City weighs artificial turf fields in Golden Gate Park

The brightly illuminated artificial turf fields would be adjacent to Ocean Beach.

[[UPDATE 5/25: The project was approved]] The San Francisco Planning and Recreation & Park commissions will hold a special joint hearing tomorrow (Thurs/24) afternoon to consider approving the Beach Chalet Athletic Fields Renovation, a controversial city proposal to replace the natural grass fields on the west end of Golden Gate Park with artificial turf.

The $48 million project – years in development by Recreation & Park officials and championed by department head Phil Ginsburg, who has aggressively tried to monetize the city's parks – has inflamed the passions of both supporters and opponents, who are expected to jam into the 3 pm hearing in City Hall's Room 400 to deliver hours' of testimony. [Correction: Patrick Hannan with City Fields Foundation says this is a $14 million project, part of its overall $48 million artificial turf program for the city.]

Supporters say there aren't enough fields in the city for young soccer players and the existing fields there are in bad shape and without adequate lighting. In addition to the artificial turf, which the City Fields Foundation (created and funded by the Fisher family, founders of The Gap) has been helping to install in parks throughout the city, the project would include 150,000-watt lighting 60 feet in the air to illuminate the fields until 10 pm, year-round.

Opponents of the project, which include primarily environmentalists and park neighbors, cite a litany of problems with the project, saying it violates city plans that call for the park to remain a natural area open to all park users. They say it will disturb wildlife, increase traffic (much of it from out-of-towners who rent the fields), and create potentially toxic runoff in a sensitive habitat.

“Golden Gate Park is a unique, magnificent, and world-famous San Francisco treasure. It was conceived to serve as an open space preserve in the midst of San Francisco – a cultivated pastoral and sylvan landscape. It was designed to afford opportunities for all to experience beauty and tranquility. Plastic fields that are brightly lighted until 10 pm every night of the year are entirely out of place in this setting. The western end of Golden Gate Park should remain a part of the cohesive naturalistic environment envisioned by the Park's creators,” Katherine Howard of SF Ocean Edge, which organized in opposition to the project, wrote in a May 22 letter to the two commissions.

While it will be a joint hearing, the Planning Commission is charged with approving the project's environmental impact report and the RPC will consider approval of the project itself. But judging from the long list of angry comments to our last story on the subject by people on both sides of the debate, this divisive project will likely be the subject of appeals and lawsuits for months or years to come.


The Beach Chalet project will turn seven acres of Golden Gate Park into an artificial turf sports complex with 150,000 watts of sports lights - right across the Great Highway from Ocean Beach. The lights will be lighted from dusk until 10:00 p.m. every night of the year, impacting couples who stroll along the promenade at sunset, families who star-gaze at Lands End, and fire worshipers who enjoy the fire rings on the beach in the dark.

The project will introduce additional paving into what is now a vegetated area, build bleacher seating for over 1,000 spectators, and cut down over 55 trees. The Audubon Society has described the 7 acres of artificial turf as the environmental equivalent of paving 7 acres of parkland with an asphalt parking lot.

Turning the western end of Golden Gate Park into an urbanized sports complex runs counter to Rec and Park's (RPD) own 1998 Golden Gate Park Master Plan, the 2004 National Register listing, the City's own Coastal Plan, and the 2012 Ocean Beach Master Plan.

It is ironic that while the City is removing tiny bits of concrete in the Paving to Parks program, it is planning to destroy the habitat and beauty of a wide swath of the western edge of Golden Gate Park.

There is a law called CEQA -- it requires an EIR for this kind of project. For those who appreciate protecting our environment, this is one of the few tools you have to protect the natural world. It took a legal appeal for RPD to follow this law. If RPD had been willing to talk about compromises to this project a few years ago, the fields could have been renovated by now with the $1 million of funding spent on CEQA money, and kids could be playing on a new field. In addition the rest of the 2008 Bond funding could be used to fix up other playing fields in San Francisco. This would release more funding for our parks in the upcoming 2012 Bond.

The Draft EIR states that everyone will be driving to these fields. Why is RPD building the project so far from the people who will use it?

We support youth soccer, but children also need nature. They need to learn that nature is to be protected, not just destroyed when it is inconvenient. There are alternatives to this project that should be seriously considered. Alternatives that can help kids play soccer and protect the beauty, the habitat, and the enjoyment of Golden Gate Park for everyone - no matter their background, their age, their economic level, or their physical abilities.

There is only one Golden Gate Park - let's preserve it as parkland for the enjoyment of everyone today and for future generations. It is never too late to do the right thing.

Now is the time to speak out against this project. Write to Mayor Ed Lee and the Board of Supervisors. Ask them to keep real grass and NO sports lights in Golden Gate Park.

Plan to attend the May 24 hearing and any Appeal hearings.

For up-to-date information on the hearings, go to

Posted by SF Ocean Edge on May. 23, 2012 @ 4:03 pm

Your rant is silly and preposterous. First, it's like a canned speech that you had at the ready. Second, it seems to you had some type of tip this article was going to get posted and you were armed to submit your diatribe immediately. Third, it's silly ("there is a law called CEQA." golly, thanks for the education).

I don't live anywhere near this field. I will urge people to support it, however, in part because your advocacy is so poor.

Posted by The Commish on May. 23, 2012 @ 11:20 pm

You are depriving some poor village of its idiot.

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2012 @ 7:41 am

I know this if off topic but I'm looking into starting my own weblog and was curious what all is needed to get set up? I'm assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny?
I'm not very web savvy so I'm not 100% sure. Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Posted by workingytviews on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 8:42 am

This part of GGP is no more a natural habitat than the adjacent residential areas from where much of the opposition originates. We should recall it was originally barren sand dunes that were made into a beautiful, artificial park for all of SF's folks to enjoy.

The Beach Chalet fields have been used for soccer for 70 years and have always been in crappy condition; turfing them hugely increases their capacity for use. They are being installed by the 10s of thousands around the country at schools, parks and public places for this very reason. The demand for sports fields in SF utterly overwhelms their availability.

A lot of lip service is given in this town to families and children, but it's hard to imagine anything more hostile to their interests than killing this project. Youth sports are a bedrock family value and SF is unfortunately at a huge disadvantage in facilities compared with the suburbs. Folks wanting to kill this excellent proposal cannot say they're doing this to benefit the City's families.

Finally,the CEQA appeal is based on a misperception of what GGP is intended to provide. It was always intended for people to use, not to be put under glass! Look at the old photos of Playland, that brought 1000s of people to nearby Ocean Beach! The opposition comes from world-class NIMBYs, something NEVER in short supply in this crazy town.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 4:35 pm

Get a grip!

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 5:50 pm

That elemental purpose for GG Park -- true since its inception, though not without perennial attackers and usurpers against it -- is *not* served by rubber grass and it is *not* served by artificial lighting. Shame on the rabidly deserving parental types who can't see the obvious moral shortcomings of their positions. "It's for the children": pfah!

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 23, 2012 @ 7:35 pm

We should remove the unnatural Museums that are also in the Park? what about the Unnatural Polo Fields?

Posted by D.native on May. 24, 2012 @ 6:37 am

but at least you didn't quite so overty falsify my position as the baser trolls. Of course I never advocated removing anything from the park. Stare decisus is a rule to live and let live by.

The Polo Fields was originally envisioned as a 50,000 seat stadium, and I think that the de Young, once in place, should have been reconditioned in its previous historical incarnation and not wildly expanded to dominate the topography of the park with its monstrous spire.

BTW, elsewhere you posited that the area of the Richmond in question is free from heavy traffic; evidently that only is supposed to mean you know nothing of the heavy traffic which periodically aggregates there. Seems an apt manner to describe your thought process: if you don't know about it, it must not be true.

Posted by lillipublican on May. 24, 2012 @ 8:26 am

To automatically assume that he/she is right. There is no right or wrong in this particular issue. It is a matter of opinion whether or not the City should have natural fields or new turf fields in the Park. You can have a difference of opinion as you and I obviously do, but neither of us is right or wrong, we just have different ideas.

And with regards to "heavy traffic" in the outer Richmond" . Again please- it is not like Fulton, Geary or the Great Highway is anything like downtown SF. I have driven out there, during the weekday, weeknights, on weekends, etc. The OP with that thought apparently is living in some bubble world and appears to be the poster child for NIMBYs.

Posted by D.native on May. 24, 2012 @ 9:43 am
Posted by lillipublican on May. 24, 2012 @ 9:53 am

it's "just a matter of opinion" as to whether the park's master plan should be followed.

The bright lighting is just as awful an idea as the tire-detritus pavement and new parking lot.

These types of schemes fit perfectly in with reactionary politics: divide progressives; divide environmentalists from parents. That nature can be despoiled and auto culture can be further integrated into parklands is just an added bonus.

I think many who can honestly avow that they are not of the 1% and yet who constantly adopt the positions that serve that group actually do so out of fear of facing their own identity.

Dnative, I'm absolutely not thinking of you in particular in this case, because I haven't met you, but it has occurred to me lately that a significant minority of the right-wingers who hate gays are actually fighting against their own repressed longings.

Might it not be true that many who are so rabidly in favor of paving over and lighting this area (which others have mentioned is a gay cruising area at night) might be disposed in such a way as to prove to themselves or prevent themselves from engaging in such outdoor behavior? It amuses me to think so.

Posted by lillipublican on May. 24, 2012 @ 10:04 am

Think whatever you want. First- I am hardly a right winger- I absolutely don't hate gays and am very supportive of same sex marriage and other gay rights issues.

My support of the fields being turfed over is simple- It would allow better use of the space- i.e. more soccer and other sporting games. As it stands now the fields can't be used in bad weather and are also closed for maintenance several months out of the year. Let's get better use out of the space and get more kids and adults using the space and being active.

That it would put a crimp in cruising in the area- just an added benefiet. Not a big fan of anonymous sex in public, gay or straight.

Posted by D.native on May. 24, 2012 @ 10:34 am

of adding tons of ground up tire particles in the park and adding bright stadium lighting and adding a parking lot...

Look, soccer is fine. The rich donors should simply subsidize the renovation of these particular fields using natural grass and ambient lighting.

Adding french drains and a gopher barrier around the outside would solve the problem of the fields without being injurious to other park users. Light is pollution and there is no way to help with that.

This plan has the legs it has simply because it is so deviously harmful to San Francisco progressives.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 24, 2012 @ 9:37 pm

Are progressive allergic to soccer fields? Light?

French drains and a gopher barrier would be a help, but honestly I think the articifical turf is the best solution. It provides year round, all weather access- something you simply cannot have on a grass field. By their nature, grass fields can't be used in poor weather and also require significantly more $$ to maintain.

Posted by D.native on May. 25, 2012 @ 7:09 am

The grass in the Polo Fields is LIVING and natural - in the sense it is of nature (i.e., living).

The plastic DEAD turf that Ginsberg & Donald Fishers' heirs want is just that - DEAD. If you water the DEAD plastic turf, it's not gonna grow like natural grass would, you'll just comtaminate the water from the toxics leaching into the water from the 2-3 lbs of oil-based, toxic tire particles per square foot of plastic turf.

The DY museum is consistent with what's called for in the GGP Master Plan with the east side of the park being the cultural half and the west half being the wild (undeveloped), natural half - another reason this thing is against the GGP Master Plan since this plastic soccer complex development is in the west half.

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2012 @ 10:06 am

Turning these meadows into a developed area is truly against the original mandate of the park: to be a place in the city to rest from the city's stress. We love walking in empty space, sharing it with birds and animals who live here too. There are plenty of other spaces for artificial soccer fields: if people who want to play soccer want to share this field with the rest of us, I know the city could now pay for the upkeep of good strong grass and a gardener, instead of an eyesore that ruins it for so many of us. A compromise is a good thing, right? I've read the artificial turf takes only 8 years to degrade and become unusable (see studies of this from NYC). Children have been playing on grass for centuries. The idea of kleig lights on Ocean Beach is sickening. How will we see the stars, the moon over the ocean?

People who love the environment: please join together to vote out Eric Mar, call Ed Lee to protest, and vote down the bond measure till it's better suited to all of our needs.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 12:10 am

You wrote:
"This part of GGP is no more a natural habitat than the adjacent residential areas from where much of the opposition originates. We should recall it was originally barren sand dunes that were made into a beautiful, artificial park for all of SF's folks to enjoy."

Yes humans made barren sand dunes into a beautiful area of nature by putting in grass, trees, lakes, bushes, etc. That is the essence of GG Park. Of course there are roads in it so people can travel in it but the roads aren't the essence of it - the nature elements are.

This project that originated from the mind of Donald Fisher (a staunch, anti-union, anti-public schools, billionaire Republican who was a heavy funder of GW Bush - about the worst prez this country's had in a long time) will COMPLETELY CHANGE THE NATURE OF GG PARK by introducing an area larger than 5 football fields of DEAD, PLASTIC turf that is "infilled" with tiny particles of toxic tires - since tires are made from petroleum. Those toxic particles will get in the surrounding natural (of nature) ecosystem and contaminate the water from rain that goes through it.

The designers of GG Park never intended the park to be PLASTIC, TOXIC, and DEAD. Yes, humans have changed it from its original sand dunes but to equate their beautiful creation with DEAD, PLASTIC, AND TOXIC materials is absurd! In both cases (sand dunes, and the park as it is today in the nonroad areas), it's LIVING entities (grass, trees, birds, squirrels, bushes, etc) and NOT dead, plastic, and toxic materials. This idiotic plan would make a good chunk of it dead, plastic, and toxic - we need to fight this plan.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 11:04 pm

Why not just put a green roof on the fields (fieldhouse) and plant it with beach sands, sedges and succulents? Then you get 365 days of usability (even in the fog!), habitat for beach birds and lights no one can see. Sorry about the traffic, but hey, buy a bike.

Posted by bullwheel on Jun. 11, 2012 @ 4:26 pm

If I post paragraph after paragraph of hysterics, half truths, and paranoid hyperbole, will you believe what I have to say?

Posted by Greg2 on May. 23, 2012 @ 4:36 pm

"The $48 million project.."

How very elitist. It's good to know that this city has no other pressing needs than to dump $48 millions into something like this. Couldn't $48 million be better spent for something that will benefit all residents and not just the sports' elite?

"150,000-watt lighting"

How environmental. Have they never heard of LED lighting?

What a sham and waste of money, when we have far more important needs.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 5:48 pm

The long term side to this is an economic upside for the City. Natural fields require a ton of work, and even then, they are shut down several months out of the year. year round fields require lest mainenance and with lighting can be used more frequently,

Posted by D.native on May. 24, 2012 @ 6:39 am

This hearing is going to be a joy to witness. Only in SF is providing more soccer fields for children considered controversial.

The "natural" habitat the NIMBYs claim they want to protect is all invasive species. That part of the park as we know it was dunes and low-growing shrubs and grasses - NATURAL habitat - before it was turned into what it is today - a park, for people to enjoy. By definition that includes playing soccer and being able to do so without risk of injury.

Posted by Troll II on May. 23, 2012 @ 6:21 pm

First of all, can you realize how absurd that sounds? Some people like to drive really powerful cars: should the park fall again under the same sort of depredation which once resulted in it being despoiled with a race track?

But, in fact, *nobody* has a problem with your kids being able to play soccer at GG Park. What is a problem is this crap idea to flood the area with artificial lighting and to replace acres of natural flora with ground-up automobile tires.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 23, 2012 @ 7:44 pm

nor should any other sport. All artificial lighting should be removed. We should jackhammer up everything paved including the bike and pedestrian paths - parks are for contemplation not stimulation!!

How unfortunate the NIMBYs around the park don't want to see artificial lights. They should have thought about that before they moved near a park which is owned by everyone - not just them and their selfish needs.

Posted by Troll II on May. 23, 2012 @ 8:14 pm

Can't we discuss it like adults?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 12:13 am

The only thing natural being replaced is the grass- hardly a native plant to Golden Gate Park. Perhaps we should instead restore the area to is "natural flora" sand dunes and shrubs?

Posted by D.native on May. 24, 2012 @ 11:13 am

Troll II is my favorite movie.

Posted by Troll II is my favorite movie on May. 25, 2012 @ 10:02 am
Posted by lillipublicans on May. 25, 2012 @ 3:36 pm

Everything I have read has stated that the natural forces at play in Sf for decades have emptied the city of children. Assuming this is true, explain to me why we should essentially ruin massive sections of GG park for a nonexistent constituency?
As a Outter Richmond resident and city tax payer who already has to deal with ridiculous traffic, noise, and pollution from tons of non residents abusing the park every weekend - I cannot support this proposal. The existing fields are fine as is. Kids who may want to play soccer already have tons of space in other nearby cities. Do we really need to attract more people from Oakland, Richmond and god knows where else along with inevitable crime?
No thank you.

Posted by Judith on May. 23, 2012 @ 8:08 pm

"Everything I have read has stated that the natural forces at play in Sf for decades have emptied the city of children."

No longer the case. They're pumping them out now as fast they can. You haven't noticed? Condoms/birth control no longer used it would appear. JFC. It's part of going backwards rather than forwards. Over-population is no longer a concern to anyone. Baby strollers clogging up sidewalks all over the place so the parents can show off their little trophies to get attention, which is really all it's about. Trying to "keep up with the Joneses." "Well so and so has a baby, and we should have one too and they can play together. Oh it will be so much fun. Tee hee, tee hee." Ugh. They also come in groups. This past Sunday I got behind a herd of them: 4 babies, each in a stroller with their parents spread across the sidewalk walking at a pace of about 6 steps a minute. No one else could get through, but of course the parents were oblivious to that because it was "all about them and their little darlings." Everyone wanted to see their baby because their baby is special and different (they thought). No one wanted to.

Self-absorbed, needy people.

But it will be years before any of these babies who are now being squeezed out all over the city will be playing soccer. By then, this artificial lighting and this rubber grass crap will be considered old, and they'll need something "new and improved."

Don't want it, won't have it, don't need it.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 8:45 pm

I am assuming that at some point you were one also.

Posted by D.native on May. 25, 2012 @ 7:11 am

How interesting that you site the example of two majority-black cities and their ungovernable and uncivilized residents and "the inevitable crime" they'll bring to San Francisco as your reason for opposing this project. We clearly cannot have "the blacks" and their crime - along with their lil' gangstas - playing soccer in OUR park at night. Just who do "those people" think they are?!?!

"No thank you" is right Judy!!

Posted by Troll II on May. 23, 2012 @ 9:14 pm

Lucreatia Snapples, Right-on-Sister-Snapples and now Troll II,

According to the 1010 Census (which is the latest one available), Oakland is no longer a majority Black city. From Wikipedia:

The 2010 United States Census[90] reported that Oakland had a population of 390,724. The population density was 5,009.2 people per square mile (1,934.0/km²). The racial makeup of Oakland was 134,925 (34.5%) White, 109,471 (28.0%) African American, 3,040 (0.8%) Native American, 65,811 (16.8%) Asian (8.7% Chinese, 2.2% Vietnamese, 1.6% Filipino, 0.7% Cambodian, 0.7% Laotian, 0.6% Korean, 0.5% Japanese, 0.5% Indian), 2,222 (0.6%) Pacific Islander (0.3% Tongan), 53,378 (13.7%) from other races, and 21,877 (5.6%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 99,068 persons (25.4%). Among the Hispanic population, 18.1% are Méxican, 1.9% Salvadoran, 1.3% Guatemalan, and 0.7% Puerto Rican.


However, between 2000 and 2010 Oakland lost nearly 25% of its black population.[96] The city demographics have changed due to a combination of gentrification along with many blacks relocating to Bay Area suburbs, or moving to the Southern United States.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 9:48 pm

We can't have them bringing "their crime" into our city. It's unacceptable that those people from Richmond and Oakland try to export their filth to our park.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 10:28 pm

Please. Get real. Outer Richmond is about as traffic free as you are going to get in the City. How terrible for you that people from outside the City come and use the park. I am sure that you never leave the City and would certainly never think of using a public area outside the City limits.

Posted by D.native on May. 24, 2012 @ 6:42 am

Here's the facts:
* The field is 7 acres (5 football fields). The plastic dead turf requires 2 - 3 lbs of toxic tire particles per sq ft. If one assumes 2 lbs of toxic tire particles per sq ft over 7 acres, that equals more than 600,000 POUNDS OF TOXIC TIRE PARTICLES IN YOUR GG PARK.

Here's a study (from Pubmed, run by the NIH) that shows the 600,000 lbs of tire particles are 600,000 of toxic particles:

"Automobile tires - a potential source of highly carcinogenic dibenzopyrenes to the environment."

Sadiktsis I, Bergvall C, Johansson C, Westerholm R.
Department of Analytical Chemistry Arrhenius Laboratory, Stockholm University , SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden.

Eight tires were analyzed for 15 high molecular weight (HMW) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). (snip whole abstract except most important statement from it) . These findings show that automobile tires may be a potential previously unknown source of carcinogenic dibenzopyrenes to the environment.

And here's what the GG Park Master Plan (GGPMP) says:

(pg 9-5) "Lighting is for safety purposes and is not intended to increase night use."

In the EIR, Rec & Park acknowledges it must follow the GGPMP.
But that sentence above from the GGPMP about the lighting would make Ginsberg's scheme to put 7 acres of plastic & 600,000 lbs of toxic tire particles impossible since it shows Ginsberg's scheme IS A CLEAR VIOLATION of the GGP Master Plan since the 60 foot lights WOULD BE INTENDED TO INCREASE NIGHT USE.

So how does the EIR get around this deal killer in the GGPMP? Easy - IT NEVER MENTIONS IT LIKE IT DIDN'T EXIST!!!

BUT too bad for Ginsberg BECAUSE IT DOES EXIST! Wanna see it for yourself? Go here - scroll down to pg 9-5 to read that crucial sentence at the bottom of the first column:

Thus the EIR is a total dishonest joke and should be rejected by the supes (the only way this thing can be stopped).

Don't let the unelected Phil Ginsberg and the unelected Rec & Park President Mark Buell DESTROY YOUR Golden Gate Park! Phil Ginsberg became GM of R&P only because he was Gavin Newsom's Chief of Staff and this was Newsom's way to dish out a favor. The guy had no experience with GG Park & should not be the head of it. He's only doing the work of the heirs of Don Fisher - who was a huge financial funder of GW Bush and other national Republican politicians.

How do you prevent this from happening? Only one way: YOU NEED TO TELL THE SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE EIR!

Here's their contact info: 554-7410 554-7752 554-7450 554-7460 554-7630 554-7970 554-6516 554-6968 554-5144 554-7670 554-6975

Contact as many supes as you can because we need 6 of them to reject the EIR so your GG Park doesn't get close to a million pounds of toxic tire particles in it. Don't let Phil Ginsberg and Mark Buell, two unelected bureaucrats and political appointees, DESTROY YOUR GOLDEN GATE PARK!!! Do it by contacting the supes. We can win this but the supes need to hear from us! Thanks!

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 8:52 pm

To show what a dishonest & bogus EIR this was (a 300 page lie to remove 7 acres of LIVING GRASS and replace it with 7 acres of DEAD PLASTIC TOXIC turf in Golden Gate Park), here's what it says on pg 100 (near bottom) of the EIR:

"The Beach Chalet Athletic Fields are listed in the Master Plan as a "night use" area."

It then references page 9-5 of the Golden Gate Park Master Plan as proof of this - here's a link to pg 9-5:

You'll find that that page DOES NOT say the soccer fields are a night-use area, what is listed as a night-use area on that page is the Beach Chalet RESTAURANT AND BAR. In addition, if that wasn't clear enough, there's a map of GGP on that page that has circles for the night-use areas and there are NO CIRCLES on the 4 soccer fields but there is one at the restaurant.

Was this an honest mistake by the EIR? That would require you to believe: 1) they didn't see the map on pg 9-5 that showed the soccer fields are not a night-use area, 2) they did see "Beach Chalet Athletic Fields" on the listing of night use areas (on the right side of pg 9-5) even though it says BEACH CHALET (which refers to the bar and restaurant), 3) it was also an honest mistake that they don't ever refer to the deal killer on that same page where it says, "Lighting is for safety purposes and is not intended to increase night use" - when this project with the 60 foot lights IS INTENDED TO INCREASE NIGHT USE, 4) they didn't see the heading "Potential Night Use Areas" on that same pg which would have clued them in that if the soccer fields were listed anywhere as a night use area, it would be there (since it's dark there at night now), but it's not (what's there are these 3 items: tennis courts, Pioneer Log Cabin, Equestrian center).

There's no way that was some innocent mistake. That EIR wanted to put out the message that according to the GGP Master Plan, this project was okay when the truth is: THIS PROJECT IS A BLATANT AND COMPLETE VIOLATION OF THE GGP Master Plan!!!

So the EIR is LYING to SELL this scheme to toxify and put 7 acres of DEAD TOXIC plastic in our Golden Gate Park. Ginsberg wants it so bad that he's put out the message to the EIR writers to do what they have to to make this consistent with the GGP Master Plan - even if it means telling blatant lies!

If I or you go to court and purposely lie to the judge and jury, we could be arrested. Those responsible for this dishonest EIR should face JAIL TIME! Ginsberg should have to answer for this dishonesty.

If you go to pg 9-5 of the GGPMP, you'll also see the following (bottom of first column):
"Lighting is for safety purposes and is not intended to increase night use." Thus this scheme is a total violation of the GGP Master Plan.

So how does the EIR get arouund that sentence that would kill the project? Easy - IT NEVER MENTIONS IT!

Go look at pg 100 of the EIR (first link above) - it discusses what's on pg 9-5 of the GGPMP but, of course, never mentions the MOST IMPORTANT SENTENCE ON THAT PAGE where it says lighting is only to be used for safety and is not intended to turn night into day.

Tell the supes to reject this dishonest, lying, bogus EIR!

We don't need over 600,000 lbs of tiny toxic tire particles in GG Park.

I will say one thing for the EIR: It does admit the tire particles and plastic artificial turf contains toxic materials and would hurt the wildlfe there. So how does it get around it this? It says it's less than 1% of GG Park so the birds can go somewhere else!!!

It's really saying that area is not really GG Park. BULLSHIT!!! It is part of GG Park and always has been! Tell the supes to reject the EIR!

As for gopher holes, all you have to do is put a 4 foot deep barrier around the perimeter and problem solved.


And the plastic turf and almost a million pounds of toxic tire particles has to be changed every 10 years!!! Who gets that contract worth MILLIONS??? Probably some friend of the sons of Don Fisher (who now run City Fields Foundation - and they apparently get to pick the contractor as if they owned GGP!!!).

Tell the supes to reject the EIR - the only legal way this idiotic CORRUPT scheme to put tons of plastic and toxic tire particles in GG Park can be killed. Here's their contact info:

Sup. Eric Mar 554-7410
Sup. Mark Farrell 554-7752
Sup. David Chiu 554-7450
Sup. Carmen Chu 554-7460
Sup. Christina Olague 554-7630
Sup. Jane Kim 554-7970
Sup. Sean Elsbernd 554-6516
Sup. Scott Weiner 554-6968
Sup. David Campos 554-5144
Sup. Malia Cohen 554-7670
Sup. John Avalos 554-6975

Thanks for helping SAVE GOLDEN GATE PARK!

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 9:28 pm
Posted by Troll II on May. 23, 2012 @ 9:47 pm


If you agreed with Guest, you wouldn't have posted that, and just as you did as Lucretia Snapples you're trying to moderate the forum. You're out of line with your trolling. The forum has a moderator and it's not you.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 10:05 pm
Posted by Troll II on May. 23, 2012 @ 10:24 pm

Well you would know, wouldn't you, Lucretia?

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 10:46 pm

Even though you are posting under a Guest handle, anyone with half a brain knows it is the same troll posting over and over again.

Posted by D.native on May. 24, 2012 @ 6:43 am

This ridiculous scheme is a complete and blatant violation of the GG Park Master Plan - a master plan the EIR admits must be followed. The EIR gets around this by purposely not mentioning those parts of the GGP Master Plan that would kill this project. What follows are just a sample of the many ways this violates the GGPMP. I've provided a link to the pertinent section of the GGPMP so you can see the text shown here is, indeed, in the GGPMP.

Page 3-9 of GGPMP:

*** start of excerpt ***
Objective II, POLICY A - PRESERVE THE DESIGN INTEGRITY OF GOLDEN GATE PARK. The original design intent shall be preserved.

1. All activities, features and facilities in Golden Gate Park should respect the unique design and character of the park.

2. The major design feature of Golden Gate Park and the framework within which all park activities occur is its pastoral and sylvan landscape. The integrity of the pastoral and sylvan landscape must be maintained and remain unaltered.

6. No changes or alterations to any park feature should occur without consideration of the parkwide effects.

Page 3-10 of GGPMP:
Objective II - POLICY C: WILDLIFE AND HABITAT. Golden Gate Park provides important habitat for wildlife within San Francisco. Habitat values should be preserved and enhanced throughout the park.

Page 3-11 of GGPMP:

The principles of “sustainable landscape” should be applied to management practices, landscape design, plant selection, and irrigation methods.

Page 3-21 of GGPMP:

2. Park lighting should not detract visually or physically from the character of the park

Page 4-4 of GGPMP:

* (heading: “Forest and Meadow Relationship”) The “naturalistic” design emulates trees and meadows in nature.
* (heading: “Forest and Meadow Relationship”) “Nothing gives a more park-like appearance, or a more agreeable impression to the landscape, than broad lawns and long vistas, ...with its charming variety of outline flanked with the tall pines, amongst the shadows of which the grassy nooks are lost, giving an idea of much greater extent than there really is.”
John McLaren, 1889 Annual Report
* (heading: “Forest and Meadow Relationship”) [referring to quote immediately above by John McLaren] Preserving this relationship between forest and meadow, and the intricate outlines, is critical to retaining the park’s historic design.
* (heading: “Other Open Spaces”) In addition to the meadows, there are other open spaces that are important elements of the park’s design and serve as view spaces. Other open spaces include recreation areas and fields, play areas, gardens, plazas, lakes, lake settings, and building settings. Vistas to and from within these spaces should be preserved and maintained as important view areas.

Page 4-5 of GGPMP:

* (heading on pg 4-4, “Eastern Park/Western Park”) The western park [according to William Hammond Hall’s original design] was to be “simply treated as a woodland or forest, with all the hills and ridges more or less heavily timbered, and the valleys covered with lower growing shrubs or field grasses.” Over the years, facilities have been added to the western park, but the character of the landscape has remained as more wooded, less refined parkland. This distinction should be maintained, with different landscape treatments for the eastern and western portions.

* (heading: “Rural Design”) One of the key principles of nineteenth century park design was to provide contrast and relief from the urban environment. This was done by creating rural, pastoral, or wilderness landscapes and screening the edges from views to adjacent urban areas. It is particularly important to maintain the rural character in the western park.

*** end of excerpts ***

The above excerpts CLEARLY SHOW that this scheme to put almost a MILLION lbs of toxic tire particles and 7 acres of DEAD plastic turf in place of LIVING natural GRASS & SOIL in our MAJESTIC Golden Gate Park COMPLETELY AND BLATANTLY VIOLATES the Golden Gate Park Master Plan - a plan that the EIR acknowledges must be followed.

Any EIR that says this plasticization and toxification of Golden Gate Park is consistent with the above excerpts is a FRAUDULENT EIR and should be rejected by the Board of Supes (the only way this idiotic scheme can be killed):

Tell the supes to reject this FRAUDULENT EIR and do your part to prevent the Rec-the-Park Dept from putting over 600,000 lbs of toxic tire particles in GGP:

Sup. Eric Mar 554-7410
Sup. Mark Farrell 554-7752
Sup. David Chiu 554-7450
Sup. Carmen Chu 554-7460
Sup. Christina Olague 554-7630
Sup. Jane Kim 554-7970
Sup. Sean Elsbernd 554-6516
Sup. Scott Weiner 554-6968
Sup. David Campos 554-5144
Sup. Malia Cohen 554-7670
Sup. John Avalos 554-6975

The birds and wildlife of Golden Gate Park THANK YOU!!!

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 9:52 pm

If you got kids, DON'T LET THEM PLAY on these artificial turf fields because their knees and ankles could get screwed up since the following studies show they are more dangerous than natural grass.

This Reuters article, from last month, shows the 7 acre, toxic, plastic DEAD field would also be toxic to soccer players knees:

"Football knee injuries likelier on turf than grass"

April 30, 2012

By Kerry Grens

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - College football players suffer knee injuries about 40 percent more often when playing on an artificial surface compared to when they're playing on grass, according to a new study.

Here's another article that shows the DEAD PLASTIC turf in GGP would be toxic to soccer players's knees:

Artificial Turf Injuries Still More Likely in NFL

By Todd Neale, Staff Writer, MedPage Today

March 15, 2010

NEW ORLEANS -- National Football League players were significantly more likely to injure their legs and feet on a popular brand of artificial turf than on grass, researchers found in one of three NFL injury studies reported here.

Players were 27% more likely to sustain a lower extremity injury when the game was played on artificial FieldTurf instead of the real thing (P<0.01), according to Elliott Hershman, MD, of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

More specifically, there was an 88% increased risk of an injury to the anterior cruciate ligament and a 32% increased risk of an eversion ankle sprain when playing on FieldTurf (P<0.01 for both), Hershman reported at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons meeting here.


Just put a 4' deep barrier around the GRASS fields and there's no gophers, no screwed up knees from this artificial DEAD turf and no 600,000 lbs of toxic tire particles in our Golden Gate Park. Tell the supes you don't wan't GG Park ruined and you don't want kids knees and ankles ruined from these plastic dead artificial turf fields.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 10:00 pm

This youtube video is a conglomeration of various tv news pieces about the dangers of plastic turf fields (mostly due to the toxic tire particles). One can't watch this video and still want that toxic crap in Golden Gate Park - or want them or their kids near the stuff (and if you play on the stuff, there's a good chance you'll take some of those toxic tire particles home with you - not good if you have pets).

The news clips are all from mainstream tv news sources - you'll recognize most of the anchors if you watch tv at all:

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 10:07 pm

The above is a link to a report that the San Diego Park & Rec completed in May, 2011, that calculated the total cost of grass and total cost of plastic turf & toxic tire infill. Everything was taken into consideration - labor, water, the need to replace the plastic turf & toxic tires every 10 years, etc.

Here's their conclusion:

"Over a 10-year period, the projected cost per participant hour of use is approximately $2.70 for natural turf and $3.10 for synthetic turf.

Over a 20-year period, including one replacement of the synthetic turf carpet and infill, the cost per participant hour of use decreases to $1.75 for natural turf and $2.60 for synthetic turf."

So the plastic DEAD turf & toxic tire particles are actually 50% MORE EXPENSIVE than keeping the natural LIVING grass in GG Park. Not only does this idiotic scheme from some ppl at Rec-the-Park Dept destroy the ecosytem there, it's also a big loss of $ for the ppl of San Francisco!

Tell the Supes: reject the fraudulent EIR and KEEP THE GRASS IN GOLDEN GATE PARK! We don't need over 600,000 lbs of toxic tire particles there! We need 6 supes to reject the EIR or else this DISASTER becomes reality!

Contact them now - it will just take a few minutes. At this point, it can go either way so your email or phone call could decide whether this toxification of GG Park happens or not. Here's their contact info:

Sup. Eric Mar 554-7410
Sup. Mark Farrell 554-7752
Sup. David Chiu 554-7450
Sup. Carmen Chu 554-7460
Sup. Christina Olague 554-7630
Sup. Jane Kim 554-7970
Sup. Sean Elsbernd 554-6516
Sup. Scott Weiner 554-6968
Sup. David Campos 554-5144
Sup. Malia Cohen 554-7670
Sup. John Avalos 554-6975

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 10:18 pm

"We need 6 supes..."

The way things have been going lately, unfortunately I only count one, possibly two.

Campos (maybe)

The rest: Corporatists.

One or two of the remaining supervisors surprise one with their vote (in a positive direction) on the odd occasion, but I would guess that they will be for this toxic project no matter what (even after seeing the YouTube video), to fatten the bank account of the corporations who make this garbage and the 150,000 watt lighting. "It's for the good of the City," they'll say. I can hear it now. Ugh.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 11:03 pm

Supervisor Mar is up for re-election and his district (Richmond district) is adjacent to this scheme to toxify GG Park. If you live in the RD, or even if you don't but still live in SF (since he'll probably run for the California legislature), you have a lot of leverage with Mar if you let it be known to him that he won't be getting your vote if he doesn't vote to repeal this fraudulent, dishonest EIR.

Those that actually DO contact the supes on this will have much more power than those that don't because so few people do so those that do are a TINY minority - yet those are what decides for the most part how a supervisor votes. So contact the supes and give yourself the power you never imagined you had (over the supervisors).

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 11:39 pm

I'll change the first two I listed.

Cross off "progressive" Avalos. Can't rely on him.

For the USS Harvey Milk vote: It passed (as I expected it to...with *this* Board).

Avalos joined "savior" Wiener and seven other sups to support the resolution. Only Olague and Kim were opposed.

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2012 @ 3:02 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.