the e.i.r. also utilizes alternatives which maintain the muni service on 90th avenue. other changes are naturalized in the e.i.r. the project includes a series of infrastructure improvements including installation of a combination of renewable energy sources such as wind turbine and photovoltaic cells to meet the energy demand. addition, storm water runoff from buildings and streets would be captured and filtered through a series of ponds and other natural filtration systems. the filtered storm water would percolate into the ground water that feeds the upper west side ground water basin or lake merced or be released directly into lake per said. the board has received four appeal letters before the march 2 deadline from julian lagos on behalf of save parkmerced, alani, from part of the coalition and bernard showdon, and maria atlanta guerrero engberg, an individual. substantial numbers of the comments in the appeal letters express opposition to the proposed project or critique features of the proj

the e.i.r. fails to adequately address the potential displacement of thousands of existing residents. however, pursuant to the terms of the proposed development agreement, all residents existing apartments proposed will continue to be residence at the time demolition is proposed would be provided with the opportunity to move to a new apartment before the unit is demolished. construction demolition would be phased to ensure the residents of the units to be demolished would be required to move only once. under the proposed e.a. these news apartments would be rented at the same rate as the residents' existing apartments prior to demolition and would be covered as the same rent rules as contained in the ordinance. existing residents would not be required to move off-site at any phase of the project. the proposed e.a. which is part of the project sets forth these requirements. concerns have further been expressed the e.i.r. fails to adequately analyze displacement impacts in the event that such provis

the e.i.r. analysis which ultimately is what's before us. [applause] president chiu: in response to supervisor campos' comments, he was reading from the case law but probably think it's not appropriate for us to discuss the underlying legal arguments and how they might apply in this case but agree this might be a appropriate topic for a future closed session. supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: to the president, supervisor campos or to the city attorney's office. the two cases you referred to, did those analyze the density bonus exemption in costa hawkins or did those analyze the waiver exemption in costa hawkins? and with the legislation that will be in front of us, the development agreement, is that the waiver or is it the density bonus exemption? supervisor campos: i don't know the extent to which we can discuss this, but the problem, supervisor elsbernd is that there is no case that specifically addresses the issue before us where density bonus actually satisfies the exemption this is -

the e.i.r. has that human and environmental impact as i read through it. i would say i was influenced by my visit with a number of the residents of parkmerced last week in the rain but we walked through a couple of the garden apartments and also the towers, and i don't see a blighted, aging number of units -- >> thank you. applause. president chiu: i also have this question katherine moore and other, the 4-3 vote at the planning commission, why is demolition of sound housing of beautiful homes with shared garden backwards and a sense of community, why is it necessary to demolish those and that's why reasonable alternative of no demolition to me makes a lot of sense and why the e.i.r. to me, i have a lot of questions about it. that's my perspective. [applause. >> to me what you're responding to are the merits of the project rather than the environmental impact of the project as proposed which is what we analyzed. the e.i.r. does not make any claims about the condition of the existing housing that'

that's not necessarily the point of the e.i.r. it's whether or not we've analyzed the impacts on traffic. so we could say we expect certain intersections to be at a certain level, parking to be in a situation and we've analyzed all that. that's really the subject of our conversation today. not whether we agree that the mitigations will work or not, right? >> it's primarily the impacts but to the extent that we each mitigation measure that we have incorporated as mitt gathing an impact, you are making an evaluation based on the information before you that is a credible working solution, similarly to we identify a mitigation measure that we think is feasible technically but which there's uncertainty to, you're taking that in as well. the primary thing is the assessment of the impact and that we're not missing something on the impact side. supervisor chu: and just a final question. with regards to financial feasibility. this is a comment that's come up there out different appellant's arguments about the feasibility of the project and

the e.i.r. was certified by the planning commission. that mean it was adopted as being adequate and complete. there was no rejection of any alter e.i.r. they agreed that it was complete. they weres of the options that were provided or the alternatives. it is just an exercise. it is meant to explore various options. that doesn't mean those are all the options that could be explored. there are many options that could be floated for a project here and the department and the h.p.c. look forward to seeing some of those options if our disapproval is upheld. and finally, in closing, just to clarify what the department is this is what would be an approveable project at the site. it depends again how it is executed. if the alteration should be simple and designed to keeping the character with a simple utilitarian qualities of the building and the evidence that we see at the -- at the site, and that any materials that are beyond repair should be replaced in kind and that the building should be brought up to code and again, just to reiterate, there

the document both in the e.i.r. itself and in the response to comments and in the technical memory randa goes to extensive analysis as to why those were not considered. as mr. cooper stated, ceqa requires a reasonable range of alternatives and those alternatives need to address a substantial number of the front's objectives and also met gate adverse effects. with respect to the infill preservation alternative, one of the reasons which was rejected is that when you intersprers a bunch of building into a especially historic resource, which is important -- important because of its curl churl aspect and resource as a

the document both in the e.i.r. itself and in the response to comments and in the technical memory randa goes to extensive analysis as to why those were not considered. as mr. cooper stated, ceqa requires a reasonable range of alternatives and those alternatives need to address a substantial number of the front's objectives and also met gate adverse effects. with respect to the infill preservation alternative, one of the reasons which was rejected is that when you intersprers a bunch of building into a especially historic resource, which is important -- important because of its curl churl aspect and resource as a whole it would be an adverse effect. and you need to mitigate adverse effects to be a ceqa alternative. so i would say in closing that this e.i.r. is thorough and complete. there are issues that i think have been raced that are genuine issues, that deserve your full consideration. some of those might be what supervisor mar raised about how you feel about this place and whether or not you feel comfortable wit

did you have a comment to make about the e.i.r. process and the exercise that commissioner garcia was -- vice president garcia was asking about? >> i think he will probably want to elaborate further. it is a process that the work is done by consultants that are hired by the project sponsor and alternatives were given. those are alternatives that were acceptable alternatives and it is not as if they cannot use the e.i.r. as guidance for a future project. it is very valuable to them. it is my understanding that they did not supply a project that complies with the alternatives in the e.i.r. and maybe mr. frye can elaborate further but i don't think it was a waste. >> thank you. the matter is submitted. >> i can start. the -- this issue before us actually -- has several parts to it in terms of how we are going to approach our decision making. the first part deals with what the existing structure is like and it goes into a little bit of -- what -- historical resource. the existing building in the rear -- portions of it you can see with o

in the past, when we've had joint -- not joint meetings but when the e.i.r. and the plan has all been scheduled together, i've recused myself on the e.i.r. votes but have been able to come back to vote on the community plan itself. and i feel in this case that as an informational item i can stay and participate. president olague: thank you. and with that, i'll actually call the item to the record. it's item two, case 20005 .1004, the glen park community planning presentation. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm the plan manager for the glen park community plan. and i'm joined by john billet and we are the john and john show for glen park. here for you this morning and we're very excited to be here and present to some of the work we've been doing with the community over the last year and a half. as you're probably aware this project goes a little farther back. so if i could have the overhead. so just an agenda for what we'll be talking about today i want to give you guys some history and context into the planning work and the neighborhood itself. then we'll pre

second type of appeal is the e.i.r., environmental impact reports. major public or private development proposals are planned that could potentially have a significant impact on the physical environment. who may file these appeals are any person or entity that has submitted comments on a draft e.i.r. in writing during the public review period or orally or in writing on a public hearing. the final deadline, they would be filed within 20 days of the certification of the e.i.r. the c.m.d.'s are also $500, payable to the planning department. we schedule these within 30 days of it being -- it's actually promptly scheduled, but we tickically give about 30 days to ensure all the materials can be part of the packet, so when they do come before the board, enough time for the board of supervisors to actually have enough information to be able to make those informed decisions once they come before the board. but typically, within the 30-day review period. that also requires six votes to overturn the planning department's decision. second type of appeal is the con

close to jobs is the right thing to do, i would urge you to do the right thing under ceqa, the certify these e.i.r.'s, deny the appeals and have a full discussion at the project. thank you very much. i appreciate your time this evening. >> colleagues, any questions to the representative from the project sponsor? ok, seeing none, at this time, if i could -- i have a lot of speaker cards and i do note there is an overflow crowd. we will be calling folks who have provided cards and if you are in the north court, feel free to make your way up to the board chamber and the sheriff's deputy will let you in. let me call up the following individuals -- [calling names] [names being called] first speaker, please. >> good evening, supervisors. jeff fraca. longtime native san franciscan, west san francisco. i spent a lot of time looking and reviewing this project as far as the transportation aspect. i think that's one of the biggest things that's going to impact us in san francisco. i've had meeting with peter albert. we've had serious community leadings where we've had a lot of people come together. as i said

the resource. that would in turn not trigger an e.i.r. so an e.i.r. would not be required at that time. that ultimately is the review officer's decision at the department. he would refer to our staff for that determination. >> whatever the final details of that, i'm wondering if allowing them a little bit of time for one more shot at it. is a fairway to go. >> we heard there is a hard line. mr. zellman was -- to that particular design. i don't know if that is still the case. >> we don't always listen to -- -- i think if we said this is the last opportunity. they see how the votes are going. that perhaps whether it works out or not, i don't know. i just wanted to give it one more shot. >> i'm open to that. i mean to hearing -- to seeing whether or not that could be productive. >> let me make a motion. >> ok. we'll see where the votes go. >> so i guess the question is whether or not what he is suggesting would be a waste of time because -- -- you know, after 10 years, there is -- investment, a coum weeks is nothing. it is like a grain of sand in the beach and i think that it is worth the d

initiating the amendments and then we're hoping to be back before you in early may for approvals to the e.i.r. certification. for the informational presentation, we're going to focus on what you are scheduled to take action on and are just the planning code and the general plan framework for the development. today we're going to focus our informational presentation on an overview of the history of executive park, issues that face executive park, and this southern area. the next informal hearing will get into the specifics of zoning and design guidelines. just to give you a quick history of this, this is an aerial from the 1960's and with the existing form and the war time housing and the dicht road configuration -- and a different road conf configurati configuration. candlestick park is largely not there yet and the part sthas there is being -- that is there is being used for parking for the stadium. in the mid 70's they began to envision the land as an office park and start to be called executive park in 76 as an office park and 800,000 square feet. through the years and is established as pa

so there are a myriad of issues related to muni, which is what everyone brought about in the e.i.r. document that are bigger than san francisco. bigger than the state. bigger than government. it is a big issue that we had to deal with it and i think yes, we need to make decisions about prioritizeation about transportation but a lot of that needs to happen at the m.t.a. and board of supervisors because they have the ability to make some decisions and the truth is

it contains my six pages of comments to the e.i.r. it also contains important notes about tsunami danger. the tsunami that happened in japan is a perfect way to describe what have i been trying to explain about this plodge for two years that will happen in slow motion with the water going up. well, it didn't happen in slow motion in japan. it happened in a flash. and hours away in alaska we could have a similar earthquake. we could have a similar tsunami hitting the bay and it would raise the bay by at least eight feet in that tsunami and probably more on the san francisco end but in the e-mail, i was conservative about that. with the thousands of residents that this project seeks to put on that island, there is no way that you're going to be able to get that many people off of that island in a few hours. it just won't happen. we're talking about a japan-style disaster if we proceed with this project as it is. and i get back to what i said a couple years ago about this, you need to reel this back, make this a wet wind restoration proje

initiated this process or the project sponsor initiated the project in 2005 with applications and the e.i.r. has been underway for several years. it was published in october and you had a public hearing on it in november. we're, again, planning a couple of informational hearings to re-orient you to executive park. next on april 7 you are scheduled to hear informational hear

we will be considering the accuracy and completeness of the final e.i.r. of which you all have copies. we will hear from the appellant to describe the grounds for the appeal. we'll take public comments from individuals who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant. we will hear from the planning department who will describe the grounds of the d.i.r. we'll hear from individuals from the public who will speak on behalf of the public interest. any objections in proceeding in this way? if not, why don't we open up the hearing. let me ask if there is a representative from the appellant. >> thank you, mr. president, members of the board. i'm ted for the park district appearing for my board today. very briefly you know that the east bay district is the park district for these counties representing over 25 million people. we have 65 parks, over 1,000 trails. we are the oldest and largest park district in the united states. the park district operates tens of thousands of people use the park each year. we have a large sea youth education program. we began working with