Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Sharp Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public comment at Sharp Park hearing sharply divided between golf advocates and restoration proponents
Summary
Public comment at the Board of Supervisors hearing split between Pacifica and San Francisco golfers, seniors and labor groups defending Sharp Park as affordable recreation, and conservation organizations, Pacifica residents and regional advocates urging full restoration or transfer to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
The special hearing on Sharp Park drew large public turnout and sustained, at times heated, public comment. Two broad camps emerged.
Proponents of keeping the course — including local golf advocates, labor union representatives and senior‑program leaders — argued the course is affordable, widely used by city residents and supports youth and senior programs. "Sharp Park has made money," said David Diller, president of Sharp Park Golf Club, noting recent surplus figures and more than 50,000 rounds in a recent year. Speakers urged a modified 18‑hole plan that, they said, can coexist with species protection.
Conservation groups and many Pacifica residents urged full restoration and transfer to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, arguing that full wetlands restoration would yield stronger, longer‑term species protection, reduce water use and better address sea‑level rise. Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity told supervisors he was "extremely disappointed with this report," saying it prioritized keeping the 18‑hole layout and that the department should present fuller analyses on long‑term costs and sea‑level impacts.
Other public testimony focused on technical and fiscal details: the cost and feasibility of removing invasive Kikuyu grass, long‑term seawall repair, recycled water plant estimates, and whether temporary measures could be undone as sea levels rise. Rec & Park staff repeatedly framed the consultant report as a 10%‑level conceptual analysis and said additional study is required. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area provided a written statement saying the agency would be willing to provide technical advice and participate in a regional planning process but would not accept ownership of areas that retain an operating golf course.
The board closed public comment without voting and asked staff to return with more complete capital and operating cost inventories and continued regional outreach.
