>> 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 in north beach for 50 years. i want to point out that the eir is defective because it treats the current parking lot of the triangle as if it is a permanent land use. the eir and staff contend that this is the only way.

more open space will be provided than the proposed project without losing the historic resources. this is not necessary to build in a triangle in under to provide additional public space. the triangle purchased to provide an open space part of the park counts as designated open space. this is a huge effect in the eir because all of the project alternatives treat this like it is a parking lot ignoring the

open space designation. to make that work, you have got to revise that. >> i am a 55-year resident of north beach. i live one block from the library. i am here to urge you to reject the eir because its analysis of alternatives is deficient. the overwhelming deficiency is it is contrived treatment of project alternatives. as just explained, the designation of the triangle as open space purchased for open

space and park use was not considered when looking at project alternatives at this renders it inadequate. the city may balance their perception of the benefits against impact in deciding whether to approve the proposed project. the requirements are not that simple. demolition cannot be approved if there is a feasible project alternative that accomplishes most of the project benefits.

the alleged alternatives were created to be rejected. none of them considered would avoid a loss of the historic branch library while still meeting fundamental project objectives. however, there is a feasible project alternative that will meet the project objectives and avoid demolition of the library and the loss of those three magnificent trees. >> think you. -- thank you. >> i am a 32 year resident of

the city of san francisco and i do not live in north beach. it is extremely important what happens on this site. i am here to represent the rest of this city. the analysis of alternatives is defective because it fails to consider a feasible alternative that would meet the fundamental project objectives and avoid the demolition of the library. what you have seen of here shows the existing library to the north.

these illustrations were submitted by san francisco karadzic to the planning commission and were attached to the supplemental brief provided you yesterday. this is an obvious solution and the eir is inadequate for failing to consider its feasibility. written comments requesting consideration received inadequate response. strange objectives relating to the program division and the more level functions are easily solve the design details or unrelated to project objectives.

it will level the floors of the existing library and make an elevator to make it accessible. this option would meet the stated objectives and avoid the significant adverse impact to the resources. as a potentially feasible alternative to demolition, we feel that a -- is a bonafide alternative. this can be made accessible and safe as well as be the most incrementally green option.

>> thank you, next speaker. >> i have not figured out how to do this. this is the same drawing as before. i have lived in north beach for 49 years. this is inadequate and should be revised and it will include new space on the triangle. this is well illustrated.

i hope that you can understand this. it was pretty bleary on the back. i have sent most of you seven documents. this would be consistent with the intent with a park or garden which will celebrate this parcel of land which is one in a series of historic bonds that are created along the diagonal line.

i believe it was financed privately which shows what can be done. there's also the trial which has a pond and giant magnolias. there is a tunnel -- tiny triangle. other cities choose to celebrate not erase their parks. this is enhancing rather than obliterated by merging.