>> none. fields or baseball fields? >> two? two new fields. but they were existing field sites. >> how about baseball fields in the city? >> is there anything else proposed, are there any other projects proposed for the western -- this section of golden gate park in the coastal permitting sound area? >> right now? >> yeah. >> there are a number of projects whether it is the windmill project. they're not formally in the coastal zone. -- zone appealable area. in all that time, we have never seen an appeal on any of those projects. commissioner hillis: the dump --

>> the 2012 general obligation bond that is proposed for parks has $9 million allocated to golden gate park right now and we're going to go through a community process to prioritize those. the one out there is transferring that dumped into something that is more constructive and natural. the are mentioned the fact that the habitat value of the area surrounding beach chalet are relatively low compared to other areas of the area. we coluld do a more natural restoration of the community is interested in that. commissioner hillis: why can't gophers be more effectively controlled? i will go home and watch

"caddyshack"tonight. >> i will let the general manager takeover. >> i think the gentleman that offered public comment was correct. i think it prairie -- a primary factor in our ability to control belfer -- gophers is staffing. the city is trenton about how we manage -- stringent in how we manage gophers. there are design elements that can help with the problem. some of those that were used at polo, the problems are back. it is a vexing problem which gave rise to some of the other scenes in "caddyshack."

president hwang: no other questions? we will hear from mr. sanchez, then. >> thank you. just to reiterate a few points. this is an appeal of the local coastal zone permit for the subject project. this is not an appeal of the eir. the fire was heard by the planning commission and was appealed to the board of supervisors, the board of supervisors is the final authority. they did uphold the planning commission has a decision on the eir so we're left with the local coastal permit which is embodied in section 330 of the planning code. section 330 states that when the planning commission and the board of appeals are considering the local coastal permits or appeals thereof, there are to consider the local coastal plan as has been stated by the department and the appellants as well. the local coastal plan is embodied in the western shore

line plan which is an element of the general plan. we have reviewed it against the objectives and policies of the western shoreline area plan. we found it to be consistent which is the review requirement. we did find it consistent with the requirements of the local coastal plant. it has been stated several times in our briefs and rec and park how this is demonstrated to be consistent so i will not go into further detail there. i will be available for questions but i will note in doing some brief research on the ash referenced in mallet -- malvo, it appears the facts -- malibu, the facts are different. that was a plan that prohibited

lighting. in parts it does encourage lighting. i do not have all the facts. it was just raised tonight. i'm not sure that that is a comparable case. malibu had a long history of the appeals with the coastal commission. this is the first appeal to the sport and i am not aware of any appeals on local coastal permits to the california coastal commission. with that, i will be available for any questions. vice president fung: two questions, mr. sanchez. if the eir and its conformance to se-- ceqa has been appealed, it has been affirmed, what level of review that this body have with respect to then ceqa

findings? >> i would defer back to the city attorney on what, if any findings the board may need to make in regards to ceqa. the review that is before the board is the local coastal permit and consistency with the local coastal plan. vice president fung: i believe we also need to look for consistency with the priority policies, don't we? >> if you are to rule to uphold the permit, you should also find consistency with the policies. >vice president fung: correct. the -- i have another question but why don't you go ahead? commissioner hurtado: there was the hearing draft.

the draft dated may 17. it says under no. 6 public comment, the department has received no comment regarding the coastal zone permit application. could you elaborate on that? was there nothing received by the commission on that particular aspect? >> i believe that most of the comments -- the bulk of the comments were related to the environmental review and were submitted as part of the environmental review. it is my assumption that is why the report have that statement. >> thank you. commissioner hillis: how were the alternative selected to the eir? >> the local coastal permit has no requirement for consideration of alternatives.

it could have ms. jones discuss the finer details of the eir. -- you could have ms. jones discuss the finer details of the are. >> the alternatives included in the eir under ceqa are those that would review -- to reduce or avoid the significant impact of the project and so that was the guiding principle by which we identified alternatives. in the case of this project about which the planning department felt that it was appropriate to identify an offside alternative. often, we do not have those because they're not feasible. the property is not under the control of the project sponsor but in this case, the project sponsor has other properties. we did ask there be an off site alternative and chose the west sunset site. we considered another outside

alternative or two sites that were rejected as alternatives. there were built within golden gate park as well. one at polo fields and golden gate rec. both had the chance of significant impact. that is how we selected the west sunset site. there were on site alternatives that were essentially reduced project that we felt would not result in a significant impact on the site as a contributing partner to the golden gate district. there were other eir's the modified the project on site. -- that modified project on site. vice president fung: for questions? -- further questions?

perhaps, madam director, or this may be directed to the city attorney. let's be very clear exactly what is being asked of this board. >> certainly, commissioner. this board is being asked to consider the appeal of the coastal zone permit, that is a fairly limited question for which there clear standards under our planning code. -- there are clear standards under our planning code consistent with the coastal zone act. in reviewing the coastal zone permits act -- application or peeled, you shall adopt findings that the project is consistent or not consistent with the local coastal program. that is essentially what you must do. fine conformance with the local coastal zone program.

vice president fung: was there also some documentation related to ceqa findings? >> this body shall also make ceqa findings, findings that there has been no significant changes to the project that would alter the planning department's determination and find the eir, then follow with your determination if it should be sold to uphold the permit. vice president fung: that determination would occur first as a procedural process? >> correct. vice president fung: commissioners? commissioner hillis: the woman that was here -- i did the same thing.

it is an interesting policy debate. we clearly do not have enough plainfield's in the city. anyone can go out to treasure island or marina green to see that there is not enough sports fields in the city. i prefer to play on grass and -- than turf. there needs to be a balance and there is balances being made everybody in golden gate park, in recreation and park areas. we have the beach chalet in the same naturalistic area. we have the clubhouse, we have the zoo, we have a roadway that acts as a highway and a parking lot. there are things that we need to do that are not purely

naturalistic elements. i think the question that is here before us is, is it consistent with the local coastal plan and the goals and policies set forth in the local coastal plan? i agree that what was written in the planning department's brief that you have to look at these holistic play and we can parse words in each but if you do look at it, it talks recreation and i think -- about recreation and the most pertinent fact is that these are soccer fields now and what we're trying to do is improve the use of these fields and make them better fields for people who are playing soccer. so i am supportive of the project and -- in rejecting the appeal. it is on balance with the coastal plan. vice president fung: i would

like to perhaps tackle this in two parts, based upon, i think, the appropriate procedural process we need to take. the first issue is a question of whether anything has changed with respect to the ceqa findings from the point that it was certified. the eir addresses the impact of the project. i find that it was not totally clear between the initial study and the scope and the decision making on some of the issues that came out in the draft eir, but overall, i find that the eir is consistent in addressing the impact studied -- impacts

study. i do not think there were any changes that occurred with respect to the impact of the ceqa findings. on a side note, it has been 16 years since i reviewed the full eir added to most of the weekend. >> i heard nothing that suggested there had been any changes in the project that would therefore have an impact on the eir. while clearly there were some impacts that were considered said in a given -- significant, i was supportive of that and agree that nothing has changed and it would be appropriate. accept this findings or whatever they're a proper -- whatever the

proper procedure is. >> you have a choice here. you can vote separately on the ceqa findings or you can make it part of one motion. if you decide to uphold the coastal zone permit, you will need to take action on the ceqa findings first. it can be part of one motion. if you decide not to uphold the coastal zone permit, you do not need to take action on the ceqa findings. my recommendation is to make it part of one motion but you are free to do it either way. vice president fung: let's do it that way based on the director's recommendation. >> we now need a motion. >> if there is any deliberation , otherwise, a motion is in order. >> i have some comments on the

second part which deals with the coastal permit. i have the following to say there. the general plan by nature are a very general. and from the discussions that have occurred not only in previous hearings, but also today, general plan to have a little bit of something for everybody. -- general plans have a little bit of something for everybody. the crucial portion as far as my thinking is relates to the and it was brought up by one of the appellants, the description of what is naturalistic in that particular policy. on a personal note, i find there are some elements of this

project that i am not totally in agreement with. my job here is a little bit different than what my personal preferences are. that is to find whether the planning commissioner -- the planning commission erred in issuing the coastal permit. that would hinge that upon i believe the one policy. it is one term of what is naturalistic. rather than use what one of the speakers indicated about different values, i would say it slightly differently. there are always degrees of how these things are perceived. there's no doubt in my mind that an existing 75-year-old soccer

field in whatever condition it is is more naturalistic than a synthetic field with lights. the question then is whether a 75-year-old soccer field is naturalistic in the sense of what it was defined in the general plan. i do not find that to be totally naturalistic, either. therefore i am of the opinion that the planning commission did not err in issuing the coastal permit and i am prepared to deny the appeal. president hwang: i would agree. i would debate with the meeting of naturalistic is. i prefer the field personally to

stay as it is. i did not find a lighted fields with synthetic grass to be -- have any connection to nature, really. apart from my own personal feeling about it, and i also have kids to play soccer and i also know there are a shortage of fields and a shortage of space is for kids to play sports in the city, but apart from those feelings, i really cannot find any basis to find based on what we have heard tonight that the planning commission erred based on the law and guidelines. i would deny that -- deny the appeal. >> i found one of the elements of the policy to be somewhat persuasive. it is the 3.3, the maintenance

and improvement of recreational access in the western portion of the park and i'm pretty well persuaded that improvements that are being suggested would maintain and improve recreational access. i would take a little issue with that. people who cannot -- partly to be used during the day. there any number of people, residents who cannot access the parks and to open them up for evening news without a lot of serious consequences is very important. i would support the motion to reject the appeal. vice president fung: i will make the motion, then. i am going to move that the appeal be denied on the basis that the local coastal permit

has -- as issued by the planning commission was consistent with both the general plan and the relevant coastal's plans -- coastal plans. >> i think it is important that we make -- give the factual basis for your determination, and if it is a matter of adopting the factual determinations of recreation and park department and the planning department, then we should be clear that is what we're doing, or if we have other factual determinations, we should make them. in some way, your decision must have factual determinations of consistency.

vice president fung: it would be factual determinations based upon planning, not rec and park? >> i think this is -- and the factual information that is brought to your attention can be adopted by you. and so -- the permit is being protested and it has been brought to you on appeal and for basing it -- you are basically reviewing it tinto and making a determination on whether this -- reviewing it de novo and making a determination. vice president fung: -- madame director. >> there were some draft findings that have been made available to the board in the event that you move in this

direction and it talks about the ceqa issues and the local coastal program and the priority policies. if you're interested in basing your decision on these factual findings, we can read it into the record. you can vote on that. vice president fung: i think that would be appropriate. president hwang: having reviewed the testimony, the board of appeals -- denies the appeal. protesting the issuance of a coastal zone permit to the recreation and park to provide for the renovation of the beach chalet facility for the following reasons. the board has had available for review and consideration the environmental impact report and/or -- all correspondence and documents related to the review for the renovation of the athletic field, the project. this is available for public inspection at the border appeals

office at 1615 mission street and is made part of the record by this reference herein. the board based on substantial evidence in light of the record including information presented at this hearing finds there have been no project changes or changes in project circumstances and no new intimation of substantial importance that would change the conclusions of the planning department's california environmental act quality determination. this board finds the project is consistent with requirements and objectives of the san francisco local coastal program for the reasons stated in planning commission motion no. 18640, a case 20 11. -- case 201. and in section c, which reasons are adopted and incorporated herein. this board finds the project is consistent with the priority

policies established by section 10 1.1 b -- 10 1.01.1b. you have made a motion to deny the appeal and hold the permit -- and uphold the permit. vice president fung: based on these draft findings. president hwang: based on the findings just read into the record. we're ready for you to call the roll. >> again we have a motion from the vice president to deny this appeal and uphold the coastal zone per met. -- permit. it is consistent with the local coastal plan and general plan. i believe you said that.

president hwang: it is incorporated into the findings. >> just to uphold the coastal zone permit and with actual findings and ceqa findings as read into the record. on that motion, president is absenset, commissioner -- is absent. the boat is 4-0. both appeals are -- the vote is 4-0. both appeals are upheld. >> i wanted to acknowledge that this is commissioner phillips' reportedly last meeting with the board of appeals. he is supposed to be sworn in as a planning commissioner tomorrow morning. i wanted to thank him for his brief but valuable service to the board of appeals. we will miss you and appreciate everything you have done while you are here. >> thank you. >> there is no other business. vice president fung: this

meeting is now adjourned.