will get your chance to speak. please hold on. [applause] [laughter] supervisor elsber--

>> characterizing this as gamesmanship when we have people speaking on both sides is unnecessary. thank you, supervisor elsbernd . i am sure we will get more characterization's of the hearing as we proceed. i hope not. i will call some more cards. i have gone through the whole list of speakers. this includes people who will be of the opposite position that i have. i welcome them to speak. janet braeger,. >> i live in pacifica and have

for 34 years. i support restoration of the wetlands and beach under national park management. of the winner of a 2004 environmental award, i have a long-term commitment to environmental issues and action. i would like to show you a picture, an aerial photo, taken in 1928 of the area. what you see is the first aerial shot of laguna salada. it shows a mechanically preached channel out to the notion that has been partially filled back

in with sand. a geologist friend gave me the photo. i am sorry we did not have it sooner. a close look at this will show a coastal lagoon that had been mechanically breached. vegetation surrounding the lagoon provides area for frogs and snakes. the area on the east side has excellent vegetation allowing the frogs and snakes to come out of the water the plan. the plan raises the east side. he will trap snakes between the ocean and within. no basket area is created.

i asked you to support the transfer of the wetlands to the national park service. please save the dollars for the use of san francisco's most vulnerable. thank you. supervisor avalos: if i have called your name, please come forward. roxanne ramirez, mckinsey green, dawn barka. >> my name is dr. krieger. i am the founder and executive director of save the frogs, the only charity dedicated to protecting amphibians. they're the most rapidly disappearing animals on earth. i am here to support the legislation. over 2000 amphibian species are on the verge of extinction worldwide. it is one of the greatest

environmental crises on the planet. i am representing thousands of supporters worldwide who have sent in letters to the board of san francisco. they're asking you to support legislation to protect the sharp park wetlands. they are crucial to our environment. 80% of america's wetlands have been destroyed. frogs are very important in the ecosystem. we are in support of a world where humans do not destroy every last bit of habitat on the planet. that is what is happening now. sharp park, death by a thousand cuts is the term for slowly destroying every habitat. many frogs are already extinct in california. let's do something to keep san francisco the leader o-- the whole world looks to california.

california should do things that make people look to us for leadership. here is our chance now. we have drained the wetlands. the pumps are located where the california red-legged breed. we're pumping federally endangered species out to sea. let's stop. shut down the golf course. let's have a national park. many people like national parks. very few people like golf. they can drive to a different of course. frogs cannot drive anywhere. that is their home, sharp park. supervisor avalos: next speakers, please.

>> i am here to represent the golden gate audubon society. we would like to speak in favor of the ordinance. we believe it is good for frogs, snakes, and walleye. it is good for san francisco taxpayers and residents. i will not repeat some of the ecological discussions that have been discussed. we know it actively kills frogs and in dangerous snakes. we know activities harm other wildlife. what we like about the legislation is that it calls for a thoughtful planning for the conservation and other uses of the area. it makes enormous of funding. it sets forth a plan and budget for partnership. san francisco is out there on its own subsidizing golf outside the city essentially. i think it would be exposed to extreme liability under the endangered species act as well as for the long-term

maintenance for the facility with climate change that could degrade the area. i would like to talk more about the financial reasons we think this legislation is a good idea and why you need a partnership in budget and planning. those of us working in the inferno to community see rec and parks besieged by underfunding for ecological protection. the money going into sharp park can be better invested into existing parks and golf courses. it can provide services at centers that have been shut down. we think that money would be better invested in san francisco to provide diversity while protecting biodiversity at sharp park. the residents and taxpayers would be much better served under this legislation. thank you for your time. supervisor avalos: thank you.

>> speaker, please. >> my name is mackenzie green. i am here against a desire to shut down sharp park. a small percentage of people play golf, but look in your family and friends. see how many people have held a golf club or desire to. the environmental thing is one thing. saving the kids is something else. i see it as a benefit to children and worth the money to keep the golf course and give them something constructive to do. it is one of the great reasons to keep sharp park open.

the other is that it is historic. alistair mackenzie help to design famous golf courses in australia. we spend our time saving buildings, but what about the land? if you close sharp park, i do not think you can get in there and use it for hiking trails. i think it will be overgrown. i think it will be flooded. i think it will be wasteful. my heart goes out to the snakes and frogs. the common sense is that i care more about the people, the kids and old people. their ability to get out and do things. the whole world cannot become environmental. i think we do our fair share. supervisor avalos: thank you very much, next speaker, please.

>> my name is roxanne ramirez. i am in support of the legislation. i am here to speak on behalf of annie myers. she could not be here but asked that we pass on this message. she chaired a working group for the parks department in 2010. she says the course has severe problems. the park is within the boundary of the unmanaged golf courses. the working group she chaired saw it as an evolving landscape. the western edge is different now and will not look the same 25 years from now. at some point, it will be necessary for the city to ask the national park service to step in and help. she also states that she believes the gulf alliance and

richard harris have not accurately reflected the working group findings. she agreed to chair the working group to establish facts regarding sharp park. implicit in the findings were that the golf course is not sustainable given the challenges posed by sea level rises and climate change. the present design is not consistent with the long term protection of the federal protected species on the site. the golf course lacks historical integrity. it is quite different from the course designed by alistair mackenzie. that washed away a long time ago. the seawall and pumping system are significant changes from the original course. we list the findings in support of the historical integrity. this is why the representatives of the golf group are inaccurate. trying to retain the golf course while protecting crops and snakes is not the liberty of --

indicative of the findings of our working group. thank you. supervisor avalos: next speakers. >> i am from pacifica. i became involved because of the overwhelming scientific evidence that the endangered san francisco garter snake and red- legged frog will not survive at a fully functioning golf course. many of us do not agree with the local politicians and golfers. i talked to all of our city council members. it is not unanimous among them the the golf course should be saved. rediscovered pictures of the sharp park area that anyone can access offers strong evidence

that it was a non-tidal laggon before the golf course was built. that means the frogs and stakes were there before the golf course. the report on sharp park had little hydrology. the biological study led to suspect conclusions. the phil williams report fills in those holes. one example of many, almost everyone agrees that the berm does not protect endangered species. because the pond cannot flush out, the bottoms have become anaerobic. this creates sulfur compounds on the bottom that will be released into the water if dredged. for maximum protection of the snakes and frogs, please do not

sink millions of dollars into a golf course that is not sustainable. instead, i suggest san francisco put the recreation money into programs within the city, programs with that would allow for improved facilities, and offered help to the at risk youth programs that are being cut. there is one chance to save the endangered frog and snakes. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is wayne vietch. i am a homeowner in san francisco and a resident for more than 40 years. i am a regular golfer at sharp park. i am pleased you are allowing a couple of us to speak on behalf of golfers. [applause]

it is a beautiful recreation facility. hundreds of golfers enjoyed it. i can see from the hearing today that the issue is not frogs and snakes. it is money. let's take a look at the budget and what it costs to run the course and how the course can be run to the satisfaction of the city treasury. i say it is not about frogs and snakes because they have existed and thrive together with golfers for decades. if the golf course is reverted to its original configuration, restored, it will be