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 of issues involved. the final issue is exposure. the choice has been made to continue with the natural turf. the beaches closer to the ocean. it is down more of the time.

i'm not sure but i think their exposure is they do not have a lot of good southern or eastern exposure due to the trees and other things around there. it is more of a challenge to support the turf there. he would have to talk to some of the experts in park and rec or whoever is working on those to find out. it would be more of a challenge. commissioner moore: i have one question. on your instructions, you are asking written comments be submitted by december 12. it and does that mean people will not submit by e-mail? there was no e-mail address given and people do not know what to do. >> i have received plenty of

commentary mail. we were burned to respond to this. any mail will be in the comments. >> would you please state the e- mail address? >> bil.wycko@sfgov.org. also to don.lewis@sfgov.org. commissioner moore: thank you. commissioner sugaya: isn't it also true, staff, that -- in the past on certain reports, we have been told they have been responding to comments that came in after the comment period?

>> sarah jones. when a comment is submitted and is part of the record. for the purposes of addressing everything in the record, if the comet comes in after the comment time, we address it to the best of our ability. vice president miguel: just because of the question about e- mail, if that is policy, the e- mail address should be on the cover. in the future. president olague: i wanted to make sure. >> the address is bill.wy

cko@sfgov.org. president olague: i wanted to thank everyone for coming out. i think that given the multitude of issues that were raised we will have a lot of responding to do. what this race for me is the process question. this is something we could discuss during the comment period, the idea of providing more education to the public about the draft the our process, and what types of comments are expected regarding the different documents and who has jurisdiction over what. i think sometimes, it is impossible for the public to understand the process that goes on here.

i welcome the comments. comments and responses -- they are responded to and this -- there is park and rec and other bodies. there is plenty of time to weigh in on the project. this does not end after tonight. i want to thank the staff for all your worked in the public for coming out. i guess the public hearing on this is closed. you have until december 12 to give responses and the e-mail

address was given. thank you. >> thank you. at this point, you are now at your general public comment category. president olague: we're accepting general public comment on any items not on today's agenda. is there any general public comment? general public comment is closed. the meeting is adjourned.