people from the city and they're going to -- you can consult them about the legality of the permit, but i can provide very briefly if i may some context. i bought the property in march, 2010 so, about 2 and a half years and the first thing i got was i got a notice of violation. i consulted -- the inspector came and visited my property a couple of times and after that, he advised that i needed to get or submit proper paper work in order to get the windows legalized so this took a process of about 6 months and i hired a professional architect who was similar with the city laws, who is similar with all the procedures and knew the area and got the permit legalized -- got the windows -- got the permit. after i got the permit, i consulted my neighbor personally, called them and

talked to mrs. votruba and explained the situation, i said i'd like to meet up, and then i explained that the windows aren't legal and they need to remove the windows they had blocked, and anyway, i followed that with an e-mail. i got no response. i followed that with two letters, i got no response, and after that when i -- in my letter, i said if i don't hear from you within two weeks, i will assume that i can remove my windows, the blocking. i did not hear anything. i'm not here by the way in this country. i'm abroad in london and i got the windows were unblocked and the response -- and afterwards through all of it sort of in a normal and mature approach would be to discuss the matter with me, come back to me, what

i got was the neighbors, the requestors came and shouted, yelled, boarded my whole sidings, the deck is about -- just about 1/3 and my whole siding is [inaudible] feet, came and boarded with illegal material, completely blocked the four windows, three of them are not even looking at the deck, the two windows, the bathroom windows are really the only light that provide -- they are the only windows that provide light to my bathroom, my window, shouting, yelling at a 4 year-old kid, well, i think i haven't got time, but a lot of accusations and things and i personally would like to say that it's not just costing time and energy and dealing with this with a professional way and a mature way, it's also costing me health and my

inability for me to perform my normal responsibilities, i request the board to deny this request. it's been way above 18 months, i've got a legal permit. >> thank you, your time is up. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good evening, president hwang and board of appeals and planning department, so just briefly, there's no neighborhood notification under the planning code that's required for the subject building code application, the subject application was filed in 2010, there was a certificate of appropriateness filed in october of 2010, that was heard by the historic preservation commission in january of 2011, and it was approved by the planning department in february of 2011, the permit was issued in march of 2011 and given a final

inspection shortly thereafter, a certificate of appropriateness does not have neighborhood notification requirements at the time that we reviewed this application at the hearing before the planning commission, there was no notice requirement. it was simply just something that would appear on the agenda and that was a consent item and it was approved on consent. the approval has a three year limit to it so they have to get their building permit within three years which obviously they've done. beginning in august of 2011, we did as a matter of policy increase the notification requirements and we started doing mailed notice and that was because at the time, the city, the board of supervisors, the hpc, the planning commission were developing new revised articles 10 and 11 to reflect prop j which created the historic preservation commission. as part of this process and st creation of these ordinances were over several years, we increased the notification requirements and the ordinance. the ordinance was not effective until june of this year but

last august by matter of policy, we had increased the notification requirements, so but to be clear, this was issued, it was heard by the hpc, approved by the planning department, it was issued and received its final inspection all prior to the implementation of the new policies regarding notification and the property line windows would not trigger other implication, so there's no notice required for any of the review of this permit and that's all, i'm available for any questions, thank you. >> mr. duf fi? >> good evening, commissioners. the building department did receive a complaint on the 21 of january, 2010, and we wrote a notice of violation on the 20th of may, 2010 basically that there was some windows put

-- there was windows, property line windows that had shown to be not part of the original construction and our building inspector, donald duf fi did write them up for putting in the windows without a permit and they subsequently obtained a building permit and got the permit signed off on the 21st of march, 2011. the permit was to comply with the notice of violation to legalize the three-quarter r windows and it would have had to comply with ab009 which is in the san francisco building code basically you agreed to -- you would lose those windows if someone wanted to build in front of them and there's some other requirements in that as well, and you have to get it

signed and stuff, a notarized document, so if anyone has any questions, i would be willing to answer them, but that's basically the history of the notice of violation and the subsequent permit. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay, seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted.

>> so, i guess i'll start. i really -- given that there was no notice requirement initially for this work, i mean, i guess i fail to see a reason to grant the jurisdiction request. i don't see extraordinary circumstances and i didn't hear the requestor explain what about the circumstances would

merit a jurisdiction request, so i guess that's kind of where i stand and i'm trying to see if there is anything here and i just -- i don't see it. i don't know if my fellow commissioners feel differently. >> i think the standard relates to -- requires the showing of error on the part of the city and that was not sufficiently proved to us today in my view and for that reason, i would be inclined to deny the request. >> i would agree with that conclusion as well. >> i concur. >> okay, i'm going to move to deny the request. >> with you're ready, call the roll, please. >> we have a motion from the president to deny this jurisdiction request, on that

motion, vice-president fung is absent. commissioner hurtado. >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> the vote is 3-0, this jurisdiction request is denied and no new appeal period shall be created. >> okay, thank you. >> calling item 4c which is a rehearing request, the subject property is at the beach shall lay athletic fields in golden gate park. the board received a letter from katherine pow ward agent for golden gate park preservation alliance requesting rehearing of appeal number 12-073 decided august 1, 2012. at that time, the board voted 34-0-1 to deny the appeal and uphold the coastal zone permit with factual find advising ceqa findings as read into the record, the permit holder is the recreation & park department, and we will start

with the requestor. again, there is the three minutes. >> i was absent at the original hearing and i have reviewed the video as well as reviewed the transcript. >> okay, good evening, commissioner, katherine howard, golden gate park, this is with the shore line [inaudible] while emphasizing the park's naturalistic landscape qualities, you have received a new study on toxins and recycled rubber that became available on august 22. this study concludes that because of the "presence of a high number of harmful compounds frequently at high or extremely high levels of recycled rubber materials" they should be restricted or prohibited in some cases. i have put as an exhibit here a letter we are submitting from the center from environmental

health which is considered about the study and the artificial turf and would like their concerns incorporated into testimony. if the proposed sbr tire infill is deemed toxic, then installation of over 7 acres of this substance and the subsequent closing for an additional renovation would result in much less recreational access at beach shall lay. we have stated that our hybrid activity [inaudible] rec and parks conclusions are different and we believe erroneous. they first presented these conclusions to the board of supervisors hearing, there were only two days between that hearing and the date our documents were due to your board. it required a few weeks for us to analyze the city statements , it required of our testimony time to present all of our testimonies. this board did not have a

chance to read our exhibits and were not fully aware of the available data, we feel that the board arrived at two conclusions based on inadequate data, the first was that the project would provide a significant increase of active recreation over the proposed alternatives, we believe the proposed alternatives will provide almost exactly the same amount of recreation and that comes under the coastal plan of providing recreational access. the second is that the project would be naturalistic, that is that it would resemble nature as much as as the present lawn and trees. however, installing over 7 acres of an artificial and potentially toxic substance in an area that is now trees, lawns and habitat could not be construed as being natural. in light of the new information and the time needed for you to review it thoughtfully, we request tla the board schedule a new hearing on this project and i would like to submit this

exhibit to the board. and should i give one -- >> the board has to agree to accept any additional submittal, so what is it that you're asking the board to accept? >> it's a letter stating that the center for environmental health is concerned about the new study with new data. thank you. >> okay. >> and what was the date of that? >> the date of the study is august 22, the date of the letter is today. >> i have a question about your argument. >> yes. >> so, you're saying that because you submitted some materials on the date of the hearing, in other words, late, that that constitutes different immaterial facts or circumstances, which if known at the time could have affected the outcome of the proceeding, is that your argument? >> yes because the coastal program advocates for increased

recreational access and it would increased hours of play at beach shall lay, we had two days after the supervisor's hearing, it took a bhiel to calculate the numbers and come up with a study to show that we would have the same hours applied. >> however, let me just ask, the heart of my question really is, if we accept that argument, what would prevent anyone really from coming on the date of the hearing and submitting something late and then claiming later that they're entitled to a rehearing? >> i think that the timeframe is very important. there were two days between the board of supervisors eir hearing and the date that our documents were due here. >> but you could not have submitted the august 22 --

>> oh, okay, you're talking about the hours of study or the august 22 letter? >> the august 22 letter, you could not have submitted, correct? >> no, we could not have submitted that earlier, correct. >> and why did this come into being after everything was submitted into the board? >> the august 22 letter? because that was the first time it was published online. >> when did the study commence? >> i do not know, it was done in spain and it was published in the publication online on august 22. >> so, it was not available to you on the date. >> it was not available to us before that date. >> that's the important point i think. >> nor was it available -- >> i'm interested in seeing it if it wasn't available in any way prior to your submission to your materials prior to today? >> your submission today came in on august 13th, and that

study was not available until august 22, correct? >> i'm confused. >> the letter that you would like -- >> the letter today? >> yes, relates to an august 22 study. >> this letter, i'm sorry, it has the wrong date, it should have today's date on it and it relate tos the august 22 study and i have some copies of that study here with me today. >> i'd like to see it. i think we should see it if it's considered new evidence, if that's part of your argument. >> i do have cop pis of the study. er >> and the letter, please. >> the letter, i apologize, this was done very quickly by the attorneys, it should have been dated today, not august 12, i believe. >> and this is the study which the attorneys for sf ocean

submitted on september 5th. >> we need to -- >> that's the other appellant, they are not part of our appeal. >> we need to make sure that rec and park gets a copy of each document. >> i just -- i believe rec and park got a copy of that. >> what ice -- what's the document? >> mr. wiko addressed that in a let e i believe they have a copy of that. >> yeah, we have a copy. >> yeah, they have a copy. >> thank you. >> okay, commissioners, do you want a moment or should we hear from res and -- rec and park? >> do you mind, i would like a minute or two to review this.l

shall

>> okay, alright, we're ready to hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, board members, dan mower with the parks and rec department, i believe mr. sanchez is going to give a presentation why it should articulate why this appeal should be denied, so rather than mirroring comments that he's going to comment on, i'm going to let him make that presentation and my presentation's going to be a brief overview of why we're here and why this project is important to the park and rec department. san francisco doesn't have sports fields for all the kids who want to play in san francisco, a lot of kids are left out and don't have the opportunity to play sports, this has been a long-time challenge for the rec and park department, youth sports have

increased exponentially over time, the rec and park department has partner witched the city fields department to renovate the field across the city, today we've renovated 14 fields at different parks facilities, beach chalet is important to our athletic programs, it's one of the three primary rec facilities for our programming. over the course of the year, or over high youth times in spring and fall, over 1500 kids and 600 adults utilize this facility, over the course of the year, 12 thousand kids utilize this facility which if you equate to the population of kids to san francisco, it's approximately 1 in 5, to 20%, we receive a tremendous amount of use by youth. and again, obviously it's in golden gate park but this facility is used by all kids in san francisco. so, bhiel this is located on the northwest side of the city,

kids from all over the city utilize this facility. unfortunately, the current condition the beach athletics are unsafe and unaccessible to a large majority of people, it's closed for about half the time of year and it currently doesn't meet ada facilities. the reason why it's closed so often gets heavy play, we have wet conditions at that end of the park and it's got gofer holes, it's hard to maintain those fields because of those conditions and playing year-round is difficult. another reason, the grass at this facility needs to regrow and recover in order to play, and these fields are closed half the year, 50% of the time, again, i mention they don't meet ada, the facility lacks family friendly amenities, park benches and play structures and

picnic tables, our project will implement those measures, the proposed renovation, they will triple the amount of play time from 4700 hours to more than 14 thousand, the play surface will be smooth, clean and safe, it will reduce maintenance. >> thank you. did you have a few more words? >> yeah, i just wanted to reiterate that this project has been through the planning department, through the board of supervisors has been evaluated through all compliance, it's within the golden gate master plan and we believe it is in compliance with the western shore line plan and the coastal zone plan, it strengthens that end of the park, it will bring revived activity to that space which is encompassed in those policies. thank you. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, quite a few thing tos go through here,

the letter given to you today, it's not from the center from environmental health, it's from one of the appellants and it's not signed by the center from environmental health, i wanted to note that point. second, last week on wednesday evening, we received -- i didn't receive, the appellant had sent to other staff but not to myself even though i represented the department, sent arguments regarding the ceqa, we were not able to prepare a response in time to have it available a few hours later the following day but staff did present something, so if the board would accept this, i would appreciate this, just in regards to the letter that was submitted by mr. drury last week. the september 5 letter was submitted to us at 6 p.m. on september 5, i wanted to note that the study that was submitted, we -- the study is

not considered new information because it is consistent with information in the eir, it was assessing health risks, specifically with synthetic turf products, the studies in the eir provided risks. it would be less than significant and the review of the above study does not change the planning's conclusion, it is accurate and complete regarding the analysis regarding toxic materials, this is a lot of discussion about ceqa, about the california environmental quality act, this is not an appeal of ceqa, it was held before the board of supervisors and that was held in early july because the appeal briefs for t