Restore Sharp Park Legislation FAQ

On September 6, 2011, Supervisor John Avalos introduced legislation to transition management of city-owned Sharp Park to the National Park Service’s Golden Gate National Recreation Area. On November 22, 2011, language incorporating recommendations from the Office of the City Attorney, SPUR, the Planning Department, and other groups was substituted for the September 6, 2011 version. The ordinance’s objectives include improving public recreation and access to Sharp Park, protecting endangered wildlife, and saving San Francisco taxpayers’ money.

This FAQ answers many common questions about the ordinance. If you have additional questions, feel free to contact us and we will respond to your question as soon as we can.

Find out more about the problems that have beset Sharp Park Golf Course,
and the benefits we can all enjoy by restoring Sharp Park.

What does the Avalos Sharp Park legislation do?

The legislation helps provide better access and more diverse recreation opportunities at Sharp Park; it redirects scarce San Francisco Recreation and Park Department resources away from suburban San Mateo County and back to San Francisco’s neighborhood parks; it helps recover endangered species; and it creates new opportunities for affordable and accessible golf in San Francisco.

The legislation does this by directing the Park Department to negotiate a long-term management agreement for Sharp Park with the National Park Service, emphasizing sustainable recreation. The negotiated agreement would then go through all required environmental processes before it is implemented.

If access to golf is impacted by the agreement, the ordinance requires the Park Department to mitigate this loss by providing San Francisco resident rates to Pacifica residents who currently golf at Sharp Park, and by redirecting City staff at Sharp Park to Lincoln Golf Course, which is in desperate need of maintenance and upkeep.
Why is this legislation needed?

San Francisco is liable for the immense financial investments needed at Sharp Park to reconfigure the golf course to address chronic flooding, legally-required wildlife protection, and to maintain the sea wall that protects the golf course. San Francisco does not have the endangered species protection expertise or the financial resources to make the necessary changes. The Park Department is currently inequitably distributing resources by funding a money-losing golf course in San Mateo County while neglecting recreation amenities within San Francisco that are in need of staffing, programming and resources.
What is the financial impact of closing the golf course?

Park Department records show that Sharp Park golf course has lost between $30,000 and $300,000 each year over the past 6 years, and lost roughly $126,000 last year. Recreation and Park Department projections indicate that these losses will only get worse in the future.

By closing Sharp Park Golf Course, these annual losses will be wiped off the books—but the revenue stream from golf will continue. According to the City Controller’s office, if only 25% of current Sharp Park golfers played at other city-operated courses, about $350,000 would be generated—more than covering the Park Department overhead costs currently assigned to Sharp Park. This scenario should be very feasible; according to the City, 75% of Sharp Park golfers are San Francisco residents, so their nearest alternative courses are in the City proper.

The National Golf Foundation has also indicated that Sharp Park golfers are inclined to play San Francisco’s other municipal courses. In a 2007 study, NGF determined that Sharp Park golfers show “very little loyalty compared to national benchmarks. It is clear that golfers at this facility are very unsatisfied on the issues of pace of play, on-course services…” and “a wide variety of other golf courses that are also played by Sharp Park golfers, including other City courses like Harding Park and Lincoln Park (both in the top five).” The same study found golfers give Sharp Park primarily failing grades, except for affordability and scenery. Lincoln Golf Course was noted in the same study as having “great scenic experience” and green fees are the same as Sharp Park.
Does this legislation create new and improved recreation opportunities for San Francisco?

Yes, it will help develop new hiking and biking trails at Sharp Park, while redirecting resources spent at this San Mateo County golf course back into San Francisco’s city parks, recreation centers and golf courses. More hiking and biking trails are the number one recreation demand of San Francisco residents, based on a 2004 survey conducted by the Park Department. The National Golf Foundation notes that Lincoln Golf Course in San Francisco is in need of significant additional maintenance; redirecting recreation dollars and operational resources such as gardeners to Lincoln will create a better, more affordable golf experience. Additionally, the legislation will provide Pacifica residents with San Francisco resident rates for 5 years at all San Francisco managed golf courses, instead of just at Sharp Park. The new rate for Pacifica residents could be extended after 5 years by the Recreation and Park Commission.
Does the legislation preserve existing jobs at Sharp Park?

Yes, the Avalos legislation offers jobs within the park system to all existing Sharp Park employees (currently 9.8 full-time equivalent jobs).
What about the historic nature of the golf course?

Though Sharp Park golf course was designed by a famous architect, Alister McKenzie, the unfortunate placement of the course on top of persistent coastal wetlands has taken its toll on the integrity and viability of the course. Built on wetlands, the course predictably floods every year. Several links from the original design were built upon leveled sand dunes and they were washed away by storm surges. The City of San Francisco stated in a 2009 letter to the City of Pacifica that it is “inappropriate and unnecessary” to designate Sharp Park as a historical landmark due to these factors, and in 2011 the City’s Historic Preservation Commission failed to reach consensus on the historic integrity of Sharp Park Golf Course. Also in 2011, renowned historic landscape architect Chris Pattilo of PGA Designs submitted comments to San Francisco explaining why Sharp Park Golf Course is not an historic resource under state or federal law.
Couldn’t San Mateo County or the City of Pacifica partner with San Francisco to assume partial or full responsibilities for the golf course operations and associated liabilities?

After three years of waiting for San Mateo County or Pacifica to come forward with a management proposal for Sharp Park, nothing has been produced. Whether the City of San Francisco, San Mateo County or the City of Pacifica manages the golf course, the significant legal and financial liabilities will still exist. These land managers understand this risk and have yet to propose a viable solution. In early 2010, Pacifica and San Mateo County informed Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi that by June 2010 (prior to the budget debate), they would put forward a proposal for joint or full management of the golf course. Nearly two years later, no proposal exists. While there have been rumors about a San Mateo County bond measure to address Sharp Park’s numerous problems, such a plan is highly unlikely. The past two parks related bond measures have been rejected by voters in San Mateo County. Since the majority of users of the course are San Franciscans, it is also highly unlikely that San Mateo County voters would find this funding in the interest of San Mateo residents.
What is the Recreation and Parks Department’s plan?

The Department’s plan can be best characterized as an ‘eviction plan’ for endangered species while pumping millions of taxpayer dollars into infrastructure and short term fixes for the golf course, when all experts agree that this course will inevitably succumb to sea level rise and the forces of climate change. The Department proposes dredging the main lagoon at Sharp Park – called Laguna Salada – and physically raising several golf holes. Unfortunately, the Park Department plan manages wildlife in zoo-like conditions, would restrict natural dune and wetland processes, and would force the endangered species on the site to retreat south to Mori Point, a National Park Service managed property. The plan would cost San Francisco millions and does not have the approval of regulatory agencies. The Park Department is hoping to attract funding from San Mateo County, the State of California, federal grants, and philanthropy or by privatizing the course. It is highly dubious that local, state, or federal entities or philanthropists will invest millions into a course that the Department acknowledges will not exist in the coming decades. Privatizing the park would require busting the employees union and dramatically raising the greens fees, driving away golfers.
Is the National Park Service interested in managing Sharp Park and transforming the course to a new public park with more public access and recreation?

The National Park Service has stated that they will assume the responsibilities of creating a new public park at Sharp Park that provides trail-based recreation, a public serving use for the Clubhouse such as a visitor center, habitat restoration and managing for sea-level rise. Sharp Park is within the legislative boundary of the GGNRA and adjacent to several properties managed by the GGNRA. The GGNRA released a statement in July 2010 confirming their interest due to Sharp Park having habitat and recreation values consistent with those of the GGNRA and being adjacent to Mori Point and Sweeney Ridge, where NPS has restored habitat for the red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. The NPS manages Mori Point for trail-based recreation and habitat restoration and preservation. If NPS assumed management of the site following the City’s completion of required actions, NPS would identify and evaluate a range of alternatives in consultation with the public and stakeholder agencies, complete necessary environmental compliance documents and permits, and then pursue funding to begin implementation of the new park plan.

The NPS and Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy have invested significant time and funds at Mori Point to improve trails and restore habitat for the California red legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake, both federally listed species. Because these species move between adjacent lands and Mori Point, preservation of the species depends on the compatible management of adjacent lands.
Does the Park Service have the expertise, experience and funding needed to create a new public park and assume responsibilities of endangered species protection?

Yes, the Park Service has a 95 year track record of preserving and protecting America’s premier natural, historic, and cultural sites while making these sites available for a wide range of recreational activities and visitor services. They are recognized leaders in protecting endangered species, creating trail-based recreation opportunities, engaging the community through education and volunteer programs, and undertaking large-scale restoration projects. The Crissy Field and Mori Point restoration projects demonstrate the ability for local, meaningful restoration projects to attract philanthropy, volunteerism, community engagement, and various sources of funding not available to other land-management agencies. While it is true that predictable funding for land management agencies at all jurisdictions is of concern, the National Park Service is the most consistently funded federal land-management agency, as they receive funding from direct Congressional appropriations, making financial planning for projects much more predictable and reliable on a year to year basis. The National Park Service also has access to more unique funding sources for restoration—funding sources that do not exist for golf course activities—making it more capable of securing funding, even in tough economic times.

To find out more about the National Park Service’s stable funding sources and its successful track record of building public parks everyone can enjoy, download this summary of the National Park Service’s local funding and park making activities.
How does this ordinance relate to the pending lawsuit against the City for killing endangered species?

This ordinance is not related to the lawsuit, which only deals with claims that the City of San Francisco is violating the Endangered Species Act by harming federally protected species without a permit. The City has received complaints and letters of concern by the federal regulatory agency for endangered species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While it is important for legal and moral reasons to protect endangered species from being harmed or killed, the ordinance provides for swift action and a partnership with a trusted land manager for protecting imperiled wildlife. The partnership with the NPS and the change of management through the ordinance will likely address the concerns about endangered species impacts, and indeed promote the recovery of the endangered species at the park. San Francisco also has moral reasons to meet the recreation demands of residents and equitably distribute resources within the City and this ordinance takes steps towards achieving that equity.
Which conservation groups support science-based restoration and the ordinance?

A broad coalition of community and conservation groups support the restoration of the native ecology and changing the golf course use at Sharp Park, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Golden Gate Audubon Society, National Parks Conservation Association, Nature in the City, Neighborhood Parks Council, Pacifica Shorebird Alliance, San Francisco League of Conservation Voters, San Francisco Tomorrow, San Francisco’s Youth Commission, Sequoia Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Transportation for a Livable City, and the Wild Equity Institute.

Additionally, six notable scientists have endorsed the legislation and the restoration goals, as it provides the best opportunity for recovery of endangered species.

Comments

There are no comments so far.

If you sign up and log in, you can post comments.