Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Impact Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission certifies Park Merced final EIR after 4–3 vote
Summary
After hours of public comment and expert testimony, the San Francisco Planning Commission certified the final environmental impact report for the Park Merced Mixed-Use Development Program by a 4–3 vote, with commissioners split over historic preservation, displacement and phasing.
The San Francisco Planning Commission voted 4–3 on Feb. 10, 2011, to certify the final environmental impact report for the Park Merced Mixed-Use Development Program, clearing the EIR to serve as the environmental document for later decisions on zoning, a development agreement and other entitlements.
Supporters told the commission the FEIR provides a thorough analysis and that the redevelopment could bring transit investments, new housing and infrastructure improvements to the city’s southwest side. “It is far reaching in goals … a sustainable, livable development,” said Gail Chen Strang, a Park Merced resident and architect, urging certification. Project staff said errata published before the hearing did not add information requiring recirculation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Opponents focused much of their testimony on the EIR’s treatment of historic resources, cumulative health and air-quality impacts, seismic hazards and tenant displacement. “The mitigation consisting only of documentation and donation of original drawings … is in no way proportional to the severity of the impact,” said Mike Buehler of San Francisco Architectural Heritage, representing preservation groups that urged adoption of preservation alternatives.
Commissioner debate tested the boundary between an informational CEQA certification and later land-use decisions. Commissioner Moore, who led the most detailed critique, said the project description was inconsistent about timing and phasing, that the FEIR did not adequately analyze seismic issues for the existing towers and that the document failed to explain why demolition of sound rental housing was necessary. “As a result, I must conclude that the project description in this EIR is inadequate,” Moore said.
On a motion to reject the FEIR, the commission split but the motion failed. A substitute motion to certify the FEIR passed on a 4–3 roll call: Commissioners Antonini, Borden and Fong joined Commissioner Miguel in favor; Commissioners Moore, Seguaya and Olague voted no.
The certification means the FEIR can be used by decisionmakers as they consider later approvals. Staff repeatedly told the commission that adoption of the FEIR is an informational action under CEQA and does not itself approve project entitlements. The hearing moved on after the vote to consider the development agreement and other approvals the city would need to implement the Park Merced program.
The Board of Supervisors will receive the commission’s recommendations on the entitlements and the development agreement; those matters require separate review and votes. The commission recessed to continue deliberations on the related planning code and development agreement items later in the meeting.
