here to speak specifically on item 52, the ordinance in the order of vacation for the small portion of mason st. running from columbus. the purpose of the vacation was to enable the realization of the master plan for the library and a playground. specifically, it would enable the construction of the library, a portion of which extends on to the public right of way for recreational space use and the connection between the library at the recreational facility, ultimately allowing this master plan to move forward. as part of the process of vacating history, there were a number of the terminations that the engineers need to make to ensure that it is consistent with state l local law. among the issues that we looked

at, the need for the street, the main issue of which is traffic. we relied on numerous studies done over the course of the last few years. and both analytical and empirical to make that evaluation, the most significant of which has an analysis done in conjunction with heart of the environmental impact report that found her there would be no adverse traffic impact. there were a number of the empirical studies, a month-long closure, the farmer's market which not only helped to validate the analytical analysis of the traffic impact, but supported the notion that there was significant positive impact for the public for the increased open space that disclosure would

create that was certainly more than offset any impact from traffic. i guess in summary, we recommend approval of this. it is an essential part of the master plan process. by approving this ordinance, you would be affecting the determination that i have made with regard to the street vacation, ordering the vacation of the street that would be conditioned on the library securing of site building permits. it would not take place until the building is ready to get built. it would reserve rights for them to access to their facilities and transfer the property on vacation.

i recommend approval and be happy to ask any questions. >> i would like to hear from the planning department about the proposed rezoning. >> on april 21, 2011, the san francisco planning commission heard the master plan project and a certified the environmental impact report on by a vote of 6-0, adopted findings of the overriding consideration and reporting programs and by a vote of 6-1. adopted general plan consistency regarding st. vacation and rezoning by a vote of 7-0. had recommended approval by a vote of 7-0. the proposed modification has been incorporated into

substitute legislation introduced by president chiu. it will reclassify the property going to public zoning district anhinga going to open space height and bulk designation. and remove this property from the telegraph hill and north beach residential special use district. the proposed ordinance would also remove 2000 the mason street from the residential use district. the planning commission fund the project would benefit the people of san francisco in that it would provide a new north beach library commensurate with other libraries.

increased open space, providing a high quality integrated cultural space, made his uncontrolled consistent across the entirety of the project area under the jurisdiction of the recreation and parks department and would be consistent with a general plan and policy planning to go. for these reasons, we urge your support of the proposed rezoning. president chiu: at this time, why don't we proceed to the eir? we will first hear from the appellant, we will hear public comment from anyone opposed to any of the hearing items or believe that it should be rejected, and to hear from planning followed by public

comment of any supporters. at this time, hot and ask for representatives of the appellant? >> good afternoon. i have been a resident of the city and county of san francisco for 42 years. i have several questions regarding this plan, this revision from several different angles. why hasn't the public been informed of the costs of various changes of this plan? and coincidentally also to the library. if you're going to revamp the library and do it the way it was

done, it is an unmitigated disaster of sorts. in terms of handling -- president chiu: are you representing the appellant? >> i represent the city and county of san francisco. president chiu: if you can just hang on for a second, the appellants have an opportunity to provide 15 minutes and we can hear from you after that. we're almost there. on behalf of the friends of a better north beach library and playground, you have time to a number of your colleagues. we will start the 15 minute

clock again. >> before we start, i would like to add the statement that we object to the consolidation of the hearing with the other three hearings. of the reasons set forth in the process and the record, we object to each of the items before you today. appellants urge the board to reject it, to decline and rezone the try and go into decline the vacation of the street. i will focus on the open space issue. i had this video prepared from the board of supervisors hearing to initiate the eminent domain proceedings. the discussion shows the intent to acquire the triangle specifically for open space and the playground.

the action is directly relevant to the inadequate analysis of alternatives. in a nutshell, if incorrectly contends that the mission of the library will increase an open space. this is because it fails to a knowledge that the triangle is open space and that the parking lot is only a temporary use. the city should honor its commitment to open space and rehabilitate the expanded library. recently declared eligible for the national register by the state historical resources commission. here is the video.

>> something the first originated as a concept in 1947 and has come up several times during the intervening century. i urge a yes vote on this matter. i am sure it will wind up in the courts and the city will wind up paying a lot of money. >> this money was not allocated in the capital plan for the open space or the bond plan. and therefore, this is really for the project. it does not include any fees

that will probably result or the cost for the study. we desperately can't afford it in the city and county of san francisco. it will not be $1.8 million, it will be much more. the projects that we have, in terms of capital plan, open space funding, it will be postponed, delayed, or fall off of the list. >> please respond to the comments regarding dumping the queue. >> through the chair, the question having to deal with projects and what we have got

here, the funds to acquire as part of open space money. as the supervisor said, this is the offer that was made. funding this amount of money does not include the improvement we have to make on the property. we have to go through the regular process to identify how incorporates a particular property onto the playground and figure out exactly what the cost would be based on the public process. we have not done that, and we have a number in mind. these structures run anywhere from 752 $1 million to do a

children's play structures or playgrounds. >> i would like to state that the power of eminent domain that takes property even for just compensation, he should only be used sparingly. in a budget situation, we must be careful how we spend our money. and housing especially for young families. this situation is unique. the property did have revisions. which asks for neighborhood

participation in trying to make this land. in this particular situation, many sleepless nights. , i am compelled that this does become an open space. >> i would hope that wrecked and part, the commission would realize maintenance is probably more important than the acquisition of more property. >> this is a very, very difficult decision for all of us. i don't think any of us here take in a domain flippantly and without a great deal of thought.

if we do, we're doing the people of san francisco a grave injustice. in this particular case, in my humble opinion, i believe wholeheartedly that this is the right thing to do. >> i rise to make two comments. this is consistent and with 20 years of policy by previous boards of supervisors where it on the average of once every 20 months, land has been acquired to expand parks in san francisco. >> items think you have been heard on this item. >> when we talked about in a domain, there was a difference between half properties in the

this property. it did not have the full entitlement already granted. >> there is a piece of property required -- acquired the the the building on it that the city actually demolished. the testimony of the hearing said yes, we are not required by eminent domain. and i appreciate and i sympathize with her husband. it also resulted in a steep increase in the fair market value. point taken. >> i think what we're doing here is standing up for the little guy.

that is what this is about. i know that this is not binding. it is simply a way of saying to the developers, this is something that people in this community have wanted, they don't want to make it happen. i respect their opinion on that. >> shall we vote on item 24? >> [unintelligible] there are 8 aye's.

>> the resolution is adopted. >> overhead, please. the image before you is a recent image. there were several plastered throughout the neighborhood. we were united for a triangular library -- i mean, a triangular park. the reason was not only because it was strategic open space, but because of the corridors from throughout the strategic intersection.

the image today is one of larger open space and the battle does not about a certain type of park, but how much park can you get? and if you were to close mason st. totally, and not build 20 feet into a, he would have the maximum open space for the neighborhood. in presentations to the many bodies in the communities, it is very misleading. the site plans do not show property line. the black area that you see is the 20 feet of construction in contradiction to the general plan. how would you like anyone

building across the property line of 1 foot, 2 foot, 10 feet, 20 feet? to block access would be disgraceful. the columbus avenue urban design element as a series of open spaces. washington square have a big battle for an underground garages that would have lifted the part several feet above columbus avenue. the battle is very similar. ribbon of open space is highly prized and has a historical record of being good for the city and good for the overall unification of our neighborhood. the particular site, the

triangle is strategic. it is not an arbitrary open space that has regular value. it is a high value, a unique property. from the crowded street to telegraph of the tailhook, columbus avenue, the view of the pyramid at the other end. the drive that goes right by this try and go, a cable car line make the turn right in front of this triangle. the fact that on any given day, particularly intel, when you watch people on the cable cars -- [chime]

president chiu: at this time, we love the have public comment from any member of the public that is opposed to any of the hearing items or believe that the eir should be rejected. you get three minutes, and you can speak on any of the items today. the opportunity for any member of the public that opposes the north beach library, believes that the environmental impact report be objected -- rejected. if you could pull it just a little closer. talk right into the microphone. >> i have done this a thousand

times, and i am nervous. good afternoon, supervisors. i was co-founder of the board of supervisors libraries advisory committee. i am a huge supporter of libraries. but this one, brought a blank. i don't have time to go into them. the issue is that the library originally planned and to renovate the current site. the current plan will cost $8 million or more. the renovation of the existing library. i wanted to talk also about the eir. it is not adequate and the hope you send it back for revision. it fails to assume that they try and go plot as open space.

it was taken by eminent domain to be open space. and under the neighborhood park bond and open space program, it is required the use that for any other purpose. the library is a non- recreational facility. the open space element defines libraries as non-recreational facilities. i hope you will remember that when new vote on this matter. the discussion is also totally wrong and inadequate when it talks about general plan consistency. it is also wrong when it talks about mandatory land use. these things must be corrected. i hope you send it back for revision.

the triangle was purchased specifically to be a part of the open space. and incorporating a library building on the that side is unlawful and it is wrong. i hope that you will send it back for revision so that can provide a full and fair assessment of the actions. ipresident chiu: next speaker. gosh i would like to state that i have been a resident of this county for many years.

you spend several million dollars of invading the swimming pool. most people cannot swim in it because the high chlorine, your kids -- younger kids pee in the pool. if you're going to revamp the library, don't follwo the -- follow the mayor's plan for the main library because it will turn into a homeless kitchen. 25% of the books in the main library, will the also take place? as was talking about the cost, i have not seen one the dollar item from 45 to 55. a city that is already broke. it is running a deficit on both

pensions and salaries. i would like to see real figures here. last but not least, if you look at overall construction,-bring up an incident where i was involved. there is no air quality control and the city and county have basically enforce -- that basically enforce osha codes. they don't comply with dakota. -- the code. coming back to part of this plan, it is not some much -- so

much leaving the title alone, put some grass, and that is in a. -- in it. as of right now, i don't see anything in the 45 or 50 points in your agenda today that describes anything related to what i have spoken about right here. i don't think you need a plan of this nature. [chime] president chiu: next speaker. >> i have lived