>> yes given the state of the information today because the final eir at xo 17 states the playground would attain the project's basic objectives. avoid the impact, and be feasible. those are the three ingredients for an alternative that must be implemented. supervisor wiener: what if the shelle were to achieve those goals from the community's view or rec and park's view in a more appropriate way? i still saying that ceqa would compel going with the other feasible alternative? >> no. the information compels adoption of west sunset. >> there could be disputes about the fact but i wanted to clarify. ceqa does not somehow say that you do not get to choose. if there is something that is less impact will and feasible, ceqa somehow swoops in and forces you to do something that is not appropriate for the

community. if we make that assumption which i know you dispute. >> ceqa is a disclosure law. as long as the impacts are disclosed, the city can issue a statement of overriding considerations but not if one of the alternatives is environmentally superior or feasible and uses project objectives which is what the final uighur concludes about west sunset. supervisor wiener: i appreciate the clarification. it is the appellants position it would be appropriate to place artificial turf at west sunset? >> yes. supervisor wiener: that would be replacing green grass space, natural space with artificial turf? >> not really. i do not know if we have a picture we can show. i've played on the field, i have played on most of the fields in the city with my little league teams. it is heavily developed. it is baseball diamonds,

softball diamonds, soccer fields already. it is not a naturalistic setting unlike beat l.a. which is nestled in this woodland area. supervisor wiener: beach l.a. has been a soccer field for 75 years? >> it has been. i assume you have been out there as have my. it is within a heavily wooded area. you feel like you were out in nature. 500 feet from the ocean. it is one of the few dark sky areas that astronomers use. >supervisor wiener: i think this is a different issue. beach l.a. is being used as a soccer field. it is not like we're talking about turning an open meadow where people picnic or hike into turf. >> that is correct. they're talking about cutting down 60 trees and replacing only 12 which we also think is a violation of the general plan. there is going to be some expansion of the field area and

removal of trees. it is a soccer field. it has been a soccer field. we want to keep a soccer field. we want it restored, we want the grass improved, we want new sod and gopher mesh. it is like chicken wire. you as most of these kids, they do not love * to -- astroturf. they hate gophers. it keeps the gophers from popping up and you drain it. they did it at polo fields. >supervisor wiener: it is surrounded by a fence right now. >> that is correct. president chiu: supervisor campos. supervisor campos: i wonder if

you could expand about the hybrid alternative that you discussed. if you could explain what you mean by that and was level of consideration, if any, was given to that by the rec and park department? >> thank you. the hybrid alternative is something that we have been advocating for almost two years now. isam the reason that many of you are not familiar with it is because the are refuses to analyze it at all. that renders the document legally inadequate. the hybrid alternative would put artificial turf, hopefully safe artificial turf at west sunset and lighting. that is a very heavily developed field with stadium seating, with some level of lighting. it is used heavily. west sunset -- is bigger. 9.5 acres. beach l.a. is 7 acres. you get six soccer pitches at west sunset, three full-size and

three u10. at beach l.a., where there is a four soccer fields, we would propose restoring that with natural grass, good drainage, and gopher proving. keeping the area natural. that would allow you to take down the chain link fence and use -- be used much more frequently. rec and park hazlet beach l.a. go to pot and is a shame. i can understand why the players including my kids are frustrated with the state of beach l.a.. it does need to be restored. what the eir fails to do is consider doing both. park and rec is already proposing to restore west sunset fields with natural grass and beach l.a. with artificial turf. all the hybrid alternative does is flipped them, swap them so you put the artificial turf and

lights that west sunset, the natural grass at beach l.a. and you get 900 hours more play hours with the hybrid alternative than park and rec's. it seems like a no-brainer and i do not understand why the city has gone to this length to take up this much energy and resources to force an alternative that gets you less played hours and at the same time, the city acknowledges that their proposed alternative have significant unavoidable, irreparable impact on the historic resources of golden gate park. i want to emphasize what a treasure that part is, not just for the city but the world. people come from all over the world to visit the golden gate park because it is this beautiful, natural area. it is dark knight and that is a big deal. people go out there and build bonfires on the beach, they look at stars, it has become an amateur astronomer -- one of the few places where they can see

the stars. that value, the naturalistic value would be protective with the -- protected with the hybrid alternative while providing more plea hours. supervisor chu: just a quick question with regard to the alternative you are talking about. you keep referring to the fact of if you renovated west sunset you would see six fields and you talk about the hours and increased play time as it relates to adding six additional soccer fields. if i am understanding it correctly, that proposal would imagine you removing the to a baseball bat -- the two baseball diamonds. is that correct? >> no. they would be multi-use. they have soccer fields that can be used for both baseball, softball, or soccer. so you basically -- on astroturf is all pictures. you draw a picture of a soccer diamond and a picture of a

baseball diamond and whenever you play you play on top of it. it is like the raiders and the oakland a's play on the same field. it looks funny but it works. the field could be multi-purpose where it could be used for baseball, softball, or soccer. we're not talking about removing the baseball diamonds. as a little league coach, i could not advocate that. supervisor chu: the existing location has dedicated baseball fields and other fields to be soccer. you're saying create one big field, use it however you like. >> make it a multi-use field. similar to sunset. supervisor chu: you had talked about all the different alternatives. it failed to consider the alternatives. under the eir they did analyze a number of different options which included potentially having it done at sunset, having no renovation and all at golden gate park, having renovation at

golden gate park with grass and the lighting, having renovation with grass with lighting and so there are a number of different combinations. i would imagine we could evaluate them. the eir does identify them. it may be so that they do not say this and that or a combination a and b and alternatives see and be and at this together but the eir did leave out a number of different options. >> true, supervisor. it was presented as an either/or option. either have the project at west sunset or beach l.a.. there is no analysis of doing them both. restoring the jelly with natural grass and putting artificial turf and lighting at west sunset. if you look at it like it, mail, we're saying a and b. do them both. you can have th ebes -- the best of both worlds and avoid the

significant impact of having star wars at the end of golden gate park. supervisor chu: you said it was simple and easy. but the lighting and artificial turf at west sunset and leave golden gate park as it is. you are saying it is less impact full. is it less impact will to have the lighting at the residential area? right across the street from homes? >> it would be because there is lighting at west sunset. it is developed out as a play field. it is not in the coastal zone. the coastal commission is going to protect this the sound the way they did in malibu. i do not think the coastal commission will approve. supervisor chu: you had listed a number of different reasons why you thought the environmental document was inadequate and is thought the health impacts were not adequately discussed,

reviewed, etc. and there were according to your opinion unsafe levels for the material that is being used. i am wondering how is it that you can say or make that comment but also suggest that it be put into west sunset? >> we're not suggesting the sbr astroturf be put into west sunset. we're suggesting safe astroturf be put in. there are several alternative for relations. some are completely non-toxic like the court to base their using in san carlos and piedmont- -- the cork in san carlos and piedmont or the carpet pad in new york. the eir failed to consider alternatives. the city of piedmont's eir concluded that sbr astroturf creates a significant and

unavoidable health risk so they analyze the alternatives. piedmont is installing cork, cork is a great underlayment, and has been installed in hundreds of fields around the world. los angeles and new york have abandoned sbr chrome rubber and are using other alternatives. there is no set -- no reason san francisco should fall behind these other cities. how many of you buy organic produce? the cancer risk you get from eating produce that is not organic is less than one in 1 million. we pay twice as much for the organic stuff because we do not want our kids to eat the pesticides. we think that is worthwhile. this risk is about somewhere between 8 and 19 times higher than that.

whether that is significant or not i do not know. it seems like we ought to try to avoid it. the principle of the city has adopted, if you have a known toxic chemical and it creates a risk, just avoid it if you can. if there is something safe, use the save stuff. supervisor chu: it does not sound to me like the department is proposing to use any materials that would not be safe, but it sounds like to me your alternative would be to put the same material that you would not be met -- advocating in golden gate park as sunset -- at sunset. >> no. we are proposing one of the safe materials. whether that is cork or sand or carpet pad. there are four others that are not toxic. supervisor olague: you mentioned the 15,000 watts of additional

light would have severe impact and the eir does not adequately address that issue. kennedy more specific on how you felt -- can you be more specific on how you felt the eir was not adequate enough in that respect? >> this project would put 60 foot tall white standards, 10 of them with 150,000 watts of lighting. that is 60 feet, is six stories high so it would dwarf the mid -- windmills and trees. the irs concludes the lighting is insignificant which is an absurd in an area that is a dark sky area. it is pitch black out there except for the beach alley itself. we hired lighting expert lumino consulting. they concluded the eir failed to consider fog scatter impact

spread when light hits fog, it scatters in all directions. the city has proposed to reduce the light impact by putting blinders around the lights to direct the light downward. kind of like a laser beam but not quite as focused. when the light hits the fog, it scatters in all directions. lumino consulting concludes it would be 10 or 20 times more impact in fog conditions. that area is as funny as it gets. it is foggy all the time pretty much every night. so, the eir fails entirely to consider bob scatter. it makes a conclusion that fog would reduce light impact which there is no expert support for that conclusion at all. the-are also -- there is to kind of lighting. vertical and horizontal. the eir looked at horizontal. our experts concluded vertical

is more significant and can be seen from much farther away from the residential areas around the park. we have a very significant lighting impact. given the dark sky nature of the area, the lights would have 55 times more light impact than they would in an already lit area. none of this is analyzed in the eir. this would be a very big transformation of the natural filled in landscape. the natural historic places register listing for this area of the park says golden gate park was considered to be natural filled in landscape to provide a relief from world pressures within a heavily urbanized area. that is important. our kids are growing up in a concrete jungle. they do not get to run around in the woods. a lot of the kids not have the resources to go up to yosemite or tahoe. this scenario right here where

you can feel like you're a million miles away, play in the woods. my kids were building a fort in these woods over the weekend. they felt like they were in the forest. we were just 2 miles from home. supervisor olague: thank you. president chiu: any further questions? thank you for your presentation. let me make a couple of quick announcements. there is an overflow room in room 263. we're going to hear public comment from individuals that wish to speak. because there are many individuals that want to come in and speak for the year other side, i would ask that if you could, if you're able to leave to consider that or to sit in our overflow room. i want to welcome our former treasurer. it is good to see you back. why don't we now hear from members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the

appellant. if you could please line up on the far right so that hopefully, we can minimize people's views being blocked. and the last thing i will also mention, if you're a senior, if you're disabled, if you are parents without children, i would like to give precedence to those individuals to speak so they can hopefully lead in a expeditious way. let's hear from our first speaker. >> i will not hal -- go into how these products are carcinogenic. you have all been well informed about that. the world health organization as well as this eir have laid these facts out. you are here to decide if you are going to support the rpd that you believe exposing children to multiple cancer causing agents is not significant. for me, this is a no-brainer when compared to gopher holes, playing time, and other

rationales you'll be hearing presented for doing so great i do not know about you personally but i have lost more friends and family members to cancer that i care to mention. i will continue to walk in fund- raisers and raise money to try and find a cure but here today, you individually are in an extremely enviable position where you can do something to proactively protect a child from an unsuspected known exposure. if you are not willing to ban sbr chrome from the fields, i ask you to not reject the not significant -- not insignificant findings of the er. this would give a fighting chance to the most vulnerable and susceptible children. children whose families are least able to afford the long- term health care required for cancer treatments are treatments from exposures to any of the many other toxins from the krome dust.

thank you. president chiu: next speaker, please. mr. woody. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you. i work with the west of -- the western council and several other neighborhood groups. i want to speak briefly about the eir. the uighur admits it is installing the project -- the eir would achieve most of the project objectives. it rejects the alternatives. the hybrid analysis has been ignored for two years and has been brought up over and over again in meetings. people have to remember this is a win-win for children. they have to remember this is a win-win for the neighborhood.

because as it stands now, you can see the conflict between both sides and you can see where this project is taking us into a long extended period where no one benefits. from the neighborhood point of view, if these projects were to be swapped and looked at objectively, it would be a win- win and you could keep the historic preservation aspect of golden gate park. you would make a -- made the master plan objectives and keeps the western edge of golden gate park in a [inaudible] periodstate. you would take west sunset which is a thriving athletic field and keep it as a a thriving athletic field. i want to thank you for the time and i hope this can be resolved sooner rather than later. this will take a very, very long

time if we can just sit down and somehow figure out how to get this together. thank you very much. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i am blind and i am not here to speak on behalf of the blind community but the larger community. everyone i've spoken to about this project cannot understand the necessity of pulling out grass which is a natural substance. regardless of whether you have it made out of coconut shells or clark, you can never achieve photosynthesis and it will never smell like real grass. this is something rest of us would miss if you were to put in anything other than grass in golden gate park. it is ironic we're talking, even considering taking grass out of golden gate park since it was

the installation of scotch oak grass that halted the encroachment of sand dunes. it is interesting because you hear on the news on how the western avenues have a serious problem with sand. people had to sweep sand out of their doorways. there is a serious problem with salt spray. to take out natural elements like trees and grass which achieved photosynthesis, it does not make sense to anybody i speak to. especially when you consider the fact they're asking to spend 10 times as much on something that is a violation. all you have to do is say astroturf and stadium lighting and everyone says you have to stop this. how can we stop this? nobody i talked to seems to be in favor of it but especially when we propose the hybrid alternative. i want you to strongly consider the hybrid alternative. there is already late at st. ignatius.

it would not be that big of an impact. taking grass out of golden gate park that close to the addition will have been unavoidable impact. thank you for your time and you're serious consideration. president chiu: thank you. >> hello, supervisors. thank you for the time. i live out at 48 avenue which means within earshot and sand shot of the ocean. i used to live within eyeshot of the stadium. i know what stadium lights are like. i have to say it is bs the stadium lights would not be throwing off extra light. i live with and half a mile or 1 mile of where the beach shelle would-be -- city lights would be and i know that any chance i have of seeing any stars at

night would be gone. i am opposed to that. the other thing is people have not mentioned up until now is that traffic will be a problem in particular, on the great highway. traffic is already a problem when any sunday afternoon where the sun shines out at the beach, great highway is jammed. if we throw in a major soccer field as well, it will be a nightmare. no one seems to have taken that into account when i read -- wrote that into the draft er, they refuse to answer the question. they said in case of any special events will not schedule them at the same time as soccer tournament. people come out to the beach anytime they want to. so something will have to happen in terms of that. in addition why you were dickering about this there is a

bunch of people who are not in special interest groups of soccer players who are not necessarily special athletes, ability, who are trying to use the esplanade or promenade along the beach which is not being taken care of and the sea wall which is crumbling a bit. you might spend some time taking care of that. president chiu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> a 45th. -- i live at 45th. i have the kids to help me because there is 300 pages of reasons why it turns out many of

our innovations have unintended consequences. sf ocean edge has filed 300 pages of those consequences. what could go wrong? this is because of in the interest of time. i will read it and the kids can get their two minutes. this is very low tech. there are nine times the amount of abrasions on synthetic turf. that is the mrsa staph resistant bacteria. and it does get really hot, it can get up to one headed 71 degrees because it is tires. they cannot put out the fires for a while and it will cost toxins and these are children's feet that have been burned on

tires. i just went to cocker amazon. if you look at the west sunset fields, there was all this debris. we're treating our grass, it is the astroturf. psychologically, we have not made a transition. so there is tons and tons of cigarette butts, food and all the things -- fireworks, everything that will be harmful to all of us. it could catch on fire, let alone -- [inaudible] president chiu: thank you. if your children was to speak, they can. if they want to read a statement, that is possible as

well. >> [inaudible] >president chiu: if you want to take a moment if they wish to speak. if you want to hold the microphone closer so we can all hear you? >> that is my mother. this is an alternative. you can play on the beach. 1 million pounds of chrome rubber or -- president chi president chiu: if you could speak into the microphone, we could all hear what you're saying. >> think of the possibilities. you do not need all this gear. you can play on the beach in your shoes. you get better at soccer if you do this. just think about that. andso just think about that,