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 even 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