the highest grade and the newest type of natural turf, can we expect that it will be maintained with the kind of usage that we need? it will be quite clear that is a decision park and rec will have to make. the other thing that was not addressed in here, we talked about the lighting. there is an amount of light. you have to be able to see. it does not have to be daylight quality. there is that alternative that was analyzed. what was not analyzed was shutting off the lights earlier. how about 9:00 p.m.? that would give you a lot of additional time. but at this time of the year. you may be aware, a lot of

schools, this is their soccer season. if it is in the winter months. to try to practice, it is hard to get it in after school. the lighting is important. the use a lot of energy and cause a lot of pushing -- they can go to fields that are available. there is an environmental benefit. you will have the down side to the internment of having lied. and the upside of people not traveling as far to practice. there is two sides to this of course. as far as the goler which has been brought a lot, there has been a big improvement. anybody who has gone by at&t park which has a high degree of lighting to play major-league

baseball, the goler is minimal. you see that there are lights on there, it does not flood the sky with light. this has been improved and i would expect the lights will be used here could probably be adapted. they did analyze, there was talk about the birds. there was an analysis in the report. most of you have read the report. if it is not seen as a source of light, it is not as attractive to the birds if it is seen as a lighted area below their flight path. by modifying these lights, a lot of the adverse effects that were mentioned can be modified. as far as though -- the alternative, there were groups and schools and people were willing to pay to have that renovated. unfortunately, it was not worked out with the city many years ago. to expect that would happen now

may not happen either. ultimately, there has to be the money brought forward to convert that debt may be the funding would be there to do it at west sunset. it might be transferable from here. and i did hear some talk about the cumulative traffic impact. it was brought up that we have three times of playing time than we do now. it is important that traffic study addresses what the amount of traffic would be. that is the maximum usage, three times available. it does not mean you have people constantly coming in cars at all hours of the day and night. if it is available. there were some comments about -the fog. in july and august it is.

we have foggy and clear nights. it is very clear and crisp. the tree issue did not come up too much. there was a discussion whether these were considered brushes or trees and what would be cleared out. the area between the windmill is an overgrown mess. the club and harding park have trimmed the other one's in a way that the turf is healthier. let sunshine in there not to mention the safety factor. i think the number of trees that are taken out but the way these trees are removed, is the critical issue here. that may need to be addressed more thoroughly.

the other lighting around the facility that is part of the project will add to security in the area. people might want to walk around at night. you would not want to do now. given the conditions and the thickness of the brush. the other thing that came up and i thought it was important. this is an area for all of san francisco. not just for the residents in western san francisco. when some of the people came who were soccer players and others and they said it will benefit us to. we have to remember because you live close and you may have more direct impact does not mean you are the only decision maker in what is done. also there was a question about non-sporting events.

this does not analyze non- sporting events. analysis is for sporting events. people brought up the waste treatment plant. i don't think it is right to analyze them together because that might not pan out. it should be considered. it is the possibility. we will have to make that decision independently. one project is not dependent upon the other. those are my main comments so far. it was a well done report from what i have read so far. your comments to make it a better report. i am sure that you will have more so we will have a good er when it is completed -- eir what

is completed. commissioner sugaya: i appreciate the comments. i am supportive of an extension. i will not ask the commissioners because i do not have the commissioners with me on this. the majority will not support an extension, i do not believe. that said, the cumulative effect does include the treatment plant site. and that has been mentioned before. granted it is a separate project. the our needs to take into consideration the potential for development. that has been voiced, i believe and should be analyzed in this document. i do not know much about soccer fields and where they are located in the city. i am not a big fan of organized sports. i will give you an example.

when i was a kid we played around at night, football, basketball. i'm kind of small but they let me play. it was not organized. we want to schoolyards and fool around until it got dark. do we care? no. you could hardly see the ball, that was kind of fun. you cannot do that with organized sports. you have to have all these lights and you have rules and stuff like that. anyway. that is my experience and that is how i think of playing on fields for an extended time when the sun goes down. alternative sites, i do not know. if this is a facility that is supposed to serve the entire city, maybe the eir needs to look at not just sites around golden gate park and the western part of the city but maclaren and other parts of the city as well. another thing i think and

commissioner antonini pointed it out. the potential for the use of the site for other activities other than athletic events. i do not know how the eir deals with that oregon has to do with that. their response to my comment i am sure will tell me whether that is a legitimate concern or not. as we now, any funds based in golden gate park seems to be ripe for events other than athletic events. you can be sure there will move in if it is available. what is the other one? outside land? i do not know if that is a legitimate part of the area are as analysis but i raise that as a question.

i might have of the things i submit in writing. that is it for now. vice president miguel: you look at the west end of the park and you hear terms such as pastoral and wildwood park land -- wild, wooded park land. it did not design soccer fields and i do not think mcclaren did either. at least to my knowledge. what happened roughly 80 years ago if my time line is right, there was a change from that pastoral, wild, what did concept and they put in soccer fields and they are there. that is one of the problems that we always have with historic

landscapes, basically. they either do or do not accommodate change. golden gate park has accommodated change in many ways. it has done so slowly and thoughtfully. there are soccer fields there. they are there for a particular reason. i do not believe it is static or should be. the only thing i will comment on, i have other comments written letter in reference to the coverage of the eir is the golden gate park master plan. there were many references to it publicly today. there are many references to it in the eir document in front of

us. i have dealt with the master plan since 1998 and before because i was on the citizens' committee that helped write it. and by the way, even the head of planning and environmental department was planning department resources for the plan. the document as a bureaucratic document as are all things that come out of the city, state law or federal government. it says one thing in one section and contradicts it 10 or 15 pages later on. and gives the third opinion someplace else. if you take a look at the master plan, it gives short shrift to the west end of golden gate park. master plan was over 200 pages long.

two pages cost to the west end plan. soccer fields are mentioned as part of three sentences in that section. the west and diagram notes additional soccer fields, refers you to the richmond sunset treatment plan diagram that said new soccer and multipurpose field. the accompanying text says, the recommended plan proposes expansion of the existing uses surrounding the site. one additional soccer, multiuse sports field, a picnic area, reforestation areas, and a parking lot are proposed. that is directly from the golden gate park master plan. perhaps the most telling sentence in that entire to page section is this. the goal of this area plan is to increase legitimate activities

and transform this part of the park. ok? i could go on from there but i think you get the gist of it. as to the request of extension, considering all the eir's that come before this commission, this is relatively simple. relatively short even at 360 pages. all the people i have been speaking to in the past year, two years to an extent and very much more intensively since august, are the same comments we have had all along. everything we heard this evening has been stated months ago. it is all covered in the eir. maybe not as fully as some people would like. the fact they have made their comments, the responses

documents will have to deal with it. and so i see no reason for extension whatsoever. for a change, traffic and transportation have become relatively minor matters, the speaker that gave the number of users the amount of traffic was interesting, but these are uses over a planned number of hours and days. not like a concert where everyone comes together as one. so you do not have the same type of traffic and transportation situations. as to commissioner sugaya's comment and the comment on the possible other non-athletic uses

that may come to this area if it is improved as proposed, i do think that should be covered in the responses document because outside land and bluegrass would glom onto this in a second if it was as proposed. i will have more comments in writing. commissioner moore: i believe there were numerous comments made by numerous experts tonight pointing out numerous deficiencies that would make me personally supportive of an extension partially because i believe within the three minutes these people had to present

their points, there was not enough room to fully bring forward the full extent of what was implied here. i do believe there were medical experts fowho believe there is medical experience. i believe the park is potentially resilience and accommodate change, i do not believe the proposal as it stands is very much in keeping with the spirit of the park and i compare that to another major transformation which occurred in san francisco in the last 20 years and that is the adaptation to the presidio from the military base into what is now public and one of the most amazing and beautiful designs

and appropriate uses of open space and recreation on the waterfront. in golden gate park in what is proposed and pushed very singularly in the er, we're doing something that is not at all in keeping with the basics. of what that part requires us to consider. that does not mean i do not support the physical and sports and recreational activities but i would rather like to see them transformed into ecologically forward-looking projects rather than to what i believe is a sideways or backwards looking project. darrius enough examples where indeed, the maintenance and even the relevance of turf as it used to be has been examined and studied and there are new ways of building natural turf that is

economically sensitive. that is the same kind of science and study which goes into golf courses. that new technology has not been described by example or by reference anywhere in this eir. i will write some additional comments on that. one of the things which is of concern that was touched on it as some of the people who were presenting is a disconnect with us as the city, having properly updated the recreation and parks element which is an integral part of the policy document referred to as a general plan. that is hanging out. one of the most important things in that particular element is for me, the further commercialization of our open space. not just a part but everywhere

else in the city. while i think it is a collective policy discussion, we would have to think about in order to make our city fiscally viable, to do wholesale commercialization without having reflected on that in the larger context of the city for me is an ill-timed and somewhat irresponsible way of doing it and i am cautious sitting in this place to call it irresponsible because that is and as -- that is an accusation. i would rather stick with ill- timed or hoping it could be done more thoughtfully. so strike that word irresponsible, please. the route i am saying that because as citizens and architects and commissioners, we need to be able to reference projects with comprehensive

plans and the comprehensive policy discussions. i do not believe that we have completed the policy discussion of where we want to go with our recreation and park open space as a city from here into the future. [bell] commissioner borden: there are a lot of important issues brought about the master plan. the lighting, more research on the turf issue and having that embedded. this is covered in the document but not to the degree people would like. i hope we can dig deeper. what is challenging in the area around turf is like the cell phone antenna problem we have.

the research is conflicting. you can find good data and we will not know the real impact for quite a long time. not for another 60 days or six months, we will never truly know. that is a realistic decision maker reality in where we are with a lot of things. we all lament the loss of grass. we have been trying to encourage people to do xeroscaping. we are saying, how can you reduce water usage. it is challenging when you have a city that is underfunded and does not have the resources to maintain the fields on it some.

i do not know if we ever will have the resources. we talk about the issues about privatization of the park, the issue is money. it is interesting to the presidio is an example. the presidio has a huge economic engine. that helps fund some of the nice things they can do and they are doing quite well economically because they have other assets they're able to leverage and we do not have other assets. we need to be responsible i am looking at alternatives. if we do look at the eir, the document is not saying that this is superior. i now there's a perception the document says the project is the

best thing since sliced bread. it says otherwise. even at the end of this process i do not know if we will ever have the information at the nuances of this project and the impact. the issues that were brought up today, looking at the light pollution and fog, they are important ones we need to look at. i am pleased people have taken the time to write letters. if there are other experts who have information, it strengthens the document. luckily for us, we don't have to vote on the project, we have to vote on the document.

every eir has the same challenge. we could never have enough information. that is where we lie between the reality and the need to move foward. -- forward. it would stymie progress everything had to be in sync. thank you for participating. we have seen that everyone is passionate about the park. it is our crown jewel of san francisco and everybody wants to make sure that we get to use the park in the ways we like to explore nature or recreate. this document is seeking to get some truth than to the

environmental issues but a leelanthe project will be decidt another time. commissioner fong: i want to follow-up on your thoughts about the conflicting reports about toxicity. we're not in a position to make that judgment. thank you for coming out. it is great to hear that so many san franciscans are involved and concerned. while this hearing is controversial in reminds me how lucky we are to be talking about ways -- waves and birds of prey and fog and trees. it is a good opportunity to remind ourselves how lucky we are to live here. i am supportive of moving forward. i think the eir is adequate. i do not think giving it more

time would answer more questions. it does bring up questions, i am not sure if deficiency is appropriate but it brings up questions which i am looking forward to seeing those in writing. i will try to keep it on the environmental side. a fast-growing sport is footsall. there is a lack of fields or the difficulty in scheduling fields. we do need more fields tha tcatn be more reliable. i am a fan of team sports. it gives you lessons in life on how to deal with teamwork and leadership. i would be happy to pick you on my team.

i am supportive of moving forward. all the questions that were brought up are legitimate. they are valid questions. while i have the microphone. i realize this is the right direction now and i feel this is a band-aid. rec and park needs more funding that is a big city budget item. we do have the money to take care of it. commissioner antonini: a couple of other things. presidio was brought up. they do have athletic fields with lights and if you have not been there because of the construction, it is in that area.

i am a big fan of natural turf and lawns. it makes me sad when i see beautiful homes and people have put bark or gravel or cement. you wonder why they do that. that said, it is -- turf management as tough. one of the things we have which we pass regulations a few years ago to limit the use of pesticides or herbicides and i'm not sure how much the use. there are good natural fertilizers out there. i am not sure how much they use those. i do not think the error rate their lawns that often which is a problem. it is labor-intensive. their fields would do better if they did that. i'm not saying they do not do it. these are the issues we struggle with one week make these decisions about natural turf and artificial turf. there are a lot