igh- ashbury, sunset action committee, the neighborhood coalition, citywide coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, over 44 groups, action for neighbor, a child advocacy organizations, the san francisco historic preservation commission, nationally, the cultural landscape foundation, the author of the guidelines, which probably know too well by now. the sierra club and golden gate audubon society. when we speak to people, they say the bond, what will happen with a 2012 bond? once we give rec and park millions of dollars, will i have a voice in what happens to my part? i do not have an answer to that question.

you do. you can show the people of san francisco that you will draw the line in the sand, and you will protect our crown jewel of golden gate park. this is the heritage you will leave for future generations of children. if you love golden gate park, you will reject the eir. there are other locations for a soccer complex. there is only one golden gate park. thank you. [applause] president chiu: thank you very much. are there other members of the public that wish to speak? ok. at this time, we have had a court stenographer who has been taking notes to transcribe today's a transcript. what i would like to do is to temporarily recess the meeting for about 10 minutes to give a chance for her fingers to rest and to change the tapes, at which point we will hear from the planning department.

president chiu: if i could ask everyone to please take their seats so we could get going again. [gavel] welcome back to the appeal of the final environmental impact report on the renovation project. at this point, we will hear from the planning department for them to discuss their final environmental impact report. you have 10 minutes. >> good evening, supervisors. i am from the planning department. joining me is sarah jones, the senior environmental planner. rec and park staff is also here. the issue is the certification

of the eir for the athletic field renovation. the issue was raised in the june 12 appeal as it related to the project alternative. the impacts are related to historic resources, aesthetics, greenhouse gas, health risks. this of metal to the board was a request for a continuance. per the city attorney's office, ceqa must first be settled before the coastal department's heard. [rading names -- reading names] the concerns mentioned in these letters are similar to secret

documents. these issues have been addressed in the final eir. staff has indicated the er is adequate. there is not substantial evidence to the contrary. the four main points of the appeal, the appellate claims the eir's analysis of alternatives is inadequate, failing to consider the hybrid alternative. there is an off site alternative, a turf alternative, and synthetic turf without lights alternative. per ceqa, it need not consider every conceivable -- alternative, but a reasonable range of alternatives. the eir presents a reasonable range of alternatives. the hybrid alternative is within the realm of the alternatives in the eir. the appellate claims it fails to

a knowledge inconsistencies. consistency was appropriately discussed in ceqa documents. on may 24, the planning commission certified the eir, approved it, and found it to be consistent with the general plan. the project was found to be consistent with the golden gate park master plan. the appellants states and the r.r.'s analysis is inadequate, acknowledging the uniqueness of the project site and subjective nature of the aesthetics. they prepared nighttime visual simulation and performed an analysis of my time views. it included the project will not have a substantial adverse affect on the scenic vista. it will continue to be screened for most public use in the area.

the eir concluded the project will not create a source of goler that would adversely affect views in the area. the nighttime lighting would not result in spillover light thing that would affect homes. the eir does not state the lighting will not be noticeable. the appellate states it miscalculates human health risks. the eir relies on a number of studies to assess potential risks. many of the studies were commissioned by the municipalities in an effort to assess the synthetic turf. it is insulation and dermal contact with products that were found to be less than significant. no new issues were raised.

the hybrid alternative would increase played hours compared to the proposed project. this is not correct. it would increase playtime. in addition, the project would provide more hours than the alternative. what they are challenging is the project approval. after carefully considering the draft eir's written comments and testimony at the hearing, we have not heard anything that has altered our conclusion with respect to the findings. staff recommends the board of

cold the certification of the eir -- of cold the certification of -- uphold the certification of the eir. commissioner mar: could you repeat the win-win solution? it was said it would increase power very quickly. and unix -- can you explain why the alternative reduces the number of hours? supervisor chu mentioned it was a couple of fields in the west sunset. explain a little bit about how that was not true. >> i will refer this question to rec and park.

>> good evening. we analyzed very carefully the number of increased late hours created by the west sunset project -- the hybrid. we concluded it does not achieve our objective in increasing play hours. we looked carefully at the reasons why the numbers came out so dramatically differently. a couple of key factors. beach chalet has to be closed. we can rotate the field. the grass field, you have to rotate them. they get a lot of play in front of the goals. it is a rectangle. we shifted them like this. in only holds four. we have to close one.

all four of the fields can be opened at the same time. that is a huge increase in play that becomes available. the other factor we have had because of the limitation on rotation and the witness is we close it every monday. we pick up the monday closure, which adds a lot of ours. west sunset is a very different field. we do not have to close one at all times because it is a square. we can shift the fields in a whole lot of different ways. we don't have one closed. it is not closed on monday. the number of weeks in a year we found we had to close beaches much higher. it does not have to do with drainage. we have not been able to change the closure special rigid schedule of the polo field after we improved the drainage -- change the schedule of the polo field after we improved the drainage. we cannot replace the baseball

players to accommodate soccer players. we cannot pick up the lower field. a reminder, our schools play baseball in the spring. because we do not have enough baseball fields, our unified school district middle schools play baseball in the fall. those fields are fully utilized in the fall by those teams. that is the reason for the difference. commissioner mar: i was going to ask also about the analysis on the human health concerns, since a number of speakers raised them. i think he mentioned -- as we try to remember. it is interesting, insulation, and skin contact as well. -- inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact as well. studies were done and they found no significant health risks. i'm wondering if the -- what

other studies did you site to say there is no significant health risk? the connecticut study looked at four different state agencies. there are couple of other studies that were done from 2008 that were not necessarily conclusive, but looked at a lot of the research. >> there is a number of studies. we refused -- reviewed them based on the comments on the draft. in terms of ingestion, they did a number of studies. we found the risks not to be significant. there are vapor inhalation studies. they did not result in a

significant impact. they stated no public health risks in terms of ventilation. there was -- in terms of evaluation. there was a steady produced -- study produced on a sample of the height of four feet above the fields. ok. i will go through. 2009, there is a study. there is a 2010 study. there is a new york state study, conn studies, then there is a bainbridge island devaluation. there is a number of other studies, as mentioned before that. this constitutes a substantial

-- i know one of the speakers raised the question of the integrated waste management. commissioner mar: that might have been paid for by -- i cannot remember who paid for it. it may be a question whether there is a study that was objective. i know the other studies have come to a similar conclusion that it is not a significant health risk. i did what -- did want to ask about -- a number of people said runoff from the field would seep into the ground water or the drinking water. my understanding is the connecticut study talks about, if it is managed carefully, it is not a significant risk. can you talk about how you manage the runoff, for how synthetic field technology manage it so it is not a danger to the drinking water or the water table? >> again, there were a lot of studies that looked atsurface

runoff from the fields. in any event, the description will say that -- the project description puts forth that rec and park will provide a drainage system upholding all the water at the site until testing is confirmed that to the runoff will not affect groundwater quality. in addition, the synthetic turf standards limit the amount of metakl concentration. we have those measures. commissioner mar: i just need to know how we will be sure it is well-managed so it does not enter the "for -- aquifer.

>> serrie jones from the environmental planning division. the project that we are evaluating is defined similar to the facility that is in place at south sunset, which is over the west side of "for -- aquifer. rather than percolating into ground water, it would be collected and diverted into a system. over time, if testing indicates that it is safe and appropriate to do so, reckon court is -- rec and park is coordinating with the puc to come if desirable, return the water rather than redirected to the storm drain. commissioner mar: thank you.

>> i want to follow up with a quick question. you suggested that the studies show that the health effects are insignificant. i want to understand what that means. there is the argument that the rules under ceqa was the one part per million and the cancer risk of the chevron refinery was eight parts per million, comparable to what the city staff report suggested was a cancer risk from the artificial turf, which was half of what the appellant believed the risk to be. can you respond to those contentions? >> certainly, president chiu. one of the studies that was conducted on an indoor field facility did find one sampling that indicated risks at the level of eight parts per million. however, that sampling occurred

one time and was not repeated. what is also evident in an indoor facility rather than an outdoor facility -- other than that one finding, most of the other studies found levels that were ranging in the neighborhood of the one part per million, some slightly higher than that. the cumulative methodology of adding up the cancer risks presented is not something that our department of public health considers the appropriate methodology. president chiu: if you could go into what you think is the proper methodology? >> essentially evaluating the various carcinogens and toxins that will be found. it is not a cumulative or additive situation. it is not my area of expertise.

unfortunately, we don't have a representative from the department of public health here today. we were hoping to have somebody. we did review this work with them over the course of comparing the eir. they did not have concerns about the toxicity levels. president chiu: ok. supervisor campos? commissioner campos: thank you. if i may, i will follow up to the question that has been asked. i have a couple of questions on the potential health risks. one of the arguments that has been made is that the eir, besides under-estimating the cancer risks, it also fails to take into account risks from extreme heat, from skin abrasions and injuries. can you talk about that? >> certainly. the issue of the skin abrasions

and injuries is one that we reviewed and discussed with the department of public health. there is a lot of discussion back and forth. i think you'll probably hear some testimony later on regarding injuries that occur on the fields as they are now. those are all issues that we considered, really, to be socio- economic issues, which, under ceqa, have no legal impact associated with them. there isn't evidence to indicate there is an elevated health risk associated with the fields. in terms of the heat levels, again, we don't have evidence that there is an elevated health risk associated with the temperatures at these fields. they are used elsewhere in san

francisco and elsewhere in the country and in the state. we don't have indications that there are health risks associated with them. commissioner campos: i appreciate the work of staff. with something like public health and issues of that nature, it is helpful to have the department of public health be here and actually provide some testimony on that. i am surprised they are not here. going to a couple of other questions that have been raised, in terms of the consistency with the golden gate park master plan, if you can address that issue, please? >> i can address the issue as it is applicable under ceqa. if you want further discussion around it, i would turn that over to the recreation and park staff. under ceqa, you are required in

an eir to provide information regarding consistency with plans and programs, not a topic that is part of the environmental impact analysis, but a topic that is provided for informational purposes. so, in the eir, we did review applicable plans and policies to identified inconsistencies, and in addition, we reviewed the physical environment impact of the project as proposed. we referred to the golden gate park master plan. it has been discussed. the western end of the park is represented as being a more naturalistic. the master plan calls for expansion of that facility and

the addition of another field. so, there is, you know, i think there is some, as with all plans, duality in the direction that is provided. we noted that and discussed it. it is not an issue for us to make conclusions on in and of itself as an environmental impact. commissioner campos: does the golden gate master plan address the issue of artificial turf at all? >> that is a question that i will turn over to recreation and park staff. >> supervisors, the planning director for the recreation and parks department. i was going to address some of these points in my presentation. originally, the master plan does not contemplate the installation of synthetic turf, mostly because that technology was actually not prevalent at that time in the late-1990's when the plan was adopted by the

recreation and parks commission. what it does do, as miss jones articulate it, is that within the golden gate park master plan, there are broad policy goals. there are specific sections that are called out with specific program angles. the west and the golden gate park is segregated and called out from the rest of golden gate park in this particular fashion to articulates this a big goals for that section. it will increase activation of that site. it is clearly identified as a goal with in the master plan, noting the various unsavory activities that were occurring then and continue to occur now, and the need for increased activation to combat those activities, and make the area in writing to the public. it also clearly articulates that there is a need for renovating existing facilities rather than the creation of new facilities to try and aggressive new recreation needs that might emerge within the park.

for that reason, it outlines the expansion of the facility, as mr. jones articulate it, to include a fifth pitch. our project only includes four fields. the expansion of what is now a restroom building into a restaurant community building. we tried to design a project that is in conformity with the golden gate park master plan that has less of an impact in terms of the layout than the original master plan it initially contemplated. our proposal after the planning commission certified the eir was adopted by the rec and park commission, and found to be in conformity with the golden gate park master plan. the commission is the body that is charged with making those initial policy calls. that is the conversation that occurred in terms of the project in relationship to the master plan. commissioner campos: can you talk about how the issue of light in relates to -- don't

know if it is something that connects to the golden gate park master plan or the san francisco general plan, but if you can talk about that? >> sure. i think it is appropriate for me to talk about it with respect to the master plan. i think overall in the master plan, if i remember correctly, there is a desire to make sure the park retains the naturalistic feature in that we are not lighting up the whole park in the way you might downtown. that is a clear goal. that being said, lighting and the activation of the space, might understanding, there is a different perspective from folks who participated in the master planning process. some would say that letting was not desirable. other trips a that lighting was not contemplated. -- others would say that lighting was not contemplated. the idea of driving more users

to the site, when it was a grass field, did not make sense. we would have further accelerate the deterioration of the field. with every public process, there are multiple perspectives on how the issue was or was not addressed in the plans. we again refer back to this fundamental mandate to activate that space. lighting, especially given the safety concerns that have come up recently and when the master plan was written, seems like a reasonable measure to take. supervisor campos: a final question. given the significant role that golden gate park place in the lives of so many san franciscans, i wonder if you can speak a little more about the extent to which you consider this hybrid alternative they are talking about -- the extent to which the eir addresses are takes into account other

options? >> certainly. with regard to the hybrid alternative, it is very rare in san francisco for an eir to contain an off site alternative. most projects are not proposed by a sponsor who controls the amount of property the recreation and park department controls. at the planning department, we did feel in this case that an off site alternative is an appropriate alternative to include in the eir. we tried to identify a site that was of adequate size to provide a similar number as a field, and also would be located in a similar geographic area to the project site. some of the other sites that were possibilities actually also happened to be in golden gate

park. we rejected those alternatives. that is described in eir. under ceqa, you need to have alternatives that reduce or avoid the significant impact of the project. we concluded that a project elsewhere in golden gate park, all of which is a national register historic district, would result in the same level of significant impact. that was how we determined that west sunset was the appropriate location. and west sunset was identified as the environmentally superior alternative. with regard to the hybrid concept that is being proposed, that is one that we feel, is essentially, as mr. louis mansion, combines components of other alternatives that were analyzed in the eir. we did