>> in this fabulously beautiful persidio national park and near golden gate and running like a

scar is this ugly highway. that was built in 1936 at the same time as the bridge and at that time the presidio was an army and they didn't want civilians on their turf. and the road was built high. >> we need access and you have a 70 year-old facility that's inadequate for today's transportation needs. and in addition to that, you have the problem that it wasn't for site extenders. >> the rating for the high viaduct is a higher rating than that collapsed. and it was sapped quite a while

before used and it was rusty before installed. >> a state highway through a federal national park connecting an independently managed bridge to city streets. this is a prescription for complication. >> it became clear unless there was one catalyst organization that took it on as a challenge, it wouldn't happen and we did that and for people to advocate. and the project has a structural rating of 2 out of 100. >> you can see the rusting reinforcing in the concrete when you look at the edges now. the deck has steel reinforcing that's corroded and lost 2/3's

of its strength. >> this was accelerated in 1989 when the earthquake hit and cal came in and strengthened but can't bring to standards. to fix this road will cost more than to replace. and for the last 18 years, we have been working on a design to replace the road way, but to do in a way that makes it appropriate to be in a national park and not army post. >> i would say it's one of the most ugly structure, and it's a barrier between the mar sh and presidio. and this is a place and i

brought my dogs and grandchildren and had a picnic lunch and it was memorable to use them when we come here. what would it look like when the design and development is completed. and we are not sure we want an eight lane highway going through this town. and it's a beautiful area in a national seaport area on the planet. >> the road is going to be so different. it's really a park way, and it's a parkway through the national park. and they make the road disapeer to the national park. >> and the road is about 20 feet lower, normally midday,

you go through it in two minutes. looking back from the golden gate bridge to presidio, you are more aware of the park land and less of the roads. and the viaduct will parallel the existing one and to the south and can be built while the existing one remains in operation. and the two bridges there with open space between them and your views constantly change and not aware of the traffic in the opposite direction and notice the views more. and the lanes of course are a foot wider than they are today. and they will be shoulders and if your car is disabled, you can pull off to the edge. and the next area, the tunnel portal will have a view centered on the palace of fine arts and as you come out, you

can see alkatrez island and bay. and the next area is about 1,000 feet long. and when you come into one, you can see through the other end. it's almost like driving through a building than through a tunnel. and noise from the roadway will be sheltered. and the traffic will be out of view. >> when you come out of the last sort tunnel and as you look forward, you see the golden dome of the palace of fine arts and what more perfect way to come to san francisco through that gateway. >> it will be an amazing transformation. now you read it as one section, the road is a major barrier and then a wonderful strip along the water.

all of those things are going to mesh together. >> right now the road really cuts off this area from public access. and with the new road, we will be able to open up the opportunity in a new way. >> this bunker that we see now is out of access for the general public. we are excited to completely rework this side and to open up the magnificent views. and what we want to do is add to this wonderful amenity and restore this coastal bluff area and respect its military history and the doyle drive project is allowing us to do that recorrection.

and this area is not splintered off. >> and we can see how dramatic a change it will be when doyle drive is suppressd and you have a cover that connects the cemetery to this project. it's historic on the statewide and national basis, but you could rush the project or put thought and time to create something of lasting public benefit. >> we really want this, for everyone to feel like it's a win situation. whether you are a neighbor that lives nearby or a commuter or user of the park. that everyone will experience a much better situation than they currently have. >> the human interest to me is how people could work out so many challenging differences to come to a design that we

believe will give us a jewel. landmark of a place. >> i am sure it will have refining effect like embark did. and there were people about that and no one would think of that today. and when you look at growth and transformation of the embark, the same with doyle. it will be a cherished part of the city and a worthy addition to what is there. >> it will be a safe and beautiful entrance to a spectacular beautiful city. it will be the entry to golden gate that san francisco deserves.

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 chu, this agrees to contribute seed money to the school project. this will accelerate pedestrian safety improvements on sunset boulevard. section 4.1.3. we've clarified the exception that is provided under the ellis act allowing rent control

be applied to new and construction replacement units. as i think all of you know, there was a case where an appellate court verified that in fact this exception is valid. in this case, the city of los angeles passed an ordinance, which we have in our rent ordinances, as well, clarifying that replacement units have to be built. section 4.3.1. we have clarified because this agreement is for a period of 30 years, we do not know if new technology will be serving the units. 20 years ago, i bet none of us would have considered internet would be a basic service. we've extended the scope for any new technology that may become standardized. this is a change to clarify the

date of initial occupancy for a relocating tenet. this is a tenet who has been an existing 10 to has moved to a new replacement younit. we want to clarify that we restart the clock for past wrongs, not rent. this is to ensure there's no pass throughs. 4.4.5. this is an added fail-safe measure to protect tenants who fail to replace notices. they are offered the opportunity to rank the units they would like an order preference. if a tenant failed to return the form, this clarification injures they still have the right to relocate to a replacement unit. they lose their right to grant

their preferences if they do not respond. section 4.5.3. this is related to the rights of new tenants that come into a building that has been vacated. just for clarification, the new tenants realize that they do not have relocation benefits. section 9.1 is an amendment to the section requiring the annual reporting requirements. it is a revision the city attorney suggested after the convenience of the planning department. the amendment essentially says there's been no activity at the construction site, that the planning director does not have to give a full report on the status of the development agreement. section 11.4 -- further clarifies the assignment under

the development agreement and how it would apply to transfer of land. the point is to clarify there's a 30-day notice to the city before any transfer of land under the development agreement occurs. whether or not to transfer involves obligations to the city, the city still has to be a signatory and therefore has a contractual privity with any future owner of any piece of land on the project site. finally, two substantial revisions were made to exhibit q and exhibit s. exhibit q, per the request of the sf puc power division, we met extensively almost every day last week and substantially amended that agreement to ease the administration clarity so that the sf power staff understood how they were to monitor and evaluate each some

middle under the applications. puc will also have the right to validate energy usage projections. if necessary, changes will be made to account for the puc's feedback. supervisor mar: puc does have to approve this, but we can still move forward and they can do that at a later time? >> thank you, supervisor. i consulted with charles sullivan. there are some additional changes that staff at puc power want to continue talking about. we intend to continue the dialogue with the city attorney, charles sullivan, to confirm that they could make them prior to the sf puc's approval and we plan to continue the dialogue. additional clarifications were made based on the feedback from

finance staff. specifically, the biggest changes are monitoring and implementation of how the credits and the subsidies would be received. we want to make it workable with the new cards. secondly, any remaining funds from the program that are not used for transit subsidy passes -- a change was made to make sure that they enhance the proposed plans on the project site, things like the low emission struggleshuttles and cr sharing. i'm available for specific questions, if you have them. supervisor mar: thank you. questions, colleagues? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. thank you very much, mr. yarne. >> thank you, colleagues. i want to thank all the members of the public who have been spending time and thinking about

the future about park merced. i had a chance to visit park merced. i want to thank the supporters and opponents of this project for educating me on this project. i think and i think many of us agree that park merced has the potential to be the kind of project that exemplifies 21st century san francisco. it's about smart growth, transit oriented development, building a huge number of new housing, creating a new school, shopping, restaurants, and open space. that said, as someone who is a tenant, i've been extremely concerned about the issues raised by tenants, especially around rent control. i spent a lot of time with a number of you understanding these issues. i want to see them addressed in this annulment agreement. to that