it was incredibly exciting. it is satisfying to know that through the campaign, we are reaching a broader audience. >> for more information about

chairperson mar: good afternoon everyone. this is the regular meeting of the land use and economic development committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. to my right is the vice chair of

the committee and to my right is supervisor scott wiener. >> please make sure to turn off all cellular phones and pagers. speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. items of the appointed day will appear on the income -- and the april 26 agenda unless otherwise stated. >> i would like to think the staff from sfgtv for televising this meeting. >> resolution authorizing the department of the environment to retroactively extend a grant to support greenfinancesf. chairperson mar: before i ask if johanna parton is here, let me say that we have five items on the agenda, but item four is

on the treasure island/yerba buena development. we will move to continue that to next week. but we will still allow public testimony on that item. let me continue with item one. from the department of the environment, we have staff from the department of the environment. >> good afternoon, supervisors. which -- rich chen. i and the chair person for the greenfinancesf program. this is an iteration of american recovery and reinvestment act funding, released initially through the stimulus. that was supposed to go to the state energy program administered by the california energy commission to support residential green finance programs in california. as you are probably aware, we

ran into major roadblocks. we are now in line to receive some grant funding through every appropriation of those grant funds to the california energy commission to do a commercial financing program in san francisco. this grant will basically provide reserve funding for the investments that will be brought to support these projects. chairperson mar: it is an award of up to $2 million, but how much will that help us? >> the original grant we were supposed to receive for the residential program was just over $2 million. what we are currently looking at is a much smaller amount, $372,000, which could possibly be leveraged 10-1. -- tan -- ten to one, for $8

million of financing. because this would most of the larger commercial buildings, it is anyone's guess. it could be anywhere from 10 to 20 projects that get funded to this program under the pilot. chairperson mar: colleagues, any questions? let us open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we move this forward with a positive recommendation? thank you. can you please call item 2 below? >> ordinance amending the public works code declaring illegal dumping on public property a nuisance and providing a mechanism for abating and enforcing. supervisor cohen: this ordinance will provide another tool to the

city in the ongoing fight against illegal dumping in san francisco. this legislation clearly defines illegal dumping on public property as a nuisance and places a prohibition on harmful activities in the public-works code. this definition specifically includes debris and waste construction materials left in the public right-of-way. this will facilitate potential future litigation against violators. i am very happy to be working with dpw as well as the city attorney's office on the implementation and execution of this ordinance. we have a quick staff presentation by max, and who is from the district attorney to office. >> good afternoon. thank you for allowing me to

speak briefly. we learned about this ordinance or this proposal today. we do want to be part of the solution. i was here before on the 14th to discuss how we can work together to prevent dumping in the bay view and other parts of the city, to make sure this is not simply the cost to business, but that there are criminal penalties and to punish wrongdoers and deter future conduct. we welcome any additional tools the city would have to prevent this kind of environmental crime. as part of the process, we want to if possible have an opportunity to investigate this further, to study the proposal to see if there are any potential tools that would

assist the district attorney of office and the city in prosecuting. instead of addressing it piecemeal -- i understand this is already in process -- that we have an opportunity to weigh in and potentially success additional provisions to this ordinance. it is very important. we have another meeting on friday to address this. i just want to let you all know that we are here. we take this very seriously. we will prosecute these cases to the full extent of the law. we want to also be part of the discussion to enhance our tools to do that. supervisor cohen: perfect. thank you.

welcome to the team. chairperson mar: are there any other questions? it sounds like it is 100 pounds more of industrial and with construction materials. department of public works is the man department that will take action, in addition to the district attorney's office. but as open as for public comment. is there anyone from the public would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward with a positive recommendation? thank you. can you call item three? >> ordnance amending the public works code regarding posting of signs on city proper -- on city property. >> good afternoon, committee members. i am here representing supervisor mirkarimi, who could

not make it today. we are introducing this legislation at the request of dpw. it is intended to resolve an issue that came up in litigation about unlawful posting of signs on some property. a representative of dpw, cheryl atoms -- adams, is here to answer any questions you may have. chairperson mar: colleagues, any questions? seeing none, let us open this up for public comment? this is a quick meeting. seeing none, public comment is closed.

>> item four, informational hearing on the treasure island/yerba buena redevelopment project. chairperson mar: at the urging of the mayor's office, i will make the motion we will continue this to next meeting, april 25. are there any objections to that? let me open this for public comment before we take action on it. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. continue this item until april 25, without objection. would you call our last item, a hearing on the parkmerced project? thank you. i think we have from planning -- the planning department. >> the office of economic and workforce development is actually going to be beginning this presentation. the are coming right over with

the presentation, so we do not have it loaded for you. if we can possibly take a short recess, that would help with set up? chairperson mar: let a sticky several minute recess. about a five -- let us take a several minute recess. actually, good timing, mr. yearney. thank you. we are joined by the sponsor of the hearing, supervisor sean elsbernd, as well.

while mr. yearney is setting up the timeline for the different items coming before us, i would like to think supervisor -- thank supervisor elsbernd for working with us on this. i hope that on tuesday, april 19, the board of supervisors will be meeting in closed session with the -- on april 26, we will be meeting with the city attorney to discuss the project and the rent control provision. the land is committee will have another hearing and potential action on four ordinance's introduced by the planning department. monday, may 23, another land use committee meeting, there may be another option of hearing. by tuesday, may 24, the board of supervisors will have our

comment -- our hearing on the draft the guy are -- draft eir. that is the process, moving forward. today, we have a specific focus on urban space, transportation, and sustainability. >> thank you, chairperson mar, and good afternoon, board members. we have an ambitious presentation. we have about 100 slides. we will move as quickly as we can. we want to download as much information as we can in an efficient manner. we have five topics we will touch on. hard copies are being produced as i speak, and color paper copies will be distributed to all four of you. with our limited budget, our

copier is slow. supervisor cohen: i understand. i am just curious. how is this presentation different than the ones we have heard in the past? >> we are covering a range of topics we were not able to discuss previously. chairperson mar: i appreciate the transparency. you have been really informative. >> specifically, we were not able to get into the urban design of the open spaces. we want a briefing on some of the sustainability features. we want to really focus on transportation. i think the focus will be on the transportation. supervisor elsbernd: i hope this will be similar to the presentations on the planning department website, which has all the documents so that if anyone from the public wants to see these they are on the web. >> that is correct. thank you for the reminder, supervisor. we will make sure this presentation will be posted as well.

i would like to remind all the members of the board that every document, every draft, and all ceqa documents -- there is one website portal on the planning website where you can access all the information. originally, our plan was the project sponsor would be here to talk about conditions at the site, a little bit about the history of the site, which i think it's valuable to understand the context of the current project. in lieu of the project sponsor being here, i think we were all surprised by the speed of the calendar item, so i will apologize. he should be here soon. if he needs to elaborate further on that, we can do that. i think the most important point is parkmerced was built over a decade from 1941 to 1951. a lot has been said in public hearings about the age of the

project and the need for substantial improvements. these compartments, particularly the garden apartments, are ending the -- are nearing the end of their life cycle. if you looked here, there is an interesting photo from the late 1940's. you can see the towers are under construction. you can also see from this photo that all of the garden apartments were completed and built out. in other words, the garden apartments were built first. and they were built during wartime material shortages. when we all speak about the age of the project, we do not mean simply the product is old. we mean it was built during a time when construction standards were not come arguably, the best, because the country was suffering from significant material and labor shortages. one of the important things for all of you to remember is that it is not just that this project is old.

it is that the garden apartments the project proposes to replace our relief near the end of their life cycle. this is not comparable to a victorian-built turn-of-the- century old-growth redwood. these were built during were shortages with some of the cheapest materials available. supervisor elsbernd: just to put it in perspective, i am doing this map in my head. the garden apartments were built in 1941 through 1946. the project in front of us is a 30-year project. when the product is done, it will be 100 years. >> it is fair to say that the dna -- that the d.a. contemplates that it will take 30 years, so 100 years is correct. this as a photo demonstrates the towers were built last.

they were built of concrete and steel. as a result, they are a little bit more durable than the low- rise structures. as you know, the project does not propose demolishing or replacing the tower apartments. it is also important to note that there is a long history of change in ownership. metropolitan life, which developed the site, held the site until 1970. leona helmsley of the site for 20 years. then its switched ownership again to allow big view, and finally to the current investors in 2005. during that time, pieces of the original site were sold off. the original site was 192 acres. you can see from this map that our northern neighbor, san francisco state university, has acquired several of the parcels

on the north side of the project site, a piece of the storefront retail was sold off, and a portion of developed greenbelt in the south was also sold off. i think the important point here is that what was once a cohesive whole is incrementally being piecemeal sold to other investors. a think one of the great opportunities we have as a city before the site further deteriorates into different ownerships is an opportunity to do master planning like this. chairperson mar: is that triangular space the site that used to be the school of the arts? >> that was originally built as retail and is retail today. supervisor elsbernd: bring the sled back up. the school of the arts site -- can we have the slide, please? chairperson mar: it is the sfsu

corner? >> it is one of the purple sites. i cannot identify which one right now. i think it is the furthest north, that tiny triangle. but retail peace has always been retail. -- that retail piece has always been retail. i believe the owner has been involved in the hearings. the planning department has made modifications to the plan to improve access to their retail. supervisor elsbernd: if i could interject, one of the district- centric issues, problems, and challenges i have had representing this area -- the parceling out -- about three or four years ago, there was a proposal for the red area. about six years ago, there was a proposal for the yellow one. just to articulate the point i

think michael is trying to raise, we have lost the ability to incorporate and master plan those properties along with everything else. >> i think if i was to ask to focus on any of those parcels, i would focus on the blue-purple parcels. those are now owned by a state entity. effectively, on those parcels, the city no longer has zoning or land-use control. furthermore, the rent ordinance no longer applies. to be direct, rent-controlled no longer exists in those parcels. s.f. state has honored a non- binding agreement to protect all of the existing tenants in those units when it acquired those units. i want to emphasize s.f. state has been a good partner.

but s.f. state does not need to follow any of our rent ordinances or our local zoning controls. our concern is if over time the growth plan -- additional parcels. in that circumstance, the city would have effectively no say in those parcels and the protection of rent control. the way we have designed the development agreement would actually impose contractual obligations that run with the land in the form of nsr's. that would require replacement units and rent control for a transfer to take place. that would help protect against the further encroachment and loss of property, even if a sale occurred. there are a lot of details were going into, but i think it is really important.

the first slide showed said existing conditions and opportunity costs. i think the point to emphasize is the cost of doing nothing is potentially significant. supervisor elsbernd: if i could throw out one other piece -- on the san francisco state parcells, the have also purchased all the rental property just to the north, on 19th avenue. there is a very simple issue with that in terms of numbers. the city has lost all property tax as a result. san francisco state is not paying any property tax. the previous owners, we have lost revenue. chairperson mar: those are those housing units behind nordstrom? supervisor elsbernd: that is now all owned by san francisco state. they made the same promise mike has made to all those tenants, but there is nothing binding them.

>> i am going to move to the next few slides until the project sponsor is able to elaborate. and i think we might want to move on to the presentation about the design of open space and sustainability. i will step in at various moments. thank you. >> i am from planning department's staff. i am going to take you through some of the design highlights of the proposal aspect we have not and able to touch on in previous presentations. feel free to stop me if i am going to fast. one of the major opportunities created by this project is to reconsider the block pattern, the existing street pattern at parkmerced. it is a