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 this item was due and that's why we come to the rehearing request for this, this is not appeal today the board of appeals here, the appellant has argued they did not have sufficient time to present the materials although they did present them at the hearing to the board. they did have a couple of day tos incorporate them into their brief, they never requested a rescheduling of the item because they felt they didn't have sufficient time to present

their materials so given all those facts and i believe also they didn't really get to speak much to our brief but i think our brief did speak very well to how the required findings for granting a rehearing have not been met, so with that, i would respectfully request ma the board of appeals deny the rehearing request and make a final decision on this local coastal zone permit. thank you. >> thank you. i would like to see the submission. >> mr. sanchez, am i correct that the requestor's received a copy of this already? >> i sent copies to the requestors yesterday, so i think all parties have had sufficient time to review the document. >> okay.

okay, we can take public comment on this item. can i see a show of hands on how many people intend to speak on this item. when you come up to speak, if you could give a speaker card, that would help in the preparation of minutes. >> three minutes. >> okay. okay, thank you, my name is john sergeant, good evening, i

want to thank you for your consideration. if someone were to propose storing discarded tires in golden gate park, i think everyone would oppose that plan, and also that storage space for discarded tires was going be a play area for children, i think most definite everyone would oppose that plan. i would ask you please to consider a new hearing based on the new material in evidence. the fact that there is something demon astrally and provably shown to be toxic to humans and also to the general environment would not follow under the category of naturalistic environment, you know, the planning commission says that the effects to humans are negligible and he says we should not take this study into

advisement but petroleum based astro turf, even if it poses a potential harmful effect on children who will be using this play surface and upon the habitat and the residents around there, there definitely needs to be a new hearing to take that material into consideration. he say that is they didn't have adequate time to respond to this. i think there's so many reasons we need to be granted a new hearing. in the eir, it says it is not in keeping with the historic character of golden gate park. none of that was taken into consideration and the permit was granted anyway. if there's something demon stably toxic about 7 to 11 acres of ground-up tires as a play surface for children, i think that we must take this new study into advisement. i also think that the destruction of habitat and so many other things that need to be considered, the eir barely

glanced over those things and the one thing they conceded that would be a potential harmful impact was not even considered -- there was no form of mediation, they didn't consider any alternative to preserve the historical preservation of golden gate park and now we have material evidence that ground-up terms may be toxic and may not be something that we want children or other people playing around or inhaling or we don't want petroleum getting into ground water which could be a potential source of drinking water in the future, i think the san francisco public works department actually has the ground water in the affected water as a potential source of water use, we must have a new hear -- hearing, i thank you for your time and consideration, please let's not rush into something we'll regret. thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, my name's star child, i'm the director for the chapter of lib tairn party, i didn't come here today to speak to this item but i had heard some reports in the news about this and i was shocked to hear that they're considering tearing out 7 to 10 acres to 11 acres of grass and natural growth in golden gate park to put in astro turf, i think this is terrible, and i'm someone who plays soccer, i've never played there but it's not inconceivable that i would just as a recreational play -- player, not on any formal terms, let the people who use the field volunteer and help fill those in, i think they would welcome that opportunity to work with the city to make the field better.

i think -- i don't know how much this project costs but the rec and park department are trying to get voters to pass another multimillion dollar bond measure on this november's ballot just trying to keep up with the existing maintenance in care of the parks, they're claiming they don't have enough money so for them to go in and propose this huge new project, you know, that a lot of the community doesn't want and i think if more people knew about it or were aware about it, there would be more public outcry about this and i think that is likely to happen going forward if this prit's not goin stop the public objection to it and the lighting also i think is just a horrible esthetic thing, between that and the briekt lights at might and the astro turf proposed for the field, i think he would be rolling over in his grave, he

didn't want these things for golden gate park, he wanted it to be a natural area for people to get out from the city and get out in nature and enjoy it, i urge you to consider rehearing this, the final thing i note and this is sort of a perennial concern of mine, it seemed unfair to me that people from various city departments or the police or whoever get to come in here and testify for or against certain measures kind of on the clock, they're being paid for their time, i assume the previous speakers for the measures from the planning department and the park and rec department being paid to be here but there's nobody being paid to represent the other side of the measure, so you get a bit of a one-sided bias in materials of whatever city departments are trying to push compared to how members of the public