facts of this case. he said the coastal commission required major mitigation to only a light 18 games per year. how close is what went on in the malibu high-school field, 15 feet from the ocean? this is more like 500 feet. i wonder what likelihood the coastal commission might act to change what the project is. >> unfortunately, i am not able to speak to what occurred in malibu. i think it is the coastal commission responsibility to review using its own questions and merits. i cannot speak to conclusions they might come to. i do not know if our city attorney is familiar with the case. >> deputy city attorney, through

the president. the coastal commission would review this, should the coastal permit be appealed to the coastal commission at some point. they would review it on its own merits. we, as a city, cannot guess what they may choose or may not choose to approve or impose as mitigation or conditions of approval through its own process. that said, with reference to the eir, if the coastal commission does get an appeal and needs to act on it to approve this project, it would rely on the city eir to make the decisions. it is considered a responsible agency under ceqa. supervisor wiener: just a couple of brief questions. it was noted before that there was nobody from the department of public health here.

i recall seeing in the eir or in the file that there is documentation from the department of public health. can you comment on that? there is an implication that there was no feedback from the ph. that was not my understanding. >> the department of public health participated on the synthetic turf taskforce. their input was -- the department was primarily in relying on their participation and input that occurred in that context. when we posed further questions about some of the hazardous health risks associated with it, as well as the skin abrasion questions, the responded that they did not have any concerns around any of these various

health issues associated with artificial turf fields. supervisor wiener: that is in the file? >> yes. supervisor wiener: you made references to the only significant impact being to the historic resource, because it is on the national register. is that right? >> yes. supervisor wiener: there are a lot of parks that are old and historic and meaningful in the city, right? like in san francisco? that does not mean the parks have to stay frozen in time. they can change. >> i think we evaluated this particular project as we do any project, looking at first evaluating whether or not it would be considered a historic

resource under ceqa, given that it already has a listed status that was clear. we look further into exactly what provides the historic character to the park, and specifically what the contributors to the historic district are. the beach showplace soccer fields are identified in the listing as one of 137 contributors that exist within the golden gate park historic district. in many cases, when you are talking about contributors to the historic district, it is not automatically assumed that the lost our material impairment of one contributor constitutes a significant impact to the overall historic resource, which is the district as a whole. in this case, our department concluded that, while this is one of many contributors to the historic district, it is the

only soccer field on the western end of golden gate park. it is not like the restroom buildings, of which there are many that are also identified as contributors. we did conclude in this particular case that the change in the overall character to this site would constitute a significant impact to the district. supervisor wiener: that does not mean the project cannot happen. in other words, parks change over time. recreational needs change. golden gate park has changed significantly. >> we did not go into the analysis with the assumption that a change to a component of the district would automatically constitutes a significant impact. supervisor avalos: i will wait for a presentation from rec and park staff.

after public comment, i will make some questions, perhaps. supervisor chu: just to follow up, with regards to the environmental document showing there was a significant impact to the contributors of golden gate park -- as we are making this decision about whether the eir was adequate, it is not necessary to find there was no impact. the only requirement is that we identify that there is an impact. correct? >> correct. the purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify significant impact. to say that an eir is inadequate because it identifies significant impacts is not an appropriate argument. our requirement, particularly if there is a situation where there is some amount of disagreement, is to evaluate it and look at the substantial evidence.

if it is significant, this close that and provide mitigation that is feasible and alternative to the project. president chiu: given no more questions on the roster, why don't we go to the project sponsor? >> filner ginsberg, general manager of the san francisco recreation and parks department. i know people are eager to speak, so we are going to move quickly. thank you for considering what might be the most of veted and reviewed soccer field renovation in san francisco history. i want to thank each city department that has participated in this dialogue over the past three years. our job is to attempt to

balance sometimes conflicting needs and values. we all love our parks. we love them and need them and want to use them in different ways. the feedback we have received about this project, both supported and critical, has resulted in an improved, but her project. throughout the many meetings, design revisions, and studies that have gone on. -- gone on, something has remained consistent. i want to remind you of our goal. our goal is to insure every child in this facility has a place to play ball. the city field foundation was started in 2006, in response to clear data that the city faced a

critical shortage of play field facilities. san francisco needed 65 additional play fields to meet demand back then, in 2004. the greatest shortfall of playing time was found between 3:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, most heavily impacting youth after school. the data is not surprising, when you consider the huge and growing popularity of team ground sports in san francisco. we have over 950 teams in the city. over 12,000 kids are playing soccer on san francisco fields. that is about 17% of all the children in san francisco. all of our neighborhoods from the debut to the mission -- a view to the mission. our challenge has gone even greater.

we have 1800 more kids playing soccer, and 150 more teams and when this 2004 study occurred. girls soccer and lacrosse teams have grown by more than 60% since 2007. boys little league baseball registration filled up in seven hours, leaving thousands of families looking outside the city for teams and fields. building 65 new fields to keep pace with growing demand is not an option. in a dense urban environment, the acquisition of additional land for the conversion of existing open space is both cost prohibitive and unsustainable. we have had to find a way to get more out of our existing play fields, working with park stakeholders and the city feel foundation. we developed a threefold strategy. reformed our permit system to

squeeze more time out of the fields we had. we partnered with the san francisco unified school district to permit the use of school fields on weekends. and we installed synthetic turf and lights in facilities throughout the city, including garfield, kimball, south sunset, and silver terrace. synthetic fields do not need to rest. they can be played upon in inclement weather. they allow us to accommodate more kids. these reforms have yielded an additional 66,000 hours of play each year. it is still not enough to close the gap which has only gotten worse. the project is a critical component of this overall approach. it will create another 9500

hours of much-needed play times. that actually results in significantly fewer hours and kids accommodated then at beach chalet. there is no doubt that golden gate park is one of the city's greatest treasures. it is a marvel of botanical wonder and passion. what makes it beloved has been the ability throughout history to embrace and accommodate the evolving needs, interests, and by use of park users who rely upon its 1007 train -- 1,017 acres for recreation. this project is less than 1% of the overall acreage of golden gate park. this is the greatest urban park in america, because there is something in it for everyone.

we feel the eir is thorough and complete, and that its conclusions are founded on a critical review of data and evidence. we ask that you let us continue forward in our efforts to meet our goal to keep san francisco family's driving, insuring that everyone has a place to play ball. president chiu: madam clerk, if you could switch the microphone. >> i am the planning director for recreation and parks. i will do my best to speed through this presentation. the beach shelley project -- beach chalet project is critical. we have renovated six other places across the city. the sites are focused on the southern and eastern edges of

the city. we have a service gap in the northern side of the city. each of these has synthetic turf and the light, and has significantly increase the hours of play available, which has positively transformed the neighborhoods and public spaces in which that are located. health and environmental concerns were raised about each of those sites around turf. we convened a task force. we reviewed the evidence, and found no significant risk. we adopted a number of recommendations to try to reduce any unknown risk, and that includes purchasing standards. city planning has rid viewed the data and studies, and found nothing to contradict those original conclusions. the shelling was -- beach chalet was chosen for several reasons. it fills a gap on the northern

side of the city, and the master plan calls for the renovation and activation of this site. the goal of the area plan for the western edge is to increase legitimate activities, and transform that part of the park. the master plan outlined a proposal for renovation that is more expansive than the one we are proposing today. the master plan is fundamentally a acknowledging effect that was known well in the late 90's, which is still true today. the fields are in poor condition, given the level of use they sustained. they are riddled with go for holes. the have a number of other issues. our project addresses these deficiencies, and that's needed amenities, including 100 trees. we are removing 16, and we are going to add 100. we are doubling the capacity of the restrooms. feedback from the public, city

departments, and the national park service has also helped us reform and improve the project, including modifying the restrooms that will remain a contributor to the national register designation. the product has many benefits, the most important of which is the increase in play hours. the polo fields are host to the up/all lands and other large events over time. west sunset is an appropriate substitute. any site that is larger than beach chalet will have more total hours of play.

beach chalet in total, we expect, will yield about 1800 more hours in time. supervisor chu: i wonder if you could elaborate on the hours played at the different fields. >> in terms of the increased tax beach chalet -- in terms of the increased hours? the hybrid solution of having grass at beach chalet and no

lighting, yields only about 762 hours of additional play. it is important to understand how much additional play, given the way we permit the system right now, would be going to youth. about 5000 of those hours will be going to youth, as opposed to only 3000 hours at west sunset. when we look at the fall and spring seasons, when we are most constrained, and most feel the crunch of trying to address the needs constituents are asking of us, beach chalet would provide 2000 extra hours during that critical season. out of 7762 in the hybrid solution, we only get 425 more

hours. i think we can pull out more detail about why that is, and the rules and regulations that create that situation, but under our existing implementation in the fields, that would be the difference, and it is pretty start. when you look at the overall initiative over the course annually, you are looking at a difference of 5000 hours versus 3500 hours. that is really felt by park users in the system. supervisor mar: can you repeat the improvements to the surrounding area? i think you mentioned the bathroom. is there a community gathering space? what are the improvements? >> in addition to the installation of synthetic turf, which will install spectator

seating. we will create a viewing plaza and a children's play area. we are going to double the capacity of the restrooms, making them fully ada compliant. we would like to improve the parking lot to accommodate more spaces. conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians could be avoided. we are also going to create new picnic and barbecue areas. even if there are games going on, there is something there to keep the space active and enjoyed by neighbors, regardless of whether or not they are affiliated with a game that is going on. supervisor elsbernd: if i could interrupt, supervisor cohen -- i need you. chief, i wanted to bring you up briefly to discuss -- i am sorry

about that, supervisor cohen. a lot of folks surprised me, talking about how they have their children play in the woods in and around beach chalet. i grew up and spent a lot of time out there. i can remember my parents telling me the last thing in the world i should ever do is go into the woods around beach chalet. they never told me why. to me, it always felt like an anecdote. you are here. is it an anecdote, or are the public safety concerns in and around the woods around beach chalet? >> the police olympic soccer team practices at beach chalet, and we do not like to go into the bushes. [laughter] all kidding aside,

unfortunately, sunday, there was a dead body found in and around the beach chalet area. it was a suspicious death. we have not classified it as a homicide yet. increasing the activation of this space, just like it benefited the mission district -- more time for kids. more lighting. things that would displace any activity that is dangerous are suspect, that is out of line of sight in that area, i believe would be in the best interest of public safety. that is why i have been sitting here tonight. president chiu: there has been a lot of discussion of the hybrid

alternative. putting aside the question, can you address the policy issues, potentially, from your departmental perspective? >> it comes down to a core policy objective or around the hours of play time we are able to increase in the system. as i was articulating, there is a stark difference in those total hours, particularly for youth. almost double the amount of hours for you at beach l.a., and about 3500 at west sunset. this great graphic is in part because beach chalet can get

more of an increase. the overhead, quickly. what this graphic really tries to show -- we have very few ideas of how to rest grass. we really have to shut down a field. we shut down each field in sequence to give them a chance to rest. this is in contrast to the west sunset fields. because of their shape, which can rest the grass fields by rotating them, flipping them. what that means is we have to have one field out of commission at all times, to allow the grass to rest. during the same time, west

sunset continues to be in play. the games are much more at beach chalet. if we are going to make this investment, we want the most to gain of ours, particularly for youth, that is possible. supervisor mar: a number of speakers raised other technology other than tires. they said court in san -- said cork and sand. how reasonable the is project alternatives? >> would we went to the task force process in 2008, one of the objectives was to continue researching alternatives for synthetic turf infield products.

-- infill products. there were seven or eight projects out there, some natural, some manufactured. the lot had not been tried and tested in the marketplace, especially the united states. there is a lot of technology in europe that is evolving. the track record here and there had not proven itself to us yet. we have been maintaining the synthetic turf with robert because it is a tried and true process. it is a safe product. we want to be ahead of the curve, where possible. people have talked about other municipalities and agencies, for instance, new york. new york has a substantially larger program and we have, with hundreds of fields in their system. i spoke to one of the commissioners. they are not using rubber any longer. it is not because they do not feel it is safe.

they are putting material down and throwing it away when it is done. they do not maintain the fields. they rotate them and go through them quickly. they made policy decisions based on their maintenance procedures. the school district in l.a. -- the school district is using a precautionary principle. they made a decision to go with acrylic-coated sand as part of their program. we have done a lot of research. we have engaged with the department of the environment and great lengths. we have talked with the recycling coordinator. they actually prefer that we use rubber. it is a recycled product. we are looking at policies from a citywide program, a policy they helped generate, purchasing standards that help generate,

using pose consumer products for infill. they like the robber as a solution. i have done some additional research. coconut husk products are relatively new. three or four are in california now, at most a year and a half old. when we make an investment like this, we want to make sure we have a safe and durable product. we have been on the field at santa clara university, which they have already torn up and replaced, because of an inadequate base. we will continue to look around until we feel safe there is an alternative product, both from a health standpoint and a durability standpoint, and price point is important also.

we want to make sure we are getting the best bang for the dollar. we are looking at all the components. in fact, the national -- the natural in fill project we are looking at have come back favorably. there are other questions we need to answer before we move forward. supervisor wiener: i have one question for the department. there was discussion about the national park service and some initial concerns. especially here in the snowy plover, this harkens back to a debate we had a year ago. there seems to be a tension -- and i have enormous respect for