than significant. but five special species could be affected. 52 different birds have been observed in the project area, and the introduction of nighttime lighting has the potential to interfere with migratory corridors and impede the use of wildlife site. it can be assumed that numerous birds path -- a pass overhead. does it support the conclusion, and not just of this in past, present, and reasonably for the foreseeable future. the loss of habitat will be in significant because there are lots more in the park. even as human use grows, a little bit from a smaller hole becomes a lot of this is not considered. regarding the lights, what support the conclusion -- that what supports the conclusion that it would have minor impact?

there is also a total amount of new concrete. these are just some of the details. on toxicity and health hazards, a diligent enumeration of existing studies, it shows that very little research has been done to support the conclusion that we have nothing to worry about. please be imaginative and get a patrol of soccer players out there with shovels, use something about that over before every game and let's have grass. president olague: i would like to ask people to clear the doorway. it is creating a hazard. if you heard your name, please start coming out to the microphone. >> i would like to point out a

couple of defects, one of them is that it is missing in comparison of combining grass restoration at the site with installing at west sunset playground, artificial turf. a playground is the appropriate place. that is an alternative that was not considered. another problem is that it does not explore the toxic components of powdered tires and how they get into people's clothes, they get into a sedan, into the air, and they go home with the kids. there is nothing that addresses that. why is that and a mission? a couple of other things, the golden gate master plan is compatible with having had grass restoration. having grass restoration, even with modest lights would allow

the historic district to be kept. i would like to point out that one of the project objectives is to say that nighttime use would be a community good. it is not necessarily the community good. i don't think it is for me, and for a lot of children and families in san francisco. please get this fixed. thank you. >> and the evening, members of the planning commission. i am here with my son, we live two blocks from golden gate park. he goes to public school. as it is, we have to ride four times a week, 30 or 40 minutes to the play fields. they're like schools and libraries. they need to be usable for families that want to stay in the city. we will be brief because he has

to get home and do his homework. we believe the study is thorough and should be approved and moved forward. >> home the evening, commissioners. i am the president of the richmond community association and share of the coalition for san francisco land use committee. and i will only be responding in regard for the richmond community association because the coalition has not had adequate time to review this as a committee. from their point of view, we believe that this needs adequate time to review and understand the project. please allow the public this necessary time for complete

review and understanding of the project. after a quick look, it seems obvious that the project values, the increased hours of soccer play are protecting the park land. in a chapter on cultural resources, the de.e.i.r. says it will be "significant and unavoidable." is that a violation of the golden gate park master plan? some of the chapters i was able to read quickly, not completely, but there are some questions about artificial turf. what happens to the field when it wears out in 8-10 years? this is important because it is not just here.

there are approximately 30 acres of artificial turf throughout the city. they also have -- it is a rather expensive undertaking, and the city at this point does not have the budget for hardly anything. what is the guarantee that it will be replaced properly? it will be a much easier and reasonable cost-effective replacement. what will be the impact of the park land if there is no money to either replace the turf in 10 years or put back the natural grass? this whole entire question was not fully studied in the draft. it does not fully evaluate the astroturf, and the benefits for

new technology that have been used to insert turf in other areas of the country and throughout the world. alternative sites have not been fully investigated. [chime] president olague: thank you. >> please provide another 60 days for this review. >> i'm a physician and a 41-year resident of san francisco. i think it is really inadequate in terms of medical things and hazards. there is a hole orthopedic literature that has to do with artificial turf is not, in fact,

safer. we have been hearing that it is safer over and over and i think that literature got ignored. i did submit it at one point, there are a lot of articles. there are some specifics that only applied artificial turf. like turf-toe. and the effect of playing on artificial grass that it's a very high temperatures on hot days. i would like to show you a picture. can it be turned on? these are stairs, and i looked at that at first. i thought, what is all that black stuff? that is the crumbles' coming down from the playing field. these tears are swept regularly.

those are coming to a house near you. you might want to find out what they are, and i don't think this is adequately talked about. thank you. >> my name is michael, i am taking an's spot. she will come up here later, but i have to get my guy home. i am a father in the city, i attended my first meeting on this subject years ago. all the arguments here this evening were made two years ago. residents indicated they were from the inner sunset area at naturally have concerns about this project in their backyard. but there is also overwhelming

support from all kinds of members of the community that perhaps cannot be here tonight. i hope it is recognized because we were forced for something that really seemed to make sense from the get go. now the process has been done, it was a painfully long process, but the comprehensive document has concluded the impact of turf would be minimal. i urge you along with a large number of san franciscans to not let this project be delayed any further. i recognize there is a lot of emotion around golden gate park. over 75 years ago, someone decided that one of the many things that the park should provide is a place for team sports, and the devoted about 1% for this purpose. it is not one of the grassy meadows and it has not been set aside for serene landscapes. it was set aside specifically

for sports, and the purpose is as historic value. the reason we are here tonight, for large parts of the year, the fields are closed-door in poor condition, and frankly, not capable of fulfilling the intent of fulfilling the team sports. he will see a chain-link fence and a sign that says you can't play. go out there in february and march, he will see that side almost 50% of the time. i like a grass field as much as the next guy, but with this much demand for field space, even if we had a maintenance budget, the only way to make it viable is to close them for large chunks of time and close them again every time there is a substantial rain. that means the field can only be used in certain seasons and games and practices are regularly cancelled. it happens all the time, even if it is sunny outside.

thousands of kids each week are out of luck. it simply means to be able to use the space that has already been provided for sports. in the same way that roads need to be paved to meet the demands of city usage, home turf on these fields allows the most people to benefit from the park and all its intended uses. in a city that has a huge shortage of playing fields, an act of half the population and -- [chime] president olague: you can always submit your comments. and just leave it on the railing. thank you. >> good evening, i am a student at san francisco state university, and i am also a

resident in the park. i want to keep my time short and provide other is time for their own thoughts so they can get home on time, or early. i wanted to hit specifically onset plan the lights and how they would harm the bird migratory patterns, increased light pollution and harms specifically the california red bat. the hunting ability at night, like in the early evening, i strongly suggest that if, like, review this. i also agree on previous comments for not using the synthetic rebar turf is that of normal grass.

president olague: i will keep calling names and if you have heard your name, you can start coming to the microphone. >> my name is terry jones, i am the commissioner for the california youth soccer association. i am here to -- on behalf of the local youth soccer leagues including the mission league, the viking league, and the asftal. we have heard that it is a traditional facility for san francisco brown sports. the previous renovations occurred in 1998 only after the risk of injury on the poorly maintained surface.

at that time, a fence was put up an order to restrict access and preserve the field. youth leagues and affiliated represent over 6000 boys and girls who depend on the city of san francisco for safe places to play. organized sports for kids of for a positive alternative for juvenile crime and they don't prevent childhood a hot -- and they prevent childhood obesity. people deserve to have their tax dollars spent wisely to have a place to play. while the draft is generally quite thorough, it does not fully address the impact of the fields surfaced on the users. what is the impact of a player being injured by uneven grass or a gopher hole? how does the child learn how to pass a soccer bowall -- [chime] president olague: thank you. [reading names]

and if you are in the overflow, and you heard your name, start coming. >> i am a parent of three, i live two blocks from campbell playground. i can assure you that i still see the moon, i still see birds, tons of wildlife, the project has dramatically improve the quality of life of our neighborhood and of san

francisco, really. i also represent 500 families from a soccer and academic program for 15 public at low- income schools mostly in the bayview and western addition. the% of low-income families. we play five days a week soccer on pavement. these are kids that play on pavement and school blacktops. on the six the day, we go to crocker amazon. have games are on turf and half games are on grass. a quarter of the games on grass gets canceled and the kids apply on the turf, we have 60 kids playing on a space made for 20 kids. we represent the overcapacity. we believe that this project would provide access for kids all over the city to the outdoors. we support, foley, this project. we think it has been studied to

death. studying urban fields all over the city, and these things are the envy of cities because of how they are funded and how they are studied, and the impacts are minimized. thank you. >> i am the assistant director with the floor is the bay area. i am also a 32-year resident of san francisco living in the sunset and driving from corner to corner of the city. and seeing the splendor that we call the mitropoulos and this masterpiece that is truly the heart and soul. who you, me, him, and all of us behind me. garfield, crocker, and campbell,

but it is not enough. it is all about the quality of life and experience that it will bring. that is my job for the first and fifth graders that i work with bailey. and the families that come to me. i represent those families, and this project will affect of them as well as everybody across the city. not moving forward will stifle the quality of life for all of us, so let's move forward. thank you. >> one flaw in the proposed renovation does not -- is not adequately addressed. it is that the side cannot support more than the current set up of three playing fields in use at any one time. we are at maximum load.

on a summer weekend when the park as most visited, there is already a heavy load of traffic from people going to ocean beach, to the beach, to the park, to the window and to the golden gate park golf course and the archery fields all located right there. and people just wanting to visit the western end of the park. the increase in traffic that will occur if the four fields are in use will result in noise pollution, air pollution, and congestion beyond the parks ability to absorb it. i live within a quarter mile. as it is, there is not enough parking and people part at ocean beach or in the park. there is not enough parking at the golf course to meet the demand on a summer weekend, and the parking overflows into the park.

the archery fields are very popular all year round. in the park just opposite the entrance to the soccer fields is often part data. if this proposal goes through, there will be a massive traffic jam every weekend right in front of the tulip garden. what about the wedding is that take place there? people pay to reserve the garden for their ceremony, but there will be no parking for the guests. the draft report does not properly address these concerns, but glosses over them. in every instance where there are impacts noted, the report says that they are not significant, not substantial. are we going to squeeze every last bit of life from golden gate park and paved paradise to put up a parking lot? please extend the comment period. president olague: i will keep calling names.

[reading names] >> hi, i live in the outer richmond. i am here to support -- >> can you pull the microphone? >> i live in a r outerichmond -- in the outer richmond and i am here to support the soccer fields. i have a 15-year-old son that has played there and practice out in the beach chalet soccer fields. when he is a teenager and when he is kept busy with sports, it keeps him occupied and i feel that we need more playing fields

in san francisco of the older kids that are teenagers who have something to do and not only during the day and also at night, it would be nice if there were lights out there and if it was cleaned up. right now, the only people that go out to the beach chalice soccer fields of the players themselves and the parents. and it is dark out there. it is kind of a strange area, so i think it would be great if we could clean it up and help our older kids have a place to practice, and we need more fields in san francisco. i do feel that it does the community good. >> has my name is courtney and i am an environmental studies major at san francisco state university. as a resident of the city, i

would like to express my concerns about the renovation. i understand the the project will consist of the conversion of four soccer fields to a synthetic turf alternative. turf does not need water and maintenance, there are toxic heavy metals that will have the potential of leaching into the ground water and the surrounding environment. these chemicals will disrupt the well-being of the habitats and accumulate -- bioaccumulate in the area. i would like to assist the department in considering the possibility of dismissing the synthetic turf alternative and consider using natural gas -- and natural grass methods. thank you.

>> i am an environmental studies student at san francisco state university as well as a representative of the sunset district. i have an appreciation for living close to the park, and i believe it will be greatly lessened with the construction of the synthetic turf fields. the renovation program project has beneficial aspects such as reducing the fencing around the field as well as construction of the playground,, and more. although i see these assets as being potentially useful, i cannot support the entirety of this project and the plans for the synthetic turf field. it is my belief that these are environmentally irresponsible acts, and the believe the alternative and reduced lighting, the alternative is the most responsible way to carry out a project like this.

i am concerned with the use of the heavy-metal often associated with the synthetic turf fields as its capacity for love unleashing toxic chemicals into the ground and the potential impact on water quality. it will reduce the visual impact, and i believe the park will be impacted as a whole. >> i am a san francisco public school teacher, and i travel through this area every day. i would like to encourage more time for a valuation and comments because it is a huge document and just in the section that i have gone through, it is clear that a number of issues brought up in the scoping section have not been addressed

or sidestepped. like the information on lighting. the views provided from 48 to lincoln was at st. high. the houses have living areas on the second and fourth floors exclusively. the 50-foot lights will be blindingly visible. there is no consideration for fog except supported by specifics. mrs. hobby a majority of nights. it's substantially changes lie about and is not addressed. i think it is called golden gate height. it is that right? they have a clear and unobstructed view of the life of every right -- every night.

it was brought up in the scoping session about it was not addressed as well. there is the lack of definition of a shrub. they said there is no set definition home anywhere in any of the literature. shrubs are included in removal of a 40 feet tall or more. the damage was not really true fully considered and sand is an enormous issue. on the location of the tree- truck replacement, replacement of the park land was not specified. there will be issues that way. there were only two visits for bird surveys and one of those two days was done in february. there are tons of people that have more adequate and more thorough byrd surveys and i did not see any of that in there. if there is no additional -- i am sure there are other things

to be discussed, i am a public schoolteacher and i don't have very much time. if there isn't going to be more time for additional review to go through this, i would like this very in e completeir -- incomplete eir to be rejected and sent back to the drawing board. president olague: if your name was called, please start -- >> good evening. this is filipe rodriguez. we represent the 50 and older. we pretty much have 32 years since the open. we have been playing for that long. we're the ones, we always play up there. the beach chalet because they, they did to children first,