24, 2012. before we call role, let me just remind everyone to turn off or silence cell phones or any other electronic device that may sound off during the proceedings. as you can see, this is a very crowded room. i feel the need to engage in secondary discussion, we ask that you take those discussions outside as they become extremely disruptive to the process. [roll call] roll-call for the recreation and park commission. [roll call] ok, thank you. commissioners, the item before

you today is the beach shall lay, and that has a number of actions that are being proposed for you to consider. item one is the beach chalet environmental impact report that will be considered by the planning commission only. in two is adoption of findings under california environmental quality act for planning commission only. item three is general plan conformity findings for planning commission only. item four is a request for coastal zone permit, planning commission only. item five is approving the beach shall lead athletic fields renovation conceptual plan and making finance, including findings of consistency with the golden gate park master plan and findings under the california environmental quality act for recreation and park commission action only. commissioners, the order of business today is for there to be all of the staff reports from

both departments and project sponsors, followed by a single public comment category, and i will call back half that time, which would then -- once that is complete, the chair will close the public hearing, and the matter will be before both commissions for your considered action. with that, commissioners, staff. >> good afternoon -- >> excuse me, if i could just interrupt. i just heard the share of yelling in the hall that overflow is in room 408 -- i just heard the share of -- the sherriff yelled in the hall. >> good afternoon. during me tonight, the senior

environmental planner, and environmental consultant with esa. the item before you today is a certification of the final environmental impact report for the proposed buell -- proposed beach chalet athletic field renovation project. the draft eir was published a october 26, 2011. public hearings on december 1, 2011. public common closed on december 12, 2011. the comments and responses document was published and distributed on may 7, 2012. contained within your supplemental that information back are copies of e-mails and letters received this month by the environmental review officer.

mount sinai environmental children's health center listed their concerns about the impacts of artificial turf fields. another was written on behalf of sf osha, said, the sierra club, the audubon society, the sunset park action committee, and the richmond community association. the letter states a preference of a hybrid alternative. in addition, letters are received from mary ann miller and robert clayton, stating that their concerns were not adequately addressed in cnr. because these letters were received after we published the comments and responses document, we were not able to include them, but the concerns raised are similar to commons already addressed, and no new issues were raised, and all issues we believe are adequately addressed. the eir down the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact as it would impair many of the character- defining features of the beach chalet field facility.

these alterations include installation of lights, synthetic turf, spectator seating, and new pathways. therefore, the commission would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to the california environmental quality act, should the commission choose to approve the project. the eir provided four alternatives -- the new project attended, the offset product alternative at sunset, the grass turf with ridges let's, and the grass synthetic turf with no light alternative. all of these would reduce the project was a significant unavoidable impact to historic resources. we request that the commission adopt the motion before you as soon as the contents are verified as accurate, and the procedures through which the final eir was prepared comply with the provisions of ceqa. this concludes my presentation unless commissioners have any questions.

if commissioners do not have questions, i will hand over the microphone to neil from the planning department. commissioner fong: thank you. i do not see any calls. there might be questions for you later. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a planner with the city wide planning division of the planning department. it is a pleasure to be before you this morning -- afternoon. at issue before you today is the renovation of the soccer field at the beach chalet in the golden gate park. the staff report provided for you provides more detailed analysis, so my summary today will be brief. the planning department received many hundreds -- perhaps over 1000 -- e-mails in response to this project. the majority of e-mails were opposed -- opposed to the renovation of the beach chalet and focused most of the

criticism on the synthetic turf and nighttime lighting. the overwhelming majority commented on the design of the soccer field and did not specifically address the general plan policies that are the purview of the report i'm about to summarize for you, so i'm really responsible for making sure that the projects moving forward is not uncommon on the project specifically and is in conformity with prior to steer the majority of the policies and general plan come from the recreation and open space element. the recreation and park department have a broad mandate to provide a diverse and balanced open space system, including recreational opportunities. for example, a policy for what one states we should make better use of our existing facilities. policy for 43 says we should debate and into the city was a park and recreation facilities. the implications of these

policies could summarize the saying the changing demographics and recreational needs of san franciscans must be accommodated by the city's recreational facilities. this requires periodic improvements, even in ways not foreseen by the facility's original designers, to meet these needs. the golden gate park facilities should remain within their existing footprints to minimize the impact on the landscape. within the golden gate subsection, policy 2.2 states we should preserve existing public open space, and policy 2.4 states we should gradually eliminate non-recreational uses in parks and reduce automobile traffic in and around open spaces. implications include the expansion of a parking lot that is in balance, not consistent with the general plan, although the impact of expansion is very small. the increase demand for

facilities should be met whenever possible by sustainable modes of transport, consistent with the city's larger goals whenever possible. the golden gate park facility should be made accessible to all users. one of the key elements of this proposed project is to make open spaces accessible to people of all means and abilities and to increase accessibility, which is consistent to the general plan. finally, the golden gate park master plan, while not in the general plan, there is an outline suggesting what should be in the plan, and that outline does provide conflicting policy direction for facilities such as the soccer fields. again, within the golden gate park subsection, the outline suggests that we should have recreational facilities, the recreational facilities are considered essential resources in golden gate park, and it emphasizes the role of recreational facilities.

at the same time, it emphasizes that the naturalistic landscapes should be protected and renewed within the bounds of its character. it also states that vehicle traffic should be minimized. finally, the primary function of the part is to serve the recreational needs of all san franciscans. the implications include that the proposed improvements really trouble the recreational capacity of the field within its existing footprint. the synthetic turf lighting do represent a change in the nationalistic character of the field. the ceqa findings, the environmental review highlights that conflict here finally, within the western shore line, the western shore line offers conflicting policy direction as well for facilities such as the soccer fields. it states that we should improve the western end of the park for public recreation. it is currently considered to be underutilized and is deserving of improvement.

it similarly emphasizes the naturalistic landscapes qualities at the same time encouraging increase visitor use of the western end of the park. locations include the proposed revisions would " improve the public recreation and increase visitor use. however, it would do so at some level of impact of the naturalistic landscapes qualities of the park. the department finds on balance the proposed renovation of the beach chalet soccer fields to be in conformity with the general plan. some of the highlights include, in addition to the ones i have already mentioned, that the evolving recreational needs of san franciscans require facilities to perform more efficiently than they currently do. we found that the 1000-plus acres of the naturalistic landscapes in golden gate park are not diminished by the proposed renovation. finally, that the large increase of the number of people using the facilities will result in a greater sense of safety amongst pedestrians moving through the western end of the park at night.

that concludes my summary. i would be happy to take any questions. >> commissioners, just so you know, we will have different sections of it. there's time for questions now, but at the very end, we will have time for questions and full deliberation, but if you have any specific questions right now. >> i just wanted to get clarification. the e-mails that you received -- could you just repeat what the outcome was of the e-mails? >> i understand, at least on the planning commission side, that a number of females were received. the department has received, we estimate, over 1000 e-mails. they have been coming in very rapidly the past couple of days, so it is hard to say exactly how many we have, but we estimate over 1000 e-mails. from what we can do in terms of sorting them, the majority have

the same language but have different centers, but the majority are in opposition to the project, so they will go into a case report for the environmental review document. >> so they are opposed to the synthetic field? >> they oppose the renovations unchanged from natural -- and the change from natural to synthetic turf. commissioner moore: i would like to note that these e-mails are still coming in as we are talking. [laughter] >> great, thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning staff of the current planning division. a coastal zone permit% to planning code section 330 is required for the beach chalet athletic fields project. as the project is within the local coastal zone.

while the project is located within the local coastal zone, the project is not located within the appeal is based able area that is that he'llable to the california commission. for the draft motion -- that is appealable to the company commissioned. i would be happy to go into the goals and objectives upon the commission's request. furthermore, on balance, the project is bound to be consistent with the eight priority planning policies of planning code section 101.1, and at this time, the planning department recommends approval of the coastal zone application. i would be happy to answer any questions at this time. thank you. commissioner fong: commissioners, and the specific questions? ok, thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. representative read it -- but grisham our government. i have a power point presentation i would like to do. it is included in your packages, so i will try to move through at a pretty good pace, but i think it is important to touch on all of these points from a point of history and understanding the project in more detail. 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 place to play athletics and sports. the way we were going to achieve that as part of this program was we had a three-prong approach.

two, to improve our permits and reservation so we can optimize that system, and, three, to engage with the school district so we can utilize their facilities where appropriate on weekends. with the program starting in 2006 to date, the combination of city and private funds we've been able to general er irdelizz 21 million from the city side and $29 million from the private donors. to date we have completed 14 athletic fields and light renovations in seven of our park facilities and in the works we have six athletic fields with light renovations. beach chalet which we're talking about today and the renovations we are proposing at the muni facility why synthetic turf is the big question. simply put, it allows us to

utilize these fields year round, from morning to night. we don't have to close these facilities like we do natural turf fields because of rain, rest, and regrowth. they're extremely safe, they're a lesm playing surface. they don't have geoffer holes or irregular surfaces creating problems for our youth on the fields the in 2008 we went through a very exhaustive task force that found that the synthetic turf was a safe product. also the e.i.r. process we went through identified that it's a safe program. there are other side benefits to our program that have come to light as part of it, as far as environmental improvements. obviously synthetic turf we don't have to water. we estimate we save 1.5 million gallons -- gallons of water on a single field, roughry 75

million gallons saved annually. we don't have to put herb i kidsed on the fields. and as part of our turf purchasing standards which we worked through very closely with the department of the environment we require that the turf we purchase is recyclable and that the company we purchase it from will take it back and recycle it in entirey. we have about six years of experience under our belts. what we've documented during that time is just by field renovation as loan we've been able to increase play hours in our fields by 37,000 hours, reorganize our permits and reservation system. we've added another 37 for fields and reservations improvements and in our work with the school district we were able to tack op another 4 5 hours for roughly a grand total of 72,000 dibble play hours since the program

started. that's a big number. hard to put your arms around what that really means but just from the youth soccer organization we were able to increase youth soccer play with an additional 1,800 kids playing soccer which equates to 140 additional soccer teams. this next image is just a scatter diagram of the facilities we've renovated to date. the yellow stars represent facilities renovated and open and the two red stars are the ones i mentioned, mini levy ward in the center and the beach chalet that fills the void up in the upper west corner of the city. the next few slides are basically images of fields that have been completed to date. they've all been a tremendous success and asset to the community and the rec and parks staff. silver terrace was the other

one, the project in 2006. it's now the most highly requested athletic field in our system. franklin square, that's a facility we actually renovated with synthetic turf in 2002 before the initiative. we added lights to increase play at that facility. south sunset on the west edge of the city, another success. crocker am adon playground, one of our theme primary ground sports facilities. this facility actually hosted three soccer fields before we did the renovations and through creative alignment we were able to add two additional soccer fields in the same footprint so we now have five full soccer fields the kimball in the western addition. nestled between two high schools we know this is highly utilized by youth organizations and neighborhood teams. it is a bustling facility out

in the western addition. mission dolores. this say project that just had its first phase ribbon cutting tuesday of this week. it was an asphalt athletic field and we len 0 vated it with synthetic turf. it's a multifaze project. it was -- multiphase project. it was opened on tuesday and the latter half of the project with will be opened this summer. next, muni levy ward. this is in the planning phase and we hope to move forward and not -- be in the construction phase in 201. another field in disrepair in district 11. we'll help that area out significantly. the beach chalet soccer fields, the purpose why we're here today. again this photo shows the existing conditions and the proposed solution on the right. the present condition is grass field. the the soccer fields are

currently fenced with an eight-foot link -- chainlink fence around the facility and it's currently closed about half the time during the year and is only used through formal permit and reservation process. next slide. so a little bit more. the soccer field at the west end of the park hads been in existence more than 75 yards -- years and it's one of our three primary athletic facilities. during the fall more than 1,500 kids and 600 adults play at beach chalet every week. the soccer field in scale, golder gate's total is, this is less n -- than 1% of the fat -- facility. current condition, the fields are closed for rents about 50% of the time as a mentioned.

it's only open by reservation and closed before 3:00 p.m. most week days, closed every monday throughout the year and closed due to winter season conditionsnd staff maintenance needs and basically allowing the grass to regorrochategui. the field has had limited use and unsafe conditions. even if -- when it is open we only occupy three of the four fields, we go through a rotation cycle. so the benefit with the synthetic turf is we're going to gain an additional field full time. other unsafe conditions, the field is riddled with geoffer holes and uneven surface. we have wet conditions out there throughout the year because of its location on the west side of the city and some of the amenities such as the parking lot are extremely unsafe right now due to the volume of people coming in and out. pedestrians have to access a driveway entri to the facility, which is problematic the and it

lacks family friendly amenities. there is no seating on or off the field for spectators. the bathroom facilities need a face lift. there are few stal doors on the interior of the restrooms, making it unfriendly. no changing tables for kids and there's no other amenities at the facility like children's play areas, picnic tables, barbecue pits and such. next? so the proposed benefits for this project as mentioned previous reply by another presenter, we anticipate we're going to triple the amount of play time at the facility with this project. currently we have 4,700 hours of play. we at this. being north of 14,000 once this is rhone vated. we're going to provide a family friendly facility and provide more field time on the northwest side of the city for children and adults playing

sports. proposed improvements, obviously the core of president project is synthetic turf and life. we are proposing to add spectator benches and seating for all four fields, a children's plaza and play area around the structure, we're going to renovate the restroom, create safe walkways to and through the site and create new picnic and barbecue space to the south of the facility. the next few views give you a feel for what we are trying to propose here. this is a view look -- looking east. there sigh small area of space that will accommodate seatding. adjacent to that is a meandering path down to the field which is a.d.a. compliant and south of that another children's play area. one up can't see behind our proposed tree solution is a

proposed maintenance facility that will replace the trailer our staff currently operates out of. currently there is an eight-foot-tall chain link fen. we're proposing to lower that substantially to 42 inches tall except for right behind the back stops. we're going to raise it up at those locations to keep the balls on the field but the lowering of the field around the rest of the facility is going to provide a more friendly and inviting environment. this is looking east at the field level. we're -- we're proposing a nice landscaping around the restroom building and the more important element of this drawing is the spectator seating we're proposing. when we started this project we talked about adding spectator seating ond the design folks said ok, we can put bleachers out there. that's not where we wanted to

go with this. we wanted to have low-profile seating in the space that would complement the space. what we're proposing is small, about 30-inch-tall bleachers with wood slats on them in keeping with some of the other facilities in gold benefit -- golden gate park. next slide. this particular image is thrown in to illustrate the lighting that we're proposing at the field. as you can see in this image it shows seven of the 10 light fixtures that are prepared for -- proposed for the field. the image is obviously only one perspective but it shows the scale of the light poles against the tree canopy. those are the actual trees. those are the actual photos of the trees. so it just gives a relationship and shows that the poles are actually relatively low compared to the trees surrounding them. next slide.

we recognize that lighting is a contentious issue on this project and we respect that and we've gone through a very diligent and long process. normally the light towers on a project of this scale would be 08 to 90 feet tall and ringing the field. through goes, and developing a more realistic program that would work for everyone, the orange dots you see, they're actually 60 feet tall and sitting on the field, in between the fields actually by unward. the intent is to lower the light poles so you can't see them from the perimeter and minimize the impact beyond the park the others are small lights along the pedestrian pathways, and the purpose of that is to have safe entrance and exit for the facility during evening hours. here's just a simplo