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. the 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, and there are kids in africa, and they are really poor, and they cannot afford anything. what they do is play a game of

pickup soccer and just play, play, play. they do not need all of this stuff. they are better than us. president chiu: [chuckles] [applause] [laughter] why do we need all of this stuff? just do it yourself. it is they're all of the time. [bell] [applause] >> this was actually from -- that i'd picked up. on this side -- migratory. president chiu: thank you, ma'am. we do about every speaker to speak for up to two minutes, so you can, you can. [bell]

[speaker speaking off microphone] >> aluminum, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium -- i cannot pronounce it. >> manganese, nickel. >> zinc, tin, sells for -- sulphur, carbon dioxide, phenol,

-- >> ethylene. president chiu: i am sorry, again, ma'am. i want to abide by the rules of the chamber. we need to have one speaker at a time. each speaker gets to speak for a damp -- up to two minutes. we will hear from other speakers who have not had a chance to speak, we can do it that way, also. thank you very much. why do we not hear from our next speaker? >> here you go, mom. president chiu: can we hear from our next speaker? >> my name is lisa. you have to excuse my entire.

i just came from the park. i am a special interest being here today. i am a mother. these are my two sons. they are five and seven-years old. i live approximately one block from where this will be developed. so it is literally my backyard. we use the park as a backyard. it is one of the things, the beauty of san francisco that maintains me being in the san francisco. this is one of the cultural centers. our kids to public school. we pay taxes. the housing crisis. this is an area of our backyard, destroyed. it is questionable whether or not like many other middle-class parents we would stay. thank you.

president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> honorable chair, commissioners, and the 25-year resident and a landowner. and a taxpayer of ocean beach. i am an environmental lawyer and an professor, and i am attending your hearing today after watching this combined planning parks and recreation commission meeting on the web in order to alert you to a really severe a train wreck that presumably you would like to avoid. without commenting on the merits of the project, one way or another, i want to relate my shock and having watched your planning commissioners who are supposed to be assisting you and the public repeatedly declared that the project location was not in the coastal zone. on the world wide web. this is elementary, supervisors.

there is a color map, and it shows this and extending east to the golf course. it is not up to opinion or debate. what is even more amazing watching this proceeding is the utter failure of your staff to correct and educate the commissioners and the public regarding these erroneous declarations. i am not making this up. coastal staff then write to your staff, informing them in no uncertain terms that this was appealable to the coastal commission and very likely to survive even a cursory scrutiny under the coastal act. [bell] you cannot just simply acknowledged the mistake and keep going. as your city attorney advises, you need to start over and do this correctly, because the eir is critically flawed without having resources and coastal protection. thank you for this opportunity. [applause] president chiu: thank you very

much. before the next speaker, i am just on to mention one rule in the board chambers, which is we ask the public not to express your support with applause or opposition to comments with this thing, out of respect to speakers and to expedite the line. if that could be the case, i would appreciate it -- or opposition to the comments with hissing. >> i am concerned any time children are used for political leverage, in i am especially skeptical about using incentives such as pizza, game, to draw miners into the political arena. my son was at city wall, and reported that at least half of the kids did not know what they were here for. second, i am concerned by any public process that lacks transparency or direct community

involvement. as a parent, i was never contacted about my support for this alternative versus any other alternative. however, i was directly contacted to silence my dissent. if parents are not ask, what does this mean about other stakeholders, other park users, or other use advocacy groups. -- groups? secondly, any time they try to get the shared park land for their exclusive use, i played soccer as a child, as has my son, but we have also flown model airplanes, climbed trees, and spend as many evenings sitting by bonfires on the adjacent beach that will be forever changed by the installation of stadium lighting. we are happy to have imposed one activity or another, but if

people a players' league roster to us, where it strictly bluegrass had plans for a permit ampitheater, that would be another story. this park is used by many people for many purposes, no single organization, no matter how forceful its lobby, should be given a way to do this in a way that diminishes it. thank you. >> supervisors, i appreciate this opportunity to express my views on this matter. my name is roland campos. i have been a longtime resident of the sunset district. i grew up there. i was a soccer-aged kids it in the sunset. when i first heard about this idea of putting this in golden

gate park, i was shocked. i could not believe it. where is the city had improved it is very simple to say that the proposed project as it is would destroy the western end of golden gate park. it would destroy the esthetics there, totally. i do not need, for my kids, i do not need an environment impact report of pages and pages of data. it is easy to see. i know it is necessary in the process, but it has just obscured the simplicity of the issue. we have a solution. we have an alternative plan. this would be a win-win for everyone. i think it is very good that children have more places to

play. but i also think that kids who like astronomy, as i did when i was a soccer age kid would also have a way to look at the stars. this would destroy this opportunity as it is now. to me, this is a litmus test for the leadership in this city. does the leadership of the city support green values? does it support protection of golden gate park? does it respect the golden gate park master plan? or is it -- president chiu: thank you very much. thank you very much. next speaker. >> hello, my name is thomas