RSS
Home
Snakes to inherit Sharp Park golf course
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
On Tuesday, March 17, San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi introduced legislation (see item 090329) aimed at turning the Sharp Park Golf Course in Pacifica into a biological reserve, much to the dismay of golfers and Pacifica city leaders.
The venerable course, which opened in 1931 was designed by famed architect Alister Mackenzie and landscaped by John McLaren, is actually owned by the City and County of San Francisco despite sitting squarely within the City of Pacifica.
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.
In lieu of filing a lawsuit, the Center agreed to negotiations. But amidst rumors of the Center’s dissatisfaction with the progress of those negotiations, Supervisor Mirkarimi was enlisted to introduce legislation to force the issue. According to the language of the proposal the ordinance would amend the San Francisco Park Code Article 3 by adding Section 3.20, 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.
The ordinance will be scheduled for a hearing in the board’s City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee at a date to be determined.
But the bomb dropped by Mirkarimi is likely to set off a battle between the two communities and within the environmental community as well as environmental groups in San Mateo County may not be as eager to impose this option on the City of Pacifica which is regarded as environmentally progressive. By removing the economic engine of the golf course, the leadership of the city which has tended toward environmental stewardship based upon the idea of building Pacifica’s economy on its natural assets may be undermined completely.
The leadership of the City of Pacifica has taken strong exception to being forced to accept the edicts coming out of San Francisco regarding the golf course, even though the property belongs to San Francisco. The course is heavily utilized by not only golfers but the clubhouse is used as an event center for the community and a meeting space for all kinds of organizations, including the Pacifica Democratic Club which has held its meetings at the Sharp Park club house for years.
In response to Mirkarimi’s maneuver, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd – who has been sympathetic to the concerns of the City of Pacifica – has asked the City Attorney to review the possibility of making the course an historic landmark. Such status would end any possibility of removing the golf course.
But there is another interesting wrinkle as well. The Sharp Park property was bequeathed to the City and County of San Francisco with a deed restriction specifying recreational land use in 1917 by Sam and Jenny Murphey. The Murphey family donated 450 acres to the City and County of San Francisco, containing the six-acre rifle range site, for recreational purposes. The donated land became Sharp Park and came with a deed restriction specifying a recreational land use. The deed also specified that if the property was no longer used for recreational purposed it could revert back to the Murphey family.
It has been theorized by many that a biological preserve would not meet the criteria stipulated in the deed. Meaning the change advocated by the Center for Biological Diversity.
Probably the biggest complaint from Pacifica leaders is that the community has done much over many years to preserve open space and protect critical habitats. The idea that a local resource – though owned by another city agency – could be removed from the community is tough to swallow. The City of Pacifica has precious little in the way of economic stimulators but the recreational opportunities afforded to visitors such as hiking, surfing and golfing are ways to bring visitors into town to spend some green.
But it seems in this intercity battle, one shade of green may overwhelm the other.
Author's Update: April 9, 2009
Maria Lagos of the San Francisco Chronicle has now become aware of the battle brewing over the Sharp Park Golf Course. We appreciate her investigation and publicizing of the issue to a broader audience. However, I belive there is a serious omission in her article. She does not note, as my article has, that, according to the Sharp Park web site, under the terms of the gifting of the property to San Francisco, that the property, if not used as a golf course or for recreational purposes by the city, will revert to the State of California. If the state does not use the property for the intended purposes as well, then the property reverts back to the heirs of Samuel Murphey, the last exectuor of the estate when it was still privately owned.
Contact Bruce Balshone at bruce.examiner@gmail.com
Related Articles:
Comments
