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

in fact, in the east bay, they looked at that study along with other details and data and for their eir for a project they were considering, they said there could be a significant hazard from artificial turf and they discounted it. >> which study? >> the san francisco study. >> okay. >> this is a totally new study and i do believe the data is significant. gene barish is an attorney and she has background -- >> can you help me -- >> i have to look at the study again, it's my understanding it's a study that was former comprehensive during the eir process. >> in what way? >> they analyze add lot more compounds in the turf, they did an analysis of more compounds that were found in the environment, in the environment and the conclusions were different, their conclusions were a lot stronger and said this is much more harmful than any other research that was submitted during the eir process so it's currently distinguishable from any other studies you have seen and it was also published in a peer review article, most of the study that is the eir covered were not published in peer reviewed journ

believes there's no substantial evidence that has been present that a warrant of presentation of the eir and recommends that the planning commission adopt the [inaudible] this concludes my parenting. if you have no questions, i'll turn it over to dan from rec and park. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioner, dan mauer with the parks and recreation department, as mr. lewis mentioned, this was certified back in february, i thought it was be important that myself as a representative for the department steps forward and tables talks about how important it is for us. there's a brief presentation, about 9 or 10 slides. back in 2004, we did an independent study looking at our recreation study, we found at that point in time that we were 35 soccer fields and 30 baseball fields or softball fields short to meet demand back then, it has escalated tremendously. most of that is seen after school during fall and spring where we have an excess of 4 thousand kids who come out of the pools and utilize our park fa sits, between 4 and 7 o'clock briefly, so back in 2006, we were approached by city fi

the numbers in the eir are based upon programmatic analysis. we don't have specific designs for a few of these buildings. when these come forward the sponsors demonstrate they have done to the best of their ability refine the designs to reduce if possible the amount of shadow analyzed in the plan's eir. though still consistent with goals to build to the height of the plan. the criteria in the '89 memo for public good speaking to public good of buildings or projects. what we would propose is for these parks we are proposing to change the limits that public good of individual projects that are within this plan area be based on public plan as a whole. we think it would not be a fair or adequate evaluation to evaluate each building based on the good of each because their good is their participation in this plan providing new open space, providing hundreds of millions to transit and try to evaluate each independently would obscure public good of plan as a whole, which doesn't have a good unless buildings get built. so with that, that essentially conc

, 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 t

this approves the eir and the proposal for the project. the recent requirements by staff and a new architect are similar in height and mass. we strongly support efforts to reserve the reuse of the historic buildings. we oppose demolition tactics to win project approval. we believe san francisco mo greatly benefit if historic preservation laws and sepal laws are strictly enforced. -- ceqa laws are strictly enforced. we will never forget what this developer did to the japantown vote. the developer tried to diminish the cherry blossom festival food fair, which is right by his condos that were built at a site where the japantown residents were being evicted many years ago. that is ridiculous, but it is beside the point. you have an opportunity to preserve this historic building. i urge you to do that, please. thank you. >> a couple more speakers. [reading names] >> good afternoon. i am a member of senior action network. our board has recently voted to ask you to disapprove the proposed project. i am here to explain our position to you can read

the tp under eir is about six months under schedule. it is a big undertaking, something we are very supportive of. but one of the messages to the voters was we want to deliver the projects. if they are ready to go, they are funded first. there are strict projects on the line. if like in prop k if we have programs in the fifth year and the sponsor doesn't come in the board can say you have a good story, we will let your funds rollover or could program them to other eligibility projects ready to go. the timing is also very good. we are about to embark this year on an update of the five-year priorityization programs, covering fiscal year 14-15, the next five. that is picking up the tail of prop a. we will be able to complement in two categories, the biggest opportunity are the rt, tps category and prop k where we can have the ability to advance a lot of funds if there are projects ready to go. same thing on street repair. may be able to advance funds to backfill the projects. >> thank you. >> colleagues, any other comments or questions? com

this approves the eir and the proposal for the project. the recent requirements by staff and a new architect are similar in height and mass. we strongly

the eir contains a couple telling photos to demonstrate empirically. from left this shows sutro tower. it is almost indiscernible on the ground. whereas the person taking the photo is dark overlaid that from sutro. it explains diffusion. on the right, the transamerica pyramid taken at some distance from the pyramid there is no hard line distennesseerable. where does the shooed doe begin or end * because it is shining around the side of the tower and a broad amount where there are light amounts of shadow. if you quint maybe you tell. the there is a gradation. the quantitative analysis shows a dark shadow. this is not something we have found a way to easily capture in our calculations but something we know empirically happens. so now the park-by-park look. first justin hermann plaza. justin hermann plaza is about 2,000 feet from the transbay tower *, a similar distance from the other two buildings that might shade it. the potential shadow from the new buildings would happen in late fall, very early winter. as little as 15 minutes, as much as 50 minutes to

when the eir was approved in february i think it was, there were clear instructions the description of station design, part of how the eir went, was not at all conclusive to what is intended, what is in front of us today has not added anymore detail but i clearly understand what is applied. i have had lengthy discussions with ms. wadi who herself doesn't have answers which haven't been created. what we are approving is really not much more than the head house with the implied understanding that there will be potentially the building, a three-dimensional object part of the review. and one part a station entrance and one in part of t.o.d. that may or may not materialize. this implies transitory is an indication of use of site that is implied in the word that. is what the practice does. i do think that should be part of disclosure * by which this commission structures approval. i ask these questions. there is no programmatic outline of potential uses, or idea about what this building might contain, how tall, what architectural expressions it would require. we are in an emerging historical

in that general area so we can look at it in a concert. >> if i can clarify, to our knowledge as the eir was prepared there was only one that could potentially shade any of these on file, 706 for union square. there were no others on file. >> right. i guess in terms of my question, the zoning, there is no other opportunity that projects based upon overall zoning could shadow? >> that i don't know. >> that is really hard but if we can look where zoning is different than the building and not historic, how could we look at how those new buildings would cast shadow. >> if i may, the shadow analysis for this plan is one of the most complex shadow analysises ever done. what you are suggesting, it is reasonable, is look at zoning to look at that shadow analysis for every potential site in the area. might be technically difficult. >> right. to the extent -- i think the other thing we are looking at creating another cumulative impact budget. i don't think we want to do that, then two months later start adding more -- sort of like if we are going to take that approach then it might need to be a bi

the eir that was approved in 2008, i believe, was that of an envelope of the union square station? >> i'm not sure i understand that question. it might be directed better to the mta staff. >> mr. fungi? >> commissioners, john fungi, central subway program manager, the eir document that was aprao*fed in 2008 essentially had a 30% design of the station and the station itself back when it was originally designed in 2006 and as it exists today is essentially the same with the enhancements of the various commissions that have reviewed and approved the station. if i was to show you what the station looked like in 2006, it would have a much greater impact of the park of massing versus one that you're reviewing today which is tucked into the park and almost looks like it's part of the park, but the footprint of 2006 is essentially bigger than what we're proposing today, and there's also a planning department finding of the current views of all three stations and it's in your packet dated september 12 from mr. bik wiko that addresses the topic of any changes that may have occurred from earl

as soon as the eir are certified we have projects ready to go. as part of the projects we are doing initial engineering and certain corridors, adax one cleared at a project level. once eir is certified we would be ready to begin development of project. i feel fairly confident we know the project and have a good sense of what the schedule will be. there are two overlays of how we are developing, one being customer amenities, already funded through a grant we are getting through mtc. on top of that

as you know from the certification of the eir and adoption of the ceqa finding that a number of these new buildings could potentially shadow, or add new shadow to properties owned by the recreation and park department, which is why we are having this conversation. so just a couple reminders about what section 295, which was established by prop k says. says that it requires the planning commission to disapprove any new building that will result in net new shadows that promoted a verse impact on the park, unless it's been determined the impact would be insignificant. of course adverse is a subjective term. the section further goes on to delegate authority to the planning commission and the recreation park commission to jointly establish criteria for implementation of those terms and of the measure. after a number of years of deliberation in 1989 the joint commissions, the planning commission and reck park commission adopted memo * that established criteria, qualitative and some quantitative for evaluation of potential shadow impacts on reck park properties. there is a number of criteria

frustrated, gi< getting frustrated, i will speak for myself, i am getting frustrate -- frustrate hated the eir has been dragged on and on, it has been put off two years, you haven't enforced the basic violations of the conditional use process, and of the encroachment in what used to be a viable residential area in the lower knob hill upper tenderloin, there used to be an area at the planning commission regularly because knob hill neighbors and the planning coalition, the area down from california street where [inaudible] has camped out, so i plead with you, please bring this to a head soon because if any institution, a for profit institution figures out that the way to gain the system is doing what academy of art is doing which is acquiring buildings and never having a hearing, never coming into compliance with the law and gutting the residential nature of the city is very wrong and i hope that you have an information item that you're going court at some point. thank you. >> thank you, any additional general public comment? seeing none, next item, please. >> thank you, commissioner, you are no

appellant provided further arguments with respect to the eir. e department did note the -- in question presented to the board. the previous hearing the board conducted and the appellant never requested a continuance or rescheduling for additional time for review. the board voted unanimous will you to deny the hearing request. the second and final item before the board that may be of interest to you was 4218 mission street. this was a building permit an appeal of a building permit for soft demo. there was no change of use involved. the reason this address may be familiar to you is because this is the proposed future site of the green cross, which is a medical cannabis dispensary. this was approved by you in february of this year, commissioners. however, the permit that would change the use is still under review by other city agencies, and has not yet been issued. the department did note that the permit on appeal, the soft demo permit does not itself change the use of the property to an mcd. however, the appellant did continue with extensive argume

unfortunately, we could not formalize any recommendations and it is too late for the eir. i would like to dissolve the committee for the time being. i think we will have an opportunity when the actual plan goes up to the planning commission to kind of regroup and it was good to hear, watching the hearing that the planning commission had on it and tons of folks came out from the entertainment community and the businesses along 11th street to voice their concerns. i would like to continue their relationships we've built with the folks on 11th street but dissolve the committee at this time and where needed, reconvene once the planning commission does hear it again. that is right to be an opportunity to formally make a statement as a commission. that is my comment. i do not know if that is an action item or how that works. >> the president forms and dissolves committees. you are making a request, i imagine, for the president to do so. president newlin: ok. the president approves the dissolutionment. >> anybody else? >> i have a question to that. you are dissolving, it is dissol

after hearing public testimony and discussing the item, the commission approved a motion to certify the eir prepared by a vote of 5-2. the commission expressed concern of the scale of the proposed building, the compatibility of the building to the proposed neighborhood. -- the to the surrounding neighborhood and the demolition to the vacant church. because-fed not recommended approval, the project -- the commission passed a motion to disapprove the conditional use operation by a vote of 6-1. the commission contended the item to a future hearing.

after hearing public testimony and discussing the item, the commission approved a motion to certify the eir prepared by a vote of 5-2. the commission expressed concern of the scale of the proposed building, the compatibility of the building to the proposed neighborhood. -- the to the surrounding neighborhood and the demolition to the vacant church. because-fed not recommended approval, the project -- the commission passed a motion to disapprove the conditional use operation by a vote of 6-1. the commission contended the item to a future hearing. staff is prepared a disapproval motion. thank you. >> i call for the project sponsor. project sponsor? >> is the project sponsor here? >> good afternoon. i am representing -- we have nothing to offer at this time. >> public comment. i have two cards. >> good afternoon. my name is f. joseph butler. i want to make some comments with regard to this item. i would like to thank the office of supervisor chiu who was working with the neighborhood to try to secure the building to get lights on at night, to close up the windows without looking like a blighte

the eir was certified by the planning commission on may 24 of 2012.our staff has been working closely with city planning, the mayor's office, and the transbay joint powers authority. in particular, planning for health impact be is spent outside the area will be spent according to procedures of the operations and maintenance of the new open space in the plant area. -- planned area. today, our goal is to give you a general overview of the plan. the open space aspects, the goals, and the different elements. here to kick back off is the director of the planning department. thank you. >> thank you. good morning, commissioners. thank you for taking the time this morning. this is obviously an important project for us. i do want to thank the rec and park staff for all their work on this. these plans forced us to ask you for a lot of your time, and i know that is not necessarily something you have program in your schedule, so i appreciate the time on this. i think it would be helpful to us to do a quick history. i will say a few words of introduction. scott fr

have been vandalized, and now we are discussing ill-conceived proposals that have been concluded and the eir. we are no nearer to an acceptable outcome. let's go back to the original vision of the methodist church. what they intended was non- profit housing. other examples of such an adaptive reuse, already enhance the city and can serve as models. we know local architects and housing nonprofits who are interested in developing nonprofit senior housing. now is the time to finally do the right thing. please do not negotiate and renegotiate a poor idea. let's give san francisco the housing it needs to be an inclusive city. let's give the neighborhood the amenities and wants and needs. [applause] >> thank you. if i have called your name, you can approach the podium. >> my name is greg wood. what i think you were not getting is that the church has told the city previously today and today that continued efforts to infringe the churches right to use its property as it has proposed to do it will cost the church substantial hardship. it is likely to deprive the church of the economic return on its p

including conditional uses, rezoning, the our certification, the superior court and the court upheld the eir and project approval. and financing of affordable housing and a certificate of appropriate use approvals. the sponsors have undertaken a rigorous three engagement with the community and we're pleased that -- rigorous re-engagement and we're pleased that the issues have been resolved. the financing for the senior housing is secured. the family project will have a full 15% on site component with 50 bmr units. the city would like to keep the language since the checks have not been written but we're committed to the 50 bmr units. what mattered 60 of the 440 units will be affordable. secondly, a locked entrance has been designed leading to the palm olein pedestrian area. all vehicular entrances have been moved and out -- moved out. the parking 0 -- radio is -- ratio is below that permitted by the sud. the commission has determined that the plan meets the goal for compatibility with recommendations we have embraced and that are reflected in the plans we passed it to you. the we believe the

rental units, priority 4 directs the traffic not overburden our streets or our neighborhood parking, the eir notes that the proposed project will require over 30 parking spaces which is about equal to what we have on hill street now, so it's also very clear that the project will indeed overburden our streets in parking. priority 5 addresses historic preservation, the proposed project is located at the fragile edge of the liberty hill historic district, it is surrounded by historic buildings and its presence will reduce our historical prominence by looming over it like a sore thumb, ceqa is a lower standard than the historical preservation requirements of this city, so this proposed project is unaccept to believe the community as configured and is out of line with city planning authorities, it has been incredibly frustrating that the sponsors have turned a deaf ear to our community. i ask that you not do the same. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is audrey bower and i'm a resident of hill street, 1050 valencia along with 400 plus of my neighbors who have written petitions, a