so that we can determine the ceqa issue and move forward or not move forward with the project. it will require significantly more robust notice to the public about ceqa determinations by the planning department, so that people know that a ceqa determination has occurred and they can decide whether they want to challenge it. the legislation will also provide the board of supervisors with the flexibility, if we choose, to amend our rules to determine where public comment has tab to be taken in connection with the ceqa hearing. whether we decide to delegate some responsibilities to a committee. this legislation of course witness won't change our polices, but provides the board with flextibility. the rest i will submit. >> thank you, supervisor wiener, supervisor cohen? >> good afternoon, everyone. i have two pieces today. today i am introducing legislation that facilitates a significant investment that the puc is making inside district 10 and consolidates a number of department operations to better use rate-payers dollars and this legislation would enable the puc to purchase nearl

. >> i have a ceqa related question. we're supposed to be adopting findings under ceqa, can someone tell me where those findings are written. >> john from the city attorney's office, in the agenda, there are two different sets of ceqa findings that are mentioned. there's one set of ceqa findings associated with a joint action which is to change the budgets, those are the ceqa findings that the planning commission adopted in may of this year as part of the transit center district plan. those are the same findings, so you're incorporating those by reference. the second set of ceqa findings that are mentioned are for the rec and park action only. those are unique to the transit center tower where -- that would be the first action, ceqa triggering action with regard to that project so that has a distinct set of findings. >> and will those findings come before us when we approve the tower, or is that strictly a rec park action? >> absolutely. there's a similar version, the one that recreation and park has today is tailored to

times of day, times of year of the shadows and if we can do this jointly, also adopt findings under ceqa. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, there's been -- go ahead. >> i'm sorry, i was going to make a technical corrections and read the comments into the record. >> this is just a comment. there's been discussion of the amount of new open space that's going to be provided by virtue of our approving -- well, they'll be provided anyway whether we approve this or not, the argument's being made that one of the reasons that we should approve this is because there will be additional open space, back in 1984, there was a similar issue on a singular project, i don't know what it was, but there is an opinion that was written at that time that says it was not intended to allow developers to shadow existing parks by virtue of their offer to fund and pay for expanded park site and its development. this interpretation is supported by the title of the ordinance, park shadow ban, and the ballot summary describing the ordinance, etc., etc., anyways, so apparently there has already been a city at

it also was to adopt ceqa findings. >> recreation and park commission. >> yes, i would like to make a motion on attachment 7 and i would like to read it into the record. joint resolution with the planning commission to amend the section 295 implementation [inaudible] adopted in 1989 to one raise the absolute cumulative shadow limits on 7 park properties, union square, st. mary's square, portsmouth square, maritime plaza, willie woo woo wong playground and boeddeker park, and two, incorporate additional quantitative criteria for 9 parks, the previously listed 7 parks plus woh hei yuen park that describe the quantity coverage area sdraition times of time and days of year of new shadows and to adopt fiemdbacker findings under the environmental quality act with the amendment that i would ask the city attorney to read in. >> certainly, deputy city attorney, so the amendment would be the same amendment made by the planning commission, it would be on page 7 of attachment 7, and it would be on the first be it further resolved clause, at the end of that clause, the following would be added, an

which would be subject to review under ceqa and further outreach to the surrounding neighborhood. it's about a block and a half off of the embarcadaro. it's almost an acre in size. and is a very developable parcel that exists in the northeast water froth historic district. article 10 of the planning code established the northeast waterfront historic water district and describes types of architectural streitv and building styles that is appropriate for that local historic district. and we hope to work with the mayor's office of housing to see if this site is indeed appropriate for affordable housing. >> thank you. >> lastly, the next steps we'll be undertaking this should resolution pass, we would be returning to the northeast waterfront advisory group with the port, of course, ab 26 49, and also the action on this particular legislation. the port and our office would be continuing to look at the feasibility and appraisal discussions on potential sites. one of them could be [inaudible] seual lot 3221. we would be available for updating historic preservation commission on requiremen

how interesting since 99 million dollars of the bond is ceqa approved? categorical exemption. so they are getting categorical exemptions through ceqa right now and what this leads to is complete lying to the voter. for example, when you go to golden gate park, beach solis, that was listed simply aiz categorical exemption for a field. all of a sudden you have a soccer stadium out of nowhere that the voters were never told about where they are going to change grass into turf i think a lot of this is very disingenuous and i think it's why neighborhoods are tired of rec and park. >> first, there's no soccer stadium. this bond is about current and future san franciscoans, especially our kids. this bond would pay for

daly city went through an extensive planning department and council review through ceqa and there was a traffic study done. so all of those documents are on file with the city of daly city. so the traffic impacts were studied in comparison, for instance to the former post office facility that was there. and found that the uses which are planned to be the towed cars, and other mta uses. for instance our training facility, possibly enforcement and other vehicles to be stored there. were actually similar impacts and spread over time. for instance the tow-trucks -- the towing facility starts behind the hall of justice. so that tow customers are able to pick up their cars there within the first 24 hours. then they are towed to -- at this current time -- to pier 70. they would, if this lease were approved be towed to 2650 bay shore, which is accessible by the t line and the 9 and 8 ax muni routes. while they operate 24 hours a day, they receive only 25 vehicles a day that would be put into long-term storage at the facility both inside and out. they will have weekly auctions, which they curr

how interesting since 99 million dollars of the bond is ceqa approved? categorical exemption. so they are getting categorical exemptions through ceqa right now and what this leads to is complete lying to the voter. for example, when you go to golden gate park, beach solis, that was listed simply aiz categorical exemption for a field. all of a sudden you have a soccer stadium out of nowhere that the voters were never told about where they are going to change grass into turf i think a lot of this is very disingenuous and i think it's why neighborhoods are tired of rec and park. >> first, there's no soccer stadium. this bond is about current and future san franciscoans, especially our kids. this bond would pay for renovation of play grounds all across the city that are failing. it will pay for renovation of swim pools that are many years old and in threat of being closed because of their physical condition. it will pay for trail maintenance, tree maintenance, improving and cleaning up toxic pollution along the city's eastern waterfront and a wide array of positive vital investmen

my letter that i'm delivering also deals with some ceqa issues. because of the small size of this park, even very small changes can be significant. here the changes are significant and require a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report under ceqa before the board approves the proposal that is before you today. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. if there is anybody else who would like to speak, please line up because we're going to close public comment pled guilty decosta. >> chair, i put in my card. there are two phases to this project. there is phase 1 and phase 2. phase 1 is the 3rd street light rail, which begins at 4th and king. and ends in the middle of nowhere visitation valley. now if you do the estimate of phase 1, it costs >> we have have to go back and get secondly approvals or follow-ups. several months ago, savemuni.com was made and myself as a professional architect and i think citizens of the city would air on the side of the and at one time there was language in both the general plan and charter that was

my letter that i'm delivering also deals with some ceqa issues. because of the small size of this park, even very small changes can be significant. here the changes are significant and require a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report under ceqa before the board approves the proposal that is before you today. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. if there is anybody else who would like to speak, please line up because we're going to close public comment pled guilty decosta. >> chair, i put in my card. there are two phases to this project. there is phase 1 and phase 2. phase 1 is the 3rd street light rail, which begins at 4th and king. and ends in the middle of nowhere visitation valley. now if you do the estimate of phase 1, it costs

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

this is addressed to addressing ceqa reform and appointed chair of environmental quality committee looking into seek what reform. that is because of top priority. lastly, looking at implementation of ab1532 and treatment of cap and trade with respect to transit. >> great. thank you for the presentation. colleagues, questions or comments? seeing none, we will open it to public comment. is there any members of the public who would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we forward this to the full authority with positive recommendations? it says action as well. okay. so this is an information item only. item four. >> item four, recommend approval of resolution authorizing executive director to execute all master agreements, program supplemental agreements, fund exchange agreements, transfer and cooperative agreements and any amendments between the authority and the california department of transportation for receipt of the funds, an action item. [ indiscernible ] >> good morning, deputy directors. good morning, commissioners, deputy director for finance and administration

identified in a bond measure like this one, that it go through an environmental review process first called ceqa, california environmental quality act. that's a rigorous planning process that is required. all of the projects that have been called out in this bond have been

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

. >> good afternoon, david pilpel the ceqa determination was not made available to the public.arently in the office of the secretary. i requested it this morning. it was not provided in time for the meeting. i'm interested in reviewing:lño that. i think we need to find a betteo way to have such ceqah#r determinations available, relative to your board items. on this particular on, and i also don't understand in the case of the sign fees -- excuse me posting cost related to the number of signs, how there's a direct correlation there. questions on this item upon careful scrutiny. thanks. >> chairman nolan: thankán&ct can you reply to that? >> first of all this is both the revenues and expenditures for this transfer were included in the budget, that you adopted. it was something that was actually -- that we brought in when i brought a revised proposal to you in june so it was actually more explicitly called out than it might have normally been. what we've done is we've taken the current fees and escalated them in accord with your escalation policy. so my guess is that the police de

existing building is not an historic resource under ceqa. that's just one paragraph because i know design has been a major issue. the project sponsor has worked with planning department staff ultimately that's who i think we need to satisfy, obviously work with the neighbors but you can't listen to everybody. ultimately you have to come to a decision on design and that was what was made here. mr. stewart did show the rear facade. the project sponsor isn't happy with that facade either, quite frankly. he is shell shocked and gun shy. he would like to revise the year of the building. it's afraid if he files another permit to revise it he will land up here again and be held up another 4 months. i'm asking you commissioners it approve the demolition permit, approve the building permit, and we will still work with neighbors to make that rear more attractive. that's my promise to you. unless you have questions i think you've heard it all. design is an issue and the board is happy with the board. >> were you part of the community review process? >>