1980's, it is fair to say that people are eating out more, and people are very concerned about restaurants displacing other neighborhoods serving interests, and we have heard from people in this neighborhood and others that they consider a restaurant to be a crucial part of their neighborhoods preserving needs, so as mr. hey were discussed, this was recommended for approval unanimously by the planning commission in june -- so as mr. heyward discussed. chair maxwell: colleagues, any questions or comments? thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed, and, colleagues, without objection, we will move this forward. all right, item 38, and welcome supervisor elksbernd -- elsbernd. clerk somera: biden number

three, a resolution approving and authorizing the sewer line relocation. -- i am number three. supervisor elsbernd: we have some people to talk, including someone from the puc. this is a pretty straightforward matter, but i am going to let john do it. he can do it in a more clear and precise manner. >> you are very kind, supervisor peta director of property. good afternoon, chair maxwell, other members of the committee -- you are very kind, a supervisor. i am a director of property. this item is very specific bid to the sewer line purposes. bought this is highlighted in a

pink and yellow, general areas to be exchanged -- this is highlighted. i will swab that out for a more particular drawing. .-- swap that. in pink are the areas of the sewer line to be abandoned and quitclaim, back to san francisco state in yellow. these lines are b-2 vote -- to be constructed in conveyed. this includes the values of the rights transferring from one party to another, and there are relatively equivalence, so we do not see a need for compensation. all of the costs relative to the

transaction and more importantly, the construction are not borne by the city. they are borne by san francisco state. .san francisco state officials are here, as well, along with puc reps. chair maxwell: supervisor elsbernd, do you have any comments? why do we not open this up to public comment? cathy? >> thank you. i am a '50s-seven year resident of -- a 50-seven year resident of merced. we were not notified of this meeting. we found out saturday about it, and we would like to have this table for 30 days because we live within 300 feet of this,

and we were never notified of the property being sold to the university. they operate virtually with impunity. we have never been included in any of the discussion. we have lost open space that was promised to the residencts of merced, and korea not receive a reduction in rank. although this is a sewer project, this is the beginning of the disintegration of the community that i grew up in. we feel the university has circumvented ceqa, and, i am sorry, i am a little nervous, and as i say, we would like to have better notification of the meetings, and i am absolutely opposed to this development. we will be having the university building on one side of us

within 100 feet, and if this project goes throughp, ark merced, -- goes through, park merced, we will be a demolitions and for many years. this is part of a historic preservation projects. chair maxwell: a queue. -- thank you. >> we are giving away the golf course, right? you are giving away the soccer fields. you are handing is over. items three, four, and five today are tied together, ok? what they are about is expanding students in san francisco. now, let me give you two words. impactees? how many state? -- impact fees?

why do they not pay an impact fee for living in the housing? koran under $50 million, the only homegrown, family business in san francisco -- note -- are you going to do that? i doubt it. give away the golf course. chair maxwell: any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor elsbernd, any further comment? supervisor elsbernd: only that you pass this through. chair maxwell: can you sell us about the public notice that was sent out, because it does mention that within 300 feet, somebody did not get it.

can somebody talk about it? supervisor elsbernd: puc? >> this item, actually, we had some similar comments at the public utilities commission prior to the passage there, and to make sure, although we have made proper notification at that time -- chair maxwell: and your notification process is? >> i believe it is to notify everyone within 300 feet of the property, so we held the meeting over at the puc for another two weeks to make sure that everyone was notified, and we also ran it through the attorney's office, and they were comfortable that everything was done according to city regulations. chair maxwell: supervisor mar? supervisor mar: can i just say that i think cpuc needs to do a

better job in notifying residents, particularly in park merced? -- can i just say that i think the puc needs to do a better job? this is like a relocation agreement that is negotiated between the puc and san francisco state that i am having a hard time understanding how this could lead to a displacement of people, but i would strongly encourage strong notification, especially if the park merced and others -- in the future. chair maxwell: thank you. >> if i can just clarify? this item has absolutely nothing to do with the next step. two totally unrelated issues. one in no way leads to the other. this is a specific contract between the city, the puc, and

san francisco state. this has nothing to do with any construction development whatsoever at park merced. chair maxwell: i think it is important to note that with anything going on nearby, people are going to use this. whoever is coming in front of us has to be a to understand you have to be able to tell us your process for letting the community know what is going on, because that is one of the first things that people are concerned about, and knowing this, we have to make sure we communicate, so thank you. all right, colleagues, without objection, so move. item number 04. clerk somera: item number four, a hearing to discuss the parkmerced project located at

3711 19th ave. chair maxwell: there will be lots of opportunity for you to give input and to have this unknown. supervisor elsbernd. supervise elsbernd: today is purely an informational meeting. this will go before the full board and, of course, the planning commission. this is just the first of what will probably be a series of meetings about parkmerced. we also have the project sponsors that are going to make a presentation. if we could, i see the director of planning is here. john, would you mind taking things off?

-- kicking things off? >> thank you. we have been working with the mayor's office and others on this, for a long time. primarily because of the scope of this project. while this project is a single private development, it is as large as many of the re- deployment plans that you have been seen recently, in terms of the size of the acreage and the number of units and so on. it is comparable to doing a large neighborhood plan. because of that, we have been working with them on a number of things that you will hear from staff about.

we have also been working closely with mta on transportation issues and with the mayor's office on issues related to the development agreement. we anticipated that because of the scope of the project and the size of the fact that is -- it would best be developed -- accomplished -- through a development process. what the supervisor asked us to do was accomplished a few weeks ago, and, of course, it includes parkmerced, and then you will hear more specifics about the planning department's role as we move forward. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors,

committee chair maxwell. i with work force development. again, thank you for the opportunity to provide this information presentation today. just briefly, after i speak, i am going to cover what the process is and the way we have structured the city family interaction so far with the project sponsor, and then a representative from the sfmta will give a presentation, fogg load bysophie -- followed by sophie and others. just briefly, the project encompasses a 116 acres site on the west side of san francisco. when complete, it would include approximately 8900 units. it has a clue about period of 20 to 30 years. this is a very long-term

project, and in addition to the residential units, substantial neighborhood retail, commercial, open spaces, storm water will be included. as the director mentioned, we are proposing a development agreement as organizing for the main permit for this project. for those of you who are familiar with development agreements, it is essentially a legally binding contract between the city and a private party. it guarantees a measure of security but also of stability for the city and for the developer. for the city to seek greater public benefits and can be accorded under conventional land use regulations and ordinances. it also allows us to be much more creative in negotiations in terms of the public benefit package.

supervisor chiu: excuse me, michael. do you have a copy of the package for us? >> i do. supervisor chiu: it is hard for us to see on the screen. >> that will be arriving shortly. i am sorry. this development agreement will also be accompanied by a general plan amendment and a special use district, so there will be a substantial package that will work its way through ultimately to this committee and to the full board. to be pro-active in this process, and just recognizing the scope and scale of this undertaking, the city drafted a cooperative agreement with a memorandum of understanding or mou with the project standing. this was executed with plans, fmta, sfp uc, the department of dpw and

others. the first purpose is to reimburse the city staff for any time and expenses that they expended on the preparation kit, or if you will the pre- application, of this development agreement. the project sponsor has extensive conversations to get input ahead of submitting an application or drafting a develop an agreement to get the scope and scale. the mou also said its board rules and responsibilities for our staff and determined the scope of the development agreement and establishes a project management role similar to treasure island or hunters point shipyard and other large- scale projects, but we are working very closely with the director's cut, particularly sfmta, because that is a key

component of this project. and just quickly, before i turn it over to peter albert, we are looking at the schedule. the deir, the draft environmental impact report, this was done in 2010. there was a hearing on june 2. there was a public hearing on the planning commission on june 17, and the public comment period closed on july 12, 2010, and planning staff -- mr. cooper is here if any of you have any questions about the ceqa process. we hope to be before the planning commission for eir certification, planning code amendments, and the developing degree and approval sometime in the fall of 2010, and, of course, will be coming to this body and the full body, ideally by late fall 2010 for approval

of the general plan amendment and the developing amendment. so, unless you of any questions, i would like to invite peter from the s.f. mda. -- sfmta. >> good afternoon. i think the most important aspect i can bring to this conversation, even before we talk about parkmerced, is to talk about the corridors and to get an idea of of the transportation network works in this part of town, so to be able to do them together is an especially important resource for mta. this map on the screen shows two different colored as loans, and

the pink zone represents what we call a pda that is an agreement with the city of san francisco which says if you are working with transportation planning pitch in this part of town, and you are working with the community in working with the city agencies, we will prioritize regional funding to help you solve your transportation problems in this part of town, so with the help of the supervisors and the transportation authority, we were able to get this part of san francisco on the radar screen as a pda. the pink plus the green area represents everything, and we wanted to look at transit and the pedestrian networks also, and what we also wanted to do was to look at major developments that were at one point or in the near future

proposing major changes, and that includes san francisco state, which reasonably concluded its master plan process and was involved with the mta. it includes several areas, and we paid attention to those numbers. for what we know about that, we wanted to make sure we took the most possible growth that could exist. because this was close enough to the zone, and then, of course, parkmerced, and that is why this is like this, because we wanted to show you the big your areas. bob we wanted to break it down into five different -- we wanted to break it down into five different tiers.

we needed to know what was our baseline. in tier 2, we added just the numbers. just the numbers to help us. then we put tier 3 on the radar screen. coming out of the city, coming out of caltrans, and even coming up on note -- out of bart. the buyback plan, the traffic calming plan, these were projects that we layered on a tugboat -- on top of tiers one and two, and then we added tier

4. princetons, you will hear today about -- for instance, you will hear today about parkmerced, how they are solving some of transportation issues, andti then, er 5. -- and then, tier 5. they have this view of where the system is going. we then will use our best professional judgment to fill and the gap and thai networks together to make even the areas that the project proposed before or the improvements the developer could not fix, we will recommend big fixes that go through the corridor, so if i walk you through that, we will start with pi r.e. -- with tier 2. san francisco state and others.

no, we laterlaya -- er tier -- we layer tier 3. and then, we also layered on top of those other things, like running the shuttle, other improvements we wanted to see to get more efficiency of the transit network. . -- tier 4, bringing the san francisco -- everybody getting off of that streetcar was already on the west side. intersection improvements, unjamming the area.

these were some of the proposals that came out of the discussion. one very important one was bringing this up of 19th avenue and into -- out of 19th avenue and into parkoce -- parkmerced. we would bring it or the identity is because people would have a short walk. one of the benefits recognize is the pedestrian safety benefits. more than 85% of people getting out of the streetcar want to be on the west side, and another operational benefits that we of look debt that has made it into the project is what you see at the end there.

you can see a two or three-car train. this gives us flexibility. if the train is disabled, we can take it out of the system, and it does not have to block the other trains. this gives us more flexibility. these, i think, are the hard copy of the presentation i am walking you through, if you would like time to get one. so while you are looking at that, we finished the 19th avenue corridor study for tiers one through 4, which means we know how they work, and if i can have the screen back on, one of

the things that i would like to call out is that in this study, what we are showing here are some of the level of service analysis, but i can tell you there is a lot more than just level of service for automobiles. there is pedestrian safety, reliability of transit. these are all things that are not really cabled -- for motley. i do want to show you some of the findings of the corridor study. a full red circle means unacceptable. white means acceptable. these two. that part has trouble. when we project out 30 years, tier one, waswhite -- what was

white in some areas is red or half red. if we let it grow, this is what would happen to the corridor. paul a few intersections become worse, because we have added all of these jobs. when we add tier 3, interestingly, some of the improvements do not show up in the matter because they are not intersection models, but there are some. some intersections actually get better. between tier 3 and tier 4, they build more options for cars so they do not overwhelm the intersection. the results of those

intersections, you can see what happens over time. we started with the existing in the morning and 11 in the afternoon. they get worse as the tiers go up. an improvement -- chair maxwell: we have a k9 visitor, and we are going to see how this works. i do not think he wants to visit. >> yes, should i -- chair maxwell: thank you. >> i will keep going. the point here is that you do get some benefits with the improvements proposed by the project sponsor. what i would really like to talk about though, if i could, is the process.

with tier 5 -- chair maxwell: excuse me. we have another location, if you would like to sit in my office or another supervisor's office and watch it on television? >> thank you. >> the tier 5, as i mentioned, we did this on the other tiers, and now, what we as city agencies can do to make the whole system better, and our proposal was to work with the community. korea already had won it community but we have already had won a community meeting. -- we have already had one community meeting. this is not just about bringing caltrans