June

 2,  2010  
 
Ron  Miguel,  President  
Planning  Commission  
1650  Mission  Street  4th  floor  
San  Francisco  CA  94103    
 
  RE:    2007.0946      Candlestick  Point  -­‐  Hunters  Point  Shipyard  Phase  2    
                                     Hearing  June  3,  2010  
 
Dear  President  Miguel:  
 
The  following  organizations  hereby  challenge  the  ability  of  Commissioner  Michael  Antonini  to  render  
an  impartial  decision  on  actions  related  to  the  proposed  Candlestick  Point-­‐Hunters  Point  Shipyard  
Phase  2  project  (“the  project”).    Because  of  significant  adverse  impacts  from  the  project,  which  
includes  as  a  main  component  construction  of  a  new  football  stadium  for  the  San  Francisco  49ers,  this  
includes  a  SPECIFIC  challenge  to  Commissioner  Antonini’s  ability  to  render  an  impartial  decision  on  the  
Certification  of  the  Final  Environmental  Impact  Report  (item  1)  and  Adoption  of  environmental  findings  
and  a  statement  of  overriding  considerations  (item  2).    This  challenge  is  made  by:  
 
Arthur  Feinstein,  Sierra  Club,  San  Francisco  Group  
Mike  Lynes,  Golden  Gate  Audubon  Society  
Jennifer  Clary,  San  Francisco  Tomorrow  
Jaron  Browne,  People  Organized  to  Win  Employment  Rights  (POWER)  
 
That  challenge  was  previously  set  out  in  DEIR  comments  submitted  on  December  21,  2009  (Vol  VII,  
Comment  Letter  #9,  C&R-­‐221)  and  on  January  12,  2010  (Vol.  VIII,  Comment  Letter  #50,  C&R-­‐825).    This  
letter  hereby  restates  that  challenge.  
 
Commissioner  Antonini  has  clearly  prejudged  the  proposed  project  and  become  a  strong  advocate  for  
locating  a  football  stadium  for  the  49ers  at  the  Hunters  Point  site  as  part  of  THIS  project.  He  has  
publicly  urged  others  to  support  that  stadium  and  cannot  impartially  review  the  record  before  him  to  
determine  whether  the  EIR  is  adequate,  accurate  and  objective  and  whether  adequate  measures  are  
required  to  protect  the  environment.    Commissioner  Antonini  signed  an  op-­‐ed  article  supporting  
construction  of  the  stadium  as  part  of  the  project  AS  PLANNING  COMMISSIONER  FOR  THE  CITY  AND  
COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO.      (He  could  have  chosen  to  sign  it  as  a  Member  of  the  Republican  County  
Central  Committee,  but  instead  identified  himself  in  the  capacity  where  the  law    requires  him  to  act  
impartially  -­‐  as  a  Planning  Commissioner.)  
  
June  2,  2010  -­‐  page  2  
 
 
Project  Advocacy  by  Commissioner  Antonini  
   
The  Planning  Commission’s  sole  hearing  on  the  Draft  Environmental  Impact  Report  for  the  project  was  
on  December  17,  2009.    Before  the  Commission  heard  one  word  of  public  testimony  on  the  adequacy  
of  that  EIR,  Mr.  Antonini  had  drafted  and  submitted  an  op-­‐ed  article  to  the  San  Francisco  Business  
Times  urging  the  business  community  to  support  construction  of  that  stadium.    That  article  ran  the  
morning  after  the  hearing  on  the  DEIR.    It  is  in  the  Project  EIR  at  Comments  and  Responses  Vol.  VII,  
Comment  9,  C&R  221.    A  copy  of  the  text  is  also  attached  as  Exhibit  A  to  this  letter.      
 
CEQA  requires  objective  decision-­‐makers  
 
CEQA  policies  include  -­‐    
 
An  EIR  should  demonstrate  to  an  apprehensive  citizenry  that  the  agency  has,  in  fact,  analyzed  and  
considered  the  ecological  implications  of  its  actions.        (People  ex  rel.  Department  of  Public  Works  v.  
Bosio,  47  Cal.App.3d  495.)        The  purpose  of  CEQA  is  not  to  generate  paper,  but  to  compel  government  
at  all  levels  to  make  decisions  with  environmental  consequences  in  mind.    (Bozung  v.  LAFCO,  13  Cal  3d  
263)      CEQA  Regs  15003.  
 
Obligation  of  Commissioners  to  review  an  EIR  -­‐  Decision-­‐makers  SHALL  consider  a  final  EIR  before  
granting  any  approval  of  a  project.    CEQA  Regs  15004.    
 
Obligation  to  avoid  environmental  damage  -­‐  CEQA  establishes  a  DUTY  for  public  agencies  to  avoid  or  
minimize  environmental  damage  where  feasible.      A  public  agency  should  not  approve  a  project  as  
proposed  if  there  are  feasible  alternatives  or  mitigation  measures  available  that  would  substantially  
lessen  any  significant  effects  that  the  proposed  project  would  have  on  the  environment.        CEQA  Regs  
15021.      
 
Procedural  due  process  requires  that  a  hearing  be  conducted  before  a  reasonably  imparial,  non-­‐
involved  reviewer.    Nasha  L.L.C.  v  City  of  Los  Angeles  (2004)  125  CA4th  470,  483.      It  demands  an  
appearance  of  fairness  and  the  absence  of  even  a  probability  of  outside  influence  on  the  adjudication.    
Nightlife  Partners  Ltd.  V  City  of  Beverly  Hills  (2003)  108  CA4th  81,  90.      
 
Yosemite  Slough  bridge  and  proposed  football  stadium  at  Hunter  Point  Shipyard  
 
The  project  analyzed  in  the  EIR  includes  a  football  stadium  at  the  Hunters  Point  Shipyard  and  a  bridge  
across  Yosemite  Slough  that  has  as  a  central  purpose  carrying  substantial  auto  traffic  to  serve  that  
stadium.    Many  public  comments,  including  those  by  challenging  organizations,  questioned  the  
environmental  impacts  of  that  bridge,  asked  for  alternatives  that  removed  the  bridge  from  the  Plan  
and/or  that  the  stadium  construction  be  eliminated  from  the  plan  because  the  49ers  are  working  to  
build  a  new  stadium  in  Santa  Clara.    The  Responses  to  Comments  have  grossly  insufficient  responses  to    
  June  2,  2010  -­‐  page  3  
 
 
these  issues.    Those  responses  are  being  challenged  by  complainants  and  many  other  who  
commented.    This  will  be  a  main  issue  raised  at  the  June  3  hearing.    The  sufficiency  of  the  Responses  
and  whether  modifications  are  required  to  avoid  environmental  harm  by  removing  the  bridge  over  
Yosemite  Slough  are  key  issues  on  which  Commissioners  will  have  to  consider  and  decide.  
 
The  project  before  the  Commission  is  extremely  complex  and  has  a  massive  record,  including  an  
environmental  record  nearly  9,000  pages  long.    The  public  is  entitled  to  review  by  Commissioners  who  
approach  their  decisions  with  an  open  mind  so  that  the  public  may  receive  a  fair  hearing.    Under  Code  
of  Civil  Procedure  1094.5  agency  decision  makers  are  bound  to  exercise  their  powers  with  
disinterested  skill,  zeal  and  diligence  for  the  benefit  of  the  public.    A  Commissioner  should  not  be  so  
biased  in  favor  of  the  project  that  he  cannot  meet  his  obligation  to  weigh  the  adverse  impacts  of  the  
project  to  determine  whether  another  alternative  or  modifications  that  do  not  involve  Yosemite  Slough  
would  cause  less  environmental  harm.      
 
Here  Commissioner  Antonini  does  not  merely  have  a  PRIVATE  position  supporting  construction  of  the  
stadium  and  the  bridge  through  the  slough,  he  has  publicly  solicited  members  of  the  business  
community  to  JOIN  HIM  IN  DOING  SO.    That  advocacy  was  compounded  by  his  argument  in  EIR  
comments  that  the  bridge  over  Yosemite  Slough  should  be  EXPANDED  -­‐  both  in  terms  of  hours  of  
usage,  but  also  in  widening  the  approach  to  the  Yosemite  Slough  bridge  -­‐  to  better  serve  the  stadium.    
(C&R  Vol.  VII,  Comment  33,  C&R  57)      
 
The  impacts  of  that  bridge  are  controversial  as  to  the  impacts  on  wildlife,  on  special  aquatic    sites  (mud  
flats  and  wetlands)  and  on  the  health  of  the  Bay.    The  focus  of  a  Commissioner  in  reviewing  the  EIR  is  
supposed  to  be  AVOIDING  environmental  harm  NOT  expanding  that  harm.      
 
Planning  Commission  hearing  on  the  EIR  was  one  week  before  Christmas  and  the  deadline  fore  written  
comments  was  set  o  be  December  28,  the  Monday  after  the  Christmas  holiday.    When  multiple  public  
requests  were  made  to  extend  comments  a  few  weeks  because  of  difficulty  preparing  testimony  on  
such  a  complex  DEIR,  Commissioner  Antonini  UNIQUELY  wanted  to  REDUCE  the  comment  period.  
 
Questions  challenging  Commissioner  Antonini’s  ability  to  impartially  review  this  project  and  its  EIR  
were  raised  early  in  POWER’s  submission  of  a  copy  of  the  Business  Times  article  (C&R  p.  819).    POWER  
stated  that  he  has  prejudged  the  project  and  its  EIR  and  was  an  advocate  for  the  project  which  includes  
a  football  stadium  and  could  not  impartially  evaluate  alternatives  which  do  not  include  a  football  
stadium.  
 
The  public  and  the  environment  are  entitled  to  have  decisions  made  by  persons  who  evaluate  the  
environmental  document  BEFORE  making  their  decision  on  the  merits  of  a  project.    Whether  an  
alternative  is  environmentally  preferable.      Whether  modifications  should  be  made  to  the  project  to  
avoid  harm.    Whether  proposed  mitigations  are  sufficient.      
 
 
June  2,  2010  -­‐  page  4  
 
 
The  public  will  not  get  an  impartial  hearing  that  meets  the  standards  of  CEQA  for  decision-­‐makers,  nor  
one  which  meets  standards  under  CCP  1094.5  if  Commissioner  Antonini  is  permitted  to  participate  in  
Planning  Commission  decisions  determining  the  adequacy,  accuracy  and  objectivity  of  the  EIR,  of  CEQA  
Findings  and  on  the  project  itself.  
 
CEQA  requires  that  Commissioner  Michael  Antonini  be  recused  from  voting  on  this  project.  
 
 
Respectfully  submitted,  
 
 
Sue  C.  Hestor  
on  behalf  of     Sierra  Club,  San  Francisco  Group  
    Golden  Gate  Audubon  Society  
    San  Francisco  Tomorrow  
    People  Organized  to  Win  Employment  Rights  (POWER)  
 
Attachment  SF  Business  Times  op  ed,  December  18,  2009  
 
 
Cc:   Commissioner  Michael  Antonini  
  Linda  Avery,  Commission  Secretary  
  John  Rahaim,  Planning  Director  
Kate  Stacy,  Deputy  City  Attorney  
  Members  of  the  Planning  Commission  
    Christina  Olague  
    Gwyneth  Borden  
    Bill  Lee  
    Kathrin  Moore  
    Bill  Sugaya  
Mayor  Gavin  Newsom  
  Arthur  Feinstein.  Sierra  Club,  San  Francisco  Group  
  Mike  Lynes,  Golden  Gate  Audubon  Society  
  Jennifer  Clary,  San  Francisco  Tomorrow  
  Jaron  Browne,  People  Organized  to  Win  Employment  Rights