235
Montgomery St., #400, San Francisco, CA. 94104 * 415-392-5431, ext.
2054 * info@sfpublicgolf.com
September
1, 2011
FREQUENTLY
ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SHARP PARK GOLF COURSE
1.
QUESTION: DOES SHARP PARK GOLF COURSE “LOSE MONEY”?
ANSWER:
NO. IN FACT, IT SUBSIDIZES OTHER
REC
& PARK DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS.
The
annual number of rounds, and hence revenue, varies from year to year,
principally due to weather. But the most recent available figures
(for fiscal years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010) show an annual average of
50,099 rounds played at Sharp Park (54,073 in 2008-2009, and 46,124
in 2009-2010). In 2008-2009 Sharp Park had positive operating income
of $99,142, even after Rec & Park bookkeepers assessed “overhead”
charges of $245,816. In 2009-2010, Sharp Park had a small operating
loss of $43,946; but this was after the Rec & Park Department
assessed an “overhead” charge of $274,583. The “overhead” is
an intra-departmental transfer payment which subsidize the general
administrative expenses of the Rec & Park Department, Mayor’s
Office, and other city-wide services.1
There have been substantial “overhead”
payments every fiscal year since 2005, when course-specific figures
first became available.2
Even in years where the “overhead” results in a small paper
“loss,” such losses would be eliminated by a modest increase in
greens fees. Sharp Park’s fees are among the very lowest in the
Bay Area3;
a fee increase of $1 per round would generate on average an
additional $50,000 income annually, while still leaving Sharp Park’s
greens fees among the Bay Area’s lowest.
SHARP
PARK IS A POSITIVE REVENUE-SOURCE FOR THE DEPARTMENT, AND IT HAS THE
POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED REVENUE. SO TO CLOSE THE GOLF
COURSE WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE AWAY MONEY FROM THE REC & PARK
DEPARTMENT AND ITS OTHER PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES.4
2.
QUESTION: WILL SIGNIFICANT NEW CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BE
REQUIRED
AT SHARP PARK GOLF COURSE?
ANSWER:
NOT AS IT IS BEING OPERATED TODAY.
There
are two possible new capital projects that are being discussed,
individually and together, for Sharp Park: (1) habitat recovery for
frogs and snakes; and (2) restoration of the historic Alister
MacKenzie-designed golf course. However, both of them are optional,
neither appears in the proposed 2011-2012 Rec & Park Department
budget, and neither is immediately needed to continue operating the
golf course. Both of these possible capital projects would have
funding sources and benefits extending beyond the golf course and the
City and County of San Francisco. Details of planning, permitting,
cost-sharing, and financing for these projects are currently under
discussion.
3. QUESTION: DOES SHARP PARK
GOLF COURSE BENEFIT THE
ENVIRONMENT?
ANSWER: YES: RECYCLED
WATER; ORGANIC MANAGEMENT;
AND PROTECTION
FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES.
An $8.8 Million tertiary-treated
wastewater irrigation
Project, approved jointly by San
Francisco and
for
in/about December, 2011, the project will mean that treated
wastewater from Pacifica’s Calera Creek sewage plant will be used
on the golf fairways, instead of being dumped into the ocean. It is
a joint project of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and
the North Coast County Water District (Pacifica’s water utility).
In
or about April, 2009, organic maintenance practices have been in
place at Sharp Park Golf Course, pursuant to an Endangered Species
Compliance Plan8,
which among other things restricts golf cart usage and prohibits
inorganic fertilizers.
The
Recreation and Park Department’s consulting biologist Karen Swaim,
who is also consultant to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s
San Francisco Garter Snake restoration project at the neighboring
Mori Point property, testified to the Recreation and Park Commission
that the golf course protects the endangered San Francisco garter
snake and California red-legged frog from small mammal predators,
including cats, dogs, raccoons, possum, and rats. (See summary of
Ms. Swaim’s testimony below, at Question 5.)
4.
QUESTION: WOULD A SNAKE-AND-FROG HABITAT RESTORATION
PROJECT BE MORE EXPENSIVE—OR LESS,
IF THE 18-HOLE GOLF COURSE IS
KEPT OPEN?
ANSWER:
IF HABITAT IS RESTORED FOR THE FROG
AND SNAKE AT SHARP PARK, IT
WOULD
BE FAR
MORE EXPENSIVE TO CLOSE
THE GOLF COURSE THAN TO
KEEP IT OPEN.
This
was a key finding of the Rec & Park Department’s 6-month study
in 2009, authored by the Department’s principal consultant,
TetraTech, Inc. Earthmoving and other costs to substantially
repurpose the site for a no-golf solution would significantly exceed
the expense of leaving the golf course generally as it is (with
relatively minor modification), and restoring frog/snake habitat in
the area of the lagoons at the western side of the property.9
A
significant driver of the high expense of destroying the golf course
would be the earthmoving expense for digging up the golf fairways,
which are composed of the highly invasive and extremely competitive
kikuyu grass, explained environmental scientist David Munro, the lead
author of the Rec and Park Department’s November, 2009 Sharp Park
Report. If not removed, this invasive grass would outcompete and
preclude native plants and habitat from establishing in the area
currently occupied by the golf course. Munro explained this at
length at the December 16, 2009 public hearing of the San Francisco
Board of Supervisors Governmental Audits and Oversight Committee.10
The
Laguna Salada “Conceptual Ecosystem Restoration Plan,” published
February 9, 2011 by consultants retained by Wild Equity Institute and
Center for Biological Diversity,11
ignores
the exorbitant earthmoving expense required to remove the golf
fairways. Moreover, the report’s authors admit that Highway
One—which bisects the golf course—is a “migration barrier”
for the frogs and snakes, and state that removal of that barrier by a
freeway overpass or tunnel is an “essential concept” to their
restoration vision for Sharp Park; “otherwise the existing
populations at Sharp Park and Mori Point will remain isolated.”12
While acknowledging that moving Highway One is critical to the
success of their proposal, CBD’s report writers do not provide a
design or a time-line or a cost-estimate or funding source for what
would obviously be an extravagantly expensive engineering and
construction project, other than comparing the project to the current
Doyle Drive elevated freeway reconstruction at the San Francisco
approaches to the Golden Gate Bridge.13
Cost estimates for the Doyle Drive project exceed $1 Billion.14
5.
QUESTION: DO GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS “KILL SNAKES” AT
SHARP PARK?
ANSWER:
SNAKES DIE FROM MANY CAUSES AT SHARP PARK:
BIRDS; REPTILE-COLLECTORS; DOGS AND CATS;
SMALL PREDATORS SUCH AS RATS AND RACCOONS.
THERE HAS BEEN ONLY ONE REPORTED INCIDENT
OF A GOLF-RELATED SNAKE KILL IN COURSE
HISTORY. THE MOST RECENT
REPORTED SNAKE
KILL AT SHARP PARK WAS BY A
DOMESTIC CAT
FROM THE RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD.
Conservation
biologist Karen Swaim, the frog and snake consultant for the Rec &
Park Department, is also consultant to the GGNRA on its San Francisco
Garter Snake habitat-restoration project at the adjoining Mori Point
property. She testified at length to the Rec & Park Commission
and to the Board of Supervisors’ Government Audit and Oversight
Committee in November and December, 2009, that the golf course has a
net beneficial effect on the snakes at Laguna Salada and Horse Stable
Pond, because the golf course and the presence of golfers control
wild and domestic cats and small mammal predators, and discourage
bicycle traffic, dog recreation, and other more free-form park use
activity in and around the ponds, which are known to jeopardize the
frogs and snakes. By contrast, she said, golf is a relatively benign
and easily-regulated activity, which explains why the snakes and
frogs have survived on the golf course over the course’s
near-80-year life.15,16
6. QUESTION:
WHICH CAME FIRST AT SHARP PARK:
THE GOLF COURSE, OR THE FROGS AND SNAKES?
ANSWER:
BEFORE THE GOLF COURSE WAS BUILT,
THE PROPERTY WAS AN ARTICHOKE FARM, AND
THE LAGOON WAS OPEN TO THE OCEAN.
BECAUSE THE FROGS AND SNAKES ARE FRESHWATER
SPECIES, SCIENTISTS SAY THAT THEY WERE
“UNLIKELY” TO HAVE BEEN AT LAGUNA SALADA
BEFORE THE GOLF COURSE.
Historic
photos show that before the golf course was built, the property was
not pristine native habitat, but rather an artichoke farm, and the
Laguna Salada was open to the sea. The saline nature of the lagoon
is referenced in its historic name “Laguna Salada, which means
“salty lake” in Spanish. The historic name of the valley on US
Geological Survey maps going back at least to 1892 is “Salt
Valley”. The red-legged frog in its larval state is highly
saltwater-intolerant. For these reasons, scientific studies say that
the presence of the frog and snake at Sharp Park was “unlikely”
before the golf course.17
The first scientific reports of the snake at Sharp Park are from the
mid-1940s, after the original sea wall was built to separate the golf
course from the ocean, and 15 years after the golf course was built.18
7.
QUESTION: COULD SAN FRANCISCO OBTAIN INCOME FROM A
WILDLIFE SANCTUARY AT SHARP PARK BY
CREATING A “MITIGATION BANK” THERE?
ANSWER:
NO.
Center
for Biological Diversity spokesman Brent Plater told the PROSAC
Advisory Committee at its July 7, 2009 public meeting that the city
could expect to earn a profit of $300 to $600 Million by converting
Sharp Park into a “mitigation bank”.19
However, this claim is fanciful. The city’s mitigation bank
consultant, Westervelt Environmental Services, which consulted on the
mitigation bank at the San Francisco Airport, said that a mitigation
bank at Sharp Park would not have good prospects: the costs would be
high, the benefits uncertain, and a mitigation bank would preclude
all public recreational use of the property. 20,21
8.
QUESTION: HAS THE GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION
AREA
AGREED TO ACCEPT A TRANSFER
OF SHARP PARK?
ANSWER:
NO.
The
Golden Gate National Recreation Area (“GGNRA”) will not accept a
transfer of Sharp Park with its current environmental issues.22
According to Howard Levit, Chief of Communications and Partner
Stewardship at GGNRA, it would not be reasonable to expect the GGNRA
to assume responsibility for environmental remediation on its own.23
And the Hon. Jackie Speier, the United States Congresswoman for the
Twelfth District (including southwestern San Francisco and northern
San Mateo counties), where the property is located, has publicly
stated her opposition to closing the golf course.24,25
By
a vote of 13-2 at its December 1, 2009 public meeting, the citizens’
advisory committee to the Rec & Park Department, PROSAC, opposed
GGNRA involvement at Sharp Park.26
10.
QUESTION: WHAT IS THE SIERRA CLUB’S POSITION ON
SHARP
PARK?
ANSWER:
THE SIERRA CLUB’S POSITION IS CONFUSING.
The
Sierra Club is one of the plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit against the
City and County of San Francisco over Sharp Park.27
However, a few days after the suit was filed, Sierra Club Deputy
Executive Director Bruce Hamilton wrote a letter to the editor of the
San Francisco Examiner, “clarifying” the club’s position:
Sierra Club favors protection of the frogs and snakes at Sharp Park,
but takes no position on whether or not the golf course should be
closed, according to Hamilton.28
The Sierra Club’s Loma Prieta Chapter, which includes Santa Clara,
San Benito, and San Mateo County-—where the golf course is
located—-has publicly stated its support for the Rec & Park
Department’s plan to simultaneously restore habitat and keep the
18-hole golf course at Sharp Park.29
11.
QUESTION: WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE LAWSUIT?
ANSWER:
A LAWSUIT WAS FILED MARCH 2, 2011,
AND
IS NOW PENDING IN FEDERAL COURT.
On
March 2, 2011, environmentalist groups led by Wild Equity Institute
and Center for Biological Diversity filed suit in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Francisco), against the
City and County of San Francisco, claiming that golf operations at
Sharp Park, including mowing, golf carts, use of fertilizers,
rodent-control, and pumping of the ponds, cause “take” of San
Francisco garter snakes and California red-legged frogs. The suit
seeks an order barring golf operations. Wild
Equity Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, et al, vs. City
and County of San Francisco,
U.S. Dist.Ct., N.D. California, No. C 11-00958 SI. The judge is the
Honorable Susan Illston.
On
June 24, 2011, the Court granted the San Francisco Public Golf
Alliance’s Motion to Intervene in the lawsuit. A trial date has
been set for July 16, 2012.
12.
QUESTION: WHAT IS ORGANIZED LABOR’S POSITION?
ANSWER:
THE GOLF COURSE IS SUPPORTED BY
LABORERS LOCAL 261.
NO LABOR ORGANIZATION HAS ANNOUNCED
SUPPORT FOR CLOSING THE GOLF COURSE.
Laborers
Local 261, whose members include the golf course gardeners, announced
its support for keeping the 18-hole golf course at the Board of
Supervisors’ GAO Committee hearing in December, 2009.30
13.
QUESTION:
WHAT WERE THE DETERMINATIONS OF
SAN
FRANCISCO’S PARK, RECREATION,
AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
AND THE REC & PARK
COMMISSION?
ANSWER:
AFTER A SIX-MONTH STUDY, AND
BY OVERWHELMING VOTES, PROSAC
AND
THE REC & PARK COMMISSION
VOTED
IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE GOLF COURSE.
San
Francisco’s Park, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee,
appointed by the Board of Supervisors, conducted a series of public
hearings on all aspects of Sharp Park at monthly meetings July
through December, 2009. On December 1, 2009, PROSAC voted, 15-1, in
favor of the Rec & Park Department’s plan to restore habitat,
while keeping the Sharp Park Golf Course open; PROSAC also voted,
13-2, in favor of pursuing cooperation at Sharp Park with the City
of
Pacifica and San Mateo County--but not with the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area.31
After
public hearing November 19, 2009, followed by a scientific
round-table and additional public meetings, the San Francisco
Recreation and Park Commission uanimously voted on December 17, 2009
to adopt the recommendations of the Sharp Park Report, that the
18-hole golf course should remain open and be renovated in
conjunction with habitat recovery for the frog and snake in and
around the lagoons.32
14.
QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE POSITIONS OF THE SAN MATEO
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND
THE PACIFICA CITY COUNCIL?
ANSWER:
BOTH THE PACIFICA CITY COUNCIL33
AND
THE SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERVISORS34
HAVE
ADOPTED UNANIMOUS RESOLUTIONS
TO
KEEP SHARP PARK GOLF COURSE OPEN.
15.
QUESTION: IS SHARP PARK GOLF COURSE
JUDGED
“INFERIOR” BY GOLF EXPERTS?
ANSWER:
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
SHARP
PARK IS REVERED
AS
AN HISTORIC TREASURE OF GOLF.
Opened
in 1932, Sharp Park was built by Dr. Alister MacKenzie, one of
history’s greatest golf architects. It is one of Dr. MacKenzie’s
few public courses. Local, state, national, and international golf
organizations calling for its preservation include the World Golf
Foundation35,
California Alliance for Golf (whose members include the Northern and
Southern California Golf Associations and the Pacific Women’s Golf
Association)36,
and the Alister MacKenzie Society37.
Those
who want to close Sharp Park Golf Course misleadingly cite golf
author Daniel Wexler’s book, The
Missing Links, in
support of their argument that Sharp Park is an inferior course. Mr.
Wexler has publicly and in writing defended Sharp Park’s historic
value, called for restoration of the course, and accused Sharp Park’s
critics of misrepresenting both the spirit and intent of his work.38
16.
QUESTION: HAVE HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGENCIES
AND
ORGANIZATIONS TAKEN A POSITION?
ANSWER:
YES. SHARP PARK HAS BEEN DESIGNATED
AN
“HISTORICAL RESOURCE” BY BOTH
THE
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
AND
BY THE PACIFICA HISTORICAL SOCIETY;
AND
A NATIONALLY-SIGNIFICANT
AT-RISK
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE,
BY
THE WASHINGTON, D.C.-BASED
CULTURAL
LANDSCAPE FOUNDATION.
The
San Francisco Planning Department, by a document entitled “Historic
Resource Evaluation Response,” dated February 15, 2011, has
designated Sharp Park Golf Course an “historical resource,” under
the California Environmental Quality Act.39
The
Washington D.C.-based Cultural Landscape Foundation has designated
Sharp Park Golf Course as a nationally-significant, at-risk cultural
landscape.40
The
Pacifica Historical Society, official historian of the City of
Pacifica, has recognized Sharp Park Golf Course as a Pacifica
“historical and cultural resource,” and has called for
preservation of the 18-hole course.41
17.
QUESTION: IS GOLF A POPULAR RECREATION
IN
SAN FRANCISCO?
ANSWER:
YES.
A
2004 “Recreational Assessment Report,” conducted for the Rec &
Park Department by PROS Consulting, found that when San Francisco
residents were asked to designate the single most important
recreational facility to their households (out of 19 different types
of facilities), golf courses were tied with dog-play areas as the
fourth-most important type of recreational facility, trailing only
children’s playgrounds, swimming pools, and walking and biking
trails.42
This is consistent with consultant reports in 2007 and again in 2008
to the Rec & Park Department from the National Golf Foundation43
and Leon Younger and PROS Consulting44,
respectively, both of which found that the San
Francisco/San
Mateo County area has too few courses to serve the market demand for
affordable public golf.
18.
QUESTION: ARE SHARP PARK GOLFERS “ELITES”?
ANSWER:
NO. GOLF IS “THE PEOPLE’S SPORT” AT SHARP
PARK,
WHERE JUNIORS, SENIORS, WOMEN, AND
ALL RACIAL, CULTURAL, AND ETHNIC GROUPS
MAKE UP SHARP PARK’S CLIENTELE.
Sharp
Park provides affordable public golf to students, working-class, and
retired men and women, remarkable for their ethnic, gender, age,
lifestyle, and socio-economic
and
the San Francisco Bay Guardian recognize Sharp Park as a regional
resource “for people who aren’t rich to play the game.”48
The
Mabuhay Golf Club (Filipino), Mexican-American Golf Club, Golden Hill
Golf Club (Chinese), San Francisco Chinatown YMCA, Sons in
Retirement, Pacific Women’s Golf Association, and Sharp Park
Business Women’s Golf Club are among the many minority, women’s,
and seniors organizations that have called on public officials to
save Sharp Park Golf Course.
Respectfully
submitted,
s/
Richard
Harris
San
Francisco Public Golf Alliance
1
Rec & Park
Department, Sharp Park Financials presented to PROSAC public
meeting, November 4, 2009 (first page):
2
San Francisco
Controller Ben Rosenfeld’s Memorandum to Supervisor Sean Elsbernd,
et al., regarding Golf Fund, etc., December 17, 2008, at pp. 2-3:
http://sfpublicgolf.com/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=40189
3
Rec &
Park Department, Sharp Park Financials (supra,
fn. 1), chart captioned “Regional Golf Course Comparison,” at
page 5.
4
San Francisco Rec and Park
General Manager Phil Ginsburg, public testimony at hearing of the
Board of Supervisors Government Audit and Oversight Committee, Dec.
16, 2009, S.F. Gov. TV, at 3:35:20-3:38:55:
5
See minutes of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission public
meeting October 28, 2008, at which the PUC adopted Resolution
08-0194, authorizing the joint agreement with Pacifica:
http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/18/MSC_ID/113/MTO_ID/369/C_ID/4228
The minutes reflect, at Agenda Item No. 11, that the only public
comment was testimony in support of the project from Jennifer
Cleary, representing Clean Water Action, a national water advocacy
organization.
6
Construction is well under way as of June 17, 2010 on all phases of
the project: pipeline, pump, and storage tank. Construction status
updates are posted on the North Coast County Water District website:
http://www.nccwd.com/RW_Pump%20Station%20Update_060111.pdf
7
Published meeting minutes of the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission and the Recreation and Park Department reflect that the
Pacifica Recycled Water Project was re-approved at public hearings
of the PUC on November 9, 2010 (Agenda Items Nos. 11 and 12):
http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/18/MSC_ID/113/MTO_ID/369/C_ID/5403;
and by the Rec & Park Commission on January 20, 2011 (Resolution
1101-009): http://sfrecpark.org/documents/012011minutes.pdf.
8
Endangered Species Compliance Plan for Sharp Park Golf Course,
April 9, 2009, updated December 23, 2009:
http://sf-recpark.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/wcm_recpark/Planning/FinalCompliancePlan121809.pdf
9
Sharp Park Conceptual
Restoration Alternatives Report, November,
2009, Tetra Tech, Inc., at pp. 3-5, 52-55, and Tables 4 and 5:
10
Testimony of David Munro at Board of Supervisors Government Audit
and Oversight Committee, Dec. 16, 2009, on videotape at San
Francisco Government TV, at 0:39.40-0:55:
14
Presidio Parkway, Re-envisioning Doyle Drive, Project Funding:
http://www.presidioparkway.org/about/funding.aspx
15
Karen Swaim, public testimony
(opening and concluding remarks) to San Francisco Rec & Park
Commission public hearing, November 19, 2009:
16
Karen Swain, testimony at
public hearing of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Government
Audit and Oversight Committee, Dec. 16, 2009, on videotape at San
Francisco Government TV at 0:57:10-1:31:54, and 3:30:40-3:31:10:
17
Laguna Salada
Resource Enhancement Plan, Philip Williams & Associates, June,
1992, at pp. 2-3, and Fig. 2:
18
Karen Swain, testimony at
public hearing of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Government
Audit and Oversight Committee, Dec. 16, 2009, at 1:13:25-1:15:28.
19
Mr. Plater made a similar claim at about the same time to reporter
Ben Terrall, who quoted Mr. Plater in an article published in the
Fall, 2009 issue of Terrain
magazine, as follows: “A restored Sharp Park could be funded by a
wetlands mitigation bank. Credits were selling last year at $3.5
Million per acre for wetlands restoration. There are 200 acres that
could be restored at Sharp Park (out of about 400). That’s
$700,000,000 in gross revenue. No golf model would ever provide
that much money to City coffers.”
http://ecologycenter.org/terrain/issues/fall-2009/tee%E2%80%99d-off/
20
Westervelt Ecological Services,
“Financial Viability and Analysis, Sharp Park Mitigation Bank”,
etc., November 6, 2009:
21
Lucy Triffleman, public
testimony at Rec & Park Commission public hearing, November 19,
2009:
22
Testimony
of Amy Meyer, People for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
to Board of Supervisors’ Govt. Audit & Oversight Committee,
Dec. 16, 2009, S.F. Govt. TV, at 2:48:10-2:49:0.
http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=11
23
Mr. Levit told this writer,
in a June 11, 2010 phone conversation, that Levit’s predecessor
Christine Powell had been misquoted on this point in a news story
that appeared in the June 2, 2010 SF
Weekly.
24
KQED Radio, “Forum”
program, “The Future of Sharp Park,” November 9, 2009, 10:00
a.m., at 13:00-15:12 and 20:57-21:32:
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R911091000
26
PROSAC, Resolutions [Nos. 1 and
2], adopted Dec. 1, 2009, submitted to Rec & Park Commission on
Dec. 3, 2009:
27
Wild Equity
Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, et al, vs. City and
County of San Francisco,
U.S. Dist.Ct., N.D. California,
No. C
11-00958 SI, complaint filed March 2, 2011.
28
Bruce Hamilton, letter to editor, San Francisco Examiner, March 5,
2011:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/letters-editor/2011/03/sf-can-keep-golf-course-while-protecting-frog
29
Testimony of Merrill
Bobele, co-chair, Coastal Issues Committee, Loma Prieta Chapter,
Sierra Club, to Board of Supervisors’ Govt. Audit & Oversight
Committee, Dec. 16, 2009, S.F. Govt. TV, at 3:11:37:
http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=11
30
Testimony of Zac
Salem, Chair, Golf Committee, Laborers’ Local 261, to Board of
Supervisors’ Govt. Audit & Oversight Committee, Dec. 16, 2009,
S.F. Govt. TV, at 2:17:30:
http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=11
31
PROSAC, Resolutions [Nos. 1
and 2], adopted Dec. 1, 2009, submitted to Rec & Park Commission
on Dec. 3, 2009:
32
San Francisco Recreation and
Park Commission Resolution No. 0912-018,
Agenda
Item No. 11, adopted by unanimous 6-0 vote, December 17, 2009:
http://sf-recpark.org/index.aspx?page=965
33
City of Pacifica,
Resolution of City Council, December 10, 2007:
http://sharppark.savegolf.net/data/cop_res.pdf
34
County of
San Mateo, Resolution of Board of Supervisors, December 18, 2007:
http://sharppark.savegolf.net/data/smbos_res.pdf
35
World Golf
Foundation, letter, July 23, 2009:
36
California Alliance for Golf,
letter, September 28, 2009:
http://sfpublicgolf.com/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=43245
37
Alister MacKenzie Society
letter, April 28, 2009:
http://www.pacificariptide.com/.a/6a00d8341c795b53ef01156f6f286c970c-pi
39
San Francisco Planning
Department, Draft Environmental Impact Report,
Significant
Natural Areas Resource Management Plan, Aug. 31, 2011,
Ex. “C,”
at pp. 2-5: http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2005.1912E_DEIR4.pdf
40
Cultural Landscape
Foundation, Washington, D.C., July, 2009:
http://www.tclf.org/landslides/sharp-park-golf-course-threatened-closure
42
Leon Younger & PROS, LLC,
Recreation Assessment
Report, August, 2004,
at p. 14, Figure 6:
http://sf-recpark.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/wcm_recpark/Notice/SFRP_Summary_Report.pdf
43
National
Golf Foundation, “Operational Review and Recommendations for City
of San Francisco Golf Operations, February, 2007, at page 23:
44
Leon
Younger & PROS Consulting, “San Francisco Recreational
Opportunities Study Summary Report,” August, 2008, at pages 7-8:
46
Rochelle Metcalfe, “I Heard
That,” Beyond Chron (Tenderloin Housing Clinic), June 30, 2010:
http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/_I_Heard_That_Riley_Jameison_Golf_Tournament_at_Sharp_Park__8275.html
47
San
Francisco Chronicle editorial, “Let Golfers Play Through on Sharp
Park Course,” September 3, 2009 (supporting the 18-hole golf
course):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/09/03/EDN019GUJ6.DTL
48
San Francisco Bay
Guardian, “Golfers and Garter Snakes,” November 10, 2009, and
on-line comment by Editor Tim Richmond:
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2009/11/10/golfers-and-garter-snakes
Submitted by Richard Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment