1. Item Th15c Beach chalet Athletic FieldS renovation Golden Gate Park
City & County of San Francisco
City fields foundation
Appeal No. A-2-SNF
Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Phil Ginsburg, General Manager of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department and I am here today on behalf of the city.
We want to thank all of you for this opportunity to discuss the project before you today
Joining me today is Patrick Hannan and Scott Sanchez
RPD oversees 4000 acres of open space including 220 parks that include trails, meadows and natural areas but also include ballfields, playgrounds, pools and rec centers.
As stewards of open space, we share some common goals and responsibilties with this commission. Like you we must balance good land stewardship with the importance of active recreation.

2. Beach Chalet Athletic Fields Renovation Overview
Project Summary
Program Background
Existing Conditions
Proposed Project & Details
Local Coastal Program (LCP) Compliance
LCP Policies for Golden Gate Park
Coastal Zone Landscapes: Recreation & Pastoral
Golden Gate Park Master Plan
Project Alternatives
Project Importance
State
City
Community
Today, we are going to share with you:
A project overview which will demonstrate how we intend to make an existing poorly conditioned athletic field a better one, that triples the hours of play and which is safer, more accessible, more durable and uses 5.7 million gallons less water each year.
Next we are going to demonstrate how our project complies with the local coastal program. And, how this project actually meets some objectives we share with this Commission.
82% of the Western End of Golden Gate park is pastoral, but this athletic field is not. TheGolden Gate Park Master Planwhich our LCP instructs us to follow, clearly recognizes the beach chalet as an athletic field created for the purpose of programming and permitting sports. It has been an athletic field since 1933.
By making this athletic field better within its existing footprint, we are able to address some common objectives for this part of the Coastal Zone. We will be drawing more people to this part of the coastal zone from all over the City, folks who might never visit this part of the City but for these fields. And, we will be promoting active recreation within the coastal zone, something the Coastal Act calls upon this Commission to do.
Lastly, we will address how this project addresses significant state, local and community needs without expanding the existing footprint of these fields.

3. Project Summary Existing Conditions
Beach Chalet Athletic Fields, Golden Gate Park
Athletic fields for 80 years, site is 1 of 3 primary ground sports athletic facilities in San Francisco.
Fields comprise 7 of Golden Gate Park’s 1,017-acres – less than 1%.
63,000 players use fields annually
Lacks basic visitor amenities
Fields available by reservation only; closed when not being used for organized sports
The Beach Chalet Athletic Fields comprise less than 1% of Golden Gate Park’s total acreage of 1,017 acres. Of the acres in Golden Gate Park that are within the California Coastal Zone, 161 acres, or 82%, are pastoral (including major meadows, Natural Areas, non-landscaped areas, and annual and perennial gardens).

4. Project Summary Existing Conditions
Field Demand:
2004 study found San Francisco needed 65 more playfields
Greatest shortfall: 3:00-6:30pm weekdays when kids use use city sports fields
Youth league growth solely constrained by lack of athletic fields
Park Visitor Safety:
Rampant illegal activities occurring in the woods around the Beach Chalet Athletic Fields
The current facility is comprised of four grass soccer fields which are in poor condition due to heavy use, drainage issues and gopher infestation. The fields are some of the worst in the city and are often the first to close and the last to reopen when it rains. The facility is closed four to five months out of the year and at least one field is always closed on a rotating basis to allow for rest and regrowth, despite the best efforts of staff.
Other issues:
Public Safety
On field – injuries ended too many promising soccer careers
Off field – because fields are often closed, unsavory and illegal activities are rampant in the bushes surrounding the sports fields.
The best way to keep a park safe is to activate it. That is why, SF Police Chief Greg Suhr and District Attorney George Gascon support this project.

5. Project Summary Proposed Field Renovation Project
Install synthetic turf, field lights and spectator seating
Create viewing plaza and children’s play area
Renovate restrooms
Improve parking lot
Create safe, disability accessible walkways
Create new picnic and barbeque area
----- Meeting Notes (5/8/13 18:17) -----
Project
Synthetic turf athletic field
Field lights
Visitor Amenities

6. Existing & Proposed Existing Proposed Synthetic Turf Field
No rainouts, no rest or regrowth, no maintenance closure
3/4 fields, 75%/100%
Triple playtime on fields
enities
Increase recreation in Coastal Zone in a size and scale appropriate for the park

7. Proposed Lighting
60’ field lights – screened from adjacent neighborhoods and most of Ocean Beach
Pathway lighting to northside spectator seating
Pathway lighting east to parking lot and JFK Dr.
Plaza lighting
New Lighting
Light poles 10-20ft shorter than standard and placed on-field to screen fixtures from adjacent neighborhoods and elsewhere in park
As you can see, the field lights are lower than much of the surrounding vegetation
All lighting systems will be on an automated control system

8. Lighting The Fields State-of-the-Art System
Lighting to be shielded and directed
Light shields recommended by
National Park Service
Height and location of light poles
carefully established
Designed to prevent light spill onto Ocean Beach
Light shields prevent light from emitting upwards, reaching beach and neighborhoods
Worked with NPS Dark Skies expert

9. No ambient light on Ocean Beach or the beach promenade
Proposed Lighting
Existing
Proposed
No ambient light on Ocean Beach or the beach promenade
Image source Beach Chalet EIR, Figure IV.B-10

10. No ambient light on Ocean Beach or the beach promenade
Proposed Lighting
Existing
Proposed
No ambient light on Ocean Beach or the beach promenade
Image source Beach Chalet EIR C&R, Figure IV.B-11

11. Proposed Lighting – Daytime
Existing
Lights are largely screened from Ocean Beach and promenade
Proposed
Image source Beach Chalet EIR, Figure IV.B-10

12. Proposed Field View Low benches along disability walkway
No illuminated scoreboards
No loud speakers

13. Proposed Spectator Plaza and Playground
Picnic tables, bbqs, a small playground
Bicycle parking, new disabled access pathways

14. Parking Lot/Restroom Improvements
Existing
Proposed
Adding 20 parking space to accommodate increased use
Improves safety – drop off, 4 ADA
Summary
Syn turf
Lights
Visitor ammenties
Common goal – increase recreation and bring people to Coastal Zone
Renovates bathroom
Adds 20 parking spots to accommodate increased use
No impact on Ocean Beach parking
Creates safe drop-off zones for kids & pedestrian walkways
Includes 4 ADA parking spaces

15. LCP Compliance Staff Report
Staff agrees that 3 out of 4 of appellants’ contentions do not raise a Substantial Issue (SI)
SI recommendation based on 4th appeal issue - alteration of the natural character and naturalistic landscape qualities of existing athletic facility
Special conditions require removal of primary project features—lighting and artificial turf
Staff’s recommended “Approval with Conditions” is tantamount to DENIAL OF PROJECT

16. LCP Compliance Staff Report
Infeasible Project Alternatives
Staff states there are “likely many different alternative project variations”
As required by CEQA, alternatives were considered in EIR, but would not meet City objectives to increase Beach Chalet fields’ recreational usage
Staff’s suggestion to use West Sunset Playground wouldn’t create nearly as much new play capacity as Beach Chalet and would displace existing youth sports at West Sunset
Beach Chalet yields 1,821 more hours for youth play than West Sunset
West Sunset open more than Beach Chalet due to better field drainage and layout

17. LCP Compliance Policies for Golden Gate Park
STANDARD OF REVIEW: WESTERN SHORELINE PLAN (LCP)
Objective 3, Enhance the recreational connection between Golden Gate Park and the beach frontage
POLICY 3.1 Strengthen the visual and physical connection between the park and beach. Emphasize the naturalistic landscape qualities of the western end of the park for visitor use. When possible eliminate the Richmond-Sunset sewer treatment facilities.
POLICY 3.2 Continue to implement a long-term reforestation program at the western portion of the park.
POLICY 3.3 Develop and periodically revise a Master Plan for Golden Gate Park to include specific policies for the maintenance and improvement of recreational access in the western portion of the park.
POLICY 3.4 Rehabilitate the Beach Chalet for increased visitor use.

18. LCP Compliance 3.1 & 3.2 Emphasizing the Pastoral Landscape and Reforestation
Athletic Fields are an existing park feature – not introducing new park element
As designed and approved, project meets LCP requirements to protect the naturalistic landscape by:
Planting over 200 new individual trees
Planting more than 1,000 new plants
Using NaturalPave surface material similar to walkways installed by National Park Service at Land’s End in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Interpretation of design is subjective; landscape plan developed and approved at local level

19. LCP Compliance 3.1 Strengthening Connections in Coastal Zone
Improve Connections Between Recreation Features in West End of Golden Gate Park & Ocean Beach
Improved pathways to Beach Chalet Restaurant and Ocean Beach
New pedestrian lighting
Great Highway improvements; new crosswalk to beach

20. LCP Compliance 3.1 Creating A New Pastoral Landscape in Coastal Zone
Transforming a 4-acre “dump” into pastoral open space
$6,500,000 for Golden Gate Park’s natural landscapes in 2012 SF Parks bond
Goal – Create pastoral landscapes wildlife habitats
Coastal Zone restoration will go through community process and requires City and CEQA approval & Coastal Development Permit
Not part of proposed 7-acre athletic fields project
Maintenance Refuse Yard

21. LCP Compliance 3.3 Implementation of Golden Gate Park Master Plan
LCP requires preparation of Master Plan (Policy 3.3)
As prescribed in the Golden Gate Park Master Plan:
“The demands for recreation need to be balanced with the objectives of preserving the original intent and purpose of the park as “sylvan and pastoral” retreat. Emphasis should be placed on improving and maintaining existing recreation facilities, rather than adding new ones.”
Project improves existing high-use “major recreation area” in the Coastal Zone, while maintaining naturalistic landscaping around perimeter

22. LCP Compliance 3.3 Existing Athletic Fields Not “Pastoral”
CCC staff report:
“ The fields area is a grassy area framed by trees and vegetation that is perceived as a pastoral open space used for recreational pursuits with a small restroom. It is this spatial organization and the natural landscape that most clearly reflects the site.”
Response:
Athletic fields since 1933
LCP required creation of Golden Gate Park Master Plan
Identifies 10 non-pastoral park features in Coastal Zone, including the Beach Chalet Athletic Fields which are designated a “major recreation area”
Used by 63,000 players per year
3,450 games and practices per year
Facility footprint will remain unchanged

23. LCP Compliance 3.3 Golden Gate Park Master Plan
Coastal Zone Land Use Zones and Acreage
Major Recreation Area (34.5 acres – 18%)
Naturalistic Parkland (161 acres – 82%)
Golden Gate Park Master Plan Objectives and Policies
Golden Gate Park Master Plan Land Use Zones
Beach Chalet
Athletic Fields

24. LCP Compliance 3.3 Existing Non-Pastoral Features in Coastal Zone
Dutch Windmill & Cottage (1902)
2. Beach Chalet Restaurant (1925)
3. Beach Chalet Athletic Fields (1933)
4. Maintenance Refuse Yard (1996)
5. Murphy Windmill & Cottage (1907)
6. Archery Range (1938)
7. Golf Course & Restaurant (1951)
th Ave Playground (~1970’s)
Pump House
Bercut Equitation Field (1959) 1 6 9 2 7 3 4 10 4 8 5 8
Coastal Zone
Boundary

25. LCP Compliance 3.3 Major Recreation Features in Coastal Zone
Murphy Windmill
Dutch Windmill & Tulip Garden
Beach Chalet & Park Chalet Restaurants

26. LCP Compliance 3.3 Major Recreation Features in Coastal Zone
9th Hole
Ironwood Barbeque Restaurant and Pro Shop
Golf Course Parking Lot
Synthetic Turf Driving Range

27. LCP Compliance 3.3 Major Recreation Features in Coastal Zone
45th Avenue Children’s Playground
Bercut Equitation Field
Archery Range
Youth Archers

28. Coastal Act Public Access Compliance Increase Public Recreation in Coastal Zone
Expand Public Recreation in the Coastal Zone
Increased field access
Visitor amenities
Publicly posted “open play hours”
Open play hours on Crocker Amazon’s soccer fields are extremely popular

29. San Francisco Public Hearings
May 24, SF Planning Commission voted 4-1 to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and approve the General Plan Referral and the Local Coastal Zone Permit
May 24, Recreation and Park Commission voted 6-0 to approve the project conceptual plan, EIR mitigations and find consistency with the Golden Gate Park Master Plan
July 10, Board of Supervisors voted 10-1 to deny an appeal of the EIR
August 1, 2012 – Board of Permit Appeals voted 4-0 to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Coastal Permit
September 12, 2012 – Board of Permit Appeals voted 3-0 to deny a rehearing request on the Coastal Permit Appeal

30. Meeting State, City and Community Need
California
Addresses Calif. Child obesity rate: 17% (12.5m) – nearly the highest in nation
Increases access to SF Coast and promotes reacreation within coast.
San Francisco
Saves 5.7m gallons water annually – equivalent annual water consumption for 89 SF households.
Eliminates use of 2,000 lbs of fertilizer, 2,000 lbs of non-native grass seed and pesticides on fields
Community
Youth recreation – Triples playtime on fields by adding 9,500 hours of new play hours per year
5,158 of that time is for youth (54%)
2,957 of that time is for adult (31%)
1,467 is for both youth & adults (15%)
More athletic opportunities for girls and underserved youth.
REPLACE WITH ACTIVE FIELDS PHOTO

31. Local Support San Francisco city leaders supporting this project
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
U.S. Congresswoman Jackie Speier
Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom
CA. Senator Mark Leno
CA. Assembly Member Phil Ting
CA Democratic Pary Chair John Burton
Former CA Assembly Speaker Willie L. Brown, Jr.
SF Unified School District Trustee Rachel Norton
SF Unified School District Trustee Hydra Mendoza
SF Unified School District Trustee Kim-Shree Maufaus
SF Unified School District Trustee Matt Haney
SF Recreation and Parks Commissioner Mark Buell
SF Recreation and Parks Commissioner Tom Harrison
SF Recreation and Parks Commissioner Paige Arata
SF Recreation and Parks Commissioner Gloria Bonilla
SF Recreation and Parks Commissioner Alan Low
SF Recreation and Parks Commissioner Meagan Levitan
SF Recreation and Parks Commissioner Larry Martin
SF Mayor Edwin M. Lee
SF District Attorney George Gascon
SF Police Chief Greg Suhr
SF Supervisor Eric Mar
SF Supervisor Mark Farrell
SF Supervisor David Chiu
SF Supervisor Jane Kim
SF Supervisor Scott Wiener
SF Supervisor David Campos
SF Supervisor Malia Cohen
SF Supervisor John Avalos
SF Assessor/Recorder Carmen Chu
SF Planning Commissioner Rodney Fong
SF Planning Commissioner Michael Antonini
SF Planning Commissioner Gywneth Borden
SF Planning Commissioner Rich Hillis
SF Planning Commissioner Cindy Wu
SF City College Trustee Steve Ngo
Former SF Supervisor Sean Elsbernd
This is why thousands of parents, kids and coaches have sent you letters, s and postcards.
This is why so many of San Francisco’s federal, state and local officials support the project.

32. Conclusion
As approved, the project is consistent with Coastal Act policies related to public access and recreation and LCP policies related to landscaping, community character and visitor-serving uses. Applicant requests a finding of No Substantial Issue or Approval as Proposed by Applicant
This is not a commercial development.
We’ve got a failed athletic facility in Golden Gate Park.
We’ve got a critical need to get more use out of these sports fields and it cannot be done without synthetic turf and lights
We have a responsibility to maintain the pastoral nature of the West End of the Park while still meeting our city’s and our state’s recreation needs.
This project simply improves an existing sports facility without expanding it’s footprint. 82% of parkland in the Coastal Zone is and will remain naturalistic.
The City and the Coastal Commission have a common goal for this site:
Bring more visitors to the Coastal Zone
Promote active recreation in the Coastal Zone, not let existing facilities continue to deteriorate.
We respectfully ask that you allow us to renovate these athletic fields.
We’ve passed out a colored handout with our requested motion for approval, as approved by the City and County of San Francisco.
Thank you.
Thank you

34. Project Summary Program Background
City of San Francisco – City Fields partnership established in 2006
Goal
Make sure every SF child has a place to play sports
Funding
$50m public-private partnership
--$21m City of SF
--$29m Private donations
Completed
14 synthetic turf athletic field/light
renovations in 7 parks
Program Success
72,000 hours of new playtime on sports fields annually
25,700,000 gallons of water saved annually
200 new SF youth soccer teams playing each year since 2004
2,500 new SF kids playing sports each year since 2004
The Number One objective with this project is to address the critical lack of playing fields in the city and find more opportunities for our kids to get out and play.
A 2004 assessment of our recreation facilities found that the city would need an additional 65 athletic fields to meet current demand, particularly during the weekday after school hours in the fall and spring, when approximately 4,000 kids need access to our fields.
In a city constrained by water on three sides, with limited new land to acquire, and as the only city agency relied upon by schools and youth leagues for fields, the solution to this problem is to get more out of our existing fields.
In 2006, a partnership was born with the City Fields Foundation to collectively invest $50m to renovate athletic fields throughout the city, particularly in traditionally underserved neighborhoods. We do this by:
New (synthetic) turf that does not require the level of maintenance of traditional grass fields
Lights that increase the number of hours of playtime per day
To date, this successful partnership has resulted in:
an additional 72,000 hours of new play time on our sports fields every year
Nearly 26 million gallons of water saved each year
200 new youth soccer teams in the city and a total of 2,500 new kids playing each year since 2004

35. Community Benefits Increase Youth Athletic Opportunities
Ensure Every Child Has a Place to Play Ball
Athletic play expected to triple with more than 9,500 hours of new annual playtime created by this renovation
5,158 of that time is for youth (54%)
2,957 of that time is for adult (31%)
1,467 is for both youth & adults (15%)
Eliminates the deficit of athletic fields for youth sports after school
More field access will allow youth sports leagues to expand
REPLACE WITH ACTIVE FIELDS PHOTO

36. Public Safety and Conservation
Improve Public Safety
Synthetic turf athletic fields will reduce frequent injuries caused by gopher holes, patchy grass and year-round mud
Increased use, especially in the evening, will reduce crime in the park
Save Water, Eliminates Herbicides/Pesticides, Recyclable
Saves 5,700,000 gallons of water annually – that’s equivalent to annual water consumption of 89 San Francisco households
In San Francisco parks, synthetic turf is cleaned with soap and water; no cleaning detergents are used
Will no longer require 2,000 lbs of fertilizer& 2,000 lbs of grass seed annually, no herbicides or gopher trapping
Artificial turf will be recycled when replaced

37. LCP Compliance Historic Resource
No historic resource policy in certified LCP
Project would not alter Golden Gate Park’s eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
With 137 historic contributors, the EIR noted “the potential loss of one historic contributor would not constitute a significant impact to the District as a historic resource. The Golden Gate Park National Historic District would remain eligible for listing in the National Register after completion of the project.”
Fields have not been designated “historic”