making it more accessible and usable for the public by any way that is desperately needed in the city right now. the master plan i think emphasizes something that is already well known which is that it was known in the late 1990's when it was written and is due -- still true today. the fields are in bad condition. the parking lot creates conflicts between cars and pedestrians. the restrooms are outdated for the intensity of the use and the grass fields -- fields have a tough time withstanding the use of the players and they need to rest regularly. this is why other sites do not work. grass fields need to rest. the proposed project which is covered in our brief as well as supportive materials install said the turf and creates a children's play area and

renovates the restrooms and improves the parking lot, increases safe and accessible walkways in addition to creating a new pact began bar-b- q area. the benefits of this project are many. in particular, we are tripling of the annual playing time from 40738 hours -- to over 14,000 hours. we will allow places for families to gather and participate and watch their youth play soccer and increasing access and field safety. this is a critical point that chief suhr spoke to. the beach is host to a number of illicit activities. by activating these sites where able to cut down and discourage on that kind of activity. we made a number of changes to the proposal over time, reducing

the size of the plaza, lowering the light standards, and also modifying the restroom designed so we can be more sensitive to the historic character of the site. all those things have helped us improve our project. i want to spend some time going over the lighting and trees which tends to be the two key critiques. the light will not reach the ocean beach given our technology and the lighting standards. it is shielded by trees and vegetation and the highway lights are 25 times brighter than what we will have at the field. if you're a person standing on the beach looking at the sunset, you will not notice, york you will not be impacted by the lights in back to you. you will be able to see the bonfire, have an experience of darkness on the beach. we have changed the design of the lights, shortening them. remove them in from the perimeter to interior to the

field to reduce and the lighting impact. they will have like shields and it will have a dimmer. things we-we only use the 50 foot candlelights six times a year for tournament play and the rest of the time is at a lower level of intensity. each -- after each of these projects have been improved, we work with the committees to modify the lighting schedule. we want to do that in conjunction with the community. once we have some real life experience in how folks are interacting with the site. on the trees, we're talking about over five to one replacement. removing 16, adding 100. several are already dead and dying. as you look at the tree removal plan itself which i can present to you, most of it is around the parking lot. not that critical barrier between the field and the beach. those trees are being removed

for health reasons. that is an important part to understand and we plan to replant 100 trees. as we complete detailed design, you also see the replacement of much of the area that is being removed. wilson continue to be consistent with the golden gate park reforestation and master plans. the critical final points i want to make around these alternatives that folks have talked about that is not a total hour to total our comparison. it is the increase in hours that makes this worthwhile. beach chalet will yield more hours than west sunset. i can talk about that in more detail. the patterns of wresting the grass. that basically it requires more rested than west sunset.

we can really recover and see a much greater increase in play, particularly for youth which is our target demographic. west sunset would provide less hours of play prius. these issues have been studied exhaustively in the are. there is only one significant impact determined after researching and evaluating a lot of research. biological research and hydrology, that was the historic impact, the impact of the historic character. well related to the naturalistic character and with the local coastal plan calls for, that is fundamentally a different question and we think that when you look at the local coastal programs -- policies that were cited by the appellant, city planning will be responding to this as well. we are not degrading the visual connection between the park in the beach. we're making it safer and we will make it more -- a more

safe connection for people to experience and cpd will not able to -- the lights will not spill out onto the beach itself. we will implement the reforestation program and are being consistent. the golden gate master plan, our vision for our recreation facility is consistent trade we believe with what was envisioned. lastly, rebuilding the beach chalet for increased business areas. this will meet those goals. our task weather at the board of supervisors or recreation and park commission or hear at any of these settings, this is to achieve balance and to determine on balance, are we meeting the project goals and we feel we are. we ask you to reject the appeal and allow us to move forward. happy to take any questions. president hwang: thank you. mr. sanchez.

>> thank you. scott sanchez. both parties or all parties have given very eloquent and passionate testimony as to their beliefs about how this either does or does not meet the requirements of the local coastal plan. i would like to provide some background that might be helpful here. this is a belief the first appeal of a local coastal permit to this board of appeals. the local coast of permitting process is embodied in code section 330 which was added in 1985. it has not been since amended. the subject property is the beach shelle athletic field which is on the western edge of golden gate park. this is located within the coastal zone, with and also a p for public district and this

began several years ago with development of the idea of the concept here. the application for the coastal permit was filed on april 4, 2012 and the project description included replacing the existing grass turf woodson ted -- synthetic turf and installing field lighting, renovating the restroom, installing benching and seating, and spectator amenities to improve the overall conditions of the facility and increase the amount of athletic play time. this is 20 10.0 -- 2010.0. this is the embodiment of the local plan and the planning commission in reviewing this considers this on balance and on balance is something you have heard several times. we have to look on balance at

the application at how it meets or does not meet the relevant findings and objectives and policies of local coastal plan. the appellants have cited two relevant policies and they argue the project does not comply with those relevant policies. we outlined numerous objectives and policies which we believe the project as comply with. i would like to highlight four of them which are very important here. policy 3.1, i would like to begin with that. which states that to strengthen the physical and visible connection of the park with the western end of the park for visitor use and so the planning commission did find that it met this goal. it maintains the existing visual and physical connection between golden gate park and the beach. the project does not introduce new uses, it is not as if this was a prairie or something else,

a different form. it was already obviously an athletic field, it is being at -- maintained and that improved as an athletic field and it continues the park that -- connection that exists between the birk -- park and the beach. we -- there is [inaudible] would remain intact consistent with this finding. i continue to implement a reforestation program. 16 trees will be removed and 44 shrubs, there is a debate about whether it is a shrub or tree. the eir does a 16 trees and it has been noted by rec park staff, there will be 100 or more that are replaced exceeding a

one to one ratio. reforesting takes into the -- into account the age and the viability of the trees. they're not going to last forever. over time, they may need to be replaced. this is consistent with this policy. 3.3 and policy 3.4. 2.3 is develop and revise the master plan to include specific policies for the maintenance and improvement of recreational access in the western portion of the park. this is very clearly in compliance with that. it is maintaining and improving the recreational access in the western portion of the park. is very clear from rec and park's presentation. this would not be in conflict with that position, that policy. with that, the planning commission did adopt the local coastal permits, there was also as you know, it was prevented --

presented in the briefing materials, there was an extensive evaluation of the project that was subsequently appealed to the board of supervisors and the board of supervisors did a poll that on july 10, 2012. the year has been appealed but it has not been maintained. with that, it will be available for any questions that the board may have. vice president fung: i have a couple of questions on the eir. >> sarah jones may be the best person to answer those questions but if you would like to ask of me. vice president fung: whoever would like to answer. tekotte a add.

the responses included comments by the planning commissioners. does that constitute the full discussion and they made at the certification of the eir? >> sarah jones for the planning department. the comments from the planning commissioners that were included in the document were those that were made by commissioners at the draft eir hearing that was held before the planning commission. i do not recall that there was any substantive comment by the planning commission at the eir certification hearing. but the comments and the comments and responses documents were the ones that made -- were made at a previous hearing.

>> there were comments by the commissioners. >> the historic preservation commission prior to the air appealing -- eir appeal hearing resubmitted their comment on the draft er they had submitted during that comment period. those were the comments that have been made by the historic preservation commissioners and those were responded to in the comments in the document and were subsequently resubmitted to the board of supervisors. we felt we had responded to them in this document. >> you indicated there were no substantive comments that impacted the eir from the

planning commissioners. at the final certification hearing. >> the planning commission but if 0-- voted to recertified the eir. vice president fung: a couple of technical points. the runoff discussion did not have a lot of detail. is that -- is there anything that makes it significant or not sick of the can? >> the hydrology portion or the entire eir analyzes the project as proposed. in terms of the drainage and runoff from the fields, the discussion had to do with essentially the plan that was proposed which would direct the drainage to the cemetery storm sewer system. with the idea t as the tests allow, if the tests of

the water allowed it, san francisco public utilities commission may at some point authorize percolation of the water into the soil below. it is a system that is set up at the sunset facility that is in place where the defaults into the water coming into the storm system, and there is a possibility for ground water percolation overtime. the eir did analyze the effect on the storm system of adding the runoff from the field because at this point, that water is not going into the storm sewage system. vice president fung: the eir's used to have discussions per

ceqa. i did not see that in this eir. >> the er has a section on biological resources. i do not recall which section of the are there is but there is a discussion of the project evaluated against the pri -- criteria that are required under ceqa. there is certain significant criteria that ceqa requires that we consider and looked at the impact on biological resources. vice president fung: natural resources, i said. >> could you clarify what you feel is missing? vice president fung: the cigar have any conservation -- and does ceqa have a conservation checklist? >> it has 18 topic areas that you have to look at and assess the impact of the project. there are certain elements of

our city. the general plan that address resource conservation but ceqa requires us to look at the impact of a project as proposed, identify what impacts are significant, and if they are significant, identify ways to reduce those impacts or provide alternatives to the project. vice president fung: in your initial study and scope being the new source of light is indicated as potentially a significant impact. in your draft eir, you went through discussions on some of the changes made, almost like mitigation that you did not classify it that this was mitigated.

>> in the initial study, the purpose of the initial study is to identify this topic areas where we can -- where we have adequate knowledge to say that there are not submitted impacts. for any topic areas where we do not have that, we cannot reach that conclusion yet. those are the topics that are then included in the eir so we say that there is potential for significant impact we do not know yet. ceqa does allow the project to be changed, to avoid significant impact, and is doing that -- it is not a mitigation measure that is applied to eliminate a significant impact you have identified, it is a change to the project description. there were over the course of this analysis, changes to the press description.

that is the most desirable way to reduce impact is to change the description and not apply them after the fact. >> just to clarify, a few of those changes we put into place are lowering the height of the light standards themselves as well as moving the like standards to the interior. we took under a number of self initiated improvement measures in response to what we were hearing from the planning staff as we are doing our analysis and public feedback to make sure that we did not create a significant impact that needed to be mitigated. vice president fung: any other questions of staff? president hwang: we can move into public comment. we would like to have people lined up and we ask that you do so on the far wall to avoid

locking the door. if you have not already filled out the speaker cards, we would appreciate it if you do so and handed to the clerk. you have two minutes to speak, you have a timer that will go off 30 seconds prior to the end of your time to give your -- give you a warning. the first speaker wants to come up to the podium. please do. >> concerned citizen. i was going to talk about my own experience as a blind person and i will say first and foremost one thing that is shocking to me just from hearing the presentations and the planning commission and park and rec is their total lack of consideration for the alternative. when they find interesting is this is a watershed. this is why the windmills' our place where there is to bring water up from deep wells to water the park. this is what is shocking to me is how when they talk about an environmental impact, they did

everything but consider the environment and the impacts of their projects to the environment. air, water, habitat, and the quality of life of the people who will be living near this project. i am shocked and dismayed that they cannot provide adequate answers and where they blithely say, the degradation of the character is another matter to be discussed another time when they also talk about there could be modifications made to the plan after we implement it. i have to tell you as a blind person, you'll notice the difference. if you have seven to 11 acres of petroleum baking in the hot sun oxidizing, you will smell that on monday. you'll never smelled cut grass which is one of the best smells that you can experience. children may not be conscious of the change but they will grow up bankrupt for not be able to experience nature. i wanted to come to talk to you

about the sound of birds on the western edge of the park. this habitat is not in consideration in an environmental impact report especially this close to the ocean. it is shocking the talk about their project objectives but it will not talk about how their project is going to impact the people and the wildlife that live there. if the petroleum based astroturf drains into the soil or percolates into the soil, that will affect key watershed. if we're destroying wildlife have tied, -- habitat, will not be seen that. please consider the environmental impact and how this will change san francisco and the western edge of the park for ever. thank you. president hwang: thank you. next speaker. >> i am a sucker -- soccer mom, here to represent viking soccer

parents have not been heard. we believe that cresses better for our children to, the internment, and our city. we respectfully request that the appeals board overturn the planning commission pose a decision or place conditions of non-toxic fill and no city lights. if you allow this decision to stand, the filling state of the installation of the same design in san francisco such as this and new york will be the future of the golden gate grass field. contaminate the oceans and the areas with toxic waste. the kids have no more entries on program maintained grass fields. our children are being used as an excuse for this project. however, after 1200 games played this year, only 20 started

after 5:30 p.m. 60 foot stadium lights on it until 10:00 p.m. at night are for adults only. the recent data have been provided to show any current need for the fields for san franciscans. we're worried about the toxic waste that is used for the proposed project. you can seen -- [unintelligible] poorly contained and it tracks -- tracks into our homes. the strong wind and ocean beach will blow this ever were. a study has shown 100% fatality for aquatic animals. these fields will fail catastrophically. playtime is at 0. we do not have the money to replace the fields at $1 million

a field. please denied this. thank you. president hwang: thank you. neck speaker, please. >> i am with the harvey milk lgbt democratic club. we opposed the beach chalet sports complex first ball for environmental reasons, second of all because it is a violation of the golden gate next -- master plan. we were very dissatisfied with the findings of the e.r. and we have spoken during the draft and final versions of the eir submitted information. we support the appeal on the decision to proceed with the destruction of the meadow and soccer field behind the beach chalet and convert it into an environmentally unsound sports

complex which would restrict access to the public and would be marketed for use by adult soccer' or teams, not use. i want to speak for the club when we say we resent and speak out against the homophobic smear that the bushes are gay cruising ground, said to promote the notion that a sports complex would make the area safe for children. this is always the excuse. how many times have we heard this? to justify this nightmare scenario. it is not a gay cruising ground, children will have less access to this field, and the matter will become a gated community open only to those who pay, not those of us who want access to

this wonderful meadow. please heed this appeal, please stop this sports complex, and please stop these insinuations about the lgbt community. president hwang: next speaker, please. chaf>> good evening. i am patricia eric and i have lived for 26 years on the great highway 1 mile south of the soccer field area. i am acquainted with the environment there. i put up a picture here from the ocean beach master plan which was approved in may 2010.

and i would like to read to you some portions of that. the beach and dipane system provide a corridor of scarce habitat for numerous species. the bistros users to find the elemental beauty of its wind, wave, and fought a scenic respite from the city. improvements should retain and draw upon these qualities. i have been a teacher for 30 years in the public school and at the trinity college level. i care about kids -- community college level. i call -- care about kids and i also care about golden gate park. the soccer players want more playing time and they want a safe plainfield. there is an alternative to golden gate park that has not been adequately explored. also, i feel that the eir was also quite inadequate.