Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ceqa Fairmont topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff, preservationists clash over Fairmont Towers EIR alternatives and scope
Summary
Planning staff summarized procedural options for additional CEQA analysis of the Fairmont Towers EIR; preservation groups and labor urged new alternatives and reuse analysis while staff said additions trigger recirculation only in limited circumstances. Commissioners debated whether a continuance left the EIR certified or open for further alternatives.
The San Francisco Planning Department provided an informational memo explaining how additional alternatives and corrections to the Fairmont Towers final environmental impact report (EIR) would be handled under CEQA. Bill Wico, a planning department environmental review staffer, told the commission the memo aimed to clarify which kinds of additional work would require recirculation of the draft EIR and which would be handled as comment-and-response edits. "If the questions are asking for further investigation in relation to a potential CEQA impact ... that could affect your conclusions in terms of CEQA findings," Wico said, summarizing the department's position.
Speakers representing Historic Nob Hill, labor and neighborhood groups urged the commission not to construe the prior hearing as closing the door to new alternatives. Susan Brandt Holly of Historic Nob Hill said the record showed the commission directed staff to analyze additional alternatives, including reuse of existing towers, and that the EIR had not yet been certified. "There is no question that these all relate to environmental issues," Brandt Holly said, arguing reuse alternatives and analysis of demolition impacts should be added.
Labor attorney Sue Hester (Local 2) told commissioners the public hearing record had been closed and warned against "trolling for additional information" once the hearing phase is concluded. Commissioners split in their interpretations: Commissioner Seguaya said the continuance was intended to ask MEA and staff to look at the issues raised at the public hearing, while others said the earlier 3-3 vote technically failed the certification motion and created a limited continuance for a full body.
City Attorney Kate Stacy and commission staff explained the procedural options: the commission had declined to certify the EIR at the prior hearing but adopted a continuance, so staff could prepare revisions and the commission could reconsider the matter on the continued date. Stacy said recirculation is required only when new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures cause a new significant impact or materially alter conclusions, and that the secretary would review the tape to determine the precise action taken at the prior hearing.
Members of the public and preservation staff pressed for a thorough analysis of reuse alternatives and fuller evaluation of historic-resource impacts. The commission did not take a final ruling at this informational item; staff said the matter was continued to a future hearing date and that any required recirculation would be evaluated against CEQA standards.
