gos>> when i first heard about the proposal to tear up the metal and replace it with a soccer field, i did not know what to think. what would maclaren do? i did some research and found out. there is a great book here, san francisco's golden gate park. it turns out that when john mclaren was in a situation where powerful interests wanted to go to the western half of the park and put in modern facilities for

the good of the community, he said no. he fought them, and he won. that is why the 1915 pan pacific international exposition was built out of the marina and not at golden gate park. there are other examples, too, from the smoke. there are other examp-- from th. he wants to block this, but he doesn't have an environmental impact report. he tried to figure out how to block this, and by then, the city engineer and people were saying, trains are good for the park, people need them and there aren't that many trees and plants along the route any way. he storms and the city hall and says, her of this project proceeds, plants and shrubs will

have to be built up along the route because he is a scottish. the advisers had to go out and see who is right. they get out and they see a field of the floral beauty. ok, you win. the rail line is cancelled. the supervisors leave, he turns to his 300 workers had a says, you can go home, lads. they had worked on like to plant those roses and chrysanthemums and just to block the rail lines. what would a mclaren do today about a proposal for natural grass replaced with astroturf? concrete and electric lights? he would block it. that is what he would do.

gotten good evening, commissioners. haven't been here since you got promoted. i am a native san franciscan, naturally i am against this project. i am john wooden, i live in north beach. it is a professional soccer stadium masquerading as a gift to the children. all the projects i am against are either masquerading as being something for children or a way to create jobs. when the city let them go to an mx suit -- a new mexico firm, a pretty much gave up. but i owe it to my mother who was a native san franciscan to be here to try to persuade you,

even though you're not in a position to turn the project down, i think you could send a message if he sent it back for corrections or perhaps a few extended the public comment period. there is a reason san francisco was voted to be the second best city in the united states, it was in the paper yesterday. hot windy city let them go, what has to wonder -- and one has to wonder. i know st. francis academy will never come back the way things are going. one of the defects is that when of the trees, many of the trees are called a brush or bush's,

that way they won't have to be examined one by one. it is important that the when the brakes are built into golden gate park because you have a big ocean out there that is blowing a lot of wind can. there are even more trees connected to the water project also. i think it is a misstatement about most of the trees being brush. again, you could send a message even if you can't stop the project, and i hope you will. >> i am the president of the california soccer association, over 3000 adult members playing soccer in san francisco. our membership unanimously supports the adoption is this kind of ironic that the very

people who demanded an eir are now opposed and against everything that is in the report. the entire and electrician to fix your plumbing. i believe the city and county went to the best people they could to render this report. i believe the report should be accepted as written. it is just going to be another year or two because they are going to find more and more things to complain about and to ask for extensions, and every time they get a report did of like, will ask for another one. i am one of those kids in the picture in the 50's. the beach was not much better than that it is now. i would urge all of you to take a trip out to the field and find out why they are closed.

it is closed because it is dangerous. kids get their legs broken, adults who play at a greater pace with a lot more weight will enter themselves worse because of the holes and the ruts. san francisco city and county does not have the money to maintain the field in pristine shape so that nobody can get hurt. the rhetoric about whether it is good about falls by the wayside because we just don't have the money to keep them maintained in the way they should be. ha ha turf fields do not suffer the problem. i travel all over the united states, everywhere in this country, cities, counties, school districts, colleges, they are turning their fields over to synthetic surface. because it has been proven to them that it works. it saves money in the problems down the line.

the estimate of eight to 10 years for a replacement for a field is not true. haven't gotten to the limit yet of how long these fields will last. portland, oregon has one of the most synthetic surface fields put in. the university of their plays their, and that is over 15 years old. i can guarantee you is not in as bad a shape and it is not ready to be replaced. >> i am a resident of the marina and a part of an endangered species. in-native san franciscan. my wife is native end of my kids are natives. we have decided to stay here. we all about the exodus of families and there are two things that are sort of the main drivers behind this.

what is the schools that you don't have much control over. the other is the lack of recreational facilities. we pay higher taxes to be here and we would like something for our kids. if you don't have something for the kids, you start losing the families. personally, i think this is a wonderful project. i have given a lot of time back to the community. we have 2000 players a year, we can take a lot more. we had zero girls softball, will handle youth baseball, and the challenger division for cognitive and physical disabled kids. we are all volunteers. i can tell you we have some very passionate families that were shut out this year because they don't have a place to play. we play on treasure island and

we pay for time in the presidio. both my boys play a lot of soccer. i will leave you with this. i was out atocker amazon for separate tournaments. i was proud to be out there for the tournament. i saw people all over the place in an area that hasn't been improved much. every ethnicity, every demographic, it was a blast and i was proud of it. my youngest son who is 11 had an international tournament of the french american school. teams came from kenya, canada, europe. i was proud. i think it is great. this would be a wonderful project for the city and i urge you to move it forward. and >> thank you for hanging in here so late tonight. i am the president of the san

francisco lacrosse club, the red tide. we are ages 7 through high- school, boys and girls. i am also a resident of san francisco, 20 years in the city itself. i am going to urge you tonight to please except -- accep tthe -- accept the eir. there is no need for an extension on a report that is comprehensive and thorough. the only reason is not more than 300 kids right now is because we don't have the space to accommodate them. girls' lacrosse is one of the fastest-growing sports and i had to cap the number of girls to take. we would like to let every kid wants to play tussaud, and we have never turned away a kid for lack of financial resources.

i would love to have another season when none of the games were canceled because it rained at some point during the week. and one additional field would go along way towards making that happen. i urge you to allow this project go forward. >> my name is jonathan goldberg and i am here representing san francisco beautiful. we are a 64-year-old organization devoted to creating enhancing the beauty and livability in san francisco. we have been involved in many parts issues and working on the restoration of the windmill, pursuing a preservation alternative to the overall landscape restoration in the park. the findings here are

inconsistent with the master plan of the park. many have pointed out that the western 2/3 are to be preserved. but we are concerned that it failed to address the installation of synthetic turf and high intensity stadium lights. it will further disrupt the character for many hours of the night and day. we think height apprentice and should be study, focusing on natural improvements. the playing field, it should be enhanced, not replaced.

please extend the comment period. >> i appreciate you staying late for this. it recognizes the potential effects of the renovation project. later on, but says with respect to the grass turf, is as installation of a grass field turf's would eliminate the potential for less than significant waterfall impact due to the installation of the synthetic turf. like contaminants in the runoff of the synthetic fields.

it is not much of an impact, but its says the no project alternative would be an environmentally superior alternative. it is contradicting itself. this is significant, there was an article in the september 4 chronicle titled tattoo health risk. research raises concerns, and one of the excerpt says that tattoo tanks that are usually made of silicon contain products

of combustion. it includes chemicals that are identified in the toxicity report as among the most potent and well-documented skin carcinogens. it says that is so potent, it is routinely used in animal tests and to grow tumors. it is also linked to skin cancer in the shale oil workers. it turns out that the rubber contains this chemical. this was a document in the november 2008 paper called hazardous chemicals and synthetic materials -- it says the chemical was found to be above the safe limits, to the

point where if it was in the ground, it would have to be taken out. our findings are that it appears at or above sea level is fairly consistent. a historically significant exposure -- [chime] president olague: thank you, sir. you can submit your comments in writing. >> thank you, commissioners, for listening to everybody. i was brave over there, but now i'm all -- i am jessica, a landscape architect just a few blocks from the project. i enjoyed the night light at ocean beach pretty much every night. i feel personally impacted.

and the reason why i would urge you to reject this is the inadequate address of the biological and health concerns addressed earlier and urge you to encourage the department to look at alternatives has brilliantly proposed by rupert earlier. it is not children versus the environment, and we are not pro- ago first period i grew up playing soccer on adequately maintain the soccer fields and i have also been to the hospital because i stepped in gopher holes not on soccer fields. this project could be very viable and make everyone happy by combining uses. i believe this last week, the environment group is including in this assessment is a statement of biological diversity and sustainability as part of our, i don't know, goals

in the city. and also recreation opportunities as an excellent example of how we can bring all these things together. as proposed earlier by combining alternatives and using a better strategy, we can accomplish all of these things. we might not be able to play a million hours all your lounge -- all year round, but we won't risk to the possible health risks. these projects sometimes have to be dug up years later after lawsuits find out that this stuff really is bad. it is a big risk we are taking and we have the opportunity to overlap uses had a fabulous way and i think we can accomplish that by rejecting this.

>> i don't represent any one, my husband and i have lived in the city for 17 years. our kids go to school here, and i came here straight from work and i have sat here and missed my family dinner because i feel that this project is important. over two years ago when the project was proposed, my family was ecstatic. ecstatically wouldn't have to drive the 30 minister crocker when we were lucky enough to have the team gets space there. how we had to explain our kids that it had come to a halt for a very important reason. this eir had to be done, and it was important to everyone. the impact had to be studied carefully so the city could make a decision taking into account every one's views.

but that has been done now, and as the commission has done before, this is a very thorough report. what you have heard tonight are some very passionate and genuine had legitimate concerns about this project. it is really a policy decision. there will be impact. you'll see the lights, and those have to be weighed against the benefits. but that is not a decision for this commission to make. henie's to be made by a park in iraq and ultimately the board of supervisors. the report you have before you is enough for them, together with comments from the community to make that decision. is is a thorough? is it there? the delay is simply going to delay that decision, one way or the other. putting more time for comments isn't going to change anything. the comments, the vast majority

can be made again and properly considered. but i think it is important that a delay -- and we should not delay any further for no reason. it is time to move on and allow the report, such as it is, to go forward. i do want to address the question of alternatives. it is important that those speakers who have had experience with their kids playing on the grass fields is not a legitimate alternative. it may be the decision to make, it is too bad and we will live with it, but it is not a legitimate alternative. my daughter's high school in the spring and rents fields out of the city and of us to take them out of the city just to practice because there are not field here. that is a decision that needs to be made not by this decision, but down the line. it has taken two years, and all the people in this city -- and

this argument to have heard tonight, they deserved it to be made and decided one way or the other at the next stage. >> i am a native san franciscan, a homeowner from the richmond district. when i came here tonight, i did not know very much about this. everything i have heard about it tonight tells me that it has enough holes to drive a truck through it. i am not an engineer, but i am not an idiot. if you tell me that the lights won't have an impact, that is ridiculous. i think one of these speakers had this nail on the head when she said that this is not an eir, it's s now jo -- a snow

job. it is written to justify conclusions that have already been reached. we should send it to the supervisors because that is where the decision will be made, but it seems like this is very inadequate. the one, that will make that has nothing to do with, i am concerned about kids having enough recreational space. remember, this is a san francisco. you can't have more of something without less of something else. we want more housing, more parking, more room for kids, more of everything. but come on, it is a limited land mass. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, and thank you for being here. i am glad i don't have your job.

my name is richard ivanhoe, i live in the eastern end of golden gate apart. i have seen very young children play soccer in formally near the children's playground, putting up a couple of that's had a plan, but that is not about the eir. i will ask that you extend the comments and i will try to submit written comments. more time would be helpful, a couple of things. the recreation and open space element is currently under revision, and when is completed, it may or may not have an impact. there was a chart about the

current uses of the fields. i would like to see more detail on that. who actually uses the fields, where do they come from, what ages are they? and the same for the proposed new users. in the chart, it showed that there was little or no use between 9:00 a.m. at 3:00 p.m., and that makes sense for school days, but i don't understand why not on the weekends or during the summer? as to the executive summary, eyebrows and the rest of it. the executive summary mentions whether things need objectives. the objectives are somewhere

else and i am not clear whose objectives they are. i am also not sure if the turf field replacement will come from recon part of's capital budget or maintenance budget, and they do seem to have a problem with their maintenance budget. and i think i am a better writer than speaker, so i will submit written comments. thank you. >> i don't think i have much more data. i would like to have my perspective as a soccer player. i enjoy playing soccer on sundays at a plan of natural field that is poorly maintained hurts, and sometimes we play on the artificial fields. it is much more comfortable to

play, and we all know that these fields have much more playing time. i recommended the you except for the report and move forward with of the project. >> thank you, commissioners. why am speaking for the sierra club. we have submitted a letter asking for an extension of the comment deadline. we are still looking into several issues. we're looking into issues of hydrology which doesn't seem to be -- we are still looking into it. we're looking into the issue of what the impact of 10 acres of essentially paving this area in

the middle of this open habitat area, connecting with the national park land, and i am also looking into the relevant attorney general's settlement with other artificial turf companies. at the time, the attorney general sued these companies and came to a settlement agreement. we are still looking into that as well. we are asking for a short extension of 60-90 days. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. as you probably already know, we are opposed to this project. but i've been here since 5:00 because i live there.