this is that if i turn my head away from it, if i don't look at it, it is can't. if i close my blinds, it is gone. right next to it, those machines on the roof can create noise and the noise can trouble and they can be under the legal limit of 45 decibels and they can still make noise and it can make noise through my double pane glass windows for a building built only 22 years ago and it can be legal. i am saying, doesn't that deteriorate the neighborhood? what gives that owner of that

property the right to send noise? >> thank you very much. >> my name is as washington. i'm a lifelong resident in the western addition. our community has been in crisis. here we are. you have agencies right now

which is taken over the lead. there board of directors has resigned so therefore there is no board of directors. they got to our supervisor for making sure the doors will not be closed. i am here to say that if in fact the committee this matter and input -- does not have an input, you will be held responsible. i'm here to say one thing and one thing only to the city and county -- i have come here and i've knocked on the walls for 20 years. right now, i cannot get over them. right now, you can put it on my face. -- i cannot get a rhythm. i want them to hear my voice and read my lips and look at my face. right now, what i want to make it crystal clear to the city and

county, i will request that a public hearing be held about the community center. i'm also asking for a grand jury investigation of the entire -- if that does not work, and i'm going to the justice department to come here and investigate what goes on here at city hall. i cannot go to the city attorney, he is running for mayor. i am asking that. thank you very much. >> could afternoon, supervisors. i and stand this is the proper occasion to speak about item 30 which is the taxi resolution.

ahead in ceremonies of the horsemen, even upon must hold a grudge. we taxi drivers are the pawns. where large than the same page on these issues. we support a centralized this- system. we support taxi permits as long as they are properly structured and regulated. we support the open taxi access system which will give people direct access to taxicabs on the street without having to go through this package. this issue has been pushed to the side. when i say that cabdrivers' need a meter increase, and i want you

to understand that this should not be depended upon issues over which we have no control. i think that facts are important. there has been a 19% increase in the cost of living since 2003. gas prices have gone up 150%. -- has gone up $12.50 a shift. it costs the driver $30 more a shift to fill up. it cost them 20% more to fill up a hybrid today than it did to fill up a crown victoria back in 2003. let's improve taxi service. thank you. >> i am with the san francisco cab drivers association. i agree now go wrong to tie the

service increase with the improvement. there are companies which have a third of all of the cabs and the city and i have worked for these for over 20 years and i have seen them not improve their dispatch service or do things to give the appearance of a shortage of cabs. that is a third of all the camps in the city. another thing is open taxi access. we're supposed to address this issue and make a recommendation but somehow that this appeared. -- have shown objectives and they have -- in one

we would all like to have that. it has been 8 years since we have had a meager increase and gas prices are going through the roof. this is costing us a couple of hundred dollars a month. >> i am a cabdriver and medallion older. i have found that it is dangerous to be in a cab driver when it once the politicians are running for office.

trashing cab drivers is a very good way to get elected. when i was first here, there was seven under 15 camps on the street. -- 715 taxicabs on the street. this service in the neighborhood is worse now. there is a couple of points. one, this is a very complicated business. they're not giving them as much money because this is not as lucrative as before. this is a strange idea that you are punishing cabdrivers for not doing the job. aren't you all union politicians, you are in favor of

workers? you are acting like you are aristocrats. he will not improve the service. improving the quality of drivers, this one happened overnight. thank you. >> are there any members of the public that wish to speak? public comment is closed. why don't we move to adoption without committee reference calendar. >> item 29-35 are considered for immediate and unanimous adoption without reference. they will be acted upon by a single roll call vote.

>> would anyone like to sever any of these items? >> item 30. >> same item. >> i will set for item 34. please call the roll on the balance. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. 9 >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> those motions and resolutions are adopted and approved. >> item 30, resolution opposing

taxi fare increase under consideration by the municipal transportation agency in the effort to improve taxi service. >> i would like to thank those who came out to testify about this item today. i wanted to make very clear that if you read a resolution, none of us are saying that cab drivers don't deserve to be compensated fairly. we have a system where we have not seen any tangible service improvements in quite some time and we are now being asked to pay more for cabs. what we do know is that there are proposals and we have endorsed the program which are

under consideration. i know that that proposal can be adopted. i'm not saying estimates on the theoretical future five years off of the service improvement, we have something that is there now. the resolution does not point out the ways in which cabdrivers are treated unfairly. i'm not saying that fares are not the only problem. this refers to the issue of gates and some of the unfair and

is there in terms of what cabdrivers. with all of that said, since this is the first time this has come up, it does require a unanimous vote. >> i will not be supporting this item.

over the years, there has not been any increases on the fares for taxi rider's. the cost increases can be shouldered. this is possible to raise the fares separate from the conditions of the service.

>> i am concerned about the service that happened in san francisco. i've heard from numerous folks that live in district 10 of all ages and the i's are in a concern to the lack of taxi service. that is why i will be supporting this legislation. >> any further discussion?

>> item 34, motion scheduling the board of supervisors to sit as a come order it -- a committee on june 7th to hear a public hearing and ending at the zoning map. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> we will be reviewing the north beach rezoning legislation. there are changes that come out of the plan commission.

this is substantive. we could adopt this amendment, we cannot act until our next hearing which is to in the seventh. with that, howard clark to first ask that we adopt the amendment as a whole. >> can we take this without adoption? if we can continue this to june 7th. corks on behalf of supervisor farrell, for the late elizabeth -- >> on behalf of supervisor farrell, for the late elizabeth -- for the late o>> that concludesr

business for today. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned.

supervisor mar: good morning, everyone. good morning, everyone. this is the tuesday, may 24, 2011 meeting of the land use and economic development committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. to my right is supervisors cohen. to my left is supervisors wiener. we're also joined by a sponsor of the number of the measures, supervisor elsbernd. >> please make sure to turn off all cellphones and pages. items will be on the agenda, unless otherwise stated. supervisor mar: thank you to the

staff of sfgtv for broadcasting this today. we have nine items. there's an overflow room. we plan to be recessing this meeting shortly at a little bit before 10:00 a.m. for about 10 minutes to 15 minutes. 4for the five items on our agenda, we should call the first item first and the next items altogether. could you please call item 1? >> item 1. supervisor mar: do we have a representative from the mayor's office? >> good morning. good morning, supervisor mar, supervisors cohen, and supervisors wiener. i'm here to request your approval to move it from the

city to the san francisco housing authority. alice griffith is undergoing revitalization as one of the five developments. this community is also one of the six finalists in the initiative. the goal is to transform distressed public housing developments into vibrant communities and enhancing the lives of the residents. once revitalized, alice griffith will replace 256 public housing units and approximately 700 below market rate and market rate home ownership. the hope of hope sf to connect residents and all the things that they will enhance their lives is just as important as revitalization. that is why we're here today, to ask for your approval of the transfer of the property over to san francisco housing authority. we firmly believe that the alice griffith opportunity center, which is on the alice griffith

public housing development, is critical to this type of support. alice griffith opportunity center currently serves as a community hub in the neighborhood where programs and services are delivered to the residents it also houses the hope sf service connection team. currently in the center there are quite a number of services offered. there is after school program. there is staff that links residents to employment training and job placement. there's child care. it also houses a computer lab and it runs a program called peacekeepers, which works with violence prevention in the neighborhood. in the future, we're hoping the center will be even more robust. we are hoping to offer tutoring, after school programming, and extending the

services of workforce placement to transitional youth. there's a great new partnership that will be held in the alice griffith opportunity center. alice griffith residents has partnered with urban strategies and they will be running the garden program out of the alice griffith opportunity center. there's a great program that has just started. they will work with the residents to grow, plant, and buy food from the garden. the program will be operated at the center. the transfer of this facility to the housing authority is important for two main reasons. we feel like the proper management of this facility is best kept with the housing authority because it is such an active facility and it has such a late programming that having the on-site staff and the residents is really important. we also feel like, as a hub in the neighborhood, the residents would be the best words and

making sure it remains active and is best maintained and we can make sure it goes on with other services in a robust way. supervisors, we would appreciate your approval of this transfer and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. supervisor mar: any questions? supervisors cohen? supervisors cohen: is there anyone here from the housing authority? >> the housing authority staff, unfortunately, cannot be here today, but i'm having to take any questions back, supervisors cohen. supervisors cohen: i do not have any questions. i just wanted to know if they were here to represent themselves. supervisor mar: with no other questions, let's open this up for public comment. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is close. colleagues, can we move this forward without objection? thank you. can you please call items two through five. we're also joined by supervisor

chu. >> elsberndordinance approving a the city and county of san francisco and parkmerced investors, llc, for certain real property located in the lake merced district of san francisco, commonly referred to as parkmerced, generally bounded. item four, ordinance reflecting the special district. item #5. supervisor mar: thank you. before i introduce supervisor elsbernd, let me just say we have a lot of public comment today. we will limit it to two minutes per person. i urge people to keep it as short as possible. brief remarks in the mibeginning 39 yen, he will talk about amendments or changes. supervisor elsbernd? mr. yardeni, would you like to

make opening remarks? >> good morning, supervisors. i will keep my remarks very brief. i think this committee has received several informational presentations. i will focus today on the revisions to the draft development agreement that was submitted to the clerk on friday. supervisors csupervisors cohen:k that members from the public restraint supervisor mar: conversationsmar thank you. please continue. >> i'm going to highlight key sections where there are red lined changes. the red lined documents are also available with the clerk's office. i will move through the sections.

i do want to note that there were some organizational and technical cleanups' made to the dinedocument. there's no substance to the change, other than adding clarity to the documents. beginning with section 3.5.3 of the development agreement -- excuse me. 3.5.3 of the development agreement. we have clarified the ccnr's to provide permanent maintenance of all sidewalks, parks, basically

most common areas open to the public. this amendment was to explain how those get recorded in phases as the development is built out. 3.13. 3.13, we have added a public power section. this would require that a feasibility study be conducted as to whether the project could contract with the sf puc to provide public power post approval. the basis for this language is derived from a similar language from the shipyard candlestick transaction. it was based on fe bic -- based on feedback from the sf puc. per supervisors cohen's request, we provided a one-for-one replacement for the existing preschool child care space on

site. this is to clarify the notice of special restrictions that would be recorded against that property to ensure that no matter what, over time, there will always be 4000 square feet of preschool on the site, even if the service had to be moved. nsr would essentially say it does not have to remain in a particular location, but there always has to be 4000 square feet on the site. supervisor mar: it does not mean that the school that currently exists will be there, but it locks in a future child care center. >> correct. presumably any number of child care providers could bid or offer to use that . we are not going to predetermine who the ultimate user is. as section 3.15 added, at request of supervisor