surrounding wild lands. i would conclude by saying that conclude by saying the compromise calls for fields of natural glass -- and natural grass and no lighting. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. this has major flaws and is accurate and incomplete. for example, on the overhead, the criteria for judging visual impact is arbitrary and are inconsistent. the athletic field lighting would at a vertical elements to the project site, but this would not be suspected to be so intrusive as to preclude the enjoyment of the natural features of the facility. i disagree. the height of the lighting towers dominates over our whole

perception of this scene. it is similar to were of the world's. to simulate an evening view, although the lights would draw attention, the intensity of lighting, they would not dominate his panoramic view. this fails to take into account of the intense point of light sources that the lighting systems create. they stand up for miles away. we have the view of night lights taken from about half a mile away. the spore lights are brighter than nearby street lights. the draft shows a view from the railroad trail that would imply that one cannot see the field. but if you walk further down the trail, there are clear views on the streets. surely, the libels will intrude on our experience. important views are missing completely. it does not assimilate -- stimulate the classic view. has no view from the beach

toward the park. we have the moon rising behind. what with this look like with 150,000 watts of light next to it? these are just a few of the things to consider on the esthetics of this area. i have not had time to review the entire document, but i hope you will extend at least an additional 15 days that we can address these and other deficiencies. and do the fact that over 360 pages are in this as opposed to a motion that are 150 pages. goshawk -- >> i am a 48-year resident of san francisco. i have a 48-year resident of san francisco and i have lived here

since 2000. we wanted to enjoy the western edge of golden gate park after noting that golden gate park master plan would remain -- i was shocked to see the proposal to install a sports complex. i thought rec and park would be protecting the park of for us, of forcing us to fight for what we thought was already agreed upon. my concern is also on the artificial turf. not allowing a landmark work, it would just lead to all of those hazardous chemicals. the lights would also be an encouragement to nature, and it would make it undesirable for nesting birds and nesting birds and resting birds as it is on

the pacific flyway. if you alter the nature of the park and to encroach on the beaches area as well as the neighborhood. thank you for your consideration. >> my name is robert clayton, -- rupert clayton. i am commenting to oppose the project as it is currently planned. specifically the artificial turf and night light elements. i would draw your attention to an important alternative approach that i believe should be analyzed within the environmental impact report. the first part would be to renovate the beach side with high-quality living grass fields. the current will have a high- quality grass playing surface.

this would include a good a soil structure in soil improvement for strong grass-roots so that the surface stays on the level. and that affected the subsurface drainage to cut out on playing time due to rain. state-of-the-art irrigation to provide full coverage and to save water by irrigating only when needed. over barriers combined with an act of better control program because these measures, contrary to what some people have said, are actually able to control and -- and also to fix of the restrooms is needed and provide access that is sensitive for other matters. the components will be night lighting or expansion of the number of parking spaces. the second component, it would

be to make improvements at another site. the second discussion will be the west sunset playground. these improvements will include renovations to the playing surface. we do realize that there is a strong need for soccer with in the city, and we believe these components together would accomplish that. we feel this compromise alternative is a fundamental and obvious alternative draft, as it currently in-house -- as it currently is written, does not do. and they are not combined in one plan, and therefore, the analysis has alternatives in various ways. we would like to see them come by to one plan.

we can have much better use and adult soccer fields in san francisco while avoiding significant environmental impacts have the wider environment. the benefits of that plan should be fairly obvious to you as commissioners. thank you for your time. >> good evening, my name is patricia eric, i am a long-term as an of the outer sunset on the great highway 25 years. i was shocked when i learned of these plans to put an artificial turf and these stadium lights. i was further shocked when i read the eir and it was listed

as not a significant impact. i beg to differ on what this product will lead to a wonderful, wild, sandblasted natural environment. it is a refuge for some many people, not just soccer players. the character of the landscape will be forever changed, this is not coney island. this is not southern california beaches. this is our golden gate park that was designed to be natural and the wild. and a home for the animals. two things that i am very much against, the stadium lights. this will cause a substantial

degree of degradation of the visual character at night area when i first moved into my house, 25 years ago, i always heard migrating birds honking above as they flew by. each year, there are fewer and fewer. i hardly ever hear them now. this project has put a light and heat island that will further confuse any migrating bird and send them off course where they would avoid this area which is a pacific slideway altogether. these lights will cause a glare. the visual impact, if you see this photograph, the stadium polarizes very much higher than the tree line, and i don't know how many there are going to be, but it is going to be a truly

-- a true and-change to this environment. the artificial turf, the young girl that gave her presentation about the hazards of this toxic substance was brilliant. and should absolutely be listened to. this is not something that we should put in a park. soccer players are a small percentage of the population that use this park. it is for everyone and it is also for the animals. [chime] president olague: thank you. thank you. mary ann miller followed by pnky inky cushner. [reading names]

if you heard your name, i would just keep calling names. [reading names] >> i have lived in the inner sunset for 50 years. i remember the conservation committee from the sierra club. i am sure you all know the various considerations that make up an environmental impact report. land use planning, athletics, cultural and paleontological resources. land and shadow, recreation, hydrology, water quality, hazardous material,

agriculture, forestry sources, and air quality. this laundry list is frequently kept as a laundry list. i think this is wrong and especially it is wrong in this draft. all of these items are not equal according to the intent of the california environmental quality act law. what you have just been handed is the legislative intent and the additional legislative intent of the california law. the legislative intent speaks of a quality environment, high quality environment. the preservation and enhancement of the environment. the management of natural resources. this was actually written around 1970, and it is further explained in section 21001 as additional legislative intent. to develop and maintain a high

quality environment now and in the future, and take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the stake. take all action necessary to provide the people of the state with enjoyment of aesthetic, the natural, scenic, and historical environmental qualities. this says nothing about recreation or obesity. this is something about nature. this is a natural setting at golden gate park that deserves to be preserved in a natural state. and the fact that reconed part rehabilitated that in 1998 and probably hasn't touched it environment, it tells you something about the state of affairs. that they would propose artificial turf instead of doing normal up key.

thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner moore: -- president olague and other members of the commission. when we started this project five years ago, our sole mission was to make sure that there were a enough accessible sports fields for local kids. as reported, the city is very short on fields for kids. simply, there are not enough fields for kids to play on. we have completed six other fields across the city, in each of these projects has been enormously popular with ballplayers and most of the park neighbors. although all of the other projects have undergone

environmental review, the proposed athletic field innovation is first to go under a full eir. we willingly requested additional review in order to be sure that we were providing the community with the assurance that this project was good for the park and to save for the environment. and that is exactly what this draft has found. his product will have practically no environmental impact. it examines many of the issues you hear that have been raised today. it is very comprehensive and data driven. the renovation has been studied extensively for over two years with an abundance of community participation. we are asking the you do not extend the review which will give it further project the way that would benefit some many kids who have already been patiently waiting for the renovation. there is a lot of talk of families leaving san francisco, and yet heard from a couple of mother is here today.

the parents will like to participate. i raise kids here myself, and sometimes it is not easy to find things that are safe and accessible for kids. this city has a lot to offer and we need to help find ways to keep kids and families in san francisco. we can have a high quality, say the field. >> hello, commissioners. this is the first time i have ever read an environmental impact report, and this one is a lengthy document, so i focused on a couple of issues. i was shocked at the lack of scientifically supported data in section 4. i have worked as a medical editor editing research papers and medical information. in a 15-minute search on a

publicly accessible database, i was able to identify numerous scientifically valid studies with hazards associated with artificial turf and studies on injuries that compared artificial turf with grass playing fields. the most recent study on injuries was published in november of 2011. none of these studies or in the draft and contrary to the arguments i have heard, the evidence of injury is clear. there is no difference in the number of injuries sustained on grass compared with artificial turf. there is no difference in terms of the number of minor injuries or in the number of severe injuries. the only difference is in terms of the types of injuries. the review studies from 2007, 2009, and 2010. the draft sites no studies from 2011.

given the scientifically valid data in the report, i would ask that an independent expert with knowledge of scientific method and research conduct a thorough review of the scientific and medical literature before any conclusions are drawn about the hazards of artificial turf either to the environment or to health. additionally, asked that the findings of the 2008 task force to be removed from the draft going to the clear conflict of interest present in the sections on material composition, conversations with manufacturers and report commissioned by manufacturers as evidence. and the fact that the ecosystem study group did not prepare a formal written summary. i further ask that only scientists give valid, studies and peer review journals be included in section four. without valid studies, the

report cannot draw valid conclusions. >> i know we are way beyond paper, but i would ask mr. avery if she could pass these to you. the third page contains the alternative that has been referenced by some other speakers, and i want to speak to that as well. there is a major misnomer in the title of this study. it calls the project a restoration. the term which gives the false impression that the fields are simply going to be renewed. nothing could be more accurate,

a complete reconstruction of the entire area, and simple renovations. if i can't hear back yard and give you something that i thought was better and you came home, you would see that i could not ever call that a renovation. reading the project description leaves no other impression other than the project is entirely a new development with only a segment of the existing restroom retained and renewed. everything else will be scraped away and a new sports facility complex will rise in its place. the true restoration as envisioned by ocean edge and is on the third page of what i have handed to you. this is a compromise alternative. everyone opposed to the project as his loves those fields restored in a true restoration.

this compromise alternative would add more hours. it would be saved. it would not have lights. we are not serving out of town soccer clubs. we're serving the children of san francisco in daylight time, not rainy season. drayage could be put there so you can play after the rain, but who are we serving? the cumulative impacts are insufficiently studied in my view. the environmental impact of the proposed soccer fields should be used together with the recycled water treatment facility. do you realize that is supposed to happen? next to the windmill? it is not study, nor is the huge effort to being done with the oversight and multi-agencies have to study ocean beach and the ocean beach area. please, commissioners, study the

project effective. they talk about this being in the north part of the city. it is in the west. you can't serve northern interests or northern needs. and thank you very much. >> good evening, commissioners. i am 18-years old and i have lived my entire life in san francisco. a live one block away from golden gate park, and especially after my back yard was filled with lead, golden gate park was my backyard. i spent much of the running along the trees, sitting by the ocean, and enjoying the wonderful natural preserve that it is for all residents. i am concerned about this proposed project for many reasons. i am concerned about the toxic chemicals found in the rubber compound used in the astroturf.

i am very concerned, particularly, about the stadium lighting and the eye -- and that is proposed to be put in. if you have had the privilege of sitting there after dark, looking at the waves, it is beautiful. having huge nearly spotlight's put in so close to the beach would absolutely ruin that. i do not believe that something that would benefits of your residence when they can go elsewhere to play is justifiable to ruin something as wonderful as the park for some many residents. >> thank you members of the planning commission for hearing this important item today. i will read a message written by my brother david that is a santa clara residents. the messages on behalf of the

san francisco nonprofit that provides free soccer to san francisco youth. we strongly support the play field initiative plan to renovate the athletic field and urge you to close comment so that every san francisco kitten can have a place to play. the project provides free soccer for kids of all backgrounds, the biggest challenge is the lack of accessible playing fields and in san francisco. for many kids and their families, a lack of access causes them to leave the city to find sufficient playing time. this is a terrible outcome, and synthetic turf means fewer injuries and the ability to play in adverse weather. we support the renovation and urging moved past comments to support the project renovation.

>> the evening, members of the planning commission. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak here tonight. i am a resident of the outer sunset district. i have a 4-year-old at a 14- year-old that are actively involved in the soccer community. our family has experienced a positive impact from the field renovation projects through of the city. we're hopeful that this project will move forward and will be able to experience these positive impact. it is important to note that the project you have here has been around for several years and has gone through a great deal of public comment already. the turf at lights are part of this project, but an effort has been made to minimize those

impacts, and the design has been shaped to fit within the context of the part in the area as much as possible. delaying this process any further will only result in more seasons that our kids will mess proper fields. the stated project goals are to increase the amount of playing time for our kids in the city of san francisco, and the turf and the lights are very important components. the document is a history of golden gate park, and how it has been shaped by the residents of san francisco threw out the years to meet their needs. and this includes lights. as early as the 1920's, lights were used in tests courts. there lights at the other stadium, currently. and there are lights for driving and walking paths. these lights are used in the

park to increase the nighttime enjoyment for the residents and also the safety of the users. the area right now is quite dark and contributes to the homelessness and camass, drug use, and other illicit sexual activity happened around the perimeter of the park. president olague: wait, wait. it is not proper for any of you to speak out of turn like that. no one. yeah, yowe will call the sheriff in here if you guys cannot restrain yourself. he has the right to say whatever it is he needs to say he ha ha, just like you do, without your comment. >> and delighting in the park increases the enjoyment for the s.f. residents and increases the safety for those residents. in conclusion, i just like to

say again, i believe that it is the result of a thorough and balanced analysis, and the project and its alternatives have that analyze thoroughly. i ask that you move this project forward without delay. thank you. president olague: [reading names] i will keep calling names. [reading names] >> i have a 43 year resident of san francisco, grandmother of the dynamite soccer player that

loves soccer and will not play on artificial turf. i hope he wants to play on grass. the draft has several serious flaws. it reaches firm conclusions unsubstantiated by evidence, enumerated particular is without pointing to questions and inconsistencies that arise and failed to consider cumulative goals. it also fails to take the perspective wide enough to encompass the project's probable or possible impacts on the western end of ocean beach which is inseparable from the park as a recreational and natural destination. the final draft needs to deal with all these flaws and i hope you give it time. for example, the section on biological resources concludes that the proposed project and in combination with the foreseeable future projects would not have a cumulative considerable impact on