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. we will go to trial this summer, and we will prevail, and we will get an injunction, and i think you for my time. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. [applause] next speaker, please. >> i am here to support this legislation with sharp park. as a goal for myself, i feel that the restoration of the park would be the best thing to do. we are pumping water out to see every day -- sea every day.

it goes against the endangered species act. i think turning it into a national park would be the best way. it would open it up to use to anybody regardless of personal interest or economic class. it would be saving millions of dollars as taxpayers. we would be saving a lot of water that we used to irrigate the place. thank you for taking the time to hear what i have to say. thank you. >> thank you. >> i am from san bruno. focusing the discussion only on golf is a mistake. the berm with beach activities and running are equally imperiled by the ordinance. this is a land use discussion about sharp park is open for health and well-being or is a

new frog inclosure the confines people to narrow trails. modern recreation is a dishonest code for people out. supervisor avalos, you got it right when he said to take it back. the national park service continues to reneg on its promises to keep recreation in place. the chief biologist crystallized the extremist thinking on recreation in 2005 when she said that ocean beach without people is an incredible habitat. people think of it as a sandbox with their backyards. the people of san francisco reserve officials who listen and promote local health and well- being. in listening to the discussion earlier today on ordinance seven

talking about the federal government and how they are not listening to the people and how the fans are out of sync with san francisco and how money used for other things takes away from san francisco, to me that totally applies to this. ggr runs about 80,000 acres of san francisco park. any money spent on the massive restoration is taking it away from other places where there is not even an adequate bathrooms. i encourage you to take more time. do not push this through to the board of supervisors before people have a chance to look at it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you for taking the time to listen to all of us. we have produced a lot of testimony for you to digest. i work for the san francisco bay chapter of the sierra club. we represent 30,000 members in

the counties closest to the bay. this was a habitat's campaign, the idea of the sierra club believe we can practice and more managed natural retreat of the coast line to protect the habitat for species and people. there are people that lived behind the golf course. eventually, the sea will rise and we will have to do with the way to protect them. in natural system will create dunes. the berm will erode. we can create the back area berm to protect the area. i am glad the mayor from pacifica is here to hear that. the natural shoreline is the best protection for those people. if you invest a lot of resources into a golf course including the current proposal to dredge the

lagoon, you are only just to find a further need to protect the resources the city and county invested by building a sea wall. there are few places where you have a natural shoreline. this happens to be one of them. it is rare treasure for that and the lagoon's system that is fresh water. you can read more about it in the study produced by the esa and pwa. it was not considered when the department was creating their proposal to maintain 18 holes of golf. i am submitting it for the record. i would also like to mention that they did not seem to be aware that there is a clause in the audience -- ordinance to maintain their jobs. if it is approved and the golf

course is closed, they will offer positions to all employees consistent with civil service rules and collective bargaining agreements. [tone!] i am also submitting a, for someone who was not able to be here. -- a comment for someone who was not able to be here. i want to submit 1000 petitions and would rather see it used as trios instead of a golf course. you have already received countless similar petitions. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. i am here representing the san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization our city. a few speakers were in strong support of the avalos

legislation to restore it as a habitat. a few people have touched on the big picture, climate change and other human impacts to habitats. i want to bring that into sharp focus. i want to remind people that last week, climate scientists said human beings have five years to get our act together on the climate crisis or we are facing a serious disaster. any scientist you talk to will tell you the human species and its impact on the climate have become the equivalent of emir of striking the planet similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. any biologist will tell you we are already on the way to losing massive numbers of species on the planet.

you can see it happening all around us. that brings us to key species. these are threatened and endangered species because they are hanging on by their toenails. they are not thriving. [tone!] with the global warming problems coming into the coast line especially with a berm artificially holding seawater in when it floods, the golf course is an anvil. the species are on that. the climate humans and induced are the hammer striking and will. we should restore it to the natural habitat without a golf course. -- striking the anvil.

>> are there any other members of the public who would like to comment? now is the time. see no one come forward, i will close public comment. i would like to thank all of them members of the public on all sides of the issue for being here and spending most of your day to be here. clearly we have a piece of legislation that there is a lot of passion about on both sides. i do believe there are good intentions on both sides of the issue. the environment to one is one that i happen to side with. -- the environmental one is the one that i happen to side with an think is critical. it is not just saving money for the city and county. it is about having the best

method of protecting species. that is why i am supporting and came forward with the legislation. i want to thank all of the committee groups that came forward, especially the sierra club, the wild equity institute, for their work on the legislation. the legislation in its current form is not without controversy. i believe with an amendment that we are moving forward with a process -- an ordinance that is not a project and does not require ceqa before its passage. that can hold out until tomorrow to move forward if we can move this out of committee without recommendations to the full board as a committee report for tomorrow, i think that would be

one method i would appreciate. appreciate supervisor elsbernd 's support in that knowing he will not ultimately support the legislation. that seems to be where we're at right now. the meeting has gone long. our other committee on a colleague -- our other colleagues on the committee is in the land use committee, supervisor mar:, does not have the ability to be here. supervisor elsbernd: has agreed to set the motion to move forward as a committee report without recommendations to tomorrows full board meeting. we can take out without objection. so be it. we will do that tomorrow. ok. madam clerk, after an hour-long

discussion on this item, which i am sure will continue again tomorrow, we will adjourn this meeting. thank you for your time. >> yes, mr. chairman. ♪

supervisor mar: welcome to the monday december 5 meeting of the land use and economic development committee. i am the chair, to my right is supervisor cohen and to my left, supervisor wiener. >> please make sure to turn off cellular phones and electronic devices. documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. supervisor mar: please call item no. 1. >> transferring jurisdiction of property at 341 corbett avenue to the department of public works. supervisor wiener: this

legislation will enhance public spaces and public of green space, in particular in the corbett heights neighborhood. this is a parcel that is zoned for public. it is filled with mature trees, it is on the slope at making it difficult for development, it was transferred a number of years ago to the mayor's office of housing under the surplus property ordnance that is designed to increase housing for formerly homeless people. since then, nothing has happened with it. it has sat there vacant. the surrounding neighborhood it is very interested in improving this space, making it more

usable, gardening and. they have at the forefront of this, and the president of the organization will speak about plans for the parcel. there are some pretty amazing plans for making this a greater and more usable public space. this legislation would transfer the property to the department of public works so that the neighbors can do that work. the legislation also provides discretion for transfer of the parcel back to the mayor's office of housing if the space is not being used as a public space. today, i am also offering an additional amendment that would require an automatic review

after five years so that if the space is not being used, if it is not benefiting the neighborhood, it could be transferred back. in my view, keeping this is open public space to be improved by the neighborhood would be of great benefit to the neighborhood. as opposed to selling it to a private developer for development of market rate housing at this site. with that, mr. chairman, i do offer the amendment. and i will read the amendment. in addition, if not previously transferred to the mayor's office of housing within five years of effective date of this ordinance, the director of property, and the director of the mayor's office of housing shall meet and confer at that

time in addition to consulting with the district supervisor and members of the public to evaluate the best use of the property and whether it should be maintained as neighborhood open space or transferred back to the mayor's office of housing. such a valuation will take into account if it is being used as public space, if the use is benefiting the neighborhood, if the transfer would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, and the benefits for affordable housing production. that is the amendment. the mayor's office of housing, i believe, should be here as well. would you like to say anything? and are you hear from the mayor's office?

>> yes, we are supportive of the amendment, it would provide a date certain for possibility of using it for affordable housing or sell. supervisor mar: i know that the surplus property ordinance is a broader city-wide issue, and i think a number of the housing advocates are going to be speaking in a moment. what are your responses that by not utilizing properties like that have already been identified for raising funds for affordable housing, how would it to replace those funds in the future? >> is one of the reasons why we would like to have a date certain. it did not necessarily pan out in terms of the marketability in terms of the steep slope of the site. we will try to look at other

surplus properties if they could be sold in lieu of this particular site to be able to raise the particular proceeds to would be looking for. supervisor wiener: i also want to point out that the idea of surplus property is a property that is not being used for anything else. and when you have properties such as this one, it has another used to benefit in neighborhood. one can raise the issue if it remains as surplus property, but the purpose of my amendment is to make sure that we are disciplined and taking a look to see how it is being used, if the neighborhood follows through with its plan and to make a decision about whether to keep it or transfer it back. at this point, we can open it up for public comment. do we have any cards? supervisor mar: we will limit it

to 2 minutes per person. because of the five items on the agenda today. supervisor wiener: i will call a few names and you can line up. [reading names] we will start there. >> of the afternoon, i am the president of the heights neighbors and the treasurer of the eureka valley neighborhood association. i am here because i discussed this with a supervisosupervisorr eyaryears now. we have been actively trying to improve the open space, this is the only actual retail space

that we have. we have raised some money, we have a sponsor, the san francisco parks alliance. people have donated to the improvement of the slope. we have had numerous work days, who have cleared out spaces, taken the lead out, built have this, stairways, and generally improved for the entire neighborhood. we have unanimous support from everybody there. the things that happened during financial difficulty times, open space environmental people who lose and affordable housing people lose. this is not a competition. we both have valid arg