and have an amendment of the whole for this ordinance. i will bring this forward right away, allowing us to discuss this item is pretty -- not a major change from the ordinance i submitted a week and a half ago at the full board for this hearing, but it does allow us to hear this item. this item does not constitute a project, so therefore this ordinance would not require a sequel of review before it comes before the full board, and i have a letter from the environmental review officer at the planning department who states that as well. i want to submit this as we begin.

to go i just want to be clear, the intent of the of them is to ensure we did have to do any environmental review of the legislation? of this very ordinance before us. >> in other words, the legislation before we adopted this would require environmental review, but we can avoid seat what to pass legislation? >> it was not the intent of the legislation that we introduce a pointd we introduced a week ana half ago that we would not need a sequea review. we did not get a chance to get that. we have a measure that does have his approval. >> what are the changes that are

on page 5 that says should include the option of closure of sharp park? that seems to be the key difference. >> rather than saying the city must close, we're saying we shall include the option of closure. that seems to be with the informant review office -- supervisor avalos: inline 3 of page 5 is what you are referring to. there is also language in the findings that discusses that as well. >> anyone here from the national park service can -- that can operateanswer a quick question? we're going to get over this land and no one here. supervisor avalos: this legislation does not give over

any land. >> we discuss it, and the people are not even here. the national park service did put out a statement we have seen, and i saw the response to your e-mail. they make it abundantly clear they will not take this land unless the golf course is closed. >>supervisor avalos: let me stat and given introduction before i have this conversation early about the amendment of the whole, which i just submitted for our review. this legislation does not hand over sharp park to the national park service. essentially what it does is allows the rec and park department to offer to the national park service the opportunity to go into negotiations to create a joint agreement between the rec and

park department and the national park service. the land would be under the ownership of the city and county of san francisco. it is part of that discussion at -- part of that discussion would be an alternative, which would be the potential closure of the golf course and the reprogramming for other uses. >> when you say one alternative, should we take from that the implicit argument that there is an alternative, some scenario where they would take the land and keep the golf course open? supervisor avalos: offering from the city is multifaceted in terms of what different outcomes that could come out of it. one outcome that this ordinance would provide for would be the offering of joint management agreement that would not include golf, but does not

preclude the other possibility as well. the national park service in negotiations could reveal what they would like to do with the land itself. >> i get it, but let's not stop playing the game. the national park service has been clear in their e-mail to you, they will only take sharp park if the golf course is closed. i really think what is happening is we're doing this amendment to avoid saying it is an environmental review. if we were being honest with everyone here, we would say this legislation allows us to discuss with the national park service, handing over the land, but only if the golf course closed. all the people that are here in support of it, they're not here because they think maybe the golf course will be around, they

are here because they think it closes the golf course. [laughter] [applause] [applause] let's be honest. i and is asking for honesty in legislation. supervisor avalos: this is not a question of honesty. i have made perfectly clear what i would like to see happen. and close the golf course? supervisor avalos: i have talked about that, yes. i believe as a city we need to be able to discuss what is the right way that we program sharp park in th. in the past five years we have had a cumulative deficit of $1.7 million. this is beyond a subsidy. we're seeing a huge hit to our

rec and park department over the years that we can not be able to fund and continue to program golf in certain places that we cannot afford that has a major impact on other parts of our mission of the rec and park department. we also have a liability of endangered species in the short park area, and the red-legged frog and the carter state guard to endangered species -- gardner snake are endangered species. we are at liability to continue the golf course without a permit that would allow for the killing of these creatures. this ordinance is a way to move forward with possible changes on how we program the park, and i think it is important we move

forward to a gauge in that discussion. i believe the official discussion about how sharp park will be programmed has not been clear that perhaps the golf course itself is not something that is sustainable for the city to continue to do. [applause] that was clapping for my approval, but we want to minimize the amount of cli apping that is going on. i do appreciate the applause, but let's just minimize that completely. we will cut it out completely. >> there will be costs if we

close the golf course. we will have to do an environmental impact report at some point. let's say that it gets more than eight votes and you do not have to worry about a mayor veto. let's say there is an exception. let's say all of these hurdles are cleared. eventually you will have to do an environmental impact report. if your aim is to close the golf course, why not start the process ahead of time? by passing this, you are throwing a bone to folks to get them excited. you are not doing anything to achieve the end you want any quicker. if anything, you are delaying the process. supervisor avalos: the folks i have been working with on the ordinance no that when we get to the point where we have an

agreement, any changes would have to go through environmental review. that is something we all know about. supervisor elsbernd: if you want to get it done, why not get it done sooner rather than later? you are delaying the process by avoiding an environmental impact review. supervisor avalos: thank you. we have someone from the parks and wrecked apartment -- parks and rec department who will speak on their behalf. >> i am the planning director for the department. i am here to give brief comments.

understand the alarm the public would like to speak. -- i understand a lot of the public would like to speak. we first received sharp park in 1917. we have been managing the property as one of our many municipal parks. we have been making capital improvements as needed. we have been fulfilling our obligations to work with the surrounding land owners as well as the regulatory authorities. one thing i want to highlight is the amount of work that has gone into analyzing and understanding the costs associated with sharp park as well as our regulatory requirements. starting in 2007, there was a court -- report donated to the department. that led to the discussion at the board of supervisors that resulted in the creation of the

task force and another report that cost about $85,000. during this time, we continued to work on the restoration alternatives. that has cost more than $400,000. we are preparing for that in vern majority necessary to move forward with that plan. -- we are preparing for the environmental review necessary to move forward with that plan. in 2009, a supervisor introduced an ordinance requesting we develop three alternatives for sharp park. that cost more than $120,000 to prepare that report and analysis using our consultants to evaluate all three options and develop preliminary engineering drawings. we created another task force to

look at the idea of things that might impact sharp park over the long term. the working group met for six months. it concluded with the decision that in the long term it was in the best interest of the city and county as well as san mateo county and species to go to a more naturally managed coast line. the commission adopted the 18- hole alternative and were directed to continue with our work. we have completed the land managers task force. we have released the draft eir. we are in litigation around sharp park. the preliminary injunction hearing was denied. requestewe have also continued e

an open channel of communication with the parks service. our early conversations were around the three alternatives. their statements have been clear to us. they started in june of 2009 that the national park service is not likely to accept management or ownership of the golf course. in 2010, they restated a similar sentiment. toot september 2011, they again made it clear that closure of the sharp park golf course would be necessary condition to their assumptions of the responsibilities of either owned the land outright or participating in the management agreement with us. that is our brief chronology of how we got to where we are today. >> go back to the last screen.

in the conversations with the park service, let's say the city today shut down the golf course. the we just hand over the land? are there other requirements before handing over the 400 acres? with they require us to do anything else with the land? >> we have not gotten specific. they have been consistent and telling us there would be a transition required in which we would be requested to make improvements to get the property in the kind of shape they like to see before assuming ownership or responsibility for the property. supervisor avalos: this legislation would bring to the table the parts department with the national parks service. the national parks service have said they do have resources that can help to do some of the

transition and increase checkerwork that needs to be done to make improvements -- on the transition work that needs to be done to make improvements. >> over the past year in response to the legislation where it was raised repeatedly and legitimately that given the sharp park benefits a broader constituency than just san francisco that it would be appropriate to enter into a partnership with san mateo county or the city of pacifica to share the obligations associated with the continued management. we have been talking to san mateo county. we believe in january we will be able to return to the board with a proposal from them. that is how much progress we've made. they are interested in sharing those obligations and assisting

us in finding funding to help maintain the golf course. i am talking a lot of capital improvements that will be needed in the long term. there will also help us to pursue funding sources and help with the management. supervisor avalos: do you read this legislation that if it is implemented, we have to cut off any and all communications with san mateo county and can only focus on the mps alternative? >> yes, that is my understanding. >> san mateo county did have a couple of occasions to raise funding for parks. they have not been able to do that over the three or four bond measures on the ballot. it is not clear where san mateo county will be able to get resources to do any kind of work on the part. they are trying to raise money

for other things and have not been able to do that. i am not clear to what extent you have a real proposal and understanding from the county that there would be real resources for improvements or relationships to do work on sharp park. >> based on our conversations with san mateo county, that was the purpose of the term sheet we drafted. we have been working on refining it with the city attorney's office and the county of san mateo. we would like to bring that forward in january. it would have more details. we are in negotiations. i feel a little uncomfortable talking through all of the details without being able to allow them a chance to review the term sheet. i think that would be the point we would like to have the board of supervisors to have to build

consider the full range of options. >> a year's worth of work needs another six weeks to come to us, so we will cut off right at the very end, right before we see all the analysis, we're going to cut it off. it seems a little odd. if we were really trying to get everything in front of us before we made any decisions, we would take more time. anything else for your discussion? i have a list of speakers i want to start off with i will call them off. please come forward as your name is called. jeff miller.

>> good afternoon. i am with the center for biological diversity. we focus on protecting and recovering endangered species. we have a strong interest in the critically imperiled snake. sharp park represents one of the best recovery opportunities for this species. we can recover significant habitat for it. even if you do not care about snakes or endangered species act violations, there are a couple of things we can all agree are important. two things i think you will care about are the city's reputation

and the budget. the sharp park issue has been a shameful episode in the environmental legacy. san francisco's leadership on the environment is at risk. the plan put forward by the parks department we see as a deliberate extinction plan. it would be big endangered species. it would restrict any real restoration of the area. everyone knows it is harming other golf courses. they are asking for millions of dollars in very expensive infrastructure to maintain this golf course. the fish and wildlife service has made it clear to the city that you have ongoing legal and financial obligations that will not be solved by the parks

department process. i found it interesting in the chronology that the only scientific study done so far was not in there. all of the major scientists not employed by the parks department say to close the golf course because that is the only way you will recover the species. >> i think the partnership is best for all. it is true of all of this legislation is asking for is consideration of a troop restoration alternative. that has not been explored it. that is called good government. >> next beaker -- speaker. if your name is called, please come forward. >> good afternoon. i am the executive director of

livable city. thank you for bringing this resolution forward. one of the great things about san francisco is we have this sophisticated livable city that is so close to nature. the nature we have is exceptional. we live in the middle of a biodiversity hotspot as recognized by conservation international and unesco. we're not one of the most bio diverse regions in the world. biodiversity is a real crisis. -- we are one of the most bio- diversity dense in the world. the biodiversity prices worldwide is worse than the carbon crisis. there is a real chance to do something great for a diverse region and do something locally. that is this resolution. sharp park restoration options

would create one watershed from the water had to the ocean that could be restored to provide a habitat. this will be important to all creatures. it will also be important to the livability of the city. it is a great thing to have nature so close by. we urge you to support the legislation. we hope it will carry forward as the first action in what will be a long project of looking at the opportunities to preserve and conserve the habitat and endangered species and create an incredible asset for our children and grandchildren. >> i am the coastal ecologists. i have worked on conservation

and management of coastal wetlands and beaches are over 30 years. i am an ecologist for the fish and wildlife service and army corps of engineers. i was assigned to manley, hunters point, and other areas. i was the author of the latest accessibility report on sharp park. the plan contains updated information from the city report from 2010. that is at the heart of the contentious land use policies being discussed today. the city 2010 report built on some outdated assumptions. i believe those have resulted in fatal flaws in environmental

management. it will affect the feasibility of construction and maintenance in the long term. my understanding is the proposed legislation will allow the city to reexamine the analysis to have the corrected information. it will also allow you to benefit from the greater experience experience of management in a public shoreline sexting. >supervisor avalos: supervisor mar? supervisor mar: dr. bay, i know you did not have much time. the example of moray point,

could we dropped from the -- draw from that for a potential alternative that is more sustainable for sharp park. >> it has undergone a small scale but important restoration. one implication is that the endangered species have an additional refuge. it implies they will not be going away. the new breeding habitat that were installed on the foot of the slope will be dispersing into sharp park and providing a potential conflict of land management. whatever your long-term commitments are, you are going to have to address the fact that species are not going away. they may be poorly managed with ongoing expenses to medicate the

juxtaposition of adverse land uses with population, but moray point has a suitable habitat next to a problematic habitat. you have to adjust sharp park's long-term plans for future sea level rise and dynamic habitats that is not contained in this. supervisor mar: you mentioned outdated assumptions from the 2010 report. give two examples of that. >> the original 1992 report form the basis for the 2010 city report. it did not adequately assess sea level rise or the responses of the wetland system to that. it did not assess permanently draining and pumping out the wetlands and maintaining the marsh at a low elevation relative to sea level behind an

artificially levitated sea wall. keeping the marsh near the high tide line elevation keeps it permanently vulnerable to ocean over wash. in 1982, there was the huge storm with high tides. it is like in in the reservoir. it will pick up seawater. it is not allowed to dream back to the ocean by gravity. it will be a permanent housing for wetland management. -- it will be a permanent hauser -- hazard for wetland management. >> by may 20 plus year resident of pacifica support restoring sharp park legislation. here is a picture of glen eagle golf course. i will leave it with you.