SF Supes support Sharp Park wildlife habitat

San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi

On Thursday, April 30 the Government Oversight and Audit Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors met and approved legislation “to require the Recreation and Park Department to develop a plan, schedule and budget for restoring Sharp Park habitat for the California red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake in conformance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, and transferring Sharp Park to, or developing a joint management agreement with, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and making environmental findings.”

As expected, the highly controversial measure was approved unanimously by the three-member board subcommittee which is chaired, by no coincidence, by the author of the legislation, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi.

The controversial measure has drawn the ire of golf enthusiasts and residents of the City of Pacifica who have the misfortune of hosting the venerable Sharp Park Golf Course which is owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco.

At the beginning of the meeting, Committee Chair Mirkarimi gave his reasons why he wanted to convert Sharp Park Golf Course into a native habitat. They were primarily due to the fiscal liabilities in maintaining the course for the City and County.

According to City Park & Recreation Department Staff, the golf course is costing nearly $42,000 a year to operate as a general fund liability as the course allegedly does not turn a profit. In addition, much of the 410-Acre site is not actually golf course, but open space that the City and County spends approximately $24,000 annually to maintain beyond the course operations. In addition, the City must pay property taxes of approximately $18,000 a year to the County of San Mateo.

Mirkarimi and company have embraced a means to resolve this ongoing burden on the City by proposing to convert the golf course to a native habitat.

For years, the Sharp Park Golf Course in Pacifica has been a target of environmental concern, particularly by the Center for Biological Diversity, a national organization which advocates for the protection of biological resources and endangered species. The web site, www.restoresharppark.org, sponsored by the Center, details the basics of the proposal.

The Center had threatened a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco for failing to adequately protect species such as the endangered San Francisco Garter Snake and the Red-Legged Frog, both of which call portions of the Sharp Park Golf Course home.

Since San Francisco had no resource management plan with the Dept. of Fish and Game, if one of these endangered species were injured, San Francisco could be liable.
 

It was the potential for liability that Mirkarimi is articulating a major driver to eliminate the course, a bludgeon he used to publicly slap Pacifica Mayor Julie Lancelle who, while speaking under public comment, asked for a more paced process that places the City of Pacifica at the table, despite the fear of federal sanctions for harm to the endangered species within Sharp Park.

In response to Lancelle, Mirkarimi stated: “I appreciate you telling San Francisco that we don’t need to be scared but we’re the ones who possess the liability here and I don’t think Pacifica has indemnified us, is that correct?”

The gratuitous comment from Mirkarimi belies the fact that the City of Pacifica has been host to the course for 77 years and residents and city leaders are very concerned about the loss of the course, its archery range and the recreational offerings they have traditionally enjoyed. In addition, Pacificans are very concerned that the loss of the course may translate into a major economic blow to a community already struggling with meager revenues.

Mirkarimi, playing the smug card, chose to alienate Pacifica leaders rather than expressing a modicum of understanding for the small community’s plight. But more than that, Mirkarimi and company should also remember that the City of Pacifica maintains the land-use jurisdiction over the property under state law.

In this case, San Francisco is just another common property owner that has no special rights or privileges. It's roughly equivalent to a single residential homeowner wanting to build a factory on his zoned residential property. He has no right to do this on his own and must ask the City of Pacifica for zoning and general plan changes. It appears that San Francisco is unaware or unwilling to acknowledge that it is only a peer to the City of Pacifica, and has no additional land-use authority over the property according to state law.
 

The GGNRA has not been known to develop property, but act as caretakers. If it were to be converted to a habitat, San Francisco could escape paying property taxes and upkeep but the GGNRA, as a federal agency, has higher authority, and Pacifica would lose land-use jurisdiction over the area if it were turned over to the GGNRA.

If GGNRA would accept the land, the golf course in its current form would need considerable work to turn it into a biological preserve, and the City of San Francisco would likely be required to do the work in advance of any transfer as the GGNRA would not want to accept the property until the work is completed, otherwise it would also accept the liability.

If San Francisco is required by the GGNRA to convert the land to a habitat before it takes custody of the land, Pacifica must first give its land-use and zoning approval to San Francisco to make the required changes. Hence the conflict and the potential leverage Pacifica may yet have.
 

Despite having been "recommended" with a 3-0 vote, the full Board will make the final decision on May 12, 2009.

Contact Bruce Balshone at bruce.examiner@gmail.com