and outside experts regarding equity, financial investment, and permit the production have questioned the sustainability of the current actions at sharp park. this will inform the best decisions of land use in san francisco as related to sharp part. -- sharp park. it allows policy makers to review a partnership to compare against other options. as the city continues future land use at sharp park, it is imperative that we know what we are investing in for both the short term and the long term. it is also imperative that we have options to review, including a popular and potentially problem-solving option of a real purpose sharp park in partnership with the

national parks service. this remedy is the flaw in the decisionmaking process for land use at the park for ensuring that the board has the complete picture to review the option. note the option, not the mandate, to pursue a partnership with the national park service. the ordinance ensures that before we commit to a long-term plan to invest hundreds of thousands or tens of millions of dollars into we know what options exist to best address the concerns of the residents, such as recreation supply and public access, and strategic financial investments. this ordinance does not mandate a particular land use outcome. in fact, rather than having a day -- than having a -- say we

are going to end golfing, it offers us an opportunity to create a long-term agreement with the city for sharp park. it also determines it is not just going to be a single option that says we are going to close the park. there are a number of options that this ordinance does provide. whether it is partial closing of the park or no closing whatsoever. this ordinance allows san francisco to continue having conversations with potential partners other than the gtnra other than san francisco county. it makes sure we can compare options side-by-side, including the partnership option. the amendment is based on public input from the san francisco public research association. it proposes that any agreement between the city of san

francisco and the national parks service is subject to review and approval throughout all -- for applicable public processes, including a review by the board of supervisors. it is now a collaborative and more deliberate process than the one i embarked on a few months back. the national parks service has indicated their interest in working towards a new public park. in order for the city to engage the -- in order for the city to engage, this ordinance is needed. i want to talk about the amendment as a whole that i passed out before you. it changes some significant language. i do not think it is significant -- is significant enough to carry forward to continuation. what this does is it deletes the language that says "shall offer to close at sharp park golf course."

we are deleting that and adding "which should include the option of closure for the sharp park golf course." this should be included in negotiations but does not foreclose the other option is to be explored with the national parks service. on section c, a few minor changes we have done at the request of the national parks service. there are other clarifications that are part of this amendment as a whole. i want to make some other clarifications about this legislation. the original legislation that i have introduced was done on september 6, three months ago. would provide a substitute legislation on november 22, just a couple of weeks ago. that did not require a 30-day continuance. we had originally intended this legislation to go into city operations and neighborhoods

committee. it was moved to the budget and finance committee, believing there would be a financial impact to the city. there is no financial impact. we have this these ... -- this piece of legislation come to the neighborhoods and services committee because it does not have the budget impact. before we go onto public discussion, i want to thank the organizations that have helped to sponsor this legislation and provided us with a lot of the framework for moving forward. it is not going to include all of the organizations that support us, but archanchology, the center for biological diversity, the national sierra club resilient have a tax program, nature in the city, what was formerly the neighborhood parks council, the

democratic club, the league of conservation voters. , san francisco tomorrow, the san francisco women's political committee, saved the frogs, the ottoman society, the surf riders foundation, both the san francisco and san mateo county chapters. i am sure we will have a robust conversation about this. my colleagues have expressed some concerns about possible amendments and i would love to hear them all. thank you. supervisor mar: i want to first say that i appreciate the dialogue and the debate in the committees between supervisor elsbernd and supervisor elsbernd -- and supervisor avalos in yesterday's long hearing. i want to explain that the land use and economic development committee chair has been watching the issue of chartres park and the alternative is used

for years now. my dad was a golfer and was proud of being part of a golf club in the san francisco. it is similar to lincoln park in my district, but also a sharp part as well -- also sharp p ark. i am supportive of supervisor avalos' legislation. it is not easy for me to be supportive because of my background. many of us who is headed in golfing after world war two. san francisco should have a well-thought out option. i think the previous reports should have included a no golf alternative. the ordinance before us will allow us to determine future land use at sharp park.

i think we need a conversation with the national park service on a deeper level. we have received communications from the park service and from superintendent dean and others. we shall look at deepening that discussion. should negotiations lead to a proposed agreement, i think the board would have a role in reviewing it side by side with the other options that we have identified. this includes the partnership with san mateo county. it was helpful to have many of their residents with us in the committee meeting yesterday it. another factor, one that should be emphasized in these difficult economic times, is that sharp park has been losing money year after year. he mentioned it was about $1.2 million over five years. it has than an average of about $126,000 per year since 2004. that is from the data from our city comptroller's office.

there has also been considerations from our open space committee. lincoln park's golf course is -- we have a small nine-hole golf course in my district as well. my hope is that we can look at ways to improve access for low income use and others that was brought up -- and other issues the were brought up yesterday. when we look at sharp aprk, there are great opportunities to improve other facilities as well and provide greater access for young people to take up sports and recreational activities. also, the national golf foundation notes that regarding staff from sharp park two other golf courses and result in more revenue.

lastly, studies that were cited in the hearing yesterday show that many people like recreational activities but golf has a certain universe of people that are -- that take it up as a hobby or sport. there are many other types of recreation and different options that supervisor avalos has put forward. hopefully, we will look at how golf would be one option, but also many other options like hiking and biking and other activities that many more people can access as well. i will be supportive of this legislation. i hope it is done in a way that we help improve our other golf courses, not just the ones in my district but the ones throughout the city. thank you hit president chiu: supervisor avalos, you wanted to make a motion to amend the entire document. i want to take that as a motion to amend. seconded by supervisor campos. any discussion on that?

supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: i did not support this amendment in committee for the following reasons -- the language that is being added for supervisor avalos' comments yesterday it are designed to be made in our mental review. the legislation is in front of you without the amendment and necessitates environmental review. supervisor avalos made clear that we need to adopt these amendments in order for the legislation to not be deemed a project. that is why this language is being added. look at the language. it is supposed to said -- it does say, "an option of closing the golf course." implicit is it -- implicit in this is that the national parks association might enter into agreement with us, keeping the golf course open.

news to me and anyone who has followed this issue. i would love to ask any supporters who are here if they have never once heard of the golden gate national recreation area who will continue this -- who will take this property and continue the golf course. if you have any evidence that it will take this and keep the golf course, show us. we had six hours of public testimony yesterday. did any of that testimony come out? none. did any supporters get up and say, please vote for this. please allow golden gate recreational area to take the land and keep the golf course? nope. all of the legislative background and -- the legislative background here makes crystal clear the intent of handling -- of handing this over is to close the golf course. i oppose the amendment because the amendment is fiction. there is no option of leaving

the golf course open if we hand it over. that is never going to happen. you said today, including the nine-hole option, please show me some evidence anywhere that the golden gate national recreation area would consider that. it would be nice if we could've talked to the golden gate national recreation area. for six hours, no one was here. we are about to approve an ordinance to hand over hundreds of acres of land and they do not even bother to show up? that was somewhat telling to me. to the amendment, i would say, do not vote for fiction. all you are doing is voting for supervisor avalos' comments when he introduced them yesterday in committee to evade ceqa. that is the sole intent to this ordinance. then bill will say, this is no longer a project.

if we vote it down, the ordinance is real. it achieves what supervisor avalos and his supervisors wanted it to achieve. a real discussion about golf. you cannot do that until there is ceqa analysis. let's be honest about what we are trying to do. to the amendment, i have other comments on the issue, but to the amendment, i would vote no. president chiu: is there any more discussion on the amendment? there are a number of people on the roster, by assuming they're not going to speak on the amendment that itself -- on the amendment itself. supervisor avalos: i was told it did not require an environmental review it. i was subsequently told that it did. i wanted to make sure we had a process that would help us go forward with negotiations talking about options. i have every intent of making sure that we do whenever

environmental review that we need to do in terms of moving four. if we go to the point of approving changes at sharp park that include closure, that is something i expect to happen. it is a question about whether we can open a door or a discussion with the national parks service, which heretofore has not thought it worthy of having a discussion. we have to look at this legislation before us within the four corners of the legislation of itself. there is an option which is in legislation that is one that allows us to look at several different alternatives for how sharp park can be programmed and to have a discussion with the national parks service. we do not know how they will go on. perhaps the national parks

service might have other things that want to address in those discussions and when they do happen. president chiu: any other discussion on the amendment? roll-call vote. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. clerk calvillo: there are seven aye's and four no's. president chiu: motion passes. supervisor wiener: thank you. i supported this because i believe it should rise or fall not based on ceqa and based on

the merits. on the merits, i will be voting against this legislation. despite a lot of the things the we are hearing and despite the amendments and other proposed amendments that we may hear today, the purpose of this legislation is clear -- to put us firmly on a path towards eventually having an agreement where -- an agreement with the ggnra. i have a lot of respect for them, but we tend to have a serious policy disagreement with them right now relating to recreational access, particularly relating to dogs. that dispute is not anywhere near resolved. ggnra is still going through their process and we have a serious dispute right here and

right now as the city of county and san francisco with the ggnra. i do not feel comfortable putting us on a path, even if it is a non-binding half, to give even more land to the control of the ggnra. i do not want to consider doing that until we have resolve our dispute with them carry it as a result, i will be voting no today. president chiu: i want to thank all of the advocates who have been working on this issue a writ for a number of years, i think supervisor avalos for his advocacy and supervisor mirkarimi for his advocacy before that. this has been a long and complicated conversation. sharp park has been a beloved space and golf course three we need to be careful with how we manage a scarce open space. that being said, i do share the vision presented by the

legislation that would allow us to protect the open space needs, to protect endangered species, and recreational needs we all share. we all recognize there are numerous obstacles, not the least of which is funding. that being said, i do plan to support this ordinance in part because i think it allows us to review the many options that would otherwise not be reviewed in. that being said, i would like to offer an amendment to allow for the continuation of a conversation that the rec and park department has been having with san mateo county. i think we should allow for that to continue. it has been continuing in good faith. so that we can 10 -- we can consider all options at the time. there is nothing in this order and i would preclude the general manager from entering into negotiations without the third parties from the least. subject to the restriction on

new leases and so forth, in this agreement. my memo also states that any such agreement should be subject to the approval of the board of supervisors so it is clear that we could consider this if it turns out that that conversation is fruitful. with that, i would like to offer that amendment. supervisor campos: is there a second? seconded by supervisor avalos. is there any comment on that amendment? supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: i thank supervisor chu for trying to thread the needle here, but not quite. just missed. rec and park can continue to have the discussion with san mateo county. after listening to the comments of supervisor avalos yesterday, your amendment does not change the thrust of the legislation. san mateo county and san francisco could still have those discussions with or without your

language. that is not the problem. the problem is, san francisco and san mateo county would be prohibited from entering into a contract, not into negotiations, actually fulfilling the contract until the nps and the city of san francisco have completely finished all of the vetting that needs to happen under this legislation. that is my concern. what this does -- i have spoken to some advocates on the other side of this who are really due respect and trust. where this is coming from, i truly believe it is the feeling that the no golf option is like a seesaw. the intent, i suppose, is to even things out. as i read the legislation, we are just shifting the seesaw. now the no golf often takes party. if it is the only thing that can be considered until all of it

has been fully vetted out and it works or it doesn't, then we could consider the golf option. i think your tilting the seesaw to the extreme where some of the advocates believe it is on the other side right now. supervisor campos: any other comments on the motion to amend? president chiu. president chiu: i would reiterate the plain language which says there is nothing in this ordinance that prevents the general manager from entering into negotiations. if there is an agreement that is agreed upon, it is subject to the approval of this board. we can take up an agreement at a future time. i want to make it clear that we can parallel track all these things. what has been frustrating for many folks who have cared about division laid out in this legislation is lack of progress in that direction. that is what i'm trying to tend to with this amendment. supervisor campos: supervisor elsbernd area -- supervisor

elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: refer back to section b and that is my problem. it is very clear that discussions with the nps must be complete the finalized. we must complete wrap of all discussions before we can enter into contracts with anybody else. that is the hang up. president chiu: 147 concerned about is that there has been a lot of focus on discussions between san mateo county and the department, which i appreciate. there are many close to believe that those discussions have been happening in part to -- and have been prioritized over discussions that have other options. there is a difference of opinion on this. we will leave it at that. supervisor campos: can we have a roll call on the amendment? supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor wiener: aye.

supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. clerk calvillo: here are seven aye's and four no's. supervisor campos: the amendment passes. supervisor avalos: i want to reiterate that was mentioned that we were giving land to the ggnra. that is not the case with this ordinance. we are operating sharp park under a joint management agreement with the national parks service. it is possible to have a disagreement or dispute with the national parks service on one area and be ok with another. the national parks service is a huge organization.

it manages parts even outside of the boundaries of alaska and elsewhere. it is a huge department within our federal government. lots of things you can agree and disagree with. going into negotiations, if they ever happened, about how dolls will be allowed access on the sharp park land, if we ever get to that. there are lost to ways that we can go into decision making with the national parks service. we should not preclude what we have with the national parks service against all others. president chiu: supervisor campos. supervisor campos: it has been a very good discussion. one thing that i would say is that i do believe the fact that we disagree with the ggnra with respect to one item does not mean we cannot do business with them on a different item. i want to make it clear that by

supporting this measure that we are in no way saying that we are ok with the ggnra should there be such an agreement. that we support their approach with respect to the access to recreational space by dogs. that is something that, if we get to that point, we will have an opportunity to address that issue. many of us here have a disagreement on how the ggnra has approached that subject matter. for me, the main concern that i have and why will be supporting this item is the financial constraints that the department has. the fact is, we have limited resources. we are not want to have all of the money we want to fund all of the recreation activities that we want to see funded. it is important to explore different options, different

possibilities. that is all the milly how i read the language of this resolution, that it does not necessarily mean that there will be one specific outcome but it allows us to pursue and export a possibility. i think that it is appropriate for us. which is why i will be supporting this. president chiu: supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: i want to respond to supervisor avalos. i understand the national park service is a large organization. as i understand it, the ggnra's views about dog access is not a novelist. it reflects a broader attitude within the national parks service organization. i know someone more senior in the parks service. at one point, recently, they referred to jobs as -- to dogs

as "predators." that reflects a certain attitude. when i say i respect the ggnra, that is true in. they are consistent in their views about our management. but i definitely disagree. if this legislation instructed rec and park to evaluate as many different or various management options with different entities and organizations and was neutral about it, that would be one thing. but it does not do that. it directs rec and park in one specific direction to negotiate with one particular entity. it says, if you want to, you can also consider others. it very much focuses on one entity. to me, that sets us on a specific road that i cannot support. thank you. president chiu: any further discussion? roll call vote.

supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. clerk calvillo: there are six aye's and five no's. president chiu: this ordinance is passed at the first reading. why don't we go to our for clot special order? clerk calvillo: items 34-37 are the special order items for those for the planning commission on september 27 to inal