soccer field than anyone who has spoken here. i am very concerned about this project, i am opposed to it. i would respectfully request for you to send this draft environmental impact report back and tell my neighborhood is a survey appropriately. i haven't gotten one survey asking how i feel about the possible impact of this proposal. i walk around the park all the time, every day. it is my home and my backyard. send this back and have the second part of a permit to do a full survey for the people that actually live on forty eighth ave. in an equally similar side. i got a survey asking me how i felt about the at&t electronic box, and i sent it back saying i opposed it. i have heard nothing from recon part about how i feel about this

program. a lot of people are concerned about their children leaving san francisco. if this project goes through, it will give me a reason to flee san francisco. >> in the evening, hon. commissioners. i have a fourth-generation san franciscan and had the pleasure of growing up in the city, playing soccer on these fields have to be to show a a little boy, -- at the beach chalet as a little boy. the kids that gone on to represent the united states playing on those very fields. i would like to see that opportunity afforded to many more kids and the members of our community in san francisco.

i am a realist a lawyer, i am familiar with the california environmental quality act, and i have read the draft cover to cover. i believe it addresses the issues that the california health and safety code instructs us to study. it identifies potential impact, it looks at alternatives, it does the necessary risk analysis, and at the end of the day, who that is probably the calling of the commission this evening, is the draft adequate? have the essential issues required by law been considered? i would ask this commission to accept the draft, and not extend the time for comment, and move forward for consideration of the application and the project on to other departments.

>> evening, commissioners. i am a native san franciscan and i'm also on the committee. we are reviewing the draft document, and it occurs that i think at this point, the timing of this process with the the the timing of the revised his a little off. it suggests to me and others that it would be appropriate for this process to have a little extra time for public comment, both because of the possible interrelationships with roads. let me make a particular point. this is from me. i think that it establishes a

priority of paved fields over the natural character of golden gate park. i fully appreciate the need for fields. have three children, two of whom play soccer. i think it is a falsehood debate that has been set up between kids and nature were kids and the environment has one fellow said kids verses' birds. i understand, i ate a bird on thanksgiving. that is not what that debate is about. my life -- my wife likes to tell me when we go shopping, that saves $9. but the debate is not over 0-89, is between 59 and 89. the debate here is not between kids and nature or nothing and artificial turf, is between natural turf and artificial

turf. i think it is useful if that is more carefully addressed that i think it is, perhaps you guys have framed it the way you think that is, but that is the debate. the question is not know playing time for children obverses lots of playing time, but rather, what is the difference between the playing time on the well maintained fields which reckoned part does not do, i understand that. but it theoretically could do with sufficient funding, well maintained fields, grass fields, and artificial turf. there is a bigger issue, that is all about golden gate park. it is not about artificial turf. golden gate park, it is natural. it is not supposed to be artificial. if it does it in that field, it

will do it and the polo fields. and then you have to deal with the cumulative impact of that decision and that president on future fields. thank you. >> i am a resident of the sunset district, also born and raised in san francisco. forgive me if i get nervous speaking in public like this. just a few comments. i agree that it should be rejected, and good enough is not good enough. good enough is not the standard you want to hold this to. this is a long-term project. it will be there for a long time, and we have to address the

long-term impact of this. in my lifetime, i have seen space after space, lot after lot, parcel after parcel of open space is being slowly removed with countries -- concrete buildings. i know we live in an urban environment, but not enough credit is given to the impact of wildlife and the open space that we all think of. you call this a green city, but we are putting in plastic, but i don't believe it is well study. i am concerned about the toxic impact, so i asked you to reject that, at least give us more time to have comments. i totally agree with all the people that said that the residents don't know about this. i happen to know because i happen to know, but so many people did not have a clue that this is going to be done, and i

totally agree that not only the people of the ocean beach area, i live on 26 avenue and i can see the window from my back views -- and the view from my back windows. the neighbors don't have a clue about this. that is a real serious problem. i am sure i have other things i want to mention,. the loss of biodiversity is really a factor, call the loss of trees is going to impact all of us. it is in golden gate park, that as a problem, too. this is a natural, open area. i strongly agree with whoever said that earlier, so that is something to be thoughtful of.

>> the evening, commissioners. -- good evening, commissioners. we request a 90-day extension on the comments. as you are aware, pollution is all about process and procedure. because as you have heard many times, the 360-page document doesn't comply with the golden gate master plan. the members of the committee at the general body would like a 60-90 day extension of the comment time. this is running at the same time

as the wreck and open space element of the san francisco general plan. there are some legal decisions that need to be made in a state wide. it is intended to be an informational tool the helps the city leaders make critical decisions. we need to have certain things in place, for instance, the legal ruling and as he mentioned. thank you very much. >> my name is gregory millar. the adequacy of the file depends on the facts being accurate and complete, but it also depends on its interpretation of those facts and whether there is a

significant impact. in looking at the report, i find there are a number of cases where the thinking, the reasoning on taking the existing fact is curious, arbitrary, and in my mind, controversial. first of all, it concludes that there are no significant adverse impacts on the facts of the lights. yes, the fields will be bright at night when viewed from the heights, but it is only a very small area of the visual field so it won't bother anybody. that reasoning is questionable because the lights are incredibly intense spotlights. they can be viewed for miles. your vision is distracted to that.

the rule the they are using doesn't take that into account, the same thing with the lighting. they say that it introduces vertical elements, but it doesn't distract from the perception of the natural area. when you go to paris and you look at the skyline and you notice a very thin thing sticking out from the skyline. it is called, it attracts your attention. there is no sense of reasoning that takes that into account. you can't apply a silly rule like how many percentage of the visual field is covered by something from this project. it is the nature of it, the scale, the context of that matters. it concludes that there are no cumulative impacts with historical resources by this project even though they want to build a water treatment plant

adjacent to it between it and the murphy when the bell. the reasoning is based on the fact that you can only see these sites individually and they are blocked by trees. if i look at the window, i can't see the water treatment because of the head of bush's over here. the problem here as has been explained, her the park is designed as an integral whole that worked together. these need to be considered very carefully. hanky very much. >> a good evening, and thank you for being so intent of all this time. i am a san francisco resident on the west side. before i make my comments, i

want to submit to the public record for public access that will pertain to the written document. one is thinking grain and the other is giving every child a chance to play ball. i request a third report be submitted, and that is the ocean beach master plan. these are my comments and i will speak very fast. the biggest and most significant problem in this is that the people count. people have enormous impact on environment sustainability and preservation. the people report is incomplete and lack of data. therefore, the whole report is not thorough or comprehensive. i did an initial preliminary study this november. three parameters were used. the schedule of information 365 days a year, it o'clock a.m. or

9:00 a.m. to have been 65 days. i used 355 days in the study. there were commonly accepted soccer league standards and a vehicle counts because its states that there will be little use of public transit had a bye. i am telling you this because i think he will be as surprised as i was at the results. back at 355 days, annual soccer people out, 1,350,334 soccer people at the beach shall lay project. -- chalet project. there'll be 337569 there will bt

meet parking to accommodate the overlap of playtime can lead standard warm-up time. the vehicle impact on saturdays and sundays, the heavy impact for nearby areas. neighborhoods, beaches, the zoo, they also have the impact day for the western areas apart. three additional findings, no soccer playing time for kids under eight and a minimal time for kids under 10 during the school year. this whole area needs to have extensive research, and i am making suggestions about how the research needs to be completed. this should be withdrawn and the information should be included.

>> i am probably the only person in the room that feel sorry for the recreation and parks department. they are expected to provide a natural setting for all of us to enjoy a scenery, and on the other, they're obligated to provide the greatest diversity of recreational activities for the most people had the lowest costs. i think that most people agree that soccer is an appropriate use for this particular parcel. i would like to see -- people say grasses' dangerous, other people say that it is toxic and should not be installed. you could resolve these issues by extending the comment time, do that. somehow, i don't think that is going to happen. in the absence of a surer solution in the absence of designing -- in deciding which

best, i would like to have the lowest cost alternative home, it provides the lowest cost per participant hour. i don't know what that is. you people have done environmental impact report before. if you think this is bad, you should reject it. if this is pretty reasonable compared to what you usually see, it is time for the process to get moving. basically, despite the fact that i have been sitting here for hours, no matter what you decide, the world isn't going to end tomorrow. >> you are good listeners and i think everybody really appreciate it. i am a longtime advocate for golden gate park and i have participated in the master plan process.

the west end of the golden gate park is designed to be the most wild and forested part of golden gate park. three objectives of the master plan were to continue for a station throughout the park, employment and a shrub restoration program, and improve wildlife habitat values around the park. yet to designated areas with high wildlife values and special management areas. i spend much time in the park and i am an advocate for wildlife. i came to speak on their behalf as they were obviously not consulted or considered in this process. the park is rich with wildlife. possums,, raccoons, coyotes, on and on. they have a tough time in the city in the west end of golden gate park is their habitat. they added to the richness of

humanity and certainly to the planet. this project is the opposite of the master plan goal of improving wildlife habitat that would be totally destructive to the well-being in it would very negatively have an impact on the well-being of golden gate park. i think this draft is unacceptable. >> i too want to compliment you for your tolerance and your patience. i would like to ask the user please extend the comments. i know you have heard that, but i think you have heard enough tonight to least raise some questions in your mind about the complexity of the situation, and from the cursory review that has been presented to you.

i appreciate the fact that this document is a tool. when you're doing in the planning commission is providing to everyone in the city, the right tool to make the right decisions. this is a very wonderful gift and you will give to us. your time and your consideration. i want to call to your attention your own agenda, item 15. it says of 5:00 we're going to talk about the project site. oh, how does not true. this is not an urban park, it is golden gate park. if this is what the problem is, that somebody has misunderstood golden gate park, that it is

something ordinary, we have a much larger issue. i want to put that out there. i also want to support the comments earlier this evening i thought he had an excellent point. he needs time to be able to digest this. this is a very important document, and we have a gentleman here that like to have a survey presented to him. i think this has to resonate with you, the time for comment will benefit us all. maybe it will add a little bit of time to this process, but we will end up with something good in golden gate park. it will be soccer fields, and it will be the best that we can possibly come up with when his body, and each of you help us come to that right decision. the right decision is resolving

some of these extremely important issues. unfortunately, it has not done its job, so let's get to work. give us some time so that all the people, who i group can speak and everybody else, and get a chance to weigh and because we understand it. thank you. >> in the evening, commissioners. for two years, our volunteers have reached out to people all over san francisco. when we tell of the soccer complex, they say they want to do what the golden gate park? we have had no trouble getting signatures on petitions. we worked very hard to get this and we waited a long time for it.

meanwhile, the soccer players have become more and more frustrated because they have chosen not to maintain the fields. so we have it, we want to use it to solve this situation. the draft is deeply flawed, but it contains the seeds of hope. the hope lies in a compromise alternative that we have proposed, renovate the west sunset playing fields and turned the beach shall lay -- chalet to a grass field with no lights. we turn to you to help force this compromise. extend the public comments so we can get through this very complex report and asked more well-informed questions. we want the best final eir possible. considering the alternative, research is carefully. any idea can be demolished if

you work on a hard enough. but trying to find a way to make it work. lastly, we will ask everyone to sit back, close your eyes, and visualize golden gate park. what you see? a series of paths that wind through groves of trees, meadows a crosspiece lakes? people want family picnics playing informal games, strolling through forests have taken years to grow. perhaps a child gazing in wonder at a hot as it soars. and at night, after the people have gone home, nature throws her cloak of darkness over the park land. the birds nest on their purchase, the night creatures come out, and a deep sense of tranquillity settles on to the park. what a marvelous treasure we have right here in our city. this is what we want to protect. please help us to save golden gate park.

thank you. president olague: is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, her public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: i think most of you that remain in this room are familiar with the process, but i think there was some confusion earlier. as most of you know, we are making a decision tonight. your comments tonight, our comments, the comments received since october 26 and will be received until december 12, combined with a the d.e.i.r will create the eir that will come back to us in early summer. any kind of extension, compared to others that we have had, particularly candlestick point, hunters point, five full volumes and the cal pacific medical

center that were much more extensive and widespread and had a lot more issues than this fairly focus eir is -- i don't feel that it is necessary, as you heard at the beginning of this comment period. the comment period under ceqa is 45 to 60 days. i count this as 49 days if i did the math right, and given the fact that they have been collecting signatures and have been aware of this further two years, -- for two yarsears, they feel like it should be modified. i don't know that anything new is going to come from extending it further. all those comments have to be answered and that is why you have another five months first half to get the final eir to us. again, the decision is not made by us and it will be made ultimately -- other than the

eir, it will be made by park and rec as most of you know. that being said, are there alternatives? ther are are. they summarized them well based on the project itself. i know there are others regarding west sunset that could be used in lieu o fthis. -- of this. that is not a project we are analyzing. we are looking at these specific fields. shoudld they be natural or artificial, should they be lit or not? the stands, the paved areas, increasing the size that was part of the project analyzed, we will end up with a larger feel that what we previously -- field

than what we previously had. the alternatives were good, with particular attention to alternative no. 2, those of you that spoke about the possibility of natural turf with whitelight. i did a study on the new were natural turf on areas near football stadiums where they use them to park and for recreation , too. there have been a lot of advances on the natural turf, so this is something that i think you can certainly ask, have those been analyzed? again, they will take maintenance. this is the problem that has been pointed out. we are maintaining a lot of other natural grass fields. is it realistic to expect