BREAKING: Common Sense Prevails in San Francisco Board of Supervisor Vote on Sharp Park

Photo: Thomas Levinson, The Chronicle  

 It was a big win for Sharp Park supporters at City Hall yesterday.

The Chron's coverage features a terribly inaccurate headline. The work approved for the course is not in spite of the frogs and snakes as the headline suggests, but specifically to improve the habitat for the frogs and snakes:

Frogs, snakes can't stop Sharp Park Golf Course construction
Marisa Lagos  

"Construction at Sharp Park Golf Course will move forward after the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday rejected environmentalists' concerns that the project will threaten the frogs and snakes that call the course home. The Pacifica golf course, which is managed by the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, is home to the threatened California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. Built in 1932 by famed golf course architect Alister MacKenzie, Sharp Park for years has been a point of contention between golfers and conservationists, who want to see it shut down so the land can be used as a sanctuary for the wild creatures.

On Tuesday, environmentalists - led by the Wild Equity Institute - made another effort to force the parks department to conduct a full environmental impact report of the project. They contend the work will hurt the animals' environment, while the city says it will improve habitat for the frogs and snakes. The proposed project involves clearing reeds and sediment from a pond and waterway, doing construction around a pumping station, and digging a new, small pond on the site.
Environmental impact reports are costly and can take months to complete.  The work has been approved by the Recreation and Park Commission and the Planning Commission. The board voted 7-4 to allow it to move forward without an environmental study, with Supervisors Jane Kim, Eric Mar, John Avalos and David Campos voting no."

 Doesn't seem like much. A 7-4 vote by the Board of Supervisors for - by any measure - a small project to improve both the frog habitat and golf infrastructure at Sharp Park. Its significance is this - We finally have a project at Sharp Park that has completed it's tortuous path through the bowels of City government, will move forward, and actually do something useful for the park.

Also significant - The political arena at the Board of Supervisors level is exactly where the future of Sharp Park is most vulnerable. This is where we lost a 6-5 vote in December of 2011 and Sharp Park was saved only by a Mayor Ed Lee veto. That is what makes this 7-4 victory so significant. Two votes shifted from votes against the course in 2011 to votes for the course yesterday. And the specific votes that shifted were significant in and of themselves. London Breed filled Ross Mirkarimi's seat in district 5 and voted for the course.  Mirkarimi spearheaded the "Destroy Sharp Park" forces when he was a supervisor. David Chiu is President of the Board of Supervisors and  my Supervisor in District 3. He voted against the course in 2011 and voted for it yesterday.

It was a small victory on a small project, but the Sharp Park haters threw everything but the kitchen sink at this to try and kill it. They know a politically motivated Board of Supervisor decision was where they have their greatest strength. And they lost. Again. Common sense finally prevailed.

Of course it's not over. The ex-CBD attorney who founded WEI already stated he will be filing another lawsuit against the City over this decision. So what else is new? We know the lawsuits will never end and we know the reason why.  But, so far, they always lose in court. The vote by the Board of Supervisors was their best chance to prevail, and they lost. This outcome may very well mean that the tide has turned. Good for the California Red Legged Frog. Good for the San Francisco Garter Snake. Good for fans of the landmark Alister MacKenzie golf course. Good for San Francisco. Good for Pacifica. Bad for Wild Equity Insitute.

Mike Wallach
Fix Pacifica Foreign Correspondent
San Francisco Bureau
Cross-Posted from MW Mobile Blog

SF Chronicle Letter to the Editor - Giving away the family jewels.

For regular readers this is going to be a bit repetitive. You've seen something similar from me here before. But since it made the cut with the local fish wrap, you get to see it again:

San Francisco Chronicle - Letters to the Editor - May 21, 2011

Give away a civic jewel?

"John Avalos is really advocating giving Sharp Park away to the federal government ("Hitting the rough," City Insider, May 19)?

This is political suicide, or should be.

Where else in the world could a politician run for mayor on a platform of giving away 400 acres of incredibly valuable and beautiful coastal park land that contributes millions in revenue to the city and belongs to the people of that city?

Sharp Park is a unique gem that belongs to the people of San Francisco. We choose to share our park with the entire Bay Area and the world.

The 80-acre golf course was designed and built by Alister MacKenzie, the game's most important architect. The 400-acre park itself was landscaped by John McLaren, the godfather of San Francisco parks. The park was a gift to the city in 1917 and represents a historic legacy entrusted to the people of San Francisco. The park and golf course are important historic landmarks by any standard.

This civic jewel of a park is a treasure that is our common San Francisco heritage and is a legacy for us to leave to future generations of San Franciscans.

Unless some clueless politician manages to give it away."

Mike Wallach, San Francisco

More on Wannabe-Mayor Avalos and the rally that motivated my letter linked here.

"The only reason for the existence of golf and other games is that they promote the health, pleasure, and even the prosperity of the community... With the exception of ignorant politicians who, with a few notable exceptions, appear to desire to tax golf course and playing fields out of existence, most people know that golf and other games promote the health and happiness of the community..."

- Alister MacKenzie - The Spirit of St. Andrew - 1933

cross-posted at MW Mobile Blog

Dispatches from the SF Golf War - The Sharp Park Budget Debate A Fair and Balanced Report

Early last week your San Francisco Foreign Correspondent joined the SF Public Golf Alliance and a strong Pacifica contingent to participate in the public comment portion of the San Francisco Budget and Finance Committee Meeting. Lines formed down the hall and around the corner in City Hall. We were asked to assemble by interest group, given alphabetical "tickets" and guidance on when we might expect to gain entrance to the committee room.

They started with the letter "A", we were in group "M", and we were told to expect to wait at least four hours. It turned out to be pretty accurate. It still took another hour after we entered the chambers to get our allocated two minutes in front of the budget committee and, believe it or not, some of us waited around to hear the opposition (who were even further back in the line).

Most everyone in line was there to defend their financial turf, demanding that their particular slice of the shrinking San Francisco pie not be touched. As near as I can tell, the golfers were the only ones at the meeting not asking for money, ready and willing to pay higher fees in order to help with the budget crisis and help Sharp Park.

It was heartbreaking to listen to the some of the disadvantaged who will be affected by the cuts coming in the San Francisco budget. The reality is the money is simply not there. The years of reckless spending by a fiscally irresponsible Board of Supervisors voted into office by politically irresponsible San Francisco voters are coming home to roost.

Hanging around City Hall for five hours, one has the opportunity to reflect on just WTF one is doing there. The simple answer is that we were there because the opposition was there to demand the closure of Sharp Park golf. It's not like there is any rational financial case to be made for closing the course, but having lost the scientific argument for the endangered frog and snake, I guess they have nowhere else to go. After they lose this one, I expect the lawsuit threats will start again.

Sharp Park Golf - profitable, popular, and subsidizing San Francisco salaries and services.

As indicated in a recent post, the Tucson based Center for Biological Diversity, and the Wild Equity Institute (founded by ex-CBD staff attorney Brent Plater), are actively engaged in a disinformation campaign about the finances, popularity, and historical importance of the landmark Sharp Park golf course. This is apparently an effort to con the people of San Francisco into giving away 400 acres of valuable coastal park land that was a gift to the people of San Francisco.

This post is an attempt to explain the financial reality of Sharp Park Golf in terms that even a journalist might understand.

The Arithmetic Explanation
This is a simple math problem. If you can do 3rd grade arithmetic, you can understand that green fees from Sharp Park subsidize San Francisco government salaries and services and The City is not subsidizing the course as claimed by those who would destroy the course.

In round numbers, Sharp Park operational revenues exceed expenses by about $100,000. The City of San Francisco charges Sharp Park $200,000 in overhead charges that are used to fund non-golf related SF government salaries and services. On an accounting basis, Sharp Park then looks like it is suffering a $100,000 loss. But, if Sharp Park was to disappear, the $200,000 in overhead expenses would still exist in San Francisco and the shortfall from Sharp Park would have to be made up by higher taxes or cutting salaries and services. It is pretty simple really.

But some people (see Destroy Sharp Park Golf Advocates) do not trust arithmetic. So as a supplement - I offer a couple of other explanations.

Phil Ginsburg's Explanation
Phil Ginsburg is the new Director of San Francisco's Recreation and Parks Department. Phil Ginsburg explains it to Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi during the Audit and Oversight Committee meeting chaired by the Supervisor on 12/16/09:

The science behind the Sharp Park decision.

The full video stream of Ross Mirkarimi's Government Audit and Oversight Committee meeting on 12-16-09 is available online at SF Gov TV. For anyone willing to devote almost four hours of their life to this epic, you will find all of your favorites from the Sharp Park Golf War among the cast of characters (friend and foe alike). Personally, I find this as compelling as a World Wrestling Federation Pay-per-View Steel Cage Match, but for those of you who have a life, I've begun excerpting somewhat more digestible clips.

IMHO, the most important clip of all, is this 14 minute excerpt of Biologist Karen Swaim's presentation.

Before viewing, it is important to have an appreciation of who Karen Swaim is. I've included her introducing her credentials at the beginning of the clip.

Here is what you need to know: She has been studying the Ca. red leg frog and SF garter snake at Sharp Park/Mori Point/SFO for over 20 years. She has been called on as an expert on these critters and this habitat by the GGNRA as well as the Department of Fish and Wildlife, before being called on again for this purpose on the SF Rec and Park report. She helped design the frog pond habitat at Mori Point for the GGNRA.

She is not a golfer, and does not give a rat's ass about golfers, Alister McKenzie, or the Sharp Park golf course. Her scientific work is the basis for the recommendation to keep the 18 hole course to protect the habitat. This is why:

Her prez speaks for itself, but here are a few of her choice quotes:

"Our goal is to provide the science about the biology of what is best for the San Francisco garter snake..."

"Golf is not what is responsible for the decline of the San Francisco garter snake."

"This is a photograph from 1928. There is no golf here. The land surrounding Laguna Salada to the East, to the South, to the North, everywhere except the ocean, was agricultural fields. It is not pristine upland coastal prairie that would've been high quality upland for the San Francisco garter snake. You can see that there is a major channel up here [points to Laguna Salada] that illustrates there was connection to the ocean."

"1946 is the very first year the San Francisco garter snake and the California red-legged frog were documented... there are 46 [garter snakes] he gets over two years, and golf has already been here for 16 years."

"In 1978 Sean Berry did his studies and he observed 37 San Francisco garter snakes along this area... and again golf has been in place for 46 years"

"1989 - This [photo] is not long after the the El Nino storms and the big storms of the eighties that resulted in a lot of sea water intrusion into the lagoon. By now, the sea wall is mostly constructed... From 1986 to 1988 some studies were done and no San Francisco garter snakes were found in this area after all the salt water intrusion. That was to a large part because the red legged frog was wiped out by the salt water."

"We're back to present day conditions... the frogs are prolific west of highway one, they are not in any trouble at all west of highway one. San Francisco garter snakes are concentrating again at Mori Point pond and horse stable pond."

"You need to protect the sea wall. You need to have a fresh water managed habitat currently for this species to recover it, and that is all there is to it."

What she said.

cross-posted from MW mobile blog.

Retort to Ron Maykel LTE in the Trib

Editor:

Mr. Maykel, (using some of your words) it is unfortunate that some Pacificans, like yourself, with the assistance of several environmental associations and their lawyers are endeavoring to obstruct, with the intent to deny Pacificans, San Franciscans and golfers everywhere a gem of a golf course and a game loved by more than 50,000+ plus golfers annually at Sharp Park.

You and your cronies like Mr. Plater have no qualms spreading miss-truths about Sharp Park and golfers in general. When Mr. Plater stands up at the Native Plant Society meeting and accuses the present Management at Sharp Park of under reporting rounds and keeping the money for themselves, that was the last straw for me. Mr. Plater continues to quote Joe Faulkner at meetings, when he was asked by Joe Faulkner to stop doing so.

Yes it is true that some were out of line at this meeting and I apologized directly to Mr. Plater and to Mr. Davidson for their actions. One has to remember that it is hard for people to talk about emotional issues and not get emotional.

Imagine if Sharp Park was already the Frog Park you want, and someone wanted to take it away and say your form of recreation is not important? That you can go hike somewhere else. That we don’t care about your hiking and stewardship and friendships that have been created throughout the years. What if some group wanted to turn it into a golf course? How would feel? Would you all not get a little emotional at meetings? I think so.

Why does Sharp Park have to make money? Why do you as a Pacifican care if it makes money? You pay no taxes towards it. Does Golden Gate Park make money? Parklands are created by cities & counties for its citizen’s recreation. Are parks supposed to make money? When I asked Mr. Plater & Mr. Davidson this question at that meeting they had no answer and actually said that was a good point.

Some myths & omissions by you in your letter of last week.

Your Point #1
Tree Removal.
You do not actually say that no trees will be removed at the Golf Course site if you takeover. In all of the pictures shown on Mr. Plater’s slick little website, there are hardly any tress in those pictures. It was said at the Native Plant Soceity meeting that the Cypress trees on the course are non-native and may need to go. As for tree removal at Mori Point, I do not remember any trees there so of course none were removed. I rode motorcycles there for years as a member of the Coastside Motorcycle Club and no trees then and none now.



Your Point #2
No one I know of in the “golf group” has said anything in regards to closure of the Archery Range.

Your point #3
While the golf course does have some drainage problems, due to the infestation of the tules and reeds surrounding the Laguna Salada, I would not describe these problems as significant ecological problems. You make it sound like a waste dump. Also, for the hundredth time, any financial problems at the course are a fairly tale being told by you and your friends. First you all said it is losing millions. Now your claim is $30,000-$300,000 annually. This spread in dollar amounts is so large it is hard for anyone to take this claim seriously.

Your Point #4
I have not seen anywhere that the majority of SF Supes support giving this property to the GGNRA. Most SF Residents and taxpayers are tired of seeing their city give away valuable property to the Federal Government.

Your Point #5
While playing Sharp Park weekly, I know for a fact that there are more people using the golf course and facilities than are at Mori Point. On Saturdays & Sundays, a group of 4 golfers goes off the first tee every 10 minutes. This is 40 golfers per hour. At any given time, they could be as many as 216 players on the course in a four hour span. Now, obviously not every hour of daylight will have this many players on the course but it is many, many more than are using Mori Point. These players generally stay on the course and out of sensitive areas. Will this happen with your frog park? Will all hikers respect the sensitive area as us golfers do now?

Your other issues and concerns:

1. What part of the sidewalk on Francisco is unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists? I pass by there often and see no threat. Is the sidewalk there under the jurisdiction of Pacifica or SF? I know there are tree and root issues with the sidewalk but you make it sound like a war zone.

2. You are correct, the fence does need some repair but only in a few spots. It is not quite the “visual blight” you make it seem though.

4. The berm walkway is unstable in the winter? I thought you all wanted to tear it
down and return the area to its original condition?




We can all live together on this beautiful piece of land, Frogs, Snakes, Golfers and Hikers. Giving it to the GGNRA/Federal Government will not only take away a classic golf course but impede any co-existence of all who enjoy this property. Leave Sharp Park Golf Course a golf course. Yes improvements are needed to the course, but what a destination for golfers everywhere if these improvements can be done. This is what Pacifica really needs, not more hiking areas.


Butch Larroche
Lifelong Pacifica resident & SPGC tournament Director