board voted 34-0-1 to deny the appeal and uphold the coastal zone permit with factual find advising ceqa findings as read into the record, the permit holder is the recreation & park department, and we will start with the requestor. again, there is the three minutes. >> i was absent at the original hearing and i have reviewed the video as well as reviewed the transcript. >> okay, good evening, commissioner, katherine howard, golden gate park, this is with the shore line [inaudible] while emphasizing the park's naturalistic landscape qualities, you have received a new study on toxins and recycled rubber that became available on august 22. this study concludes that because of the "presence of a high number of harmful compounds frequently at high or extremely high levels of recycled rubber materials" they should be restricted or prohibited in some cases. i have put as an exhibit here a letter we are submitting from the center from environmental health which is considered about the study and the artificial turf and would like their concerns incorporated into testimony. if the proposed sbr tir

i do not know who has to reply with what ceqa requirements. that is an interesting point. i would hope that within the staff that the groups are involved and what ever we need to do and what ever reports need to be generated or monitored that it can be done to the commission in the future. i'm also wondering if pg&e will vacate their existing building if their new pipelines are being taken out of the old? and i'm assuming that they will cover all of the puc costs related to this relocation. >> mr. harrington? >> all of the different parts of the puc are involved with city planning, because city planning has to be happy with the final review on that. in many cases, i believe they want to have the old pipeline left in place. what you do when a pipeline is still underground there, we're working on reimbursement of costs. >> and if they are leaving the zero pipeline -- leaving the old pipeline, to the extent that their costs later on, they're working that out, right? >> yes. >> ok, thank you. >> the report of the bosky general manager, mr. johnson. >> i will keep my remarks br

quote, on agenda 9th, 2008 the sfmta adopted including finding under ceqa in sfmta08-150, which ceqa finding are incorporated by reference in this motion. with that it concludes by presentation. i'm available to answer questions. i will first, however, turn it over to john fungi with smta followed by ken ridge with oewta, thank you. >> president fong, commissioners johnson, sfmta central subway, thank you for the opportunity to provide a brief update, as elizabeth has done a fine job providing the overview to. give you a bit of context, the final supplemental eis, eir was approved years ago. as relates to the china town site within the past four years we have acquired the property, have received approval of the relocation for the eight businesses and 19 households that previously lived on the property. they have been successfully relocated. a bit of good news is that five of the 19 residents have actually purchased single-family homes with the proceeds from the relocation funding. the building has been -- is currently secured with a vinyl wrap. finally this body in february of this y

you have to have a certain amount of planning to get into ceqa. then there will be a little bit of sign work afterwards. that is an up-front issue we will have to deal with. we agree and we want to see it happen sooner. it is such an important part of phase one. it is important that the funding be included as phase one so we have an opportunity to throw everything at it to get this to happen as quickly as possible. dan, i am not sure that he mentioned, we will be improving the existing digesters so people in neighborhoods to have been nearly so long will have a nominal improvements and impacts from the existing digesters. we agree that we want to deliver this faster and make it happen faster. >> we all had the same reaction. great, we shaved 18 months off. that is still forever. the schedule looks like we will have see " review and schedule and design work which takes about five years. construction takes five more years. does that mean they get no benefits for those five years or are their incremental benefits? >> there will be incremental. i will

an historic resources as defined by ceqa. until such time as this commission approves the replacement building, they may not act on the demolition permit that is before the commission. no need to remind you that the intent to disapprove was as a result of two hearings, actually. one from a number of years ago and more recently, the hearing where even though the new architect presented a building with a different suit, the mapping and height and bulk was still unacceptable to a number of commissioners. forward with your intent to disapprove. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> i represent the california and nevada conference of the united methodist church. the owners of 1601 larkin. many of the remarks are more directed towards the zoning administrator down the planning commission. i have to stand up here and save them because i cannot directly direct the zoning commissioner. the zoning commissioner has the power to issue a demolition permit. we have filed a lawsuit demanding that the city issue as a demolition permit. t

, about the california environmental quality act, this is not an appeal of ceqa, it was held before the board of supervisors and that was held in early july because the appeal briefs for this item was due and that's why we come to the rehearing request for this, this is not appeal today the board of appeals here, the appellant has argued they did not have sufficient time to present the materials although they did present them at the hearing to the board. they did have a couple of day tos incorporate them into their brief, they never requested a rescheduling of the item because they felt they didn't have sufficient time to present their materials so given all those facts and i believe also they didn't really get to speak much to our brief but i think our brief did speak very well to how the required findings for granting a rehearing have not been met, so with that, i would respectfully request ma the board of appeals deny the rehearing request and make a final decision on this local coastal zone permit. thank you. >> thank you. i would like to see the submission. >> mr. sanchez, am i cor

a lot of what they're doing now with ceqa is new to them. mitigation as -- is not the norm of what they're used to dealing with. >> and as we look at ways to accommodate and safety concerns, that action gives us ways to go about doing that. commissioners, any other thoughts or comments? >> the next item up is the quarterly budget report, which is a little anticlimactic because it is the quarter ending last june. >> a very brief report today. there aren't -- four sides in your packet. this is a budgetary scorecard, much like we discussed earlier with the audit score card, and where we're seeing green lights and yellow lights and red lights. the key items are on page two on the overhead. water use and sales were up just slightly. we had precipitation just 65% of normal. that led to fourth quarter sales that was much drier than expected. that translated into good news financially, a bit better news than what we have assumed in the previous quarterly report. that translated as well into slightly better revenues in the chief reserves and build up

i would also like to add that as part of the capitol committee, we did review in detail about the ceqa analysis and the park, since we did, we did receive bill wiko's of september 12 which should be entered into the record as well where he finds that there is no requirement of additional ceqa findings or analysis required by this plan, and at that capitol committee, we did make a finding that this will bring increased visitors to the park and increase the recreational activities as the city attorney noted, that this will increase the recreational activity at union square and is consistent with the park code, section 4.113. >> thank you. >> with that, the chair would entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> it's been moved. >> second. >> been moved and seconded, all those in favor. >> aye. .ing opposed, hearing none, it's unanimous. thank you. >> we are now on item 6, the san francisco zoo. with the san francisco zoo. we are off to a great start for the month of september and both in terms of attendance and mission revenue, this was due to the the large response, it was offered at the childr

if you look down to the lower part of the slide, we will look at completing our planning and ceqa work for our treatment process improvement, to be able to look at our citywide green program, where we have to get through our water assessments and conduct additional assessment on our planning to determine what those projects will be. the slide that dan just went through it ended up being about $273 million of green infrastructure that would be built throughout the city. this list lays out the first chunk. we are not talking about changing the program. we are talking about implementing it in pieces. if we were to roll out what that looks like on the score sheet, phase one would have treatment plants at $2.2 billion. and $354 million collection system and $125 million for program management. i want you to focus on the next slide which is our whole schedule laid out in a very small graphic. it gives you an idea. we are talking about the whole program and slicing its interfaces. phase one would predominantly be about six years to complete with the exception of the digester project. the dige

in regard to ceqa and the document did cannot include the case number and did not locate where available. not on the web, by the way, the addendum. it's not in a attachment before you. the resolution does not indicate if this board received dir and addendum. i think those are flaws procedurally. i would encourage you to delay this item or deal with these concerns. i would say that this is not just a bike plan project as i understand it. it loses parking spaces. it degrades traffic los and slows down

all the work has been performed with approved building permits and exemption under ceqa. further permits will need to be secured for the remaining work. port staff have then and will continue to keep the san francisco historic preservation commission briefed on the project's project -- progress. phase one is coming to a close. to accommodate the america's cup events, port staff, consultants and contractors are responding to a request to meet a march 1, 2003, substantial completion of the reconstruction of the bulkhead through integrated project delivery. port staff will be working with the same contractor along with the san francisco branch of architectural resources group and their construction conservation arm. this will provide some additional architectural preservation expertise. along with the architectural engineering team, the consultants we have on board. phase three will be completed after the america's cup event. the work for replacing the building in kind are covered by the insurance carrier, aig lexington insurance. a check was delivered for the initial expens

in regard to ceqa and the document did cannot include the case number and did not locate where available. not on the web, by the way, the addendum. it's not in a attachment before you. the resolution does not indicate if this board received dir and addendum. i think those are flaws procedurally. i would encourage you to delay this item or deal with these concerns. i would say that this is not just a bike plan project as i understand it. it loses parking spaces. it degrades traffic los and slows down transit. i don't understand how one can conclude it's not significant. and finally on masonic and geary, this is the first time i understood that frontage road in front of what used to be the pub. would be closed. that would mean that cars going east on geary and south on masonic go around the plaza and make a new and more dangerous turn. you don't know how well that is analyzed. >> laney motave. >> hi, i am tracy buck, i have lived at the corner of masonic and grove for the past 18 years. as my neighbor has said, we have seen it all. i have heard the horns honking on a daily basis. i have se

we believed that the initial language did that, but to the extent that ceqa and other laws allow us to strengten that language, that is the intent of many of the changes. they are not substantive. it is simply a matter of emphasizing the commitment to that intent. i think there may be other minor technical changes recommended or need bid the attorney's office. but the substance of the program remains. we don't believe these are substantive changes. >> thank you. to the city attorney is there anything you would add? >> john gifford, deputy city attorney. these amendments would be non substantive. >> thank you very much. why don't we go to the puc. >> good morning, board members. i'm general manager of sf public utilities commission. thank you for your opening comments, supervisor campos. i will try not to repeat those, in the interest of efficiency. with me is barbara hale, in charge of our power, todd is in charge of finance and mike campbell has been in charge of the community program for a while. as a note mike campbell will leave us to go to work for the california puc as a manager

we have done most of the ceqa analysis right now.to us, it looks like it will have the least amount of impact. seismically, it seems like a good route as well. it is looking like our preferred route. >> thank you. >> i think we discussed this in closed session. we understand the project. overall, i think the commission is supportive of continuing in this direction for you to seek replication. it is true that you come back to us, we're open to discussing this further wou. >> 9d, informational update on status report infrastructure report and other report -- poured obligations under the agreement in preparation for the 34th america's cup event in 2012 and 2013. >> good afternoon, commissioners but i am with the port special projects group, presenting on behalf of a number of my colleagues that are here who contribute to the staff report accompanying this presentation. keeping things at a fairly high level, the first and most substantial milestone that we met in the last few weeks is completion of phase one, the 2012 america's cup event

. -- ceqa laws are strictly enforced. we will never forget what this developer did to the japantown vote. the developer tried to diminish the cherry blossom festival food fair, which is right by his condos that were built at a site where the japantown residents were being evicted many years ago. that is ridiculous, but it is beside the point. you have an opportunity to preserve this historic building. i urge you to do that, please. thank you. >> a couple more speakers. [reading names] >> good afternoon. i am a member of senior action network. our board has recently voted to ask you to disapprove the proposed project. i am here to explain our position to you can read parts of our letter. we want to thank you for listening to the residence of the neighborhood. we want a project that incorporates the historical is significant church and as desirable neighborhood amenities, such as a community room, st. setbacks. passing the motion of disapproval is only beginning of what the citizens of san francisco want and need. to spend

also, we have gotten two ceqa approvals for this location from both the california public utility commission and the city planning department, both which found that this installation does not have a significant effect on the environment, including the evaluation of the visual impact. if the denial goes through, the visual impact, but i would like to show you a new case, and in recognition of this type of installation that just came down from the court of appeals, in robinson versus the city of san francisco, this installation is three times larger than our installation, and the court of appeals recognized that, quote, the installation, like this one and other ones, would be perceived in existence of existing overhead wires and poles and that the visual impact would be minimal, so we request a hearing to evaluate the installation in light of the other surrounding law. thank you. president hwang: is that a public case? >> yes. it has not come out yet. the disease into -- a decision to publish was, i believe, monday. president hwang: thank you. director goldstein: thank you. mr. cooper? >> than

board voted 34-0-1 to deny the appeal and uphold the coastal zone permit with factual find advising ceqa findings as read into the record, the permit holder is the recreation & park depa

number of people in the community which talk about historic preservation and process related to eir and ceqa. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'm supportive of the conditional use approval. i'm heartened to see there will be a process to see the transit oriented development and process to the elevator and escalator kind of going down and taking space on stockton, if that could be shifted and capture more of that space. development in that space would be great. i understand. i see your point. i can distinguish between these two projects. i'm comfortable moving forward with the head house, knowing that design of a separate project, the transit oriented development will move forward. they will be integrated at some time but two separate projects. i mean, i commend the process and, you know, would approve the conditional use authorization. >> commissioner moore. >> thank you, commissioner hillis that you are at least acknowledging questions i'm raising. basically i'm not getting any traction with my questions, nor with my concerns. the only thing i would like to ask that the design or the potential b