recommendation of full support. there was a large appeal at the full board of supervisors the appeal of the sharp park habitat improvement was the sequa determination associated with a project. the board considered the appeal and the final deck in patrick can. many people attended the hearing again speaking in support as well as the opposition and supervisor kim and supervisor mar and supervisor campos talked about they're concerned first concern over the plans impact on speed and the amount of water flowing into the wetland and in particular the california red-legged frog maybe sensitive to aside.

supervisor campos and supervisor mar requested the disagreement among the substantial evidence in context of sequa pr councilwoman's and supervisor kim asked for any changes previously made to the pump at the effort pond and there was a discussion about the golf course through sequa the subject of the appeal rec and park would not be excluded it passed with a 7 to 4 vote. on tuesday hearing there were a couple of ordinances introduced the first is a building code amendment sponsored by supervisor tang it will establish procedures for

maintaining and concluding a recommend free and supervisor kim talked about the plazas to open space public use yes with the 40 foot height limit as the establishment of the plaza. so the second one will be before you at the later date that concludes my report >> ms. rogers a clarification on land use an amendment was introduced or when the measure is being passed through the phone bill will allow the cc and are these to take prettiest

depths it will be an rh1 zoning and the neighborhood has cc and rhythm and blues to any neighborhood not part of an association will not be included in the amendment. >> i thought the cc and russ johnson received to the neighborhood association but any private agreement already made and preklutz those capacity to include the unit will be a standing all the time and regardless if the law will allow the agreement it will still take affect. >> in the neighborhoods west of twaepdz there are a few neighborhoods that have cc and rs but i assume this legislation

they not having protections in the other areas if they're not matter of an association. >> it won't allow the neighborhoods to be legalized in someone has a private agreement that agreement will still stand. >> thank you. thank you >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we'll move it on the general public comment. >> city attorney has given advise so we'll ask him to opine. >> deputy city attorney. sor

sorry. yes, it's my understanding that staff will be presenting a short additional memoranda regarding the final eir for the transportation project and because of that we'll recommend that public comment be taken till when this item is called rather than taking it now during general public comment. sequa didn't preclude doing this i will advise what sequa requires any comments that are made during the official public comment from july 11th to september be responded to in writing as part of the final eir that was published and is before this incrimination i want to

advise the public any comments made today regarding the certification and the final eir on the t p will not be responded to in writing >> unlike what the calendar says the commission want has asked me to modify the calendar to with when we're accepting comments so rather than taking it under general public comment we've be accepting those under the regular calendar to are considered to be routine may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests each member of the public may

address the commission up to 3 minutes. >> on the process we just came here to speak even though we knows our hands are tied on the certification process we're doing that there the general public comment so is that process now changed and how do we have to wait. >> your comments will be taken during this time under the general public comment under item 9. >> so item 9 will proceed and when it's collected you'll take comments. >> prior to its conclusion we'll take comments. >> any other general public comment? >> good afternoon david i came here to speak about the t t p with regard to the issue of when

public comment is taken not specific to the t b but in general to the certification of on eir i believe astronomy that the question of adapting a motion to certificate on either as to its adequate and obviously activity is a new questions before the question was not specifically the subject of draft eir should be heard when this item comes up regardless in the staff has additional information to provide and the note on the agenda i believe runs afoul of the sunshine ordinance how public comment is taken although you've modified it today you need to look at that on the question of public comment on certification of a final eir that's subjectly

different from substantiate comments. that's the first item. the second item is since i'm not down here often i don't know when you had a discussion with the code department i know it would be good to have a public hearing the code enforcement group and their activity both high profile like the academy of art and workload and code enforcement is an important function within the department but in particular i thought it would be useful to have a hearing on the status of code enforcement which has happened from time to time before this commission. those are my comments thank you >> thank you. any further

general public comment seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> commissioners that places you under our and places you under your regular calendar the certification of the environmental impact report please note the public comment is closed and the general public comment ended and the planning commission didn't conduct many you can public review of eirs the comments will be september at this point after the brief presentation. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and members of the commission i'm deborah the environmental coordinator for the t e p i've joined by other and others from the municipal

mta staff are here to answer questions about the t e p it's the final 1r50ir8 impact report kinds. and i want to take a few minutes to clarify the purpose of this hearing it's not to consider the approval or disapproval of the t e p under a lot of projects no project approvals are before the commission this afternoon so the planning commissioners are voting on who the environmental impact report comply with the provisions of california sequa. and that is it accurate and accurate with the physical environmental effects of the t e p we're novelist asking for approval instead it rests with

the sfmta board of directors. there will be an sfmta hearing in this room tomorrow at 8:00 a.m. for the issues. given this hearing is about the eir which is an informational document that serves to inform the commissioners the mayors t e p will the addressed at the hearing tomorrow morning. i want to spend time to remind you of the description about program and project level review and going go over the significant impacts. the eir provides an evaluation that sets forth the service delivery to support of sfmta goals it includes the service variance that is changes to

reroutes and routes elimination and capital improvements which are needed to support of the service improvements and refer to capital xhochltsz those are not major but economist of the overhead wires and transit 7, 8, 9 reduction professionals or t t rps to reduce the transit traffic time. the mta has applied the t p.s. tool kit. the tool kits consisted of installing pedestrian lights and transit only lanes and one example is the pilot on church street between 16th street. the corridor is identified includes the routes that care of the ridership for the city.

the planning department analyzed all the sequa tops u topics and many were covered in the report and the focus of the eir is on noise impacts. the other thing i'll say about the project it is intended to address the transit service harassing as stated in the eir prescription. the c e p is not proposed to address the adequate service for san francisco that's one of the projects that the mta is phacfor the best transit service in the city. the eir is a program level analysis and it's appropriate for the service policy framework that's appropriate for the t e p

paroles proposals and mta will apply the t p.s. tool kit along the coordinates and once the design details are known they're under go subsequent environmental review for example, the t pr l wags was analyzed and the tool kit transit bubbles would be applied but the specifics location of those item is unknown now we know that the t rp l compensated alternatives will include a transit lane on carville street and also there will be a boarding idling in addition to other elements. the service improvements at service capital improvements as

well as 11 t rps wouldn't allow for more approval. as required under sequa the eir looks at alternatives we have a no project alternatives but it is covered as a moderate alternative it proposes changes that result in fewer environmental impacts but optional has moderate improvements to transit but it will result in greater impacts with respect to travel. by analyzing those two alternatives the mta and the mta board will have flexibility. and the decision makers may for example, the k357b9d for the church and the moderate for the

other. both alternatives result in less than significant impacts except for transportation. in particular from the eir the two alternatives have less for best of my knowledge and air quality and noise. i have a slide here that let's say the difference between the - okay. thank you. so this ill streets it will be invaluable impacts with respect to cumulative traffic and loading you, however, the expanded alternatives has greater impact for traffic

feeling traffic and one quarter is impacted for each alternatives but the locations are different. since politician of the draft eir we have 3 project design. the t pr 71 and minor changes an analysis was provided and those changes don't present any you information that alternate the conditions and no new significant impacts identified and kwung the provided figures don't trigger the need to recirculate the eir pursuant to sequa. many comments received on the draft eir related to the project

and not to the information 90 in the draft eir. to address the concerns the mta has continued to work with individuals in stakeholder groups and the document a community guide for the project was developed by the sfmta to address concerns related to the merit outside of the sequa process. as a result of the recent outreach the sfmta directors have the flexibility to approve a service plan it best responded to the goals. those variances were described and analyzed if in a memo directed on march 13 in which are all before you today. no significant impacts were identified. and then with continued engagement with community members and since publication of

two documents the mta has modified the route of the 68, 24th street. let's see such it will replace the discontinued 24th street on grand view avenue and douglas street as shown in the doted area. you have before you a supplemental pact that contains the maps that present the revisions for the change. the maps for the 1948 and 58 reflected the changes. this is a minor service change to retain the service and it's up to 4 buses each hour it

provide an analysts analysis nor air quality and noise and no conclusions for any impacts and no significant impacts were identified. those tech changes in the map will alter the conclusions and don't trigger the need to recirculate the draft for sequa. so commissioners bear with me i have a few closing remarks i'm not going to summarize the documents, however, if you want me to highlight many of the main themes people were concerned about i can the planning department and the reviewing officer and director have continued to receive comments. copies of the e-mails are

contained in our packets and the e-mails are provided for the public. the e-mails concern the following issues. opposition to the proposed route for the 27 bus on van low street and the affects with families with children and noise and parking the proposed elimination of the stop on the golden gate bridge and traffic reductions in service and a link to daily city bar changes to the jackson and the seniors affects particularly related to transit service and the operation of the thai eureka on wilder street and the related transportation issues there was

inadequate notice for the changes they're not minor and require public comment specifically he regarding the t rp changes at the intersection of ethnic and irvine and with respect to the document itself in an effort to be sufficient especially, when people make the same comments the departments practices a has been one response this is an acceptable approach to sequa and that may be difficult for the people to relate the concerns it allows decision makers when the people have made the same comments and the table has a series of comments that describes the comments. the letters and e-mails were received late, however, the

concerns raised in the letters is the similar or same to others addressing the comments. so i'll address comments we've received today after this presentation. so i've already summarized the significant impacts of the project and i'd like to know this unvaluable comments the mta board need to adapt a overriding concern through sequa and i mentioned the board will deliberately be tomorrow morning. in conclusion the draft motion is before you and the draft motion was published on july 10th and the public hearing was held on august 2013 it it closed and the responses to the

commented and supplementals service variance memoranda were published and an memo has been that presented to you today. additional e-mails from the public were provided today. we request that the contents of the report are accurate and adequate and for which the provisions are complied with through sequa and chapter three 1 of the code that concludes my presentation unless the members have questions >> okay. let's take public comment on this item. i'll call a number of names and reminder it is on the eir itself and not the rough changes

(calling names) >> good afternoon. david. first on the text of the motion page one the reference under the moved clause that it's a citywide transit infrastructure project is i think is unnecessarily limiting that's not just service i suggest you consider modifying that decision and item one refers to the sequa it guidelines and it used to be known as the state administrative code so it's a reference to the certification and at the top of page 2 copies of the n o a no where does it

explain what that means. no quote and per they will with regards to the item i'm of the opinion after hearing the staff presentation and reviewing this you shouldn't pass the motion there have been significant changes to the service variance documents there is an increase in the defying veterans in what the eir analyzed and what the mta is proposing to approve or implement. that there's a lack of clear implementation plan and strategy with the phasing so as to tie specific changes to a timeframe. such that there really isn't a finite and product description and the document should be

recirculated based on the changes that have been proposed in addition to a staff piloted some of the program level t t rp have been defined as a project levels and those were not circulated for public comment and weren't available at the time as piloted out 20th and terry very well the proposal is to move the stop from near side to far side the idling would be blocked the post office would be blocked so there's no dignities 0 this is there is discussion about the truck loading but not the possessive there's concerned

about the issues and there's a lot of change here i'm still of the view i you shouldn't pass 24 motion until the recirculation is in order >> thank you. >> i'm owen i live near the square. i want to address the sfmta has taken on my neighborhood and really done a good job to it. between the bikes lanes on fair and oak street between the changes in the where i believe and planning to what they're planning to do to masonic street and now with the transit we ail feel like terrified rodents in the lab of a crazy insane

scientist and we know they're going to do something to us and it's terrifying. you go to a doctor who's cut off your fingers and toes and he says come to the hospital tomorrow morning at 8 o'clock i'm going to tell you what we're going to do 5 minutes before you go into the anesthesia remember a single cut won't kill you but eventually you die under the circumstances without them telling you what they're going to do they should tell you specifically what is being planned before the eir draft is certified