eirs. in general terms. >> there was an impact to historic resources. the original comment period it was the 45 days. commissioner antonini: ok, it thank you. i have a few comments on the eir. first of all, other speakers talked about there not being alternatives. there has been all along. there have been preservation alternatives, partial present take -- preservation. what was added, which is not part of the environmental document, there was a feasibility study that we had as -- during the informational presentation we had a few weeks ago which showed the relative costs to these alternatives. that is not an environmental issue. it substantiates. the other thing that is not an environmental issue, i will comment more during the comment. on the budget -- on the project itself, the regional housing assessment -- but regional housing needs assessment is not an environmental issue. you could bring that up during the comment period on the project itself, but it is not an environmental issue. finally, the issue of overriding considerations. that is something w

main points of the appeal, the appellate claims the eir's analysis of alternatives is inadequate, failing to consider the hybrid alternative. there is an off site alternative, a turf alternative, and synthetic turf without lights alternative. per ceqa, it need not consider every conceivable -- alternative, but a reasonable range of alternatives. the eir presents a reasonable range of alternatives. the hybrid alternative is within the realm of the alternatives in the eir. the appellate claims it fails to a knowledge inconsistencies. consistency was appropriately discussed in ceqa documents. on may 24, the planning commission certified the eir, approved it, and found it to be consistent with the general plan. the project was found to be consistent with the golden gate park master plan. the appellants states and the r.r.'s analysis is inadequate, acknowledging the uniqueness of the project site and subjective nature of the aesthetics. they prepared nighttime visual simulation and performed an analysis of my time views. it included the project will not have a substantial adverse affect on the scenic vista. it will continue to be screened f

the board went ahead and heard the eir because they wanted to take a certification action on it, which they did vote to certify unanimously. there was an appeal scheduled that has been moved to the end of the month. it was a 7.5-hour hearing. on a vote 10-1, the board found the eir to be adequate and complete. the elements of the appeal concerned different alternatives for the eir. staff responded at the hearing by saying the eir did provide a regional range of alternatives, especially in deciding a hybrid alternative. staff also discussed the spillover from night lighting would not affect homes. the eir discussed consistency with respect to the physical and attacks on the environment. the appellant requested a continuance of the eir hearing until after the commission rules on the coastal permit. the city attorney's office advised that the ceqa appeal should be resolved. later in the evening, before midnight, there was one more appeal for 800 presidio. this is a project that is familiar to this commission. foster care youth in a community center. the board heard to appeals on this project last year. by the same appellant raising the sa

for an eir to be complete, it does not have to find no historic impact, but that it identifies what it was. they talk about health impacts in detail. we also discussed at the coastal commission action is a separate action. we did recognize it is a project in the coastal zone. on the biggest point that was raised, there was a notion that it failed to consider the hybrid model. with that issue, i simply do not think it poles wait. we had a number of different alternatives provided in the environmental document. we analyzed the current proposal. we analyzed west sunset with the artificial turf. we analyzed beach chalet with grass and the limited lining. we also analyzed beach chalet with grass and lighting. i think it does provide a reasonable range of alternatives that we did take a look at. it does not have to be exhaustive. it just has to be a reasonable range. even if we were to say a hybrid model was what we wanted, you could certainly pick and choose from all of those different items, and get to understanding what some of the impact would be. in terms of meeting the requirement of s

some criticism has been made about the process that got us to where we are where we had to do an eir. i am very happy and proud that we went through the eir process. golden gate park is such an institution that i think on something of that importance that we should engage in the kind of process that we went through. it is the kind of process that made this project better. it is something that we should be proud of. there may be other issues that people have with ceqa. this points to how we could do things the right way. the fact that you follow a certain process can bring people together. for those reasons notwithstanding reservations, i would be voting to uphold the eir. supervisor olague: we have another item after this apparently. i will not be supporting the motion. i support the arguments that the appellant gave this evening. some of the issues that were raised i think are of concern, particularly as it relates to the inadequacy of the eir describing how the project will contribute to scenic resources. how the project will substantially degraded existing quality of the site. i do

recirculation of an eir is necessary when significant new information is added to the eir after public review and before -- after public notice of the availability and before certification. new information is considered significant, is the eir -- sorry -- new information is not considered significant unless the eir is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental impact of the project or a feasible way to mitigate such an effect, including a feasible alternative. the revised eir does not contain significant new information. therefore, it does not require recirculation. please note that the revised eir that was sent to you on june 14 contains page number references and headers that are inaccurate. these errors do not change the substance of the eir and will be corrected when the final eir is finalized, if it is certified. the eir discloses a number of impacts, including less than significant impacts and impacts that can be mitigated. there is one impact which remains significant and unavoidable. despite implemen

that said, with reference to the eir, if the coastal commission does get an appeal and needs to act on it to approve this project, it would rely on the city eir to make the decisions. it is considered a responsible agency under ceqa. supervisor wiener: just a couple of brief questions. it was noted before that there was nobody from the department of public health here. i recall seeing in the eir or in the file that there is documentation from the department of public health. can you comment on that? there is an implication that there was no feedback from the ph. that was not my understanding. >> the department of public health participated on the synthetic turf taskforce. their input was -- the department was primarily in relying on their participation and input that occurred in that context. when we posed further questions about some of the hazardous health risks associated with it, as well as the skin abrasion questions, the responded that they did not have any concerns around any of these various health issues associated with artificial turf fields. supervisor wiener: that is in the

you spent $1 million on an eir that was not necessary. am here to offer an appeal to reagan for two months we have been trying to meet with its general manager, and i hope you can help set up this meeting. good eveninone of our members mn appointment. that appointment was cancelled. another one was subsequently set up. that was cancelled within 24 hours. he felt is respected -- disrespected. he did not want another appointment. i spoke to the general manager, and he suggested i made an appointment. i have called and called. his assistant has tried to do this, but i still do not have an appointment. we have some ideas. we do not want to keep fighting. i hope it can work out. >> my understanding is the meeting has been set up for july 13. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, public comment -- >>

eir. if the decision makers choose, they can choose an alternative to the project. we have done the analysis that looks at the physical envelope in 3a+. supervisor campos: did you actually do an environmental analysis of that alternative? >> yes, we did. the document did not reject any of the alternatives. it presented all the information and said this is not a new alternative. this is something we have studied. there was not just one, there were several suggestions of how it should be. i wanted to put that out there for the record. supervisor campos: you said you looked at five alternatives. but that is not five, that is six. i am confused. >> we looked at it as a supplemental analysis. in the eir, we fully studied five alternatives. this was additional analysis but would look at it and we said there is some much similarity in the physical dimensions of what it could look like, that it would be a very similar to the alternative. supervisor campos: i think that is the problem. the analysis you engaged in is not done at the same level. the reality is that in deciding

an adapted urban setting. the snowy plover is a species that was discussed and recognized in the eir. the project will not substantially affect ocean beach. i think the statement that the snowy plover habitat is not within the project site is an accurate one. the snowy plover is one of the reasons the national park service was concerned and interested in this project. that was one of the purposes of considering light spillover, as it would affect ocean beach. the presence of the highway and the lighting and activity there is a much more immediate impact on that species and their activities. >> it seemed like during the migratory. , the lights could be adjusted -- during the migratory period, the lights could be adjusted. i wanted to ask mr. drury about i wanted to ask mr. drury about the malibu case with the coastal

eir. i am new to this process. you are expert in this area. questions around gridlock and lack of planning an emergency vehicles. i understand that you have a socio-economic part that you do not include in the eir. we do need to make this project better. i hope that we collectively can continue to have this conversation. members of this public who continue to come day in and day out. you sometimes give the same speech over and over again. i can sometimes repeat it verbatim. i appreciate your commitment to coming and showing up. it shows that you care and you are committed. that means a lot. so that we can have a good deal for the entire city and county of san francisco. not being naive in that we are not operating in a vacuum and it will have a residual impact on some of the surrounding counties and other towns as they continue to negotiate and figure out what they will be doing as other hospitals will become seismically safe. i want to say that i look forward to continuing this conversation. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i know it is late and i do not want to belabor the point. fro

eir. the irs is essentially an informational document -- the eir is an informational document. certification of the eir is not an action to approve or disapprove a project. it means that you believed that the eir has provided you with information about environmental and tax and mitigation measures. -- environmental and tax and mitigation measures. -- impacts and mitigation measures. we suggest that the commission adopt the measure before you. this concludes my presentation on this matter. thank you for your consideration. vice president wu: commissioner comments? commissioner antonini: i think the eir is complete, adequate, and accurate. as was mentioned by the staff report, the new comments are dressed in neat document and do not require any further -- are addressed in the document and not require any further response. i move to certify. >> second. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor for certification of the environmental review document. on that motion, that motion passes unanimously. commissioners, we will go back into our public hearing and consider item 9a, b, c, d. 9

. >> i have been involved in projects where there is an eir appeal. typically, there is a risk that the lawsuit comes back and says something about recirculating the eir. i know that generally does not happen. dpw is going to take that risk and start construction of the project? >> obviously, we are moving very cautiously forward. the hearing was on june 7. the determination

to say that an eir is inadequate because it identifies significant impacts is not an appropriate argument. our requirement, particularly if there is a situation where there is some amount of disagreement, is to evaluate it and look at the substantial evidence. if it is significant, this close that and provide mitigation that is feasible and alternative to the project. president chiu: given no more questions on the roster, why don't we go to the project sponsor? >> filner ginsberg, general manager of the san francisco recreation and parks department. i know people are eager to speak, so we are going to move quickly. thank you for considering what might be the most of veted and reviewed soccer field renovation in san francisco history. i want to thank each city department that has participated in this dialogue over the past three years. our job is to attempt to balance sometimes conflicting needs and values. we all love our parks. we love them and need them and want to use them in different ways. the feedback we have received about this project, both supported and critical, has resulted in

it is not an eir. president fong: is there a motion? >> issue the continuous calendar to the date today. >> second. >> commissioners, on the motion to continue -- [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously and puts you under your consent calendar. on matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar and are considered to be routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll-call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items on as a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which even the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or future hearing. the first item -- 2012.0041b de haro street. i have no speaker cards. commissioner miguel: i recused myself from this item. i live on the 600 block of de haro, but not far enough away that i am not under a financial obligation to do so. commissioner sugaya: i would like to hear this. >> would you like to hear it now? commissioner miguel

program will be looked at separately for project-level environmental review, which may result in an eir, what ever is the appropriate environmental clearance so that we can move those projects as soon as possible. they really do inform the program going through. you did get a cac resolution as part of your communication. news of what the cac has recommended as part of the c i p. the west side project needs a better title than just 70 or 100 mgd. a title is significant and important, both from an occurrence and volume standpoint. we will talk next time about the rate impact. i'm assuming we will see the rate charged over 30 years and what the percentage is and how that rolls up. at some point, we will see a list of categories within the programs, within the overall -- there are a lot of ways to roll this out. i really support the staff recommendation. i believe this is ambitious. this is necessary. we have really gotten to a point where we need to move the critical project ahead and see how this all plays out. thank you. >> thank you. mr. acosta. >> commissioners, when i spoke to you the

don't waste your money on an eir that's not going to go anywhere and don't make statements if you don't know who's going to be the developer. as to that community meetings that you want more information about hunters point, time is running out so i will stop here. supervisor campos: next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm a member of the citizens advisory committee for the transportation authority. regarding one item the executive director brought up, the item about 19th avenue, this item was brought before our committee a couple of months ago. i voiced concerns there and i will share those concerns with you. first of all, as far as relocating into the middle of 19th avenue, i -- it seems ludicrous because as it is, when you have to take the 28 bus line going northbound, you have to cross 19th avenue and there is a light there. if they want to realign it into the street, and of doing that, build a bus bridge over the 19th avenue so that people with walkers and canes and wheelchair's can go over 19th avenue safely. realigning to the center will just cause more traffic a

i came by and told you that the objective of our club is to conduct ane ir, -- an eir, and i would like to give you my secretary's number. 916-281-8268 if anyone would like to respond to my request. i realize we are a small group of activists. you're curious about our neighborhood of, i have written a draft and contract in the club with a little more legal clout. i have found out that the guidelines, any person may submit any information in any form to assist a lead agency that i assume you are in preparing of an individual study. i can use some of the facilities, the initial findings are stunning. my group will continue to try to position ourselves outside of the media first, to expose the fact that the tower on telegraph hill and the art has never had an environmental impact report. this area that i consider to be a depository for all kinds of chemicals can contain groundwater, a significant amount that is dangerous to the public. as well as learning about the great depression. there are chemicals that are in hong themselves for the run off or the ground water, which is expensive for

from an eir to a 20-year neighborhood plan, i will provide you with a list of key priorities. the first one being the departments function. the key function is making sure it is being recognized by the department and by staff. it is a key function for planners and the rest of our team. this is being noted and performance appraisals -- and performance appraisals. staff training. we need to set these folks up for success. we need to give them the confidence to execute effective communication. some topics they were thinking about or mediation, cultural awareness, customer service, and also public speaking. resources. giving them tools to put on their tool belt. the guidelines claudia was talking about, we will have >>, online resources, and meeting materials. -- we will have books, online resources. access to information. strategy to make the information distributed accessible and understandable. when you look at the material on the website, it is clear, it easy to understand, easy to navigate. do we understand what it says? our newspaper notices as well, did they make sense? edu