soft in the future. anything between facebook, we do use scored voting in some sense. right now that generation is turning 18 and in the future, there will be in these seats and it will not be such a big gap to cross. hopefully, with that, you will learn that there is -- it is not so scary, scored voting. president chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> mr. president, i have followed --[unintelligible] for many years. looking at the model of

parliamentary procedure, if a person put down his or her name from a party to one in [unintelligible] that individual should not take down a chair come out. we can get up and present themselves as a constituent. but the constituent no -- let the constituent know what you'll do for them. i have not seen any of this in the mayor's election. i am hoping that one day that

this -- the electoral system will change. however decided to put down his or her name to run for special office that they would come out to and that the constituency -- come out and let the constituency know what they will do for them on their behalf. supervisor chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> a pleasure to be in front of you again. we have been going at this issue for many months and things have taken a lot of twists and turns. now you have three proposals before you. any electoral system has its

pros and cons but when you look at these things on balance, some of them stand out as being worse than others. i think when you look at -- if you look at the difference between supervisor olague's proposal and supervisor chiu's -- there is equal in that sense. the difference is if it is in september or november election and whether you'll have ranked choice voting are not. one of the things i would like to think about is ranked ballots have added some important features to san francisco politics. without trying to balance, you have a plurality system and have many candidates running. you can have split votes and can have spoiler candidate and if you look at the recent talk to prairie on june 5, you see many examples where there were -- one district in southern california, a majority latino

district and the top two candidates ended up being where republicans. they split the democratic vote. that is also happening in san francisco's election. what with the asian boater have done with a one single shot boat per lardy -- plurality. it would have ended up splitting the asian vote. these are the sorts of things that can go on and so i encourage you to think about this early about whether we want to go back to plurally elections and introduced september elections to san francisco. i do not see how this would have much merit for san francisco. >> the first time i did not vote is one reagan beat jimmy carter. i have voted 31 years since

then. regardless as you might recall -- i got seven votes. a september election would be good because san francisco and new york is supposed to be known for having strong city mayors. this is -- we could really elected the board of supervisors in -- and other candidates but also with the mayor, we should also put the sheriff's department and the district attorney. and then let everyone here run on another election. what san francisco -- we want three types of people in government. we want the people who ran and people who come here like these great advocates here. there need to be three voices in san francisco government

obviously. you -- i have seen them build some of the houses in san francisco. i want to live in that apartment. i hope that is a dream come true. we need to have three different types of people in this government. the mayor cannot do it all. he is not a strong mayor like we had when brown was here. we need a strong board of supervisors, we need a strong independent board of people and who knows the history. this is a good idea to have a september and november election right now as i think on my feet. thank you. president chiu: are there other members who would like to speak at this time? seeing no further discussion, why do we go to the amendments that we have in front of us? colleagues, on item 34. i have made an amendment to item

34 that was seconded. can we take that without objection? without objection, that amendment is made. with regards to item 35, supervisor farrell has made an amendment and it has been seconded. that amendment is made. and at this time, why do we continue these items including the hearing to sisson committing item city to as well as the three various proposals, 3335, continue it for one week until july 17. is there a motion? is there a second? supervisor campos. without objection, these items will be continued to the 17th of july. at this time, we have four special orders in front of us. why do we start with the two items we can quickly dispose of. if you could call items 48 through 50 regarding the certificates of appeal for 55 laguna.

>> item 48 to 50 complies the special order for public hearing of. -- persons interested in the decision on a certificate of appropriateness for city landmarks 257 richardson hall, to 58 woods hall and the annex known as 55 laguna street. 49 and 50 are the motions associated with that public hearing. president chiu: both parties have agreed to continue these items to july 31. could i have a motion? seconded by supervisor wiener. is there any public comment on this motion to continue or on this item? seeing none, colleagues, can we take a motion to continue without objection? without objection, that shall be the case. could we call items 44 through 47 which is the final here are appeal of the transit center district plan. >> these are the items associated with the public hearing of persons interested in

the planning commission's decision certifying that a final environmental impact report for the transit center district plan and transit tower has a certification of a final environmental impact report. items 45 through 47 are the motions associated with that item. president chiu: as you know the appeal for this final eir was withdrawn by the appellant last week. we do need to take public comment on these items. let me ask if there are items -- members of the public who wish to comment on the final eir of the transit center district plan. seeing none, let me ask the difference supervisor. supervisor kim, would you like to make a motion that we support the decision of planning in this case? supervisor kim: thank you. i would like to make a motion to certify the eir and i want to say that this item in terms of the land use composite will be coming to the land use committee

on july 16 and to the full board on the 17th and i look forward to airbus discussion on this long-awaited plan around a transit center district plan revolving around funding of the transbay terminal which will be the future terminus hopefully of caltrain and high-speed rail. all along with the four redevelopment plan that will allow us to build at minimum 35% of 40 housing on the site and there are a number of innovations and impact fees that will allow us to do this type of smart growth development and i will be looking forward to that discussion in the next few weeks. president chiu: we are continuing.

could i have a role call on that? >> supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor campos, aye. supervisor chiu, aye. supervisor chui, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. president chiu: could you call items 40 through 43? >> the 4:00 p.m. special item is comprised of items 40 through 43 for public hearing of persons interested in the planning commission's decision certifying a final environmental impact report for the proposed renovation of the beach chalet athletic fields, export facility

at 1500 john f. kennedy drive along the western edge of golden gate park. item 41 is the motion affirming the planning commission certification of the final environmental report and item 42 is reversing and 43 is a motion directing the preparation of findings. president chiu: we have the appeal of the final environmental impact report for the proposed beach chalet project. for this hearing we will hear and consider the adequacy, accuracy, sufficiency, and completeness of the final er. -- eir. we will hear from the appellants and then take public comment from individuals of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellants. each speaker will have up to two minutes to present. we will hear from the planning department who have 10 minutes to describe the grounds for their certification of this environmental impact report.

we will hear from the real party in interest. we will hear from person speaking on behalf of the real party in interest and finally, the appellants will have up to three minutes for rebuttal. unless there are any opening comments or any questions or objections to proceed, supervisor mar. supervisor mar: thank you. golden gate park sits in district 1 but i know it is a treasured resource that belongs to all of us and everyone in san francisco. as a supervisor i have been following this process for several years now and it is one that requires us to look carefully with the appellants at to ocean edge and the richmond community association, the golden gate park preservation alliance and others. their attorney as well. a really well respected environmental attorney. balancing strong concerns about environmental sustainability

with tremendous need in our neighborhood for much improved and renovated play fields and i know that there is often in this debate today, there will be passionate people from both sides in my hope is we focus on the environmental impact reports -- report's adequacy and completeness and thoroughness and do our best to focus on what is before us, is it adequately -- is it adequate as well? i played soccer through middle school and i have had an opportunity to play on natural and synthetic fields whether it is washington high school board member of the play practice fields and regular fields and i have seen first hand how other fields like silber terrace can transform a neighborhood to make it safer and much more improved. as the appellants will raise and our department of planning and debris and of the infirm and an

rec and park will counter in different ways, i have looked at a lot of the national, statewide, and local studies in my hope is we will look carefully at what the studies say and what our experts in our city departments respond to the various environmental concerns. a march letter from superintendent frank deem from the national park service golden gate national recreation area that makes important points about how we need to coordinate this project with the golden -- ocean beach master planning progress and we have been a part of this and important concerns raised by superintendent dipane by -- about bird migration and dark skies and other issues. i am hoping we focus on significant or other impacts on those issues. as supervisor for the richmond district, i have to listen to the residents of the inner richmond and other parts of the park who have some concerns also

of the impact of traffic and perhaps new families and people that will come in to visit the fields if we approve the project so i am looking at how the hours and the lighting can be mitigated if the project moves forward as well. i am looking forward to this debate and appeal and will be weighing carefully in favor of families while trying to protect the environment as well. looking forward to this appeal. thank you. president chiu: thank you. supervisor chu. supervisor chu: i have heard from the residents of my neighborhood and close to the project site and it wanted to thank you in advance for the comments you have provided to our office by e-mail, by telephone, by mail and also for folks to come out today. i look forward to hearing the proceedings and listening to the facts of the case and did -- to

determine whether the eir is sufficient. thank you. president chiu: thank you. why do we hear from the opening argument by the appellant. -- why don't we hear from the opening argument by the appellant. >> i am an attorney and a chemist also representing the sierra club, audubon society, sf ocean edge, speak, and richmond community association and they're over 60,000 members. i am a parent. i am a little league coach. my wife coaches my daughter's little league team and my son play soccer. i believe kids need places to play in the city. there's not enough of them -- we should have more field space but kids need natural areas where they can enjoy nature. in this heavily urbanized city there are very few of those.

the western end of golden gate park is one of the few areas. last week and i rode up the highway with my kids and we went to be to l.a.. the kids played in the woods and they felt like we were a few miles -- we were a few miles away from home and they felt like we were a million miles away in the forest. it is important to preserve these dark sky, natural areas and this is one of the few that are left in the city. luckily, we can have both. our organizations have proposed the hybrid alternative to put artificial turf and night lighting and west sunset playground which is developed as a playground. six soccer fields can be accommodated whereas only four can be accommodated at beach l.a.. at the same time we should restore beach l.a. with very good, high-quality natural turf, go for approving and mash and good drainage. that will create 900 hours more

play time than the proposed alternative while protecting the unique natural resources that is golden gate park. in the city, san francisco and new york are unique and having these great natural areas in the heart of the heavily urbanized city. new york has managed to keep central park natural. there is no artificial turf, and no night lighting. san francisco should do the same and i believe especially because it is within the coastal zone protected by the california coastal commission. the coastal commission will require this area to create natural. i would like to focus on four issues that render the eir legally inadequate. first the eir fails to consider the hybrid alternative at all. for some reason, the city staff refused to consider this very rational hybrid alternative which meets all the project goals and avoids all the impact and gets even more player hours

for the kids. that is restoring beach l.a. with good grass, good drainage, and gopher controls and renovating more lighting. this would create more play hours. the irs does consider simply moving the project to west sunset entirely. interesting, the final eir starts -- states the west sunset alternative attaints most of the project's objectives, avoids the significant impact of the projects and it is feasible under ceqa if an alternative achieves the objectives, is feasible, and avoids the impact, ceqa requires the city to adopt the alternative. the eir is inadequate because it fails to adopt this feasible alternative that reduces projected impact while providing the play hours. the er is inadequate because it fails to acknowledge that the

project is inconsistent with the general plan. the san francisco general plan, the master plan states the park -- the western end of golden gate park should be simply be treated as it would lander forest. the golden gate master plan states that additional lighting is not intended to increase night use. but only intended for safety. the general plan states natural areas of golden gate park should remain as they are and any move to convert them into areas of more active recreation should be discouraged. the local coastal plan says the city must emphasize the naturalistic landscapes qualities of the west end of the park. putting 150,000 watts of flooding on a 60 foot post, at 10 60 foot post and lighting the west end of the park like star wars is inconsistent with the

local and general plan. the irs fails to balance that and it would be an abuse of discretion to approve a project that is patently inconsistent with those planning documents. 3, the eir fails to analyze the lighting impact of the project. we hired the world's foremost lighting consultant from the netherlands who concluded that the eir improperly analyzes the impact of 1002001 s, especially the eir does not analyze fog scatter. anyone who has been out to the western end knows it is foggy out there. fox getter increases light intensity by 10 to 20 times. d.r. concludes that -- the eir concludes that the fog will produce light. we believe the eir is equipped -- is inadequate because it

fails to analyze alternatives. there are a lot of studies reaching different conclusions about sbr rubber. the cancer risk is above one in 1 million which is the ceqa significant threshold. our expert who used to run the epa superfund program concludes the cancer risk is 19 in 1 million. 19 times above the sec was significance of threshold. the city's response said it is 8-1 million. that is eight times above the ceqa significant threshold. if you live next to the chevron refinery you are exposed to a cancer risk of 8.4 in 1 million. about the same as playing soccer on sbr chrome rubber. the eir out to analyze -- ought

to analyze alternatives and we have proposed good, safe alternatives. los angeles is using acrylic coated sand. they are still using astroturf but they are using sand as the base and they have had good results. new york is using basically carpet pad. a thick rubber pad under the turf because of health concerns. even piedmont and san carlos have installed cork to underline their astroturf. san francisco which calls itself the greatest city in america should not be falling behind new york to los angeles, san carlos, and piedmont. the eir is inadequate because it refused to consider those alternatives. the eir could look at the alternatives, priced about my determine what is feasible and with the costs and benefits are but to ignore the alternatives renders the document legally inadequate. i would also like to raise the coastal zone appeal. there is another appeal issue

here and that is the coastal permit. this is within the local coastal zone. that means the matter has to be appealed to the board of permit appeals. that is scheduled for august 1. the board of permit appeals may accept or reject the project in which case the action you take today may be much -- the project may be different than what is proposed today. also the coastal commission has written to the city staff claiming the city has "misled the public" about the beach l.a. project. that is strong language. i have never seen that language to claim the city has misled the public. the city has told the public this project is not appealable. that is wrong. the coastal commission has informed the city that is wrong and informed the city they have to read as notice and the decision is not a final action.

for that reason. the board of permit appeals hearing is august 1. that will certainly be appealed to the california coastal commission. the coastal commission rejected an almost identical project in malibu. malibu high school wanted to build an astroturf athletic field with night lighting in the coastal zone. the commission limited it to 18 nights of letting per year. if the coastal commission act consistently with this project because then the coast -- is in the coastal zone, 18 nights will not achieve the project objective. we will have far more play at west sunset. weston said is a win-win solution. it will avoid a train wreck that could delay this project for years. this could be delayed for years if it winds up in the courts. if we implement the hybrid alternative now, we could get the play fields and get the kids playing at west sunset and restore beach alley with good, natural grass, avoid the night

lighting, keep the dark sky area that can be enjoyed by families and everyone and it can be a win-win solution. we urge this board to disapprove of the environmental impact report to my project the certification, and adopt the hybrid alternative. i would be happy to take any questions. president chiu: thank you. any questions to the appellant? supervisor wiener: a couple of things. i made a comment before about the ceqa standard about feasible alternatives. it is possible i misheard you but i want to make sure i understand your position on that aspect of ceqa. i heard you say that if there is a feasible alternative that is less impeccable, the city is required to go with that alternative, is that what you are saying? >> yes, supervisor. there is the preservation action council vs. san jose. if there is an alternative that would reduce projected impact

and if that is found to be feasible, the lead agency must adopt the alternative. the city has taken a different legal position. i think they are legally wrong. >> let's say we are talking about the -- a playground, a large playground and we have five different sites we're evaluating and they're all feasible. it is all possible to put them there in a reasonable way. but if the city in consultation with community groups and going through an entire process has a strong desire and the community has a strong desire to say that for a variety of community-based reasons and one of the sites that is at the higher end of the impact scale, the eir is done, the impact is evaluated and disclosed and the community really wants it to be option 5 which is one of the more impact

full ones but they're all feasible. is it your position that ceqa compels the city to place the playground in the least impact full of these visible areas? >> bsn now. there is a third factor. it is not just feasibility. it is visibility, impact, and objective. the alternative has to meet all three. achieve the objectives, reduce project impacts, and beast -- be reasonable -- to be feasible. the other project alternatives perhaps do not achieve project objectives. supervisor wiener: that could be the case here as well. let's say west sunset is feasible. let's assume that west sunset is feasible and less impact full. then they beat l.a. location for this project. if the objectives of our park system of our community points toward beach l.a., are you still arguing that we would be compelled by ceqa to move it to west sunset