of golden gate park was all sand, too. so we actually have created an environment and there's plenty of places for the scunks and the raccoons and the coyotes and birds and bats to go, except for those nine acres, there's a lot of other park that can be part of their habitat and i think they'll be able to adapt to other parts. i really don't see a problem with this particular e.i.r. there was one other issue brought up, i guess it was about the lights and there are other lights in golden gate park, at keyzar, at the concourse. and i don't think it's foreign to have lighting there and the technology has been improved greatly. you notice the lights at at&t park, which are much larger than these would be, but the light coming off of those is much less than in some of the orland parks, particularly candlestick or other places where the light suggest not as advanced as it is

today. you can focus the lights on a fairly discreet area and you'll still be able to see the night sky a few blocks away from it and see all the things you want to see and there's still lots of land there. two miles between lincoln and slot and another mile between slote and lands end so there's plenty of room to walk and see nature and see the night sky so i don't have a problem with certifying it or approving this. >> commissioner borden? commissioner borden: . >> yeah, i have a lot of similar sentiments as commissioner antonini. i thought it was interesting when staff was laying out at the beginning the issues around the principles and thoughts both in the golden gate park master plan, also looking at the recreation open space plan and general plan. every week we come here with projects and they're often conflicting and competing issues that we have to weigh in making our decisions.

there are aspects you can use to absolutely support either position in this particular case. i think when we look at the general plan, which is the larger -- the guiding document the planning commission lives by, is this really utopian ideal about how we'd like to see san francisco, we'd like to see it be a diverse place where all people can work and play and families and socio-economic diversity and a lot of things we talk about in that document and it's always the measure of how do you balance all of the competing interests and competing issues there. i think one of the things that was really interesting in this project is we often debate the issues around families staying in the city and why they do or don't stay in the city and obviously you can't ever attribute it to one specific thing. there is usually a list of things that makes a decision for people to chose to be somewhere and not be somewhere but at the

end of the day, the longer the list grows, the more difficult is becomes and the issues around soccer fields in san francisco have long been a problem for as long as i can remember, with many friends lamenting taking their kids all around the bay area. people having to acquire cars who didn't own cars, to access soccer fields in other parts of the bay area because of the lack of soccer fields in san francisco that were accessible and available for use. i also wanted to touch on the issue of accessibility because i think the interesting thing about the beach chalet fields is, because of the number of lines of transit, that they are accessible and that's one of the unique things you have about fields in this location. i myself used to live at 48th and lincoln so i know this area and it's interesting because for the longest time i didn't know the soccer field had been there because it's not super noticeable and i would be at the park chalet or in that area and it's only because people walked through with soccer uniforms on that i was aware of the fact the

fields were there. so when i look at the project, it is a renovation project. we've had testimony that it's been soccer fields or athletic fields for over 70 years. when you talk about the natural state, we all know that the natural state was sand dunes, though we're not really preserving a natural state. at best, a natural state would be the current condition which is soccer fields or athletic fields and that's not exactly a peaceful, serene environment because people are walking all over it all the time and playing games in it. i think the park can be a place for everyone. i think we've devised a park with space for people do lots of different things, for people to watch birds, for people to do tai chi, for people to visit museums. i think there can be a space and place for all of us to co-exist in the park. i don't think it has to be one way or another. this project is about seven acres which is less than 1% of the overall park which is over

1,000 acres and it is a renovation project of an existing facility within the park. if we were talking about taking a new space that had never been athletic fields and making it athletic fields, i think we'd have a different conversation but i think to the extent that we are talking about a renovation of an existing facility, and the challenge that we have, that we don't maintain our open space very well, and someone mentioned golf courses. if you've looked at lincoln park, that golf course is a mess. and a lot of our facilities suffer. there's a controversial ballot measure about clay tower. i think a lot of people feel there's a lot of needs within our recreation and park facilities that we need to deal with and we don't have enough funds or resources to deal with those things and that is a reality and i don't see that's changing in the near future. i, myself, played soccer. i wouldn't prefer to play on turf. i would prefer to play on grass fields. that's what i played on.

doesn't seem appealing to me to play on turf but as a former soccer player and as a stepmom to a soccer player where i spend my weekend at soccer tournaments, when you play soccer, you care about playing. a lot of people would prefer grass fields because it's a great, rich experience but at the same time, if the choice is to play or not to play, you would always choose a turf field because it provides an opportunity and as a person who has watched a lot of games, the games can go on as a consequence and there's passion and lessons in life kids learn through playing sports that can't be underscored enough, not to mention the fact that we're facing an obesity epidemic in this country and we have a lifestyle that's more and more centric around personal devices, taking us away from outdoor

recreational activities so anything we can do to encourage young people and adults in the city and provide facilities for them to recreate, helps us with healthy san francisco and other initiatives in our general plan and priorities we've discussed. in terms of the lights, you know, it gets dark at 5:00 p.m. for a good portion of the year in the wintertime and with the fog and we can debate whether or not the fog makes the lights worse or not, it stands to reason that you need lights to be able to play, to have any respectable amount of playing time. i think we've heard testimony about lots of different types of lighting systems that exist today, there are smarter lighting systems. there are things that can be done to make the lights less -- more environmentally responsible, not on for long periods of time. that's not what we have to decide here today and not the scope of what's ultimately decided by this commission. we've also heard testimony about changes in turf fields and the

types of materials being used. so when it comes to the question, the environmental issue, there are advances made every day. do i have concern about turf fields? absolutely do. the science is not clear and i think it's similar to cell phone antenna technology but unfortunately, the best we can, we have to deal with what we know, take our guess best judgment based on what we know and the other health needs like the obesity epidemic we are facing that is real and tangible that we know is more likely to kill us at this point than probably a turf field. so in looking at those issues, another couple of things that i noticed is that people were talking about the issue of the turf fields but also advocating swapping the turf fields and i think if turf fields are bad in golden gate park, they're bad everywhere else but if there's a toxic issue, we have to be

consistent on that. it doesn't make sense to advocate to move it elsewhere if that is the major problem we've identified. i think that there's a lot of support in the room even among people who said they are not supportive of the turf fields for soccer fields and i think that's great. i think that to the extent that moving forward we can all work together to create more diversity of recreation and open spaces for everyone to enjoy, the better we all can be. maybe we wouldn't have gotten to this point if we all worked together to make sure there was spaces for everyone to be in the park together if we all were pitching in to help take care of the park a little better. i recognize that the city, it's their responsibility, but i think we all have a responsibility to play, as well, there. so it's with that and knowing the shortcomings of turf versus grass that i actually feel like that this is a small thing we can do that can help a great

many families, a great many of people be able to recreate in the city. at the same time, maintaining the overall state of the golden gate park and for the most people will never even know that these field are there unless they visit for a soccer game. >> commissioner wu? vice president wu: thank you. i will try not to repeat comments as it is quite late in the night now. so by my reading of the e.i.r., there is no spillover of the light on to the beach so when standing on the beach, there's no perceptible light. as i understand, the light poles are slated to have caps on them that may make it so that -- i'm no bird expert, but from what i understand, birds fly toward a point of light and that the cap over the light alleviates that point. it's not to say that's not an

issue to be concerned about but i think that helps lessen that problem. i appreciate that the project has changed, that the lights have come off of the edge of the fields and that they've come to the middle and that they've been lowered and that there's -- i think there's two settings, 50 and 30, with candles is the measurement. with regards to the field or the astro turf, like commissioner borden said, it's sort of to be learned at a later date, but i recognize that there was substantial effort put into the task force by department departf environment and department of public health to study it and to really challenge the turf industry to use more recycled materials and recycle the materials after they are taken out of the ground.

of by my reading of it is rose, the recreation and open space element, and also the golden gate master plan. the golden gate master plan seems to call out beach chalet as a soccer field intended for recreation. and so i think a number of -- a few speakers stated that point, and that the r.o.s.e., as commissioners have stated, every document you can flip through and find the pieces of it that helped your argument, but i do think there is a real call for recreation and a real call for equal access for recreation for people throughout the city so i appreciate learning about the different leagues and appreciate that youth and adults from all zip codes are coming to play and i asked a number of questions of rec. park to see if there are

scholarships and if there is sort of a turn-no-kid-away policy at least for -- i think it's the police activities league, so i appreciate that this is a sport that you need a ball and a good field and you can have access. so, again, the call for the need for more hours of play, i think i'll leave it at that for now. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i'm in full support and full appreciation of the definitely identified need for a larger number of playing fields, including playing fields which have surfaces which are compatible or maintain to be compatible with the type of game children seem to prefer and which parents and guidance and coaching shows are safe in

preventing injuries. i do, though, agree with a large number of people who raised very valid comments in response to the e.i.r. and that is basically what is in front of us. i appreciate the commission's uniform support for rec. and park's need for playing fields, finding every strategy by which we not only maintain but increase the specific needs for recreational activities in the city. i do believe that the e.i.r. has serious deficiencies, while formulate and put to record but those people who spoke to it today and by those captured in the previous comments to the draft e.i.r. this is not the time to repeat them. we've been sitting here for almost 12 hours and i'm almost incapable of expressing them better than what has been said. that is the impact of lights, on golden gate park. that is the lack of

interpretation and respect for what the golden gate master plan has formulated as an update to re-examining the plan in a master plan as a guiding document just as we use the downtown plan to help us interpret the direction in which the city reinvents itself in its built form, the master plan for golden gate park has been devised to help us interpret and understand how to take this particular park into the future. i i do believe that the intensification of the beach chalet as proposed in this particular project, although modified to the way that it was presented today and i appreciate that, is still too intense, partially because the use of lighting from dusk until 10:00

at night, and i do believe that astroturf, for all the reasons that were described, for health and environmental reasons, is an inappropriate response to that natural setting. there are many studies. i am not sure that i can properly tied them to astroturf and the particular form that you have tied them to this facility, but the rubber particles that are found in the environment are more and more found in the food chain of wildlife. and that is of great concern, because that creates a breakdown and environmental impact, the effects of which have not been fully analyzed. this is both in water as well as a land. in land, plastic disintegration, and astroturf, given the

descriptions that have been given to this commission, there is a clear indication is not yet a material that is environmentally stable and its recycled form. having said that, to know that it can only be used about 10 years, that it has problems when the weather is hot, that it needs to be disinfected to be useful, that creates many complications for me. i do think that children can be easily influenced to stand in front of us and speak to the benefit of using it as a playing surface. however, there is no information given to them, nor do i expect them to understand some of the down sides ought when injuries occur or the long-term exposure to this material, the effects of which we do not know yet, from skin rashes to injuries to cuts and bruises that do not heal, whatever that all might be.

i do not want to belabor the point. i want to express my support for your mission regarding the difficulties of increasing and upgrading soccer and other sports facilities and the city. in this particular case, i cannot use the project as proposed and summarized in the eir. i cannot. >> my comments will be more general to the project. regarding soccer, the university of california berkeley, portions of stanford university, usf, cal state, sacramento state, humboldt state, those are the local northern california colleges, and number of universities, high schools. i think this is the trend. i think many of the kids, many of the better kids who were here, soccer players, are on to

end up playing in a turf field somewhere, a regional tournament or somewhere, and the better ones to go on to college will play on turf. i would rather give them the advantage now, laying their path street. when i was a kid, playing any kind of team sport, the most important thing was playing time. having these fields and being able to use four of them, to be able to use them at dusk without rainouts will reduce overall planning time. my comments to those about the native condition of the golden gate park, the casting ponds are concrete. at the museums are artificially man-made, the rose garden was created. at the conservatory flowers, the tennis courts, the band shell, the buffaloes are not native. i think it is a great place to recreate, but it is not a great place to preserve, yet a great place. so i am supportive of it. if this project sees the light

of day, i think a concession there near north beach called the surf and turf would be fantastic. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: a couple of other points. what i think during testimony moved me the most was the fact that a number of groups came up and said the choice for them was not between natural turf and artificial turf. that was between at any kind of turf and the pavement. they had to play on pavement because there are so few fields. i think this is important to keep in mind as we move forward. we also found that we have kids in san francisco, contrary to what has been pointed out. we have a lot of them, and they are very articulate and they're learning about public process. one other thing that came out, has been brought up in testimony, is whether or not you need to analyze the

alternatives. according to ceqa, we do not have to do that. there are four alternatives taken up in the eir, which is in regards to this project itself. but you do not have to analyze an entirely different project to conform with ceqa. so while that is an interesting concept, although i think the light will have more impact on a greater number of people in the middle of an area where it is completely housing than they will in an area where it is not too many residents of other than at the animals that live around there or the insects or others. there was also a comment about heat with astroturf. artificial turf has come a long way since the astroturf days. i don't think the heat at beach chalet will be a problem too often. although there are areas where

it is warmer, that is one of the sites. i can testify, i think the kids are right about playing on the artificial turf on some of the older fields of san francisco. i played softball on many fields before the was artificial turf, and we had a lot of problems with the fields in those days. it was hard to play softball, and i think soccer would be more difficult. i am going to move to certify the eir, if there are no other comments. >> second. >> commissioners, the action before the planning commission, the motion before the planning commission is to certify the final eir. on that motion -- [roll-call vote]

thank you commissioners, that motion passes for-one, with commissioner moore voting no against. [applause] commissioners, another action before the planning commission it is adoption of the ceqa findings. commissioner antonini: i move adoption of the findings under the california environmental quality act. commissioner borden: second. >> commissioners, the motion before you is adoption of the ceqa findings -- [roll-call vote] that motion passed 4-1, with commissioner moore voting against. thank you. item three is the general plan in conformity findings, propose the adoption, and that is for planning commission action only. commissioner antonini: move to

approve a general plan conformity findings. commissioner borden: second. >> the motion is for approval of the general plan conformity findings -- [roll-call vote] mahnke, commissioners, that motion passed 4-1, with commissioner moore voting against. commissioner antonini: i would like to move approval or the request, rather, for postal zone permit. >> for approval of the zoning permit? commissioner antonini: approval. commissioner borden: second. >> the motion before you is approval of the coastal zone permit -- [roll-call vote] thank you, commissioners, that motion passed 4-1, with commissioner mill were voting against. item five is for the rec and

park commission item only. before do is the approving the beach chalet athletic fields conceptual plan and making findings, including findings of consistency with the golden gate park master plan and findings under the california environmental quality act. this is an action for the rec and park commission only. >> thank you. commissioners? >> i have a variety of thoughts. at this late hour, i cannot attest to the order they will come out. in my years on the commission, have been part of several eir hearings and readings, and i'm sure my colleagues on the planning commission would know far better than i, but i would have to say never has there ever been not unanimity. never is their total agreement. i have never spurred anybody say

that as a final eir and we all agree. i think it is the nature of debate, the nature of dissent, the nature of discussion. tonight, it's obviously no exception. at the end of the day, this is the fundamentals of agreement and disagreement. for my purposes, it is just going to have to be something where i agree to disagree. with the many people who have testified this evening whom i have respect for and who i actually agree with the sentiment of the environment and concerns. at the same time, i fear that some of the issues that were raised relative to the eir were also availed it disregard for children activating that part of the park. i was a little dismayed. i felt like there was a fair amount of comment aimed at children and families that i was a little disheartened by. one gentleman said it is not

always about the kids. i have to say, you know, no kidding, try raising a family here. somebody said the reason families are leaving is because of the high cost of housing, not because of the lack of playing fields. i would just say to that that is a cumulative effect. it is a constant struggle trying to deal with the cost of housing, the transit, the schools, and the ball fields. it is not easy raising a family in the city. that does not -- that does not inform my decision, however, but it is something that concerns me. what informs my decision tonight is something that i take very seriously with all of my votes on this commission, and that is actually that we have to look for the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

and there are families, there are adults, there are grownups, people who are interested in outdoor activity will benefit greatly from this change. we're talking about over 1,100 acres of golden gate park, less than 1% for this field. there are already ball fields. the ancillary benefit is undeniable, and that is an activation of a part of the parke. i take my job, as i know my colleagues on the commission do, very seriously. one of our main charges is to bring more people to our facilities, more people to our parks, to activate people, to get our kids and grown-ups out there. i would not be taking this job as seriously if i did not consider that we need to be 4- thinking and progressive and innovative with our parks -- forward thinking and progressive

and innovative with our parks. when we had the golf course, there was a fair amount of resistance to that, and that has been a very successful in addition to the park, activating an area of the park that otherwise would not be activated. it is hard to say it is ahead of the curve when it comes to activities, because we are such an active city. this department is trying. there were many years when soccer was not popular. i'm sure it was popular with some communities, but was not a mainstream sport, and here we a are now catching up and it is a hard position. we tried renovating the beach chalet fields in 1998 and the fields did not take. if we wanted to keep the natural grass, the amount of resources are disproportionate to the amount that we could devote to other services and fields and parks and our department. it would not work. we're very lucky to have the field foundation give us this