and >> good afternoon. the item before you is a discussion and possible action to create 8 parking lot for approximately 23 stations. this is the eastern portion of the yacht club for yacht club users. the research for camelot is

owned by the presidio and it has historically been used for parking in the vicinity of the palace for fine arts. this is for visitors to part of the exploratory and. this would be used for construction and a temporary bypass parkway. we would lose about 2158 parking spaces. -- 258 parking spaces. in order to redress the lawson parking, we have been meeting with the affected parties, the export-oriented, the theater. we have the community to help

address some of the strategies. we have met with the association for the executive board leadership. in terms of the strategies that we came up with, this is broken into three distinct items. hong as we said, creating a lot. trees will vote to hide some of the existent traffic.

we're proposing creating additional parking spaces and this will yield about 18 spaces. we're proposing cynosure which is part of the proposal that we made today. -- signs which is part of the proposal that we made it today. these are part of the actions that we looked at. this has been removed as a compromise. we feel that this is a good solution for very difficult circumstance stances --

circumstances. >> 23 spaces, this is a triangular lot. how long would that exist? >> this would exist for the duration of the project. >> even though you get back some spaces at one stage, my terminology is mixed but this goes near the drive. you will pick up some spaces. >> right. we will be getting at the end of 2011, 218 spaces back.

this is between january 15th, when this goes offline, and the end of 2011. >> it is possible to take blood and only use this until -- becomes available as a way of minimizing the impact on the residential portion of this proposal. >> we feel that the lots will be needed to help address some of the challenges.

that answers the question. thank you. >> i am here on behalf of my fellow neighbors. several of us are prepared to comment and opposition to part 1, we would respectively request that this item be put over until the following meeting. the reason is that we made a

request under the sun shine provisions and refer receive some but not all of the materials. this morning at 10:45, we received an e-mail which says that we have received some items but also that item 1 requires an extensive search and compilation of electronic data and we're in the process of gathering these. our concern is that we do not know all of the facts that we might know if we received all of the information under the sun shine request. we would respectfully request that you rule that to this item be put over to the next meeting. presumably we would have adequate information and be able to speak to the issues in a better way. >> the city attorney has given

their opinion. is there a sunshine act requirement or problem? >> i am told that the request was for every e-mail sent back and forth by the department. we can check with the city attorney but to there are immediate records request and there are 10 day records requests. >> this is what it is, this is 23 or 24 spaces for four years. i'm not sure what the record would do in terms of a number of spaces that location. i am sympathetic but it sounds like a five-year e-mail check about whether or not 23 spaces are needed to operate a print of i think that this is on its face what is. >> we are not so sure.

>> i did not want to steal the thunder but we are concerned about ada requirements. as many as five of the spaces would be lost getting us down to 18 spaces. >> maybe we can get them to respond to those at the end. we're looking to see what would be in the best interests of the recreation and parks department. >> there are things that you

need to know tikrit a parking lot. of the first relates to the overwhelming opposition of the neighbors involved. the second thing that you need to know is that it is not really necessary to do with this parking lot. what do i mean that the neighbors are closed? the first public out reach of this meeting was less than six weeks ago. it is hard for me to believe that recreation and parks did not know about this issue for a year. my neighbors suggested several alternatives. we have not heard adequate responses to those alternatives. my neighbor has made a sunshine

request and we have not received all of the documents. most importantly, my understanding is that a majority of our neighbors voted against extending the parking and that has been granted. what i know on my block is that 90% have worked against turning this into parking spaces. as you know, the exploratory and leases the buildings from all of you. that these does not require you to provide any parking for the export-oriented why should we sacrifice open space slots in order to provide parking that you are not legally required to provide? now let's get real for a minute. my comment is if you build it,

they will come. yes, but not necessarily to go to the export-oriented. this is adjacent to richardson ave. many people drive on this every day. i think in a very short amount of time, people will realize that this would be really nice of st. parking for people have no intention of going to the exploratory and. the neighborhood is opposed to this. secondly, you don't need to do this. if you do this, i don't think you'll get the intended result of providing the parking spaces. they will be used by people for other reasons. thank you very much.

it seems that last parking provided, the more demand there is on the street for existing parking. there should be concerned about compounding the problem with a lack of available space. there have to be a way to explore this as exploratory and parking. nothing would be more of a tragedy than to provide commuters with free spaces in a neighborhood. i share that opinion. those are my observations. >> we're talking about 18 spaces. this is minute compared to those that are necessary. i acknowledge it will help but i don't think very much and i agree with you that this parking

lot will be so visible man that i don't think in reality it will provide any additional parking for people visiting the exploratory and. >> thank you. >> i have two comments. i believe it is inappropriate to use public funds to provide an optional accommodation to the exploratory and which is a private organization. we learned that providing parking is not part of the terms of the lease between the exploratory and parks and recreation. the question i have is why should they spend public funds to eliminate a valuable open space simply to provide tenant parking when the parking is not obligated.

the last i checked, the name is the recreation and first commission, not a parking and recreation commission. the residents of our block have drawn this short end of the stick on all of the development that has gone on in the area. caltrans cuts down a growth of mature trees to make a bus stop that is still not used. that took away the shield of the news from the freeway. it is proposed that our community open space is to be taken over to provide a parking lot for in the grand scream a very small number of parking spaces. the parking lot is like putting

a square peg in a round hole. in football, there is a concept of filing on. i speak for all the residents in our clock that this is piling onto a group of residents that have been severely affected over a long amount of time and will continue to be and i asked you to take this into consideration. >> this is not reparations and part money that would make these improvements, this is from caltrans. the second was because the original parking configuration provided by that presidio lot, there was never a need to have a parking provision in the lease and that is why it does not exist but thank you. >> i live on the same block.

we have faced the little triangle there and it has been a very nice park to have after they have torn down all of the others over the years. now they want to put in a parking lot. this does not sound right. we were notified of this five weeks ago. at the mean to say that you did not know about this before five weeks ago? we are the front line of defense on this particular issue and we did not get the word on it until the first week of november. where were you and where were the rest of the people involved? >> we might ask project sponsors about the community outreach. >> they did one community outreach before they came to us. this is not even affected by this block.

>> they did not come to us. then, we were just presented with it at the beginning of november. this is not what you call good government or neighbor the relations. when you refer to the comment about the parking not being in the leases, we were told that the st. francis yacht club does not have anything for parking. why is this unusual for the export-oriented, by the way, they will not have any parking by the embarcadero. why can't they just do what the rest of us do? we can eliminate the idea of 18

spaces on our block that will affect our people. >> thank you. >> what i am here to ask is to recognize that we have passed on to you our concerns and think that maybe now. all right to build this park, but you are not there yet improving this. i am here to ask you to postpone the decision at this time and give us a chance to work with your people. i have a whole ton of questions. we have not had an opportunity to ask. my request is that you just

postpone this decision until the next bead -- the next meeting. thank you. but but, but >> good afternoon, commissioners. i've submitted a statement in writing and copies for all of you. basically, my comments pertaining specifically to the fact that you have two community outreach sessions and you asked for the neighbors suggestions.

the neighbors unanimously opposed to this project and they also offered two very viable alternatives for finding the 23 parking spaces. one of these was to use a small corner of the volleyball field across the street from the export-oriented -- from the exploratorium. they are doing very striping of the parking lot. my statement to you shows in this diagram that either one of those alternatives would produce many more parking spaces with a great deal more ease and with a very much less disruption from

the neighborhood. you would not have to cut down all of the trees and shrubs which have grown up in our open space blocked. we would have a much less expensive solution to this problem. i would urge you to look at the photographs that i am submitting to you with this statement. when my husband and i purchased our home on the street, there was a heavily forested open space lot there. this was covered with moderate winds and eucalyptus. by the time we moved into our home, all of those trees and shrubs had been completely eliminated. there was no permit or planned for any kind of replacement.

the neighborhood has taken upon themselves to make this lot look a little bit better. now you want to make a parking lot. that is not where we are at. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jeff hamilton, director of operations for the explorer program. we wish that we were not standing here. we don't have any desire to be engaging in this process. i've been part of this team for the past 12 months that has gone to a very meticulous process to arrive at these proposals.

there are other elements to go before the mta. this is part of a bigger plant. the neighbors had something that was indicative of my concerns, if you build it, they will come. there is concern that other people would use some of this parking. we also know that if you don't build it, they will not come to thousand visitors go in and out of our building. catering trust, everything to service the building. we have already assumed a 20% reduction in our attendance for this year and this comes to nearly $4 million. i want to address the issue which seems to be the most contentious. we have already conceded 32 parking spaces to the neighbors.

the 32 + 23 is 55 spaces. that is 20% of the mitigation that we need to offset 250 spaces that we've begun in a little bit less than a month. most of the impact has been distributed through most of the residential area either through the parking lots or through the presidio. this is the only impact in the residential area. we are really down to the bones of low in need to operate this facility in the middle of what will be a chicken tick massive construction project. i was that we can walk in here

and retract the whole thing but we really need your help and we request your support. >> thank you. >> contest and, commissioners. i am a member of the presidio and an employee. each year we hire and train 16 trainers and many chaperones. exploratory and has been working with the staff to allow them to -- each day i work with my staff with hundreds of thousands of visitors. these are people of all ages and backgrounds.

this is a place for people can explore and learn the exciting world of science. the solutions before you will help us to continue to operate and fill our mission. i ate respectfully submit that you approve the proposal. >> thank you.

>> the people that attend our performances all seem to come at the same time. there is a little bit of a different issue here than the means of the -- we were trying to mitigate the impact to the neighborhood. when you have close to 400 cars coming at the same time, this creates a large traffic jam. most of the cars come from lombard street. my fear is when we lose 258 parking spaces, there will be a traffic jam backed up towards the lombard street and we will be basically gridlock. our strategies were to try to create parking ce