i am just a human being that lives in san francisco. i am asking you to appeal of the report. i was concerned because the western snelling clover is absent from the project area. it is a federally protected bird in this area starts at stairwell 21 and ocean beach, 1,000 feet away from the projected project. these birds need to rest. these areas go from stairwell 21 to slow boulevard. the birds need to conserve their energy so that they can migrate and greedy. the only place they can do this is ocean beach. the lighting is going to completely disturb their nighttime time. i don't know if it was spoken

about how loud soccer games are, because if you go on the weekend, you can hear one soccer game at the elementary school all through the neighborhood at that as elementary school. we have the possibility of six fields in action with people yelling and screaming. i don't know what that is going to do to the smelly clovers. it offered no mitigation because it said that they weren't in the area, which is not true. the pacific flyway is also right across the street. thousands of birds come through there and of the report stated that the stadium lighting confuses the birds, causes them to come down and get stuck. i don't know why we are considering that when our whole world has such ecological negative impact happening to it right now. it is 2012, we need to start

conserving what we have got. >> my name is mark gold, i live in district 5. i came here today to urge you to turn down this report. and from handing out literature to educate people about this, i found that overwhelmingly, people first of all, don't know about it. their reaction has what -- and has been what you're hearing in the next few hours. i urge you to think about what is happening here tonight. all these people came here, it is social capital and human capital. it is a valuable and hard to put together a thing. you heard from birds and babies and young people and residents, it should give you pause and any rash decision based on the other

end which is representing a more narrow spectrum of the city and other ideas such as the money that can be saved with the plan of bringing it back to nature, you can use some of that money to get people and other parts of the city into golden gate park to appreciate nature for example. i urge you to look at the value of our social and human capital because sometimes it is worth more than the fish or money. >> thank you for letting me speak. i am sad because we are changing a beautiful park that i have loved for almost 50 years have i have been here. i asked you to look into your heart to and see what you're doing. i reminded of the bumper sticker that said the, what would jesus do? i would ask you what john

mclaren would do. >> next speaker. >> thank you for this opportunity. i am a home owner on great highway and i have been sending e-mail's to you folks. i have never been involved in city politics and i have no idea how these decisions get made. i thought, surely, they will not allow this to happen. and it keeps on rolling and rolling. i don't know what anybody in this room can do to change the way it is moving or except in alternative, but i am a surfer, i have a financial planner. i think golden gate park is absolutely unique. this whole city is unique and every time my son comes to visit me, i'd taken to the academy of sciences and i show him the buffalo. what ever you folks can do to

stop this project, even if one of you is as motivated as we are, who this is a really divergent group tonight. he the other side, i don't think they are very diverse. i knew something was wrong in this picture. there has to be a lot of money involved, but how can you benefit one portion of society and ignore this incredibly divergent group that has presented an unbelievable arguments that i won't even try to duplicate. i hope you can do something about it. >> hold on one second and we will light of the microphone. we can hear you now. >> my name is steve, is there

any sound with this? >> is coming up right now. >> there was a little girl that spoke on this issue in december. she can't be here today, but here is a national video made about her story. >> please drop the microphone close to the computer. >> if you want to restart that again. i think the sound is still deficient. sir, we're going to call media

services if you can hold on a moment. we'll hear from other speakers and get back to you. >> i am here today as a representative of a brand-new organization brought into existence because of this project. we are called educators for photosynthesis. our name tells you who we are and what we want. we are all educators and for present this as. -- photosynthesis. our membership includes a 100- year-old that worked all his

life down the road and allan jacob, the former director of city planning for a san francisco. we strongly request you do not accept this flawed report. why should you not accept it? i have been a teacher the last 18 years. i recognize a battle lab right up what i see one. it has faulty assumptions, a circular logic, odd data collection procedures. if a student who turned his intimate, it would get it back with tons of notes and questions written on it. while teaching what of my own, i went through the draft riding those notes and questions pointing out inconsistencies, errors, and absent research. the result was that they made a few surface changes and ignored everything else. as a result, this will cause irreparable damage.

the details are easily available in public comments. in the hearing for the draft, i sent a less technical summary to all of you in 10 separate females over the last nine days. but the point of the organization is that the issue is very simple. destroying photosynthesis is bad. this project will result in a net loss over time, therefore, this project is bad. clyde wilson asked me to give you his comments, so i have got that. >> next speaker. >> good evening, and thank you for listening. i know that to a large extent, this project is about money. the turf companies, it is about

money for them. athletic organizations have rejected artificial turf. they need some place to push their project. to the city, it is about money, renting those fields at night, not to the youth that paraded through here last time. i know that it has been proposed that this will be less expensive to keep up. i think it is highly disputable. but even if the money came out on the side of the city, i think we have to stand out as adults and as citizens of this plan at for what is more important.

and i really-ha what is going to take, what is it going to take? the arguments i could come up with, i could repeat people about kids and scraping their knees, her about the rubber getting in scrapes, about animal feces, mucus, but sitting on that surface. but what i want to know is, what are we going to do and what is right for the kids the same way that we stand up and do what is right for the kids every time they want something that we know is not good for them. those soccer kids have things that are more important to them that how often they play. >> why don't we hear from the gentleman that was going to play the video, can we do that?

>> the city of san francisco was deliberating about the soccer fields and the golden gate park. the city was offered a substantial gift to change a large area to of artificial turf, but nobody had a thoroughly studied and the water runoff or accurately measure the effects on the environment until a 10-year-old soccer player came along. she had already used one at a science challenge award and she wanted the debate based not just on money but the health of the people that play there. her research revealed that the runoff from artificial turf which contains round of tires harmed a tiny water creature

that you can see here in the video that she shot. they die when exposed to of glue that -- as she what action for the 2011 young hero ward. sarah has gone on to her next project, to help the homeless by designing a solar charger for self loans so they have easier access to city services. visit us on facebook. >> the report would say that the water won't leach into the fields where the ocean or that it will be treated and save. this is some of the rubber tire with water and i was going to offer it to you guys, but i

thought i would get in trouble for supervisor endangerment or something. it is supposed to be safe. so you should say this would be fine. i will ask the kids if they want to drink it, but i would get child endangerment problems. keep that in mind, this is dangerous stuff. >> next speaker. >> ladies and gentlemen and commissioners. good afternoon, good evening. i have been a resident of the city and county of san francisco for 44 years. i have also been a soccer-. there used to be a memorial that was closed for about 15 years. the park around it is hallowed ground.

it doesn't need a carpet or more plastic. what you can use, probably at night, is more police to patrol the hang out around the park. that has been a major issue. but the grass has not. young soccer players needed natural turf. not plastic. this is not disneyland even though you're trying to create it here. golden gate park is a natural habitat. there is nothing i know of that a synthetic in it. yes, under a relic from the old gigolo in chief, and he wants to push this on the public. he don't have enough money, take it out of his salary.

$250,000 a year, he destroyed the civil service commission, and now he is destroying the park. just let anybody run it over and turn it into a mini golf course. why don't you put a synthetic grass out in front of city hall. address the issue to the public at large, see how they liked it. that is tantamount to what you're doing it golden gate park. it is sacred park, not just for veterans, but everybody that lives in this city. but don't go down that road. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening, i am with the lesbian, gay, transgendered and bisexual democratic club. people of many different stripes and believes urge you to oppose

this and send it back. first of all, thank you for listening. park and recreation is doesn't have a good track record in this regard. the and thank you for this last chance to preserve the western end of golden gate park. to promote the mandate of the master plan, and heed the wishes of those of us that believe the park is an organism, a living in, breathing, growing thing. the most basic belief -- the most basic belief is inclusion. that is why we exist. wherefore the responsible use for all of our city's resources and the exercise of our rights to a clear, clean, safe environment for all. the construction of a sports complex flies in the face of inclusion and our concern about

the environment. a metal will become a lot of toxic and gated community, only for the use of those who pay. it will cease to become a public space. they have strongly opposed this complex, when it was first brought to our attention by our environmental caucus. we oppose it as an exclusive, an obnoxious, and a move to block san francisco out of their own park. use our money more wisely to care for a broader number of fields. using methods, and to our environment. please support our p.o.. >> next speaker. >> my name is laurie, i urge you

to reject certification and support the appeal. more playing time for soccer is a good thing, but it doesn't mean the west end of golden gate park should be sacrificed artificial turf in the stadium lighting. why should city feels dictate where turf should go? public representatives should decide what happens in public space, the city must consider the long-term consequences of permanently denigrating in the western end of the golden gate park. our representatives must evaluate the cleanup costs. consider the detrimental impact on wildlife and you must press for an alternative that better provides for a variety of uses end-users. this cut off has already excluded a vast area of the western end of golden gate park for general use. the removal of trees making it an unattractive and unsafe area

for walking into enjoying nature. the proposal will remove another 55 trees and at pavement. this would compound the loss of multi use space in the western end of the park. this project is not proposed in a vacuum. too much action excludes most people and wrecked golden gate park. we do not have a working democracy when those with a direct financial interests and those with significant financial resources, be they wealthy individuals, downtown corporations, or nonprofit organizations can direct our representatives on the use of public space. >> next speaker. >> i am also here representing jim chapel and amy meyer. i think you have heard enough tonight in terms of the challenges of the adequacy of

this report. we objected to particular areas. one relates to the historic and cultural nature of this particular part of the park. golden gate park is our flagship heart and is renowned around the world. this end of the park has a particular use and as outlined in the master plan. but somehow, the master plan is being ignored, and that should concern you. what is the point of having a master plan if we just ignore it? we think it is significant that the park planner that oversaw the preparation of the master plan wrote a letter objecting to this project. you should take note of that. the second aspect we think is very significant relates to the light pollution.

this assets at the west end of the park, a dark sky, is unique. you don't find that in most cities with 5 million people in the immediate area. you have heard many people talk about their businesses at ocean beach, being on the beach at night and of the end of the park at night. this is special and should be safeguarded. we urge you to reject this report. >> supervisors, i was born in san francisco and i am a current district 5 representative on the park recreation for open space advisory committee. we did not take this up, but i urge you to reject the report because it falsely claims that the proposal from the foundation

is consistent with the governing master plan, which it is not. first, the field foundation proposal undermines the golden gate park master plan as it was built and intended as naturalistic in character. seven makers of plastic does not qualify. i urge you to reject the report for ignoring the language of nine-five raised previously at the golden gate park national master plan that identifies soccer fields as they use and not by use. the proposal is to change the use of the west and field tonight use without ever expressly asking or requesting the change be made to the master plan. if you look at the list of night use or potential might use, nowhere do those fields included.

it deliberately and omits the language of the master plan to avoid revealing that the west and soccer fields are not designed for night use. while the master plan document says different areas of the park will be lighted the different levels based on a use and safety consideration, the completely left off the next sentence. lighting is for safety purposes and is not intended to increase night use. it left out the second sentence which explicitly for have is the use of lighting changes to increase light use. i urge you to reject it. >> but evening, supervisors. i urge you to reject the report, it is clearly deficient. a bad example of public process. they are to promote the

discussion, in public, of factual information that will inform new people elected representatives will make careful choices about the environment. there is a 728 page response to public comment which is a terrible document. it is nothing but a series of arguments and rebels and evasions of the enormous number of written comments that people made an earnest, questions that were asked. let me give you a few specific examples in the narrow area of night lighting. it claims there is no problem with a glare. numerous people pointed out how bright those lights are and how they can be seen from miles away and are brighter than street lamps a few feet away. the key to the conclusion there was no clear because they were going to build any surfaces that

would reflect a lot of life -- a lot of light. the technical definition as well as the common definition is the contrast of bright light to background. clearly there is a great deal. another example is the complete evasion of the impact and careful analysis of what the lighting will do on the west end when you have overcast layers or farm. as the council mentioned earlier, a respected technical representative and analyst has pointed out the under such conditions, the whole area will be lit up like a luminous cloud with lighting levels 10 or 20 times as bright as on a clear night. finally, it doesn't even begin to make a stab at analyzing the issue of gigo.

>> thank you for hearing the comments, there have been many and i want to add my voice to the chorus, asking you to reject the environmental impact statement and support the appeal. i am asking you as a district 7 resident, as a voter, a medical researcher, a parent, and wildlife rescue person. i wanted to highlight as the gentleman said before, the lighting and clear issues. when that small granite came in, it had a clear impact on wildlife. i am not just promoting for wildlife 6. someone else mentioned in nature deficit disorder. this is an important area of growing research on child

development, this is as important as f. lek time. the project goals were too narrow. and on a technical note, i can say that if your toxicology only goes to 2009, it is woefully inadequate. it gives dated very fast. i urge you to support this appeal and reject the report. >> and good evening, supervisors. i am a resident and a voter in district 4. i represent, also, my family and a handful of friends that live in the neighborhood. please accept our appeal and reject the report.

i am yet another voice, and i have heard marvelous arguments not needed to be repeated. i work as a teacher in the san francisco public schools, i have seen in past hearings, many students i have worked with. i wanted to mention on their behalf or for their sake, why i am here against the project as proposed. many students are familiar with the movie, the lord >> had the classic dr. seuss book. i am here to speak for the 55 large bushes or what ever they are called. huge amounts of foliage that would be ripped out and they support the diversity of wildlife of would like to model for those children that while it is important to stand up for what we