the fact that this project is not naturalistic. you can't possibly call it naturalistic. it ignored expert testimony on the impact of light on the beach, have the impact is an enormous area, not just 7 acres. it totaled 600 street lights hole in one place. it will be 10-20 times brighter than the current conditions. this is all from the international lighting experts. i don't know where that came from. the final downgraded the 30 foot trees to shrubs and came out with 16 trees. it doesn't really matter, because there is no room for 100 trees. if they're taking out trees because the project is bigger.

they're putting in 30-foot hathaway's, they are expanding the parking. if this is a larger project and that is why they are cutting down trees. the water comes from under the park. if you want to talk about environmental impact, you can talk about -- talk about the sequestration laws. you have to plant 7000 or 8000 trees and have them growing for 10 years to replace the ability of the natural grass in golden gate park. it is environmentally not a good project and it is strange that anybody thinks that it is. after crime, there is a the next door. they have not claimed the other, it is a nuisance.

there is an alternative. the alternative is west sunset in the 2012 bond with natural grass. his change the material between the two projects. it is all we ask. it is se and not any further. if everyone is going to drive anyway. ahead there were some statements in the revival of russian part of the of the fields about drainage that did not work. we're talking about surface drainage and want to submit these reports showing that people feel did not have surfaced drainage. the naturalist and qualities are important, and this is what is being protected. >> as the board want to upset those papers? can you give copies to rec and park and the zoning the

administrator? we can take a rebuttal from recon park now. you have six minutes. >> overhead, please? >> commissioners, thank you for listening patiently and with an open mind to all the comments that have been offered today. i am somewhat disappointed to see the overwhelming about rehashine eir rather than the local coastal plan and it is equally adopted by the coastal commission. the with a plan for the health and form the decisions that municipalities have to make and it has been our starting place with the project evaluation.

it has to be determined on balance, not by the specific criteria. the three policies, this project is clearly a meeting of those policies. if that on 3.1, will argue we are not degrading the visual connection between the park and the beach. if i want to show you a few visual aids of the plan. this is the lighting simulation conducted. we conducted a second simulation in response to comments that we received, both of which came back with similar findings and you can see that this is the visual simulation of nighttime impact. you can see some light, but you can see that there is a boundary between the field, the beach,

and the comparison to the highway itself. the lighting from the fields will not spill out onto the beach. there'll be some lighting visible, but we don't feel it is a significant amount of light that will be visible. secondly, this is the planting plan. this is the side of the project facing the beach and facing the interior of the park. as you look at the trees slated for removal, i don't think you can see the colors that well. these trees are being removed for health. the only one is being removed between the fields and to the beach. the integrity of the windbreak in the visual bear, had his heart of the connection and the experience of that edge which is what i think the plans are

trying to protect. the rest of the trees, there are several being removed to accommodate the parking lot construction. only 16 being removed. the reason is not mentioned his that if plants are usually determined during the final design and we don't have that in place yet. if the that is our commitment and the goal, which have a policy of replacing one to one for all capital renovation. i think leslie, the point of want to talk about is that there have been a member of the environmental impact talked- about tonight. if we don't use synthetic turf, there are environmental impact. the mowing cost, the water

caused, for those have real carbon and passes well. if that is something we have thought about in the design of these fields that are using recyclable material that avert a waste and the results in about 1.5 million gallons of water every year. we haven't had a chance to review and analyze the alternative proposed today, but the highbred alternative of converting golden gate park to grass and keeping west sunset as synthetic turf doesn't get us the same increase in hours. 34% unheard fewer hours as a result of the particular hybrid. converting the grass doesn't get you any additional hours. you have to look at the comparison between last sunset verses golden gate park. i have a very toward drawing,

but i will show it to you anyway. the fields stacked up vertically, you have to let each one rest. you can move down the line as you're letting them rest and recover. you can actually rotate afield your resting and rotate the orientation to continue play to allow spaces to regenerate. it means west sunset is never down. there isn't the same game to be made in terms of the increase in youth hours. we love that this alternative that a fair amount of detail and that is where it comes down to. between the poor drainage, we are thinking about the cost effectiveness of making this kind of investment. that is what renovating beach chalet does as opposed to west

sunset. >> can i ask a number of appeals? how many soccer fields have been built in the city and the last five ratan years -- or ten years? not renovated but built. >> 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