lot will be the new storage structure for the operations staff. so i wanted to talk briefly that s the overview of some of the elements of the project. i wanted to talk briefly about the golden gate master plan. i know neil mentioned it briefly as part of the general plan review process but i wanted to point out that the department recognizes that goaltender golden gate park is separated into to distinct sections, the east end, the more developed area and the west end is more sylvan and pastoralnd we recognize that and respect that and try for that goal. but if you look deeper into the master plan plan, that concept an over over-arching concept but there is specific language in the plan that poisonous to athletic facilities and i want to just briefly touch on some of those. in the objectives and policies they recognize major recreation be areas in the park and beach chalet is clearly marked as the a major recreation area with specific purposes for athletic play, soccer.
i am a soccer proponent and i support the renovation of the beach chalet. however, i am also trained in planning. this project, as proposed, it is in violation with almost every plan for this part of the city, including golden gate park. in regards to this master plan, the former park planner is also on the public record saying that she believes this plan is in violation of the golden gate park master plan. we should also what should also be a red flag before but the commission s is the fact that to there is lack of consideration for the other major land owner at this part of the city, namely the national park service. it has not been addressed by the recreation and park department. despite the fact that there are alternatives to address the issue, they also have heard nothing to this a fact. the alternatives are there with other sites and other considerations, even some kind of approaches that would make the opponents to this project feel that their concerns have been hu
back in 2004, the recreation and park department initiated a third-party recreation assessment, which identified at the recreation and park department was short athletic fields citywide, and the problem has only exacerbated over time as sports become more popular. on an average day, over 4000 kids use our field after school, especially during spring and fall, and during that time, usually between 3:00 and 6:30 p.m. is the prime time of usage. what we find is that growth is restricted by the lack of fields in our system, so that is why this program came into existence and why we are here today. following that recreation assessment, the city feels foundation and recreation and park department joined forces to establish a plate field initiative. we can gather in 2006 and started the program. immediately following that, we initiated a few pilot projects, which i will talk to a bit later, but the goal of the program at the time was to make sure every san francisco child had a safe
when its rains, no soccer. they just want to play soccer and i think turf is the way to go. it is an excellent idea for the children get out and get active and be involved with other children, meeting the other children. thank you. good evening. thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. my name is bob. i am the father of three very active young boys. ages 10 - ages 10, 8, 6. i am in favor of the turf.ed toe due diligence that you have done in taking up the studies in regards to the utilization of the field. can you give him another minute or so? thank you. the studies that you have done in regards to environmental impact, i appreciate all of that. i am glad you have done that due diligence. i want to touch on the safety factors that have been discussed earlier. those are and other safety factor that may be overlooked is when children are coming and going from these fields, there is a lot of activity in regards to automobile traffic. in other parts of this proje
park master plan task force. i am a soccer proponent and i support the renovation of the beach chalet. however, i am also trained in planning. this project, as proposed, it is in violation with almost every plan for this part of the city, including golden gate park. in regards to this master plan, the former park planner is also on the public record saying that she believes this plan is in violation of the golden gate park master plan. we should also what should also be a red flag before but the commission s is the fact that to there is lack of consideration for the other major land owner at this part of the city, namely the national park service. it has not been addressed by the recreation and park department. despite the fact that there are alternatives to address the issue, they also have heard nothing to this a fact. the alternatives are there with other sites and other considerations, even some kind of approaches that would make the opponents to this project feel tha