comparing course layout depicted in that to exhibits included in the a valuation report. one finds very few similarities in how the course was designed and how it exists today. kohl number 11, which is now hold over 15 is similar to the original design. the remainder of the course has been substantially altered. the change to the order of a hole for plate is significant. it alters the nature of these people experience, making it up like what was intended by the designer. other major changes include the elimination and reconfiguration of several sand traps, construction of a sea wall in 1941 to prevent flooding of the golf course which did not work. it eliminated the beach and pacific ocean views which is the essence of the concept.

[tone] preserving this part for historic value makes no sense. i've in support of john avalos' legislation to partner with the park service to create more sustainable part for the future. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i was born and raised in san francisco. i went to abraham lincoln high school and i am a student at san francisco state university. i am urging all the today to vote yes to restore sharp park. partner in with the national park service's means the legislation has excellent planning and it will appeal to a greater audience compared to that of a golf course. in addition, voting yes on this legislation means you are choosing to protect to endangered species. as we know, this golf course is

dependent on government subsidies. the majority of bay area golfers have already cast their vote on this issue by continuously choosing to spend their money to play golf elsewhere. it is time to step out of the golf course comfort zone and recognize it has been financially and environmentally unsustainable. it's time to change the system rather than try to keep alive with temporary technological fixes. restoring sharp park means creating a more self sustaining recreational space that allows for san francisco dollars to be applied to more pressing issues. this is why it is imperative you vote yes to restore sharp park today. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am a resident of san francisco and i am 100% opposed to the effort to eliminate gulf operations at sharp park.

-- calls operations at sharp park. when that likely has the greatest ethnic and socioeconomic diversity golf course in the bay area. the ordinance is contrary to the conclusions reached by the recreation and parks department, recreation and parks commission and spur which issued an analysis before thanksgiving stating that the forcing nature of the legislation seems premature at least to be questions unanswered about the cost of liability the city would bear. that is what i want to talk about. i'm not here to offer my opinions on the many policy issues you have been hearing about today. instead, i want to talk about the process. i am an attorney. i practiced environmental law exclusively for 26 years. i deal with the endangered species act nearly every day of malpractice. i have reviewed the proposed

ordinance, but its original version at its current version prebon -- current version. it would be a violation and illegal for the board of supervisors to adopt this ordinance without having prepared an environmental impact report. that's what the planning department and city attorney told the supervisor regarding the earlier draft of the legislation. the same is true with respect to the second version. [tone] the ordinance would require the general manager of recreation and parks department to offer, which is a legal term of art, to shut down gulf operations and make the offer to the national park service. -- shut down golf operations. an environmental impact report is required by ceqa.

[tone] before that can be done, the eir must be prepared. >> your two minutes is up. we're going to turn off the mike and you will not be able to make your statement. we share the same amount of time for every person, proponents of this legislation or post. next speaker, please. >> victor carmichael, i'm not a lawyer. 20 years president of pacific up. i am here to urge the support of this resolution. i am understand the heartfelt resistance of removing an operation, albeit a money losing one, and i think it's unfortunate that the golfer committee and the environmental community is at loggerheads of this issue. the environmentalists need all the help they get for the

impending ecocide of the planet. this golf course is an anachronism. no one would build a golf course on top of what land. it's a perfectly good opportunity to increase that. -- on top of a wetland. it is an act for the greater good. another factor is going to be this is constantly going to cost the city money because of the sea rise and the burma will not hold for that many more years. -- the berm will not hold for many more years. this is a piece of legislation i strongly support and i urge that it be passed. >> next speaker please. >> i want to think john avalos for introducing this.

[unintelligible] if it is about diversity, -- [unintelligible] if there was a golf course, kids would not be doing things there. we're living a time of major extinctions worldwide. this one is caused by humans and is a major contributor to habitat destruction. in the language of the occupied movement, we are the 99%.

in terms of the biosphere and egos here, we are like the 1%. -- biosphere and one thing i think we can all agree on is a everyone needs a safe home. some can go elsewhere. the species living there cannot. we have been given the opportunity to transform the park to a safe home for the divorce species on earth. we need to embrace this opportunity. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am a san franciscans and a

current resident. i am going to play a video of residence in joining golf at the park. >> some of the gals are still alive. >> for 30 years. i have been on the golf course for 30 years. my grand kids are playing. >> the golf course. >> the golf course.

it is beautiful. every sunday. very nice and beautiful. a lot of people out here. >> to relax, to learn the sport, to get better at this board. >> to play more often. >> this is an area for everybody. for blacks, four hispanics, for the asians, and for the whites. everyone is playing. especially the scene years. they are over 55, 65.

>> there are people who play here. where are they going to go? you're going to make the old people sick. >> and melting pot of san francisco. >> to play here and get together. >> thank you so much. i hope you enjoyed that. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is -- i represent a golf association. we represent the millions of players, golfers that enjoy the sport. the usga has a particular interest in preserving and

encouraging golf courses in the public sector. sharp park is such a course and worth preserving. san francisco is an important golf destination for the usda and all golfers. national championships visit this area once every five years. the economic impact of that is obvious. in fact, in 2012, two national championships will be coming to this, including the u.s. open and the girls championship. the san francisco area can be proud of that contribution to the game. golf is good for the city and county of san francisco. the usga strongly urges that you sustained sharp park as a source of affordable golf in the area.

thank you very much. i was given two letters by other associations. one of our fellows had to leave. he represented the northern california golf association, and he would like to leave these two letters with you. >> supervisor, my name is -- i am a lifetime city resident and they called carrying public golfer. i reside in district 7, but i view myself as a resident of the city. i have been playing at the spark for almost 50 years, and this is a precious municipal treasurer. i say that because dr. alistair mackenzie, who created that work of art down there, built only two public courses by the sea. one is here. the other is in st. andrews,

scotland. this says properly been designated a historic resources, and before we ripped it off of the map and tear it up, the least we ought to do is have a study the environmental review. i think that there is no question that this ordinance is a project, and if anybody has any doubt about what it is about, let's have truth in government. this is an ordinance. page four, no later than march 1, 2012, the general manager of recreation and park shall offer to close sharp park. that to me would be a tragedy, a tragedy because the evidence shows that this golf course and the endangered species can coexist. in fact, across the street in federal court, while equity and others through the kitchen sink at that place, and what happens? -- thre the kitchen sink at that

place, and what happened? they concluded that the golf course helps the species, does not heard them, and they are driving down there, so the science is that this course can exist in conjunction with habitat restoration, but i would lastly say that if i was of the mind to close it down and re- purpose it, i would want to know are there philanthropic resources that will come to the table to save it and help to not only restore sharp park but restore the habitat. i would ask that first and not last, because i think those resources are there, and they will come forward. thank you very much for letting me speak. it has been a long wait, but thank you very much. please vote no. supervisor avalos: thank you

very much. i believe you have an older version of the ordinance. i will get you a new copy. thank you. >> hello, my name is -- i of the tear in 26 years and have served in public service, and the remainder of my time there has been spent on a variety of environmental protection measures, beginning with membership on the open space task force, followed by the open space committee, followed by the board of the pacifica land trust. i worked on approximately seven different properties in the pacific, which cares about the environment and has a history of environmental protection, as indicated by the committees we have in our community, and transferred approximately 600 acres into the ggnra, during the years we have worked with them. i think in this case, with regard to balance in our community, and i take a position of keeping the golf course, and

the reason is because it does maintain a balance of activities and a balance for the community and has been very sensitive to the species there, and with the new effort's going forward, it will continue to be. i think that there is no reason to transfer this property. currently, the county of san mateo is willing to work together with san francisco to work on these issues that required to perfect the relationship between the species and golf at sharp park, and they want to manage it in a way that protects and preserves them while maintaining public recreation, which is extremely important to have variety in a community of activities the same way it is important in nature,

and i would also just add at the end that one needs to really look at the impact on these species that have evolved on this side under current conditions for nearly 80 years and consider the impact to them that will take place if they restore the sharp park vision is implemented. i fear for them. thank you so much. appreciate it. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker. >> hello, my name is frank. i am a taxpaying residents of san francisco. i do not play golf. i do not like the game, but i do believe in diversity. often a rich man's game, and a number of golfers from sharp park testified, i did not see anyone% wheeler-dealer's. i saw some average joes trying to have a meaningful retirement. to me, adopting this resolution

would be like tearing one's house down because the roof leaks. sharp park is a 440 acre track with an amphibious base. this involves maybe one or two oholes -- one or two holes of 18. working to move one to the other side of a highway and working to improve the amphibian habitat. make no mistake. ggnra is a benefit. in truth, their management philosophy is not geared to active recreation, such as things like baseball and soccer. in this case, golf. furthermore, the capacity in san francisco is scarce, and the possibility of having an alternate course of course site

is impossible. i was taken back by the quoted by supervisor avalos of a shortfall as the reason for getting rid of this course. last year, when recreation and park could not afford to keep the arboretum going, the same supervisor argued it should be discontinued because recreational opportunity was more important than money. i like that supervisor avalos better. i think we should proceed with the remediation plan under refect to see if it works and do it in context of the 18th hole golf course. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is eric, and i am here to show my support for the legislation to restore a sharp bark. the reason i came on board is not really about recreational

opportunities. i am here to speak today because i think the legislation to restore sharp park is a strategy a long-term impact, big picture thinking to the land use down there. i understand that there is a sentimental value that people hold with this park, a history that they share their. it has been around since 1932, i understand. with these recreational opportunities aside, i would ask what they would just consider the big picture and think about this land impact on not only our environment but the community is that neighbor. the epa on its web site lists some pretty significant role that wetlands play, and more importantly erosion control is something that affects the residents of pacifica and the residents around the golf

course, so i think that is a concern that will raise a great amount when we look at climate change and the sea level rise, when that becomes an issue. and then there was something i wanted to talk about. there has always been a fresh to brackish lagoon. there is a report that indicates that freshwater plants around the lagoon, and these are very sensitive to salt water. sharp part is needed as a wetteland state to help for their protect the communities and the environment that surrounds it. and finally, with regards to the game of golf, i understand it is not an attack on the game of

golf. this is one course that was built on a wetland. poor planning. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> my name is -- and i am with a local. we need more time to work together to determine what is the best option for san francisco. the workers believe that if we continue along this path that we must do so with full environmental review. thank you. >> hi there. my name is -- i am a member of -- i support mr. avalos. i think this is an important opportunity. on the other side, i think it is unconscionable for a city to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to

subsidize golf in pacifica, when that money can be used in sf parks, where that money can be used, and whatever you think, in the next decade or two, this golf course is in trouble. with the sea level rise, the cost will be at least $17 million, which can be saved and used in parks and golf courses here. that does not even mention the enormous value of these precious species which are almost nowhere else in the world. i am not against col. my dad is a golfer. i like going with him, but no matter, if this golf cart -- golf course is closed, golfing in san francisco will thrive, but these species, their survival is at stake, as is millions of dollars which belong to the residents of san francisco. thank you.

>> i wrote to this 4.5 hours ago, so, good morning, supervisors. my name is -- i am here to say a few words for the senior golfers who want to say a sharp part. i believe you saw a few in the video. i attribute my good health to playing in sharp park twice a week, mondays and thursdays, or rather thursday's mondays. in chinese, there is a word that means slowpoke. sharp park is the only affordable 18-hole, regulation four-part of course available to

seniors in san francisco. because it is almost three times as much at another area than here. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor avalos and supervisor elsbernd. i am pleased to speak to you this afternoon rather than this evening, which i thought it would be. i am speaking against the ordinance and against the takeover of the park by any other government organization. i am a member of san francisco archers, and perhaps unknown to you, we maintain a san

francisco's city archery range on the east side of a highway in east sharp park. we have an excellent archery range there, which is the envy of other archer's all over the state of california. we are a four-state -- star range. we cater to hundreds or more adequately thousands of archer's every year, but are are we programs -- our our reach programs to grips, boys, girls, summer school boards, we cater to a large number of people -- summer school boards, we cater to a large number of people. if we are looking at recreation and recreation for children in san francisco or on the peninsula, this is an excellent place for them to come, and they do. we seem to have been lost in the

rush here. the families that donated this land to the city of san francisco did so for recreational purposes. u.s. caretakers for them land seemed to be doing a good job with that right now. i urge you to follow with the endangered species compliance plan put together by your own park and recreation department. keep archery alive. it is a respected, agent activity, and keep sharp park in the hands of san francisco. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors avalos and elsbernd. i am here for two things, one it is to submit into record talking about our processes with sharp park, and secondly just to make a few points about sharp park in

san mateo and san francisco. in 2007, the board of supervisors unanimously went on record to preserve it, and i quote, to preserve sharp park golf course as a public golf course. pursuant to that, we convene a meeting with the land managers of the county of san mateo, the city of pacifica, the golden gate national recreation area, and the city and county of san francisco and the parks and recreation department. further, there were comments by an bar mental scientists. in february of this year, the working group released a public statement about a list of findings, and they concluded that the consideration for sustainable species habitat and for the natural func