Mission street and townsend street. The bow tie is because in the middle there you have the sixth street redevelopment project area, which no longer exists. But that was included as part of zoning goes as part of the eastern neighborhoods process. So, Fourth Street to division, mission to townsend, with the exception of the sixth street area. Thank you, mr. Makko. That explains it because that was already preempted being part of a redevelopment. I think this is a very desirable process because what i heard today is people getting together and deciding what collectively might be the best thing rather than and im not being critical of the other processes, but oftentimes i hear situations, particularly in transportation planning, where, well, lets see what we can get funding for and its done in piecemeal ways. And im hearing what i like to hear is, lets pick out what we feel would be the most ideal solutions. We may not be able to get it. The market will control to some degree. Public fun
Its south of market, im throwing the idea out there. I know you may think its kind of silly for me to say this. But since its going to be south of market, why dont you utilize that building on the corner of sixth and howard with all those Little Things on that side . You know, especially since this is going to be experimental, right . So, you know, you have a lot of Old Buildings anyway. Just renovate that since they say its going to cost a lot of money to do anything with that building anyway. So, sixth and howard that is an up and coming area because theyre putting a police station. They have a subway. Its close to end up. Its close to what is that Grocery Store down there, whole foods or whatever it is. So, its a very up and coming area. So, that money could be spent since its experimental units, and the sros, i dont see a difference in sro and that except you have to have an id to go in an sro. Its no different than an sro and what youre talking b. So, its just an idea im throwing
As well. The two are not mutually exclusive. So, colleagues, this is a good compromise piece of legislation. Although i agree with mr. Cohen and with the Planning Commission that ideally obviously i introduced this with no cap on it and that would be my preference. But politics and legislation being the process that it is, we Work Together and we came up with what i think is a good compromise and i stand by that compromise. So, yeah, that came in too late. I dont think we can reopen public comment. Okay. So, colleagues, first, mr. Chairman, id like to move the amendments and then i would move to forward the legislation with a positive recommendation as a Committee Report to the full board for tomorrow. Okay. Let me first ask if supervisor kim had comments. First i want to address one of the comments from public comment. I just want to state that the hotel referred to on sixth and howard is slated for affordable Family Housing and its already in movement. I think there was some stalling
A future date on the current radio facilities conditions, including recommendations on the future use and City Department user needs, technical requirements, timeline of funding. So, would you agree to come back and present to the board on your findings on this work . Yes. Okay, great. And the same with the would you accept this recommendation by the budget analyst . The department of Emergency Management . Yes, supervisors, department of Emergency Management agrees with those recommendations. Well be very happy to come back and provide an update. Thank you so much. You know, i know that this has come back to the Budget Committee several times at this point. I think its great that were updating our radio system that is out of date and, you know, probably is not as efficient as it could be. Also doesnt currently comply with fcc standards. Im glad were able to do this finally. But i still continue to have a lot of questions. We have three different potential Radio Systems right now. One
A full board. Its very possible, and in fact likely, that a subcommittee of the board would be making the hearing the public hearing and the ceqa determination. Furthermore, there is no requirement under these amendments that the Planning Department would be engaged in that process. So, the clarifications here are inadequate. Second, the change allows more projects to receive minimal review under negative declaration. Weve heard so much, based upon the standard of fair argument versus substantial evidence. As youve heard multi38 times, there is a good question as to whether this is legal under california state law based upon 30 years of ceqa history here. And finally, the changes are requiring an approval action before anyone can make a ceqa appeal is ultimately going to inhibit the ability of Community Members to make contact with this board and with decisionmakers about particular projects. And it does so in an ambiguous way. Its unclear what the first approval approval action is and