budget climate, and the economic conditions simply did not allow for us to turn a blind eye and not pay attention to how this potential fee to have an impact on the budget. i also want to let you know that i opposed the privatization of public spaces, but i am also not convinced at this time that the fee is reaching the objective that this was set up to achieve. given the delayed start in the implementation and the slower than expected attendance, we not have the information to evaluate the success of the program. this is why i will be supporting the amendment to better assess these fees. thank you. >> supervisor? >> thank you for your comments,

and the supervisor was speaking and talking about the need to increase the budget of the parks and recreation department. i could see that mr. ginsburg was very pleased with this comment, and we do want have the parks and recreation department have the resources that they need to do their job. i think if there was one thing that we can all agree upon, it is this objective. this is a question of how we get there. for me, this is an issue i have struggled with. the last time that this item came before the board, i was one of the people who was open to trying this, and i supported at the time because of the dire financial situation we were facing. i also believe that you have to be flexible, especially in these tough times in terms of what you

are willing to try, when the services are being cut across the board. we have tried this, and i know that there is the argument that has been made that we need more time. time was given to the parks and recreation department, to see how the fee would be working. i was voting for this to happen. this has not worked the way that this was described in terms of the amount of money, that they have brought to this department. this is exactly what is shown in the report from the budget analysts office. and i feel that having tried something that has not worked out exactly how it was presented to us, i think that we have the obligation to move on. it also willing to try new things and this has not worked the way that it was expected. in my view, given that, given

that there is the inconvenience that is implicated when you ask people for identification, given that this is a divisive issue, i would hope that instead of having to reconsider this issue, time and time again, that we to think outside the box and figure out a different way to bring more revenue into this department. that is my hope, that instead of having a recurring discussion about the issue that this can be a divisive issue. that we find creative ways to collectively pursue the same goal and the same objective of injecting more revenue into this department. i will be voting with supervisor avalos. i was willing to give this a chance, this just has not worked the way that this was described. i think that the facts speak for

themselves, and at the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding. let's move forward and think of another way to inject revenue, thank you. supervisor kim: i want to thank parks and recreation and their initiative to be a team player, figuring out how to creatively be a part of closing the budget gap, instead of just advocating for the needs that they have, and as a district supervisor i am sensitive to how the parks and recreation centers are handed -- handled, and the basis where people can take dance class is, where you can come in after school, and just in general, there is the quality of life. this is an important part of the

development. you have the open space and the parks in this city. that being said, i want to recognize that this is a small, budgetary item. there is a tremendous amount of support and opposition on both ends. because this is such a small amount of the budget, i think that the cost of administering this has been very high. in terms of how the residents are allowed to come in and when this closes, and all of that, i will be voting against the proposal today. i actually went to visit the garden this past weekend and i got the opportunity to walk through and see how the admission was working and how people come in and out of the garden. this is a beautiful space. i appreciate the endeavor to see

how we can raise revenue for the parks, in a way that is less of a burden to other areas. however, i am not certain if this is worth what we bring in, in terms of the outcome. the reduction in attendance and the questionable issues of where we are -- there are a lot of questions there. we have looked into how long that they can stay. how open at the garden will be. i also wanted to add that i wanted the legislation to be there in june, and i will also be voting against the appropriation. this has pushed me over to voting against the non-resident fee, this is recognizing the proponents of this. they have spent a great amount of time working on the revenue efforts, and i really want to

thank you for this. it is important to educate the residents on the importance of generating revenue, for the budget as well. i want to thank those with the other measures, and i want to thank you for this for today. this is an issue that came up. the one thing i was struck by, was the lack of diversity. i really hope that those two who were against the non-resident fee, that they provide outreach to the variety of neighborhoods and i encourage them to also enjoy the botanical garden. thank you. >> supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i have been against these fees ever since the inception.

i appreciate the perspective of all sides. the bottom line is that i find this strange, that people can park their cars for free all day in the city parks, but we charge them to look at the plants. this is madness. this is creeping privatisation, and we should look at it from this perspective. our back is against the wall because of the budget deficits that will not be reconciled, the pressure on the staff, to have to find whatever solutions that they are being compelled to find. that is what is before us. this is a sinkhole of other strategies, and this is a mistake. >> are there any additional discussions? the supervisor has requested that we vote on item number 64 item #5.

if you can call the roll on item number six, this is the proposal from - >> no. kim, no. mar, aye. mirkarimi, aye. weiner, no. avalos, aye. campos aye. chu, no. chiu, no. cohen, no. supervisor elsbernd. four ayes and seven nos. >> the ordinance fails. item 5 as ammended. ferrel, aye. kim, no. mar, no. mirkarimi, no. wiener, aye. avalos, no. campos, no. chu, aye. chiu, aye. cohen, aye.

supervisor elsbernd. six ayes and 5 nos. >> the ordinance is passed as ammended. item seven. >> ordinaze for -- ordnance for the treasurer and tax collector for the amount of 240,000 for the financial empowerment during the deposit program, amending the annual salary ordnance, for the grant-funded position of the office of financial empowerment. >> farrel, aye. kim, aye. mar, aye. mirkarimi, aye. weiner, aye. avalos, aye. campos, aye. chu, aye. chiu, aye. cohen, aye.

elsbernd, aye. 11 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed. >> ordinance waiving the street encroachment fees for the unaccepted stairway between balboa and -- >> this passed on the first reading. >> organization for the annual support to the city, approving and recieving the annual reports. this includes the district's proposed budget. >> same house, same call. adopted. >> the resolution for the mayor's office of housing for stabilization funds, for grants for non-profit organization. >> the resolution is adopted.

amending the general plan, to adopt the mission's street-scape plan. >> this ordinance is passed. let's move to the 4:00 special orders. items 12 and 15. >> a public hearing of persons interested in the february 10, 2011 of a final environmental impact report. the motion affirming the certification for the mission street project. 14 reverses the certification, the preparation of findings of the certification. >> colleagues, hopefully qwe don't lose quorum. we have the appeal of the final

impact report. for the hearing, we consider the adequacy and the accuracy of the final e.i.r. we have the grounds of appeal. each speaker will have tw o minutes. we have the certification for the final e.i.r. we will hear from persons speaking on the behalf of the real party of interest. the appealants -- appelants will have time for rebuttal. supervisor kim? let's proceed to the hearing. let me ask for a representative,

if you can step up to the microphone. you and anyone else have 10 minutes. >> good afternoon. i am alex goode, with jeffer, mangles, butler, and mitchell, representing the appelant. this is on 50 beale street, adjacent to the 350 mission street project. i appreciate the time. i will try to be brief and clear as possible. if you have seen the submissions and the attorney and developer, you have had a lot thrown at you with almost 20 court cases that were cited, the statutes from the public

resources code, and the guidelines. this gets complex very quickly. but really, there are only a couple of issues in place here, and only a few reasons we think that was certified by the planning commission is not sufficient. i wanted to talk about a couple of general issues, first. if you read the submissions for the project developer, they seem to be suggesting that this is improper, and these issues have the planning code exceptions, that were granted by the planning commission before the board of appeals and we should not even be here. this is true, we have the appeal pending on the planning code issues. we're here to talk about these extensive issues. i do not think the council should suggest that we have to pick and choose and can only appeal -- we have to somehow

forgo the rights for these issues. another issue that has been raised is that somehow this only concerns the impact to the property and its impact -- these can be ignored. if you read the submission, and i will walk you through this very clearly, we are talking about the impact to the general public that was not properly studied, and again, i do not think the council for the developer needs to suggest that by virtue of the fact that the building happens to be next door -- that we somehow forgo the rights to talk about the general impact. any member of the public could appeal the certification, next

door or a mile away and i will address this year. i want to walk you through one of the basic components of the analysis. any proposed project -- you have to study the project alternatives. you have to present alternatives to the project to study the potential impact of those alternatives, to arrive at the conclusion if there are alternatives out there that reduce the impact that will be caused by the project. if these alternatives are reasonable, they may be a superior project. it is important to have the alternative analysis, to study a reasonable range of alternatives because decision-makers need to have all the facts, and they have to know that the developer has a project.

but i have to understand whether there is an alternative that will reduce the impact of the project, with the main objectives of the project to end up with a better plan for the public. the project leaders have this brought to them and you need to have this analysis presented to you. this did not properly study a feasible project alternative. and you could say that you can always come up with the project alternative. how many of these do you want? the alternative that we think they should have studied is a code-conforming project. they did not analyze this project. you have the codes and they are the result of a long public process, with input from the planning department and the public, and decision-makers and you put the code in place for a reason, because you want certain

limitations on development in certain areas. this does not mean that exceptions are not granted. we find this a little bit puzzling, that the compliant alternative was not studied. but why is this? this was not studied because this is not the project developers are wanting to build. he did exceptions to the planning code and they did not want to study the code because they did not want this building to have for decision making. the response seems to be that this does not matter. we have studied a few other alternatives and we do not believe that this would have done anything better or reduced any impact for the building as proposed. there is a potential impact that this may alleviate, and we just do not know.

i will give you one example. this is one area that you have to study. there is no quantification of the noise generated by this project. there is a proposed 21-story mechanical element, that will be protruding and this is basically the system for the entire building. there is not one sentence in the eir about the noise generated by this protrusion. there is a generator on the roof and there is not one sentence that will quantify with the noise will be. and you say, why do we have to study the code compliance. if you built this building, he would have to comply with the

property line. the other thing that you would have to do, if you wanted to keep all the square footage in the building, you would have to set the building back by 300 feet. this is proposed to be about 300 feet. you could easily maintain the square footage for the building, and if you comply with the code and use at the building back above 300 feet, the building would just be taller. this would be 550 feet and this building is way below that. this is 375. if you make the building taller, this would not be taller than a number of buildings in the surrounding area. what would happen if he complied with the code and set the building back, the generator on the rooftop would be much higher, and would be much further removed from all the

surrounding properties, including a public plaza. we not know if this would lessen the impact. they did not quantify any of the noise impact. this is required in the guidelines, that they have to discuss whether a proposed project is conforming with the general plan of the city, the specific plan of the city, but are operative for an area. this is an area where it is policy to do something that we fretfully -- have asserted and this is not in line with this. you have to discuss this. the general public at large, decision makers have to understand if the project is in compliance with the general

plan. if there is a special overlay. whenever you have to talk about with that particular plan. we do not talk about that here. we talked about this in the staff report we released a few days before the planning commission. this is not what they require. if this is my client or any member of the public, they have to see if the project composed is in compliance with the law. the planning department shrugged and said, this is our policy and this is a significant area where this is deficient. i want to make it clear. i am not before you and my client is not trying to stop this project. they do not do this to office buildings. they are perfectly fine with the project right next door to them, down the block. it does not matter where this

is, as long as this complies with all law, and this explains what the project is, and the potential impact -- and the environmental impact of the project. >> thank you. is there any member of the public that wishes to speak on behalf of the appellant? each member of the public will have up to two minutes to speak. >> good afternoon. i am a portfolio manager with broadway partners. i have seen the benefits and the exciting things that have happened for the redevelopment throughout the city. we are excited about this project, looking forward on numerous levels, with the trans

bay terminal plan. what we are concerned about is the lack of viable alternatives, and we think that this is a deficient thing, having done the development of the city, where there is no real look at the code-conforming alternatives that were studied, to allow for the session. that is where we have the exception. we show that we are for the project, and we think that they had some issues that should be addressed. and that is all that we are asking. >> and is there any other member of the public that wishes to speak? can you step up to the microphone. >> carry on your city -- won't you make it turn out good.

>> any other members of the public wishing to speak? we go to planning for your decision. >> good afternoon. president chu, members of the board. i am the eir coordinator. joining me is sarah jones. the senior environmental planner, the subject of today's appeal. the neighborhood planner, with the planning code -- for the authorization. two memos were sent responding to two letters. another letter from april 6,

2011, was submitted on behalf of the owners of another adjacent building, who are not a part of the current appeal. after careful consideration of the concerns raised, we find the project eir was adequate, accurate, and pursuieed the guidelines of the administrative code. it is to uphold the planning commission's decision, to overturn the decision to return the project to the staff for additional review. this would cause an effect with the air quality and the cumulative transportation

impacts. and mitigation for the impact with the potential conflict between pedestrians and the buses, for the vehicles in the loading dock. with respect to the oversized trucks using the loading dock. other issues were less than signifigant, with asthetics, cultural resources, shadow, wind, traffic, and parking, and operation air quality and housing. with mitigation measures identified in this eir. the department's response to the concerns, and a letter boiled down to five points. the first has setbacks, bulk and

encroachment, exceptions granted to the project. and the state of the eir does not address these impacts with set-back exceptions. this does not mention -- the e.r. does not give a resonable r-- reasonable range of alternatives. the mechanical impact would effect beale street. air quality, the emmissions from projects and the objectives that they follow the project developer. the encroachment exception, sequa requires the