The Pacifica Chamber of Commerce submitted 12 questions to each of the candidates for Pacifica City Council. Every week we will be posting two questions, and the answers from each of the candidates.
Question 9: What are your thoughts on the future of the Sharp Park Golf Course?
Gary Mondfrans – 2 Year Seat
I often wonder what would be have been the fate of the Laguna Salada had the Sharp Park Golf Course not existed and hope that some compromise be reached by those that decide it's fate. Sharp Park is my neighborhood and I was moved to create this video which best sets forth my feelings about this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-3R2rdWwmM
Mike O'Neill – 2 Year Seat
We must keep the golf course using the modifications mentioned in the SFPBR recommendations. Sharp Park is a jewel for Pacifica and can be potentially a major draw if we truly want a visitor and tourist serving economy.
Susan Vellone – 4 Year Seat
I look forward in keeping Sharp Park Golf Course as a benefit for our community as it enhances our City as a tourist destination.
Karen Ervin – 4 Year Seat
Golfing at Sharp Park Golf Course has been a long standing tradition in Pacifica and has brought a great deal of enjoyment and many wonderful memories to those that use it. I can’t imagine Pacifica without it. It provides a great recreational activity to thousands of golfers annually and has one of the lowest green fees in the Bay Area. Due to the existence of the red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake, there is some concern that we are further endangering these species by keeping the course open. I feel strongly that we can work together to provide a safe habitat for these creatures while maintaining this historical course.
I often wonder what would be have been the fate of the Laguna Salada had the Sharp Park Golf Course not existed and hope that some compromise be reached by those that decide it's fate. Sharp Park is my neighborhood and I was moved to create this video which best sets forth my feelings about this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-3R2rdWwmM
We must keep the golf course using the modifications mentioned in the SFPBR recommendations. Sharp Park is a jewel for Pacifica and can be potentially a major draw if we truly want a visitor and tourist serving economy.
Rich Campbell – 2 Year Seat
It should remain a golf course. I have heard no compelling reasons why it should not remain a golf course. I deal with the ESA every day, and it is not a reason to shut the course down.
Victor Spano – 2 Year Seat
Best for City of Pacifica that this remain a golf course. The City of San Francisco owns the course, it is ultimately their call. As a demonstration project, you could reclaim portions of it for habitat / marsh restoration. It could potentially be a model for the world where golf, sensitive habitat and endangered species can co-exist. The golf course is an established entity. I oppose “revisioning” the site without the Golf Course remaining. I believe you can have a golf course there and at the same time make it environmentally senstive and even organic. LEED standards ...typically for buildings....could be applied to Golf Course operations.
I look forward in keeping Sharp Park Golf Course as a benefit for our community as it enhances our City as a tourist destination.
Karen Ervin – 4 Year Seat
Golfing at Sharp Park Golf Course has been a long standing tradition in Pacifica and has brought a great deal of enjoyment and many wonderful memories to those that use it. I can’t imagine Pacifica without it. It provides a great recreational activity to thousands of golfers annually and has one of the lowest green fees in the Bay Area. Due to the existence of the red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake, there is some concern that we are further endangering these species by keeping the course open. I feel strongly that we can work together to provide a safe habitat for these creatures while maintaining this historical course.
Mary Ann Nihart – 4 Year Seat
From the beginning I have been supportive of the Golf Course staying a golf course. As Mayor, I have provided written support and appeared in court as well as at the County Board of Supervisors. While I understand the needs and concerns related to endangered species there are experts and science behind the suggested changes for the golf course that allow for both preservation of the course and protection for the endangered species. It has never made sense to me to tear up such a special and historic landmark when it can be preserved and remain environmentally sound. While I wait with many others and the courts for the report from Fish and Wildlife which is due around the 20th of September, I continue to encourage San Mateo County and San Francisco county to work toward a mutual agreement for the needed improvements and management of the course.
It should be noted that Pacifica has more than an economic and historic interest in the outcome of Sharp Park Golf Course. The golf course is at the base of a significant watershed and Pacifica has a large drainage pipe that runs under a long portion of the course. Stopping the maintenance of the lagoon has cause considerable silting which threatens property surrounding the golf course with increased floods. As city council members, we must protect our neighborhoods.
It should be noted that Pacifica has more than an economic and historic interest in the outcome of Sharp Park Golf Course. The golf course is at the base of a significant watershed and Pacifica has a large drainage pipe that runs under a long portion of the course. Stopping the maintenance of the lagoon has cause considerable silting which threatens property surrounding the golf course with increased floods. As city council members, we must protect our neighborhoods.
4 comments:
As the current President of the Sharp Park Golf Club, our membership is thankful to see the statements by all Council Candidates on Sharp Park. This issue is far from over and the fight will continue no matter what.
Just curious if Nihart has to recuse herself from Palmetto project, why does she not have to on the golf course? I am for Sharp Park, but am confused as why she doesn't have to recuse herself when the golf course is just as close to her house as Palmetto.
I believe the important distance is if your house is within 500 ft. of a project. Certainly, Mary Ann's house is within 500 ft. of Palmetto. I think the golf course is further away than that. In any event, supporting the golf course staying a golf course is nowhere near the same type of issue as a specific project proposed within 500 ft. of your house.
Don't expect anyone running for council to post here.
This is were candidates go to not get elected
Post a Comment