assist in the length of time she has in housing, but i do not think that is very fair to the property owner either, so i think what we should do is uphold the permit, and the property owner is willing to work with her in terms of the amount of time she has to move, but really, we need to not prejudice the property owner in terms of notice of violation. i just do not think that is a fair resolution either. >> i agree with you in concept, but i feel that if we gave them an additional three months for a total of about six months, that is a reasonable accommodation on both a part of the current

property owner and the department. it is going to take them three months to move the case along. i just feel six months is not an unreasonable time to look for a unit here in san francisco superior -- in san francisco. >> i would agree. i think the last time we heard this week gave three months to come back with the report, and i think we are all on the same page. we would like to resolve this, but giving another three months to resolve this i think is worthwhile, given the difficulty in finding housing here, so i would also support a continuance. >> the you have a motion? but do we have a specific date? >> yes, are we looking at november? do we have november 7?

14? >> i moved to continue this on november 7. >> is it within the purview of the board to ask for documentation of the appellant for the efforts made between now now and then, a roster of calls, please she might be on -- lists she might be on, because arguably it is here say as to what she is trying to do. that would be useful. >> we can allow the parties to give us an update. >> to reset a page limits of any kind of argument they might make and allow them who -- do we set a page limit of any kind to

an argument they might make? i recommend a three-page brief to document the calls. whereas the motion is to continue this on november 7 to allow time to find alternate housing with a three page of a briefing allowed and unlimited and exhibits -- which three pages of briefing allowed and unlimited exhibits. >> the briefing would include the documentation of their efforts. >> on that motion to continue to november 7 -- [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. this factor is continued to

november 7 -- this matter is continued to november 7. thank you. >> i wonder if the dpw rep has arrived. >> i got a note. he has no intention of coming. they have nothing to say on this item. >> they do not object to the findings? >> they are neutral. >> i will go ahead and call item four, which is the adoption of findings at 27 avenue. the board voted 4-1 to grant the appeal and provoke the wireless and box permit with adoption of its findings at a later time.

it is the findings before the board for consideration this evening. and we will give the party's three minutes to address the board, and we will start with the appellant, mr. cooper. >> jeff cooper, thank you for taking the time. just a couple of comments. i quickly reviewed the brees. it feels like they are trying to create our record for discrimination. the act states, except as provided in this paragraph, nothing shall limit the state or local government over decisions regarding placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless facilities. the paragraph goes on to discuss how municipalities should not on

reasonably discriminate against wireless providers -- unreasonably discriminate against wireless providers. i have a chart that shows permit applications since may of 2008. there have been 235 permit applications in our city government and and i believe this is the only location where the permit has been overturned by the board of appeals. i think is a hard argument to say our city is discriminating against wireless and given the proliferation of violence in our city. in this particular instance, the equipment is not compatible with the location. the telecommunications act clearly allows local governments to be productive harness, and wireless -- hornbeck if not in how wireless systems are enrolled in our city.

the various compatibility standard of article 25 requires some interpretation. the equipment is larger than other attachments on our block. the other attachments are primarily for wire used by residents. these are for wireless services. at&t market share is about 30%, so we have capacity to serve as a third of people in a different neighborhood. i believe the board in terms of article 25. we are setting a precedent about what is the acceptable, and i believe this is the exact president -- precedent by the board of supervisors. i thank the board of appeals.

we need to challenge the board to do better. they will not do so on their own. finally, they made this argument last time around when they lost an appeal and when we won the appeal previously. they correctly ruled they did not have the rights because they had never been issued a correct permit, so their vested rights would not apply. >> before we proceed, i want to announce commissioner lazarus has had the opportunity to review the papers we give you. >> commissioners, thank you for this opportunity. my name is in a talk shop ernst, and i and utility counsel region -- my name is natasha ernst, and i am the utility counsel.

i want to flesh out some more evidence of planning department looks out, because it is their decision that discusses the capabilities standard. gooi did not realize the dpw was not going to be there. we ask what the other locations where we could locate. this was the location that is the best right here, and as you can see, there is no screening. there is no trees or any other type of solids that would screen it, -- foliage that would screen it, so there are these right on the corners. the planning department was very concerned regarding placing and montana -- placing an antenna

because they would affect these window views or placing them on the top of the larger pool because it would affect the deck here, so the low paid and was selected as being the most compatible -- the location was selected as being the most compatible in the neighborhood. this is the coverage map again, and each of these triangles are similar installations. the one we are talking about provides coverage southdown 27th street, so this neighborhood is receiving coverage. it is also providing coverage to the area of sea cliff, and in the world of cellphone, each time there is more data usage, you need to increase the amount of infrastructure. the city of san francisco decided it wanted to have a

number of small installations that would be as close to tier 1 as possible, which is why it is only 2 inches wider than tier 2. this is not one of our locations. this is next to a highway. this is a larger site with multiple boxes of multiple antennas at the top that covers a larger area, and the legislation was passed in order to prevent a larger location and instead have many small and locationlocations, and when youe looking at our location, we did have one antenna, but we were trying to make it as small as possible. >> is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. you have to step to the microphone if you want to

address the board. >> i want to make a correction. it is 27th avenue, not 27 straight. -- street. >> any other public comment? seeing none, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, you have findings before you, which nobody spoke to. any comments on those findings? then i will entertain a motion. >> i moved to adopt the findings. >> thank you. >> we have a motion to adopt the findings, no changes. on that motion -- [calling votes]

thank you. the vote is 4-0. the findings are adopted, and the rehearing request period begins. >> we will move on to item 68 and item sixb, that will be held together. 074 is sf ocean edge. 075 is golden gate park preservation alliance. both are protesting the approval of a coastal zone permit granted to the recreation and parks department. application 2010 0016p.

we will give time to each of the appellate starting with 074. we will give a combined 20 minutes to the parks department and zoning administrator. and we can begin. >> good evening. my name is broke. i am an environmental attorney representing some -- my name is brooke. i am an environmental attorney. i am also a soccer player. i have also coached youth and

college soccer. i love the game of soccer, and i love nature, but i do not believe one should be sacrificed for the other. fortunately, we do not have to choose between soccer and nature if we are smart and strategic. your the proposed project would replace the field with artificial turf, removed adjacent trees, and not installed bright lights, -- install bright lights, add seating, and so on. i will explain why the proposal should be rejected and why there is a feasible proposal that exists. the proposed project is inconsistent with the local coastal program. it is my understanding of the board of appeals has rarely if ever had an opportunity to hear

an appeal relating to the california coastal act. i would like to briefly describe the act, which was enacted by the state legislature after recognition that "the california coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resources of vital interest to all people and exists as a delicate ecosystem here " the planning commission may only approved -- as a delicate ecosystem." when planning commission may only approved if they find this is in in conformity with the lcp. the lcp is embodied in the western shoreline plan of the san francisco general plan. policy 3.1 specifies the western end of golden gate park must

emphasize the naturalistic landscapes qualities of the western end of the park for visitors use. the proposed project fails to meet this requirement because it does not protect the naturalistic quality of the western end of golden gate park, because the proposed project entails moving up to 11 acres of naturally growing grass and adjacent trees and installing artificial turf. it would also install 10 new 60- foot tall lamppost deadwood broadcast 150,000 walktts of light 365 days a year after 10:00 p.m. in an area of the park that has historically been dark at night. it would also install bleacher seating for about 1000 spectators. all of these proposed changes

would diminish the naturalistic quality of the landscape and would also displays and birds, mammals, and in vertebrates throughout the year. policy 3.2 of the lcp specifies it is necessary to continue to implement a long-term reforestation program at the western portion of the park. the proposed project is inconsistent with this requirement because the proposed project would remove 60 trees and also wrote plays 16 of thumb richard also replaced 16 of them -- would remove 60 trees and also replace 16 of them. the light would ruin the natural dark sky environment. the california coastal commission conducts a review of

lighting for new projects along the shoreline and only permits bright lighting under special conditions. for example, on october 5, 2011, the california coastal commission unanimously rejected a proposal for lighting and an athletic field in the city of malibu. instead, it approved a modified proposal with specific new restrictive conditions, including limiting flight usage after 7:30 p.m. to only 18 days per year. i would have to assume the california coastal commission would require similar conditions for this proposed project, but these problems are avoidable. we propose a hybrid alternative, which is consistent with the lcp.

it would not destroy the night sky natural environment and would allow the same amount of playing time as does the proposed project. we proposed the deed shall lay sealed be restored with new natural grass -- the deep chalais be restored with new natural grass and drainage. at the same time we would install and natural turf and white thing. the city has refused to consider this alternative. i would like to respectfully ask the board of appeals to allow us to submit additional evidence of the feasibility of the hybrid alternatives. it is acknowledged additional written arguments may not be submitted at a hearing without prior board approval, but under the case bakersfield citizens for local control versus bakersfield, sequent evidence --

ceqa evidence may be submitted. this provides evidence of how the hybrid alternative allows similar playing time to the proposed project, so i have the letter we would like to submit into evidence. i do not know exactly -- >> you can submit it, but we will not have the opportunity to review it. >> maybe i will finish my last little bit, and maybe we can have a discussion about it. >> and if there are questions raised. >> i will wrap up by saying we respectfully request the board of appeals overturned the planning commission's approval of zoning code applications for the reasons i have just stated and for the reasons we submitted to you. thank you.

>> are you waiting for something? >> she you have any questions? -- do you have any questions? >> questions, commissioners? >> not at this point. >> are you going to be willing to accept this? but we will accept this, but we do not have time at this point. perhaps we can hear from the representative of the other appellant. 12-075. >> should i give a copy of this to rec and park as well? >> yes, and the zoning administrator. >> one second.

>> can we have the overhead? they we have the overhead please? catherine howard, golden gate park preservation alliance. we support soccer, but this is not about that. this is about location. this is about a good project at the wrong location. i am going to show you why. this is the iconic photo of golden gate park. what you think of when you think of the park? you think of meadows, trees, recreation during the day, but when night falls, people go home, and nature takes over the park. it is a beautiful place. how can we get this in san francisco? this map shows the very early layout of the park in 18720 goo. the blue is the location of the soccer field today. the parks layout has not ashamed

for the last 140 years -- has not changed for the last 140 years. his old post card shows how the park was reclaimed and shows its connection with ocean beach, and you have to see how they look. this photo shows the modern park. as the city grows more dense, the park land becomes more important to everyone who lives here. notice this is one of just a few open areas in the park. please note how close they are to ocean beach. the next picture shows how the fields are visible during the day and how they reflect the light. they will reflect a great deal more during the night. now we have pictures of the

fields. basically a beautiful meadow in the park that is used for soccer practice. our next picture shows a field and newly renovated windmill. this is a perfect combination of nature, history, and habitat all sharing the same space. this is talk talk -- a hawk who lives out there. he hunts out there. when this project is built, he will lose his hunting area. we will lose an important habitat. this is the project itself. notice how there is a path down the center. it will be very bright. audubon has called this the environmental equivalent of paving over 17 acres of park with asphalt. the next picture is assimilation

of the field showing the light poles. this is what i call the war of the world's drawing. are we in a park or a suburban parking lot? the trees will not get taller. the win keeps them short. these will be seen from the speech and the ocean beach, not. you will see the pictures during the day and the lights at night. what will these be like? these are the lights at south sunset. it is the same company. the next picture shows south sunset from three blocks away. they will have over three times the amount of light shone in this picture. the next picture shows ocean beach, and this is a beautiful moon rising over, and the next photo shows what this is going to look like. this is where the lights will

be. you will have 150,000 watts of light. when you go to the beach to watch the sunset, to enjoy the dark sky, you have basically the mother ship rising behind you. good what will happen with the lights on 365 days a year? what will be the impact on the wildlife in the park and the birds the flyby -- that fly by? what will be the impact of the people who come to the beach? what will be the impact of the fire rings? this is from the ocean beach master plan and just finished in 2012. the master plan talks about preserving the natural beauty of ocean beach, and the last

picture is a reminder that we are talking about not only his three but protecting our city for the future. there are always developmental pressures on open space. an individual project may be worthy in and of itself, but in a project must be tempered which any impact on where it now will be built. no one doubts the need for housing in san francisco, but no one has proposed covering our park land with houses. open space provides a greater good for the greater number of people and makes the city more livable. the soccer complex proposed provides benefit now for people that is advantageous to some, but the location in golden gate park will deprive the majority

of city dwellers of the opportunity to experience this conjunction of park and beach without the overwhelming intrusion of man-made elements. we support youth soccer, but children need to learn to value location -- to value nature, and there is another location. in the 1950's, there with a plan to destroy part of golden gate park with the freeway. now at that point people rose up and said, do not touch our parks. this is the 21st century. we do not build freeways in parks, and we do not pave over prime park land. this is the heritage i am here to protect. this is about protecting the park for future generations. we respectfully request to overturn the planning department's approval of the application. it is