patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Controversy Over Future of Sharp Park Golf Course Heating Up

Environmentalists and representatives of the San Francisco Park and Recreation Department are butting heads over the future of the Sharp Park Golf Course and surrounding wetland area

 

After a fairly quiet summer at the Sharp Park Golf Course, the park area owned by the San Francisco Recreation and Park District is reemerging as the center one of the most contentious land use debates in Pacifica. 

The park district wants to do some maintenance to the golf course and surrounding area, which includes the freshwater Laguna Salada, a natural habitat for two endangered species--the San Francisco Garter Snake and California Red Legged Frog. Namely, it wants to renovate the seawall, which is not up to standard, and make some modifications to the lagoon to assure it remains a safe habitat. The golf course floods nearly every winter, and water must be pumped from the course, which kills the Red Legged Frogs. In conducting this maintenance, however, the park district wants to leave the 18 hole golf course, and this doesn't sit well with environmentalists. 

Environmentalists want the whole area, including the golf course, restored to a natural habitat with some access to recreation traffic. They believe the golf course can only be a detriment to the survival of the two endangered species in the area. 

After the park department drafted its plans for the area, it realized that the renovations it had planned and money needed for subsequent maintenance to the area was outside the city's budget. They turned to federal funding. Congresswoman Jackie Speier, along with San Francisco, have already requested $5 million in federal funds.

Opponents of the City of San Francisco's current habitat restoration plan--which keeps the 18 hole golf course intact--are in the midst of a letter writing campaign against previously requested federal money by the city and Speier.

The Center for Biological Diversity and  Wild Equity Institute proposed that the more than $5 million be used for  both the restoration of the seawall and the park's Laguna Salada but should not be used to protect the golf course. Rather, the area should be completely restored as a natural wetland area. 

"We're not opposed to getting funding for San Francisco, but the funding should go for habitat restoration," said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate from the Center for Biological Diversity.

Miller added that his organization worries that the money would be used by the park department to protect the golf course and the status quo of the area, which would jeopardize the garter snakes' natural habitat.

"The current proposal is to keep the golf course as it is, 18 holes, and the park department's claim is to maintain endangered species at that site," he said. "Every independent ecologist and herpetologists have come to the opposite conclusion. Endangered species cannot persist if you continue maintain 18 holes of the golf course."

Brent Plater, executive director of the Wild Equity Institute, anticipates further action against the golf course once an environmental review is completed. The review is currently underway. 

He believes that with such a large amount of federal money requested, the city of San Francisco might try to privatize the golf course under a private golf management company which can take on any necessary improvements.

Yet, Dawn Kamalanathan, planning director of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, assured that the federal funding is going to protect the garter snakes' habitat and that the funding request does not include any restoration of the golf course to a natural habitat. 

"They are adjacent to each other, but restoring Laguna Salada is independent and separate from a decision about the golf course," she said. "All decisions flow from the central idea of restoring that particular habitat."

In response to environmentalists' claims that the city might use the requested federal funding to sell the area, Kamalanathan said that the city has no plans to sell the land and if they did it would require voter approval.

"We are under an existing charter as a city," she said. The only instance in which they would not need voter approval is "if we gave the property to the federal government with a vote from the supervisors."

What Kamalanatan said the city has been doing is participating in an ongoing discussion with Pacifica and San Mateo County for a possible partnership that would lead to more joint problem solving and a sharing of financial responsibilities.

In the meantime, Kamalanathan said their work is mainly to restore the seawall and garter snake habitat. The parks department also wants to gain a better understanding  of what needs to be addressed with the seawall in the next 20 years. All of which should be revealed in the pending Environmental Impact Report.

Minor restorations have already been underway to minimize the negative impacts on the garter snake and red legged frogs' habitat, including fencing to discourage people from bringing dogs into that area, signage warning people to stay out of the habitat, changes in protocols and how the department is managing and maintaining the golf course.

Michael Ferreira, former mayor of Half Moon Bay and local expert on the Sharp Park restoration discussions, has evaluated both sides of the issue and said he sees nothing wrong with the city's current plan for restoration. In fact he thinks this unique area is a perfect example of a golf course coexisting with a natural habitat. In fact, he sees the complete restoration of the area as harmful to the endangered species.

"Laguna Salada used to be a saline lake 80 years ago," he said. "What you have is an artificial habitat that had a lot of red legged frogs. Predators moved in when it became a freshwater habitat."

By restoring the area back to what it was 80 years ago would not be conducive to the survival of the endangered species, he said. The problem, he added, truly needing to be addressed in the restoration is the invasive cattails and reeds growing in the lagoon that are choking out the snake and frog.

But Ferreira, the city of San Francisco, and the opponents of the restoration and environmentalists are going to have to wait and see where things will stand once the Environmental Impact Report is completed in the months and year to come.

Related Topics: Sharp Park Golf Course, Sharp Park Golf Course Lawsuit, and The Environment
What should happen to the Sharp Park Golf Course and the surrounding wetland area? Let us know. Tell us in the comments.

Jeanne Cope

7:52 pm on Friday, October 15, 2010

This is a very complex problem. It was nice to read about an environmental issues that was presented in a calm and fair manner.

Reply

Frankie Franck

2:06 pm on Thursday, December 9, 2010

1) Laguna Salada was a saline lake ( a salt water lagoon-80 years ago-not a natural habitat for these species) - according to Michael Ferreira restoration to a saline lake will be harmful to the CRLFs and the SFGSs. These threatened/endangered species need fresh water to exist they cannot survive in saline water.
2) Get the facts straight one species is endangered and one is threatened.
3) The $$ requested is to be spent on the seawall to further protect the species.
4) The EIR requested by SFO to date supports the golf course as the best alternative to protecting the CRLFs and the SFGSs

Reply

Jay Summers

10:53 pm on Thursday, February 10, 2011

Finally -- the science is out. The first peer-reviewed scientific study of Sharp Park is published.

Removing Golf Course, Creating New Public Park Is Least Costly, Best Option.

Key findings:

* Restoring Sharp Park is the cheapest public option, particularly compared to the San Francisco Park Department plan or the option of maintaining the status quo.
* Restoring the natural processes of the lagoon and surrounding wetlands will provide the best flood protection for neighbors against sea-level rise and coastal storm events.
* Removing the golf course to restore habitat to the east of the lagoon is essential for the long-term sustainability of endangered species found on the site.

“This report lays out how we can create a better public park at Sharp Park that everyone can enjoy, while saving taxpayers millions of dollars,” said Brent Plater, director of the Wild Equity Institute. “Restoring Sharp Park is the sensible decision for our pocketbooks and our hiking boots.”

Read the press release and download the report here:
http://wildequity.org/entries/3146

Reply

Leave a comment