aspect of this alternative has been looked into by the eir? >> essentially, in terms of the environmental impacts, the west sunset alternative is looked at as the offsite alternative. the grass turf with reduce flights alternative would provide the golden gate park component, i think. with regard to the project objectives, we provided information on the degree to which each alternative could achieve the objectives. we did not add together the number of plate hours that could be achieved at each. that level of analysis is not something we would consider to be required under ceqa. that is a product approval

consideration, having to do with the degree to which of alternative does or does not meet the project objectives. >> maybe that is the final question for the city attorney's office, in terms of the level of analysis under ceqa, in terms of alternative like the hybrid alternative. >> deputy city attorney. through the chair. the alternative analysis in an environmental impact reports is required to include the language of a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives designed to address through mitigation are reducing the unavoidable impact of the project. hear, the significant impact was the impact to historic resources. all of the alternatives included were designed with the idea of trying to mitigate that impact. a range just needs to be

reasonable. it does not have to be exhaustive. it does not have to include every alternative that could possibly be implemented. here, i believe, and this is more a question for planning -- as long as an alternative is proposed within the range that has been analyzed, and you can essentially take pieces from the different alternatives that are analyzed, and combine it to create this other alternative -- that would fall within the range that has already been analyzed in the document. supervisor campos: in terms of the specificity of the level of the analysis, what is your view, in terms of the level of detail? >> ceqa does require that the alternatives presented in the eir meet most of the project sponsor's objectives, but they do not have to meet all of them.

i think there are two parts to this answer. that is what the eir is required to include. when the decision makers are deciding whether or not to approve the project -- the city decision makers were planning commission and rec and park. they can consider how well the proposed project and alternatives meet all those objectives. that becomes part of their reasoning for approving the project or not, and the approvals are not before this body. supervisor campos: thank you. supervisor elsbernd: i wanted to follow up about the response to the questions around west sunset and the alternative. what sunset, for a number of reasons, cannot be an alternative, because you do not

want to this place baseball players. if i remember the appellate attorney's comments, and my own experience going by so sunset, that part has been redone in this fashion, and that is both soccer and baseball. why does that not worked at west sunset? >> it has to do with the type of baseball. south sunset can be used for 11 year olds and down only. it is not used -- our biggest shortfall is high school-sized baseball fields. west sunset provides two of them, with a mound. south sunset is a little league- size field. south sunset was historical used for soccer in the fall, even before it was renovated. kids used to play right on the dirt. it had a historical use for soccer. that is the difference.

supervisor olague: a question about the lighting issue again. i know that a lot of the public comment related to that. i guess you mentioned that you tested with three night times. was that the extent of the testing? some of the questions we receive from some of the commentators mentioned that the eir fails to adequately address four distinct types of adverse impact, due to light invasion, fog, overcast, and degradation of dark sky conditions. if you could comment on those issues.

>> the visual quality analysis did various simulations. there were three night times. one was from a long-range perspective, where we acknowledged it would be brighter in that area, but we did not think it would be a substantial impact. the other was from the closest residential area. we did not find there would be light spillover that would enter a residential homes. the last was along the ocean, not. the light spillover did not open into the ocean beach. the lights along the great highway offered almost four times the amount of spillover. we also did a comparative analysis of an unlit park. it offers about five athletic

fields, and the same type of lightning was out there. our analysis showed the lights were mainly focused on the field. they did not prevent too much spillover. lastly, there was a light study. the analysis showed that light spillover would not be greater than 150 feet from the project boundaries. those are the three studies. we also did photographic analysis. those were the main three efforts we used. we are not saying it is not noticeable. we are saying it is not going to substantially impact residential uses, as well as flora and fauna in the environment. supervisor olague: i have been reading some of the documents we receive from members of the public. there was a comment, based on a letter from the national park service, dated february of 2012.

it stated, we encourage it and evening visual simulation from ocean beach, not, at a location directly perpendicular from the midpoint of the beach charolais fields -- the beach chalet fields. i guess you just mentioned that was completed? >> we met with national the park -- national park service staff to discuss concerns around the project. we did add that simulation into the comments and responses. around the lighting, i want to address the issue of fog. the eir does note that there would be increased "under foggy conditions. -- increased glow under foggy conditions. the eir states the light would be less noticeable in fog. i want to clarify.

it said there is more general indian glow in fog. so the overall conditions would have a higher level of low. -- of glow. supervisor olague: i wanted to comment on another paragraph. ocean beach is a popular area that attracts people from all over san francisco for its scenic views, especially at the end of the day. the view is seen by family strolling on the promise not, for coming down to ocean beach to watch the sunset, to enjoy the dark skies, and to sit around the fire. a better view to illustrate project impacts would be from the beach or the prominent, looking directly east. you concluded there would be no significant impact on people who are enjoying the public views from ocean beach. >> it did not appear the spillover would be sufficient to

result in a big change to the character of the sky. supervisor olague: finally, in a letter from jim chapel and ms. wade, they said that contrary to all the planning documents, the overriding value of the area is given little weight in the draft eir. the project will change the character. there is plenty in the national -- the natural areas policy. there is plenty of language to support the maintenance of this area in a more natural state. there are claims -- i do not want to have to go through three pages of documents -- that there was an adequate analysis of the general plan and the principles,

as far as preserving the natural beauty of the space. do you have any comments? >> we do feel that we had adequate analysis of general plan policies, for the purposes of providing information about inconsistencies. we looked at the impact physically. we did conclude there would be a significant impact on the historic character of the space. i would say that our conclusions regarding the project were not inconsistent with the conclusions that many people have expressed, and that are expressed in the letter. supervisor olague: you thought it was consistent? >> the soccer fields are not a designated natural area. supervisor olague: one last

question i had was, the draft eir also contradicts the comments received from the california coastal commission in their letter of march 3, 2011, to the planning department. it states that the local coastal program policy requires a visual and physical connection between golden gate park in the beach be strengthened, and emphasize the natural landscape qualities of the park. however, the draft eir states the project would not emphasize the qualities, as the project site is in areas designated for active recreational use. according to this, the statement ignores the fact that the entire concept at the western and it is that active recreation is contained within the naturalistic landscapes qualities of the park. nowhere is it stated they can be destroyed for recreational uses. i wondered what your comment was

on that. i know somebody else at public comment directly related to this california coastal commission concern. >> there are two separate issues around the coastal commission. the issue that is raised is really a comment on the merits of the project, which is not something that is to be evaluated in and of itself in the eir. that is a decision maker consideration, as to whether that is appropriate. the coastal commission issues that were raised here, in addition, give potential for this to be appealed to the california coastal commission. that is to be determined by the coastal commission. supervisor mar: to follow up on

the questions, can i just ask what negations on lighting have been done since the communications with the ggnra? i know the lights were originally proposed to be within 100 feet, or 80 feet. it has dropped to 60 feet, and is shielded, so it will hopefully prevent significant impact on the dark skies. can you walk us through how you are protecting residents and bird migrations from too much light? >> thank you. i am going to turn that question over to recreation and park, since it is about the project description. >> good morning. i am with the rec and park capital program. to give a little background, normally for a facility of this

size, we would have proposed lighting fixtures approximately 80 feet tall. in some cases, manufacturers recommend lighting at 100 feet to minimize light spill. our initial program highlighting at 80 feet. talking with project's supporters and opponents, and the national park service, and listening to concerns and issues, we went back to the drawing board and looked at modifying lighting designs by taking the lights from the perimeter and moving them in between the fields. we lowered the lighting fixtures from 80 feet down to 60 feet. then you cannot see those from the perimeter of the field. it is 20 foot candles greater

than at crapo -- crocker amazon. we want a higher level of play and activity at this particular facility. we wanted a toggle switch on the lights, so we could have them at 50 foot candles or 30 foot candles. in discussions with the national park service, they recommended we talk to their liking expert. i made contact with that gentleman, and spoke about lighting and dark sky issues. he recommended that we talked to city staff about one of the most stringent policies in the country. these are identical to fixtures at flagstaff arizona. but they illuminate their field at 20 foot candles. we to value with that particular option also.

we talked to a part design specialist and looked at literature and the american soccer foundation recommends that we eliminate soccer fields at 30 foot candles, similar to what we are doing i have spoken to lighting manufacturers. they have instituted 20 foot candle light fixtures at different facilities, mixed results from the end users. a lot of folks say it is insufficient. this is appropriate and matches what we have done at other facilities. we think it is appropriate at this site. supervisor mar: if residents nearby field the lighting is too bright, has the department at least considered input from residents around an appeal after

the lights are installed? >> it has been a learning curve. when we did our pilot project, we put four fixtures at that facility. we got a phone call from a neighbor across the street who said, the lights are shining in my windows. within a week, we had the manufacturer out. we read-ain't the lips. the gentleman think us. we have gone feedback from neighbors. they said, can we turn the lights off early in certain days? we looked at our reservation system and figure out where we could accommodate that. we accommodated folks at different facilities. in some cases, we might turn the lights off at 9:30, if appropriate. supervisor mar: i realize the beach chalet is different from west sunset. from the projections that i sought in the eir -- saw in the

eir, you can barely see five different lights from the great highway or ocean beach. you see a few extra lights, in addition to streetlights, and a tiny bit of the glow, depending on which projections you produce. those networks -- could you comment on that? >> we have data that comes from manufacturers, and simulations and drawings. we do our best to simulate what we suspect will happen out there. what i have done after i received a lot of technical data -- people started referencing light foot candle spread. the lighting manufacturer basically said that off the field, roughly 150 feet, we have 30 foot candles on the field for play.

we go from 30 down to 0.2, 50 feet away. that assumes there is no vegetation to block light distribution. the calculations also suggest that above the field, the light level distribution will be at 10 feet increments, up to 100 feet. the light spell on a clear night goes down to zero, essentially. lights build vertically is minimal, and let's build horizontal the is minimal. i have been working on this fort two years. i wanted to get empirical data. i took the readings i got from other fields. i got a light meter myself, and went out to these sites, on and off the field, and could did that the measurements projected in these studies match what is out there in real time. it was informative for me to not

only take that information from the manufacturer, but tested in the field. i am convinced the measurements are accurate. supervisor mar: but i can see that those who live near lincoln park that are up higher would see a light where they had seen darkness before. >> the fields are going to be lit. the end of the park will obviously be eliminated. we have a simulation in the eir that shows the longer range nighttime view. we did conclude that it was going to be visible. there would be an area that was eliminated that is not now eliminated. the overall view is primarily an urban cities gape at night. -- cityscape at night.

we concluded it would not be a significant impact. supervisor mar: i do see on the several projections, it does not look like it is that much illumination from higher up. i know that we are talking about increasing play field time for soccer and other athletes, children and adults. but i wanted to ask questions about the audubon society. they implied that the eir was inadequate because you look at a number of species, but not those migrating at certain times. i think ms. weeks and brought up that it may be inadequate that you did -- ms. wheaton brought up that it might be inadequate. the snowy plover was brought up. >> the migratory birds, we discussed migratory birds in

terms of the potential for the lights to affect them. point sources of light, large lit up buildings, certain types of light elements are a confusion factor for birds. these are birds flying several hundred feet above the fields, not at the 16 foot level. they really would not perceive -- since the lights will be pointed downwards and shielded, rather than pointed upwards, they would not be expected to be perceived as a point source of light that would be a confusion factor for migration patterns. we also discussed foraging, making, and concluded we did not have any evidence that this

liking happening each night, for a portion of each night, would significantly change any of those behaviors in what really is an adapted urban setting. the snowy plover is a species that was discussed and recognized in the eir. the project will not substantially affect ocean beach. i think the statement that the snowy plover habitat is not within the project site is an accurate one. the snowy plover is one of the reasons the national park service was concerned and interested in this project. that was one of the purposes of considering light spillover, as it would affect ocean beach. the presence of the highway and the lighting and activity there is a much more immediate impact on that species and their

activities. >> it seemed like during the migratory. , the lights could be adjusted -- during the migratory period, the lights could be adjusted. i wanted to ask mr. drury about the malibu case with the coastal commission. he claimed it was similar to the facts of this case. he said the coastal commission required major mitigation to only a light 18 games per year. how close is what went on in the malibu high-school field, 15 feet from the ocean? this is more like 500 feet. i wonder what likelihood the coastal commission might act to change what the project is. >> unfortunately, i am not able to speak to what occurred in malibu. i think it is the coastal

commission responsibility to review using its own questions and merits. i cannot speak to conclusions they might come to. i do not know if our city attorney is familiar with the case. >> deputy city attorney, through the president. the coastal commission would review this, should the coastal permit be appealed to the coastal commission at some point. they would review it on its own merits. we, as a city, cannot guess what they may choose or may not choose to approve or impose as mitigation or conditions of approval through its own process. that said, with reference to the eir, if the coastal commission does get an appeal and needs to act on it to approve this project, it would rely on the city eir to make the decisions.

it is considered a responsible agency under ceqa. supervisor wiener: just a couple of brief questions. it was noted before that there was nobody from the department of public health here. i recall seeing in the eir or in the file that there is documentation from the department of public health. can you comment on that? there is an implication that there was no feedback from the ph. that was not my understanding. >> the department of public health participated on the synthetic turf taskforce. their input was -- the department was primarily in relying on their participation and input that occurred in that context.

when we posed further questions about some of the hazardous health risks associated with it, as well as the skin abrasion questions, the responded that they did not have any concerns around any of these various health issues associated with artificial turf fields. supervisor wiener: that is in the file? >> yes. supervisor wiener: you made references to the only significant impact being to the historic resource, because it is on the national register. is that right? >> yes. supervisor wiener: there are a lot of parks that are old and historic and meaningful in the city, right? like in san francisco?

that does not mean the parks have to stay frozen in time. they can change. >> i think we evaluated this particular project as we do any project, looking at first evaluating whether or not it would be considered a historic resource under ceqa, given that it already has a listed status that was clear. we look further into exactly what provides the historic character to the park, and specifically what the contributors to the historic district are. the beach showplace soccer fields are identified in the listing as one of 137 contributors that exist within the golden gate park historic district. in many cases, when you are talking about contributors to talking about contributors to the historic district, it is not