Sharp Park Golf: Differing Views on Compromise

SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES UPDATE ON THE SHARP PARK DEAL

SAN FRANCISCO WANTS TO GO HALFSIES ON GOLF COURSE

 

 Press Release from San Francisco Public Golf Alliance

---

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104  ●   415-392-5431, ext. 203   ●   www.sfpublic http://www.ahshasafai.com golf.com

November  6, 2009
CONTACT:
Richard Harris
Phone: 415-392-5431, ext. 203
Bo Links
Phone:  415-393-8099
Email: Richard@erskinetulley.com
Website:  http://www.sfpublicgolf.com/

Sharp Park “Golf Alternatives” Study Seen as a Good Start
Toward a “Win/Win” for Golfers, Preservationists, and the Environment  

San Francisco – San Francisco Bay Area golfers were relieved this afternoon, when after a long-delayed 5-month study, the city’s Recreation and Parks Department recommended keeping the 18-hole Sharp Park Golf Course open. “The Department’s report is a “good start towards saving the historic Alister MacKenzie-designed golf course and all of its endangered species—frogs, snakes, and municipal golfers,”  said Bo Links, co-founder of San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit organization that has led the fight to preserve the golf course. 

The Department’s report is a significant step, but nevertheless only a step, along the way for rehabilitation of the beautiful but tattered 77-year-old golf course, which is subject to a currently-pending Environmental Impact Report, and which must ultimately be approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
 
A Tucson-based environmental litigation group, Center for Biological Diversity, has led a political charge to close the course, in favor of creating a dedicated frog and snake preserve. The Recreation and Parks Department’s 400-page report concluded that closing the golf course, or reducing it to 9 holes, would be significantly more expensive than keeping the historic 18-hole course in operation. The CBD’s proposal to use an environmental “mitigation bank” as a funding device for closing the golf course, would have high up-front costs and questionable revenue-generating prospects, the Department’s report concluded. Under all alternatives, the frog and snake’s primary habitat would be protected and expanded at Sharp Park.
 
“This is another good day for golf in San Francisco and the Bay Area,” said Links, who pointed to other recent golf good news in President’s Cup Tournament conducted in October at Harding Park and the opening of the new First Tee Academy at the inner-city Visitacion Valley Middle School. “Golf is a wonderful outdoor sport played by people of all ages and backgrounds, and Sharp Park is a beautiful and historic and fun place to play. It is one of the real treasurers of Bay Area golf.  And we are pleased that the Recreation and Park Department now understands this after long neglecting the property. We congratulate Parks Director Phil Ginsburg and his Department for this.”
 
The Department’s golf plan calls for closing the 3-par Hole 12, and shortening the 4-par hole 11 and 5-par hole 13, for the purpose of moving golfers and maintenance workers away from the two large ponds and a connecting stream on the western part of the course, which are thought to provide the best potential new habitat for the creatures. “We have not had time to study the Department’s hole closure and redesign  proposals,” said Links, who is himself a prominent amateur golf architect. “But the less change to MacKenzie’s historic course routing, the better. And we are confident that our architects will have good ideas which can help to minimize the amount of golf course disruption on this landmark property. We look forward to working cooperatively with the city, as well as the Pacifica and San Mateo County leaders who share our commitment to preserve and renovate Sharp Park’s architecture as well as its environment. Golfers are environmentalists, and this is important to us, too.”  
 
Despite its fancy architectural pedigree, the golf course is famous for being the home of a racially and culturally-diverse, middle-class golfing clientele, featuring large percentages of pensioners, women, and beginners—a clientele much like golfers on the public seaside links of Scotland. “This is exactly who Dr. MacKenzie designed this golf course for,” said Links. “He had been the consulting architect at St. Andrews before he immigrated to the States. At Sharp Park, MacKenzie intentionally re-created a Scottish public seaside links.  Sharp Park’s golfers just fit the spirit of MacKenzie to a tee.”
 
In the months since the Center for Biological Diversity first mounted its assault to close the course in favor of a frog and snake preserve, there has been “a groundswell of public support for keeping Sharp Park open,” Links said. “Perhaps the powerful reaction from golfers and preservationists caught golf’s opponents by surprise, but it doesn’t surprise us. Together with Long Island and Chicago, San Francisco is the original home of golf in America. Because of this, golf in the Bay Area has kept its Scottish roots as a broadly-based public sport. So the attack on golf as “elitist” simply does not ring true to people here. At Sharp Park, there is also a strong cultural history factor, because the golf course is the work of the greatest golf architect in history. It is as if the CBD were trying to tear down Frank Lloyd Wright’s Marin Civic Center. There is too much cultural history here to just plow it under.”  Located in the southern San Francisco coastal suburb of Pacifica, the Sharp Park Golf Course has been designated as a nationally-significant at-risk cultural landscape by the Washington D.C.-based Cultural Landscape Foundation.
 
San Francisco Supervisor Sean Elsbernd and Pacifica Mayor Julie Lancelle have joined with the Public Golf Alliance in defense of the historic golf course. Within the past month, the golf course’s publicly-announced political supporters has grown, to now include Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco/San Mateo County), State Assembly Whip Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco), Assemblyman Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), and San Mateo County Supervisors Carole Groom and Adrienne Tissier, and San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. Additionally, Local 261, the Laborer’s Union that represents gardeners at the San Francisco public courses, has declared its support for the Save Sharp Park movement. This support is in addition to major golf organizations, including the World Golf Foundation, Northern California Golf Association, California Alliance for Golf, Alister MacKenzie Society, Golf Course Superintendent’s Association, and others. San Francisco golf legend Ken Venturi, the 1964 U.S. Open Champion, is the Public Golf Alliance’s Honorary Chairman.
 
Next up in the continuing struggle over the golf links, will be a series of public meetings, whose dates have not been set. Long-term, it is unknown when the matter will reach the Board of Supervisors for a final determination.  

Comments

[Jim Currie]

A green hotel adjacent to the new green golf course will bring more green to the city.

[mike bell]

Matthew:
You bet we don't have money!
According to Van O'Campo's presentation at last Monday's Council meeting, Pacifica ranks dead last, with the worst streets in all of San Mateo County. He said that to bring them up to a passing grade, we need to spend $39 million and that doesn't include sidewalks. Our sewer lateral fiasco is currently estimated to cost about $50 million to stop the raw-sewage pollution of our aquifers, creeks, and beaches.
Our poor city is crumbling before our eyes. If we don't vote in some new leadership with balanced priorities, this whole place will go to seed.

[Nick Leone]

I apologize for my ignorance of the difference between a hole and a round.
If there really are, on average, more than 150 golfers per day, the Sharp Park golf course would appear to be a going concern, which would make the whole enterprise sustainable. I think that is important, especially during hard economic times, when there are so many competing demands for public funds.

Since there are conflicting arguments about the economic viability of the business side of the equation, the only correct way to know if the golf course is doing well or poorly is to examine its operating statement and balance sheet.

More important, the new compromise seems to be an attempt to please everyone. If it is feasible after all, it should be given serious consideration.

[Matthew Levie]

If the golfers don't mind moving one hole to the other side of the highway and shortening two others, I can live with that.

My main issue at this point is San Francisco's contention that Pacifica needs to pick up some of the tab for the redo, and Julie Lancelle's statement that we'll be happy to pitch in. With what money, exactly? And what do we get in return?

[Duane Peterson]

Consider the new practical "Hybrid golf course" approach. Envisioned by Nicklaus...perfected by us! It will satisfy all your requirements and then some.

[Bruce Hotchkiss]

Getting serious for a bit, there seems to be the position among some that a golf course and nature are not compatible. I beg to differ.

Although I would not consider myself a golfer, I have had the opportunity to golf on some of the best courses in California. Many of the newer courses have faced environmental obstacles that older, established courses did not. These courses were designed to be compatible with the surrounding environment.

One in particular is Bighorn Golf Club in Palm Desert. Yes, there are greens and fairways, but the majority of the course is desert and is protected. Many areas are posted to keep out golfers -- essentially, if you hit into the rough, tough. Of course, there are incentives to staying out of the rough -- poisonous snakes. Overall, wildlife is protected at Bighorn, and building the course has created a sanctuary.

There is no doubt that Sharp Park needs work. I also have no doubt that the golfers can play without harming the frogs and snakes. I also have no doubt that the golfers will contribute more to Pacifica's bottom line than the hikers on Mori Point.

Ian Butler presents possibilities to remove the berm and still protect the golf course and our homes. I think ideas like this are what will enable us all to create a unique golf course/nature preserve. I am not sure why it always has to be either/or in Pacifica; there is room for everyone and if we put our damn heads together, instead of butting heads, we will come up with a solution that could be the envy of many of cities.

[ian butler]

I'd like to clarify my position on the berm. I don't wish for it to come down anytime soon, but I do want to see the snake and frog habitat gradually shifted inland because inevitably the berm and pump system we have now will fail.

Bob Battaglio, Pacifica's resident professional hydrologist, has outlined a plan that involves barriers protecting the homes to the north and south of the golf course. Eventually, the present berm could be replaced with a natural back-barrier dune system, which is self-healing and would prevent Sanchez Creek from flooding Laguna Salada during storm events. This would protect the homes better than the present system, which depends on pumps that are subject to failure, and can better adapt to global warming-induced sea level rise.

If the 18-hole option that Park and Rec has recommended is enacted, something akin to Bob Battaglio's plan will probably need to be looked into sometime down the road.

[todd bray]

You should be multiplying the rounds by 18 not dividing them.

[Dan Underhill]

I have started and discarded several posts on this issue. I (not a golfer but friends and family with many golfers) want golfers to get what they need or want. I want their support on future ecological issues as, with our many new understandings about how ecosystems work, there will be many important questions arising about how we want to live and what changes in our lifestyle might be necessary to arrange for a sustainable future. Whether Sharp Park is the best choice of facilities to accommodate these golfers is not clear to me. The golfers, even the very young ones, are probably better equipped to look out for their own interests and find suitable alternatives to meet their needs than the frogs and snakes will ever be. Some of my earlier attempts at responding to this thread were based on the enthusiasm I feel when opposing sides can reach anything called a compromise. I didn't send any of those because, for me anyway, the jury is still out. I am still learning what I can about it.

[Jim Currie]

I am fairly certain that a round of golf means 18 holes. In that case, you have to divide 54,000 by 365 to come to the total of 147.9 golfers per day. What happens to the .1 golfer is still part of the debate.

[Bruce Hotchkiss]

There are nits in the berm? I'm confused.

Seriously, I'm confused. Why divide the 54,000 rounds of golf by 18? A round of golf is 18 holes, right? Every golfer plays one round when he/she plays 18 holes. So wouldn't it be 54,000 divided by however may days the course was open to get the rounds per day? Am I missing something? I'm not a golf expert here, so please help me out.

[Laurie Frater]

Why would you want to divide by 18, Nick?

The 54,073 number is ROUNDS of golf, not HOLES, so that's an average of 150 golfers a day, which is enough to make it not only sustainable but profitable, as recent financial analyses have shown it to be.

(And I think it's a bit premature to claim that "the City of SF has agreed to a fair compromise." The recommendation published on Friday was just that; nobody has "agreed" to anything -- yet!)

[Steve Sinai]

1 round of golf = 18 holes of golf.

[Butch Larroche]

"54,000 rounds of golf sounds big, but if you divided that by 18, it leaves about 3,000 full 18-hole games. Divide that by 365 and you get an average of about eight golfers a day paying the freight for all the operating costs. Doesn't sound so big after all. In fact, it appears to be unsustainable."

Fuzzy math indeed. I do not know where you are going with this, Nick. A round is an 18-hole game. There were 54,000 18-hole rounds played. Generally, most golf courses send a group of usually four people every 10-12 minutes. It is not uncommon, especially on weekends, for there to be two to three groups of four golfers on each hole playing, except for par 3's, which may have only one or two groups playing. So if you do the math, that is about 110-120 players on the course at any given time after 8 a.m. Why after 8 a.m.? Because all play starts on the first tee and it takes a while to fill the course up.

54,000 rounds played is a very good number. I do not know where you come up with eight golfers "paying the freight," as you say. And I will say it again: Sharp Park is a park. Is it supposed to make money? Parks do not make money, people. They are designed for the recreation of cities' residents. This is recreation for people, just like hiking and biking and playing Frisbee at Marina Green. Just because a segment of people choose not to participate in golf as a form of recreation, don't shut us down. Support us and the course and watch what will happen: a golf course that will be the envy of many in its coexistence with nature.

[John Maybury]

Ha ha ha. I love it. Nick has come up with the salt-air theory on why Pacificans are so damn argumentative. Salty dogs. We just like to howl and growl and bark at one another.

[Nick Leone]

54,000 rounds of golf sounds big, but if you divided that by 18, it leaves about 3,000 full 18-hole games. Divide that by 365 and you get an average of about eight golfers a day paying the freight for all the operating costs. Doesn't sound so big after all. In fact, it appears to be unsustainable.

Even though the City of SF has agreed to a fair compromise, we now have nitpicking about the berm. Maybe something in the air makes people prone to argue, no matter what!

[Butch Larroche]

"The report was guided by a small set of Pacifica and San Francisco golfers including Mayor Lancelle who want to continue to play the cheapest golf in California without having to drive more than a mile or two to do so."

Ms. Jana, I would not call 54,073 rounds of golf played at Sharp Park in the last fiscal year a "small set of golfers." Golf is on the rise at Sharp Park and that is a fact that cannot be denied. This amount is up for FY 2008, when 51,151 rounds were played. No one can continue to say rounds are down at Sharp Park. Of the 54,073 rounds played in FY 2009, 36% were by residents of SF and Pacifica, and 31% were played by seniors. These numbers are not deniable.

This deal has changed so many times it's hard to keep up on what Plater and his followers are really after. First it was soccer fields, then it was to protect the snakes, then it was to return the area to its natural state, now it is to donate the land to the federal government. First Plater was with the CBD, now he is not. Now he is trotting out some new group. I can't keep up anymore with this guy. I believe he is just trying to build his resume for a run at public office some day.

We golfers just want to play golf at a course that is affordable and close to home. Ms. Jana, if I drove to a course some 40 miles away from my house every weekend, you would probably complain that my carbon footprint was too big, play golf closer to home!!! Well, I do play my golf close to home, because Sharp Park is a wonderful golf course that is close to nature.

As for the argument that Sharp Park does not resemble a McKenzie course any longer, many golf courses are redesigned from their original design. Over the years, Pebble Beach, Harding Park, Augusta National, and even the Olympic Club have been changed a little here and there. This does not mean that the courses are too different, and the same is true at Sharp Park: 14 of the 18 original holes are still here.

Plater has continued to trot out the same stale points now for the past four years. Sharp Park is the only course within the SF Park & Rec courses that is showing an increase in play. Of course, he does not want anyone to know that. He is trotting out numbers from 4-5 years ago. Numbers that are a bit skewed because of back-to-back course closures due to flooding in the winters of 04-05 & 05-06. Flooding that will be worse in the future if Plater gets his way and tears the seawall down to turn the area into a "natural area." West Fairway Park residents should be very concerned about this issue.

Let's get real here, people, and improve a climate where golf and nature can coexist. Because the report did not justify Mirkarimi's and Plater's vision, they are denouncing it. Sharp Park Golf Course can be a national model for environmentalism and golf. Let's make it happen.

[Steve Sinai]

My understanding is that the people who want to turn Sharp Park into a golf and snake preserve now intend to keep the berm intact.

The problem is, if they clearly state that, it would be an admission that it was the golf course that created the habitat for the frogs and snakes in the first place.

Has anyone else noticed how it's impossible to get a clear answer to the question of just exactly how "Restore" Sharp Park wants to restore the area?

[Cynthia Montanez]

Mr. Butler and Ms. Jana, you seem to want it both ways. For the frog and snake to survive in the Sharp Park Golf Course area, you need the berm. The berm is man-made specifically for the creation/sustenance of the golf course.

So, if the golf course stays, the berm stays. If the golf course goes, the berm goes because the National Park Service, over the past few years, has allowed previously native areas to return to their natural state.

So, I ask again, has anyone performed a biodiversity study east of Highway 1? Perhaps there is a thriving snake and frog habitat in other protected open space that we are completely unaware of.

[Cyd Crampton]

Once again, these two species are in my garden every year and I am certain that I do not have the only property in Pacifica that they find hospitable. Why is the extinction so imminent when there is coexistence, year in and year out, on my humble property?

[Bruce Hotchkiss]

Gee, thanks for worrying about us humans, Ian. If the berm fails, I'm under freakin' water!

But wait! The berm is man-made and if everything is returned to nature, shouldn't it be removed?

[ian butler]

My problem with the report is that it assumes the berm will be there permanently, and will never fail. In reality, it's not a matter of if it will fail but when, and when it does, the frogs and snakes will be sitting ducks. In the short term though, the plan would probably help the species recover, which might buy us some time.

[kathy jana]

Pacficans for a New Sharp Park lead the campaign in Pacifica.

The report was guided by a small set of Pacifica and San Francisco golfers including Mayor Lancelle who want to continue to play the cheapest golf in California without having to drive more than a mile or two to do so.

The snake under this current plan put forth by SF Rec and Park will go extinct. We're in a mass extinction world wide, the 6th mass extinction since life began. This decision adds one more species to the list.

This current mass extinction is different from the other five: it is caused by human activity.

There are many references for this, here are a few:
http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/02/the-6th-great-m.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

[Nick Leone]

Reasonable people will agree that the compromise on the Sharp Park golf course is fair and balanced, but I suppose there are some intransigents who won't take "YES" for an answer.

The original McKenzie course has been radically altered over the past seven decades, so a minor re-arrangement of the 18 holes that will adhere to the environmental impact report is certainly equitable, especially if low cost, sustainable golf is available to the public while at the same time the habitat is restored and preserved.

The only way to settle an argument is for all sides of an issue to walk away graciously with something they want.

[Dan Underhill]

Sorry, Todd. I was just being silly.