Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 26, 2012 4:30pm-5:00pm PDT

4:30 pm
you already know this, but the demand for sports in the city is very high. my younger daughter, who is 8, 1 to play baseball so bad she made me get up at midnight to register her. the lacrosse registration for my eight-year-old daughter ended within one hour of registration been opened. demand for field is there. it would be a great addition to the city of san francisco. president fong: quickly. >> i think to practice is important and it is good that we should get out there. because of these fields, we cannot play. if we had turf, it would be a better opportunity to get out
4:31 pm
there and play. since we are city kids, we do not get that opportunity very often. president fong: thank you. do we have any other person whose names have been called? [reading names]
4:32 pm
>> [inaudible] i do want to say that i know families are moving out of san francisco because they cannot play soccer. they cannot afford the houses. i am confused about rain, but we need so much water, but it is always raining. all these families, all of these kids, where are the wind the budget comes up -- when the budget comes up, and year after year after year, it is slashed. they are here for one thing only and that is to play soccer in golden gate park where we should have a natural field for everyone, not just 1%.
4:33 pm
i would urge you, but where are they when your budget comes up? where are they went all the directors are laid off? >> thank you. anyone else? [reading names] >> commissioners, i was born and raised in san francisco. i am a father of three. let me identify 3 facts that cannot tonight.
4:34 pm
-- that came out tonight. they have failed to maintain any kind of field. they failed to listen to the demands from a resident for more fields. that was clear, i did not make that up. families leaving san francisco, let's look at cost of living, not lack of fields. you guys have gone to the point where you know what you were going to do. so what can i say? what is the real issue to this proposal? 7 acres of artificial turf. is it soccer? some people would have you think that it -- without artificial turf, there is no soccer. is it revenue-yes. i count at least 40 separate locations in san francisco soccer practice and soccer games.
4:35 pm
the issue is not soccer. soccer is going to continue regardless of whether it is young children are not going to play at night. the driving issue is revenue. under the cover of budget deficits, you are asked to waive the master plan document. so that the character of the golden gate park can be sacrificed. it is a mistake to endorse these artificial turf. >> thank you.
4:36 pm
>> before you, our names, we have created a fire hazard again. all of these standing on the side of the ram, you are blocking the door. i need to find a seat. -- i need you to find a seat. thank you said some much. -- so much. >> heritage agrees with the determination of the eir of the proposed project would result in impacts on historic resources. the significance of the athletic field is directly linked to its naturalistic qualities. as proposed, the project would impair many of the character
4:37 pm
defining features of the beach chalet athletic fields. public agencies should not approve projects proposed if there are feasible alternatives for mitigation measures available that would lessen the anbar milk impact of such a project. -- environmental impacts of such a project. as well as renovation of the offsite alternative. the department's response to comments in the eir suggest that this alternative would need -- would meet objectives. for those reasons, we believe this alternative warrants an in- depth analysis before it is approved. thank you. >> thank you.
4:38 pm
>> good evening, commissioners. i am a 37-year resident of san francisco. i urge you to not accept the eir that has been submitted to you tonight. we need more playing fields, that is clear to me. it is wonderful to see all of these young people participating in civic process. something we also need desperately in san francisco is naturalistic areas in our parks. in golden gate park, it has taken over a vast area of the park. more and more of the park is not available for simply enjoying the walking through and appreciate the naturalistic qualities that it has. this is one of the rare places we have left in san francisco and preserving it is critical. you can maintain golf courses, a
4:39 pm
grass field for soccer. do we need lights? no. i urge you to reject this report. thank you. >> i consult with san francisco unified. i live in the richmond district. i have a soft spot for those who cannot fend for themselves. that is why i became a speech therapist. i have a passion for education and a passion for nature. i agree that kids need a place to play, but i am horrified as to what this teaches children in terms of environmental conservation. there are alternatives that have been presented. i urge you to consider them.
4:40 pm
i listened to the children and diet loved it. they work -- and i loved it. they were coached well. i wonder how many know of them about the consequences of cutting down the trees. the birds that will lose their homes. there are consequences and they are irreversible. when there are such alternatives -- i need a speech therapist at this point. i am tired. there are alternatives. there are other ways of dealing with this. the field in nethe sunset. please consider it. thank you. >> good evening.
4:41 pm
i am representing the sierra club. we find the eir to be inadequate. it does not address concerns. the issues of lighting embraced by the sierra club and the federal government. the lack of mitigation of the environmental impacts. the fact of the preferred alternative violates the 1998 proposition at j regarding the addition of parking in golden gate park. the lack of provision of natural grass, no light alternative. an alternative necessary to evaluate the preferred alternative is. san francisco has been a leader in making choices based on the least environmentally harmful alternatives. this proposal flies in the face of this. the western end of golden gate park, including ocean beach, is the last remnant of dark skies in the city.
4:42 pm
there will be negative impact on wildlife. this is to be properly considered. there are a number of ways the existing fields could be improved using modern methods. such as those used on professional natural turf fields. this is not in the eir. this presents a false choice, as other people have mentioned. this is something we can all support come at a really nice grass field to play on that is the unique character of the western end of golden gate park. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i am a resident of district 10.
4:43 pm
my brother is a landscape architect. he has been dealing with these issues with artificial turf field adjacent to a park project he is working on. he found that not only -- they need to be cleaned out. these products don't just stay where they are at. they migrate to the aqua firm -- aquafer into a the hydrology system. there is the epa study that has been done on this in 2010. it is quite telling. i have a link to it here in this paper. some of the heavy metals and chemicals detected on these
4:44 pm
field included chromium, copper, mercury, the list goes on for a while. there is another primary concern as the production of greenhouse gases from the artificial turf. right now, we have is equestrian system -- sequestrian system with the grass. that will be replaced wood products that are producing greenhouse gases. >> thank you. let me call some more names. [readinfg names]
4:45 pm
>> good evening, commissioners. i am a san francisco resident. i am a member of golden gate audubon. i urge you to reject the eir to replace the natural grass soccer field at beach chalet and replace them with artificial turf. many people connected with nature in a variety of ways at this site. the western end of golden gate park was intended to be a naturalistic grassy field. later, the golden gate master plan of the general plan were approved to retain the naturalistic landscapes in connection to ocean beach. today, the area fulfills the recreational needs of many people.
4:46 pm
this proposal is for a single use and the eir does not address the impacts. it will be a 9.4 acre loss to visitors. the proposal would be -- would decrease the number of birds and other wildlife that live in or migrate through golden gate park. a local birder conducted a casual survey. completely missing migrating and nesting species. the eir has no mitigation for birds or other species. there is no other place in san francisco for these birds and wildlife to go. the lighting was not properly evaluated. the adjacent -- species depend
4:47 pm
on dark skies for navigation. darkness is needed for resting and nesting. san francisco boasts of being a green city, but this proposal is not a sustainable project. >> thank you. >> i urge you to make a thoughtful decision. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for spending your evening to listen to all of our concerns. i am a native san franciscan. i am a mother, grandmother, and a great-grandmother. i am in full support of the parents and children who came here today to ask for what they want for their children. however, i oppose the eir and
4:48 pm
die welt spend a lot of part- time because there are so many -- and i will not spend a lot of our time tonight because there are so many others who want to speak. the people who oppose it had already spoken eloquently about the problems with the eir. i am here to tell you that i oppose it and i am hoping you will vet the information that you have. this eir is not complete as it has been presented to you. we knew it -- we need to preserve the wild places in golden gate park. and i thank you for your time. >> anyone else whose name i have called? let's keep going down the list. [reading names]
4:49 pm
>> good evening, commissioners. please do not certify this eir. the draft motion fails to discuss whether the city filled foundation has refused to fund the project if the artificial turf were not installed and the lights were not included. if city field has said those terms on the funding, it is essentially dictating the terms of the project, which is a public works project. the terms have compromised the ability of the department and
4:50 pm
the planning department to conduct an independent analysis of the project and its alternatives. none of the environmental review documents fully explained city field roll despite the fact that the organization originated the design and dictated the terms for its construction. neither the public or the decision makers have been fully informed to understand the root analysis of the preferred alternative on the projects. the foundation and though you does not mention the golden gate park at all -- mou does not mention the golden gate park at all. this has not been done before the beach chalet sote. -- site. it is part of the mou and is required to use on used funds to be carried forward to the next fiscal year. we have time to do the right
4:51 pm
thing with an alternative. another point i wantwith the co- the product is inconsistent with the local coastal plan, because it fails to protect the naturalist the quality of the park, and because it will have negative effects on other resources in coastal zones but said the project boundaries. this point is definitely appealable to the california coastal commission. you need to hear that. please do not approve this permit. thank you for your time, and hang in there. >> please do not certify the eir. i am beth lewis. it is flawed. it is inadequate. the eir claims the only adverse
4:52 pm
effect is it will impair the historical significance of a very small portion of the park. i really do not think that cutting down 55 trees and paving over 7 acres near a beautiful ocean, essentially changing the character of the west end of the park, is significant. the benefits of this project to not outweigh the damage and loss this will conflict. please locate this project elsewhere. the eir does not address the fact that there are alternative places to locate the project. someone brought up earlier that the west sunset soccer fields would be an ideal location. we have heard from many soccer players. we are all for sports and children. clearly, some would prefer to
4:53 pm
play on grass and some would prefer to play on artificial turf. switching the turf and natural grass is a no-brainer. the project is inconsistent, and the eir does not address the fact that the project is inconsistent with the 1998 golden gate park master plan, the national registry listing, the coastal plan, the 2012 ocean beach master plan. please do not go down in history as the commission that paved over golden gate park. it is a terrific asset. people come from all over the world to marvel at its beauty. president buell: thank you. anyone else whose name i have called? we will keep right on going. christine not banner --
4:54 pm
christinna banner, [names are read] >> my name is judy berkowitz. coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. please do not certify this eir. it is deficient and inadequate. please reject it. improvements could be made with thought.
4:55 pm
the golden gate master plan designates that one thing we have not heard so far is it designates the the shell lay -- the commissioner borden: -- the beach chalet field as multi use. once the field goes down with markings on it, it is single usage. i live close to the golden gate park fields. it is completely soccer. before, it was artificial turf. it used to be soccer, softball, anything. once those markings are on the field, that is it. rain does not wash it off. it does not get mowed down. the children that came and said they were excited that they could play any time they wanted in the rain and everything -- that obviously do not realize that these fields, for their own
4:56 pm
good, are fenced off. in the rain, there is no playing. but the lights are on until 10:00 p.m., even though there is no action. what was once an open area in garfield park is now completely closed off. it is fenced. i am sorry. i lost my place. although we have been told that the life of the turf is anywhere from 8 to 12 years, the garfield turf was pulled up within eight or nine months. i do not know why. but it was. thank you for your consideration. please reject.commissioner bord. got the message.
4:57 pm
anyone else whose name i have called? let us keep on going. [names are called] . these might be soccer people. anybody who's name i called want to say anything? you are pointing somewhere. is somebody back there ready? did i call a name.
4:58 pm
did mr. 0 leavis -- olivas come back? we are going to keep going through these names. [names are read] they have to be hearing this. >> good evening. my name is nancy. i am a parent of two children who play soccer.
4:59 pm
i am a resident of western san francisco. i am very concerned about the priority of playing soccer over the value of the environment, and the preservation of the character of the western part of golden gate park. i would like to reemphasize -- i know many things have been said over and over again. i would like to reemphasize that artificial turf never goes away. it has a 12 year life, they say. but during that time it deteriorates. as it deteriorates, the robber gets into the environment. it gets into the water runoff. artificial turf never goes away. the chrome rubber is what the kids fall on. it gets into their scrapes and