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 very internally-focused system with very large blocks, not particularly oriented to navigate around.

it is not within what we consider a walkable scale of development. the proposed project would realign some existing streets as well as add new streets, alleys, and pedestrian pathway is to reduce the size of the development to a more manageable scale that provides pedestrians more direct path of trouble, and creates a more legible block pattern while keeping the core elements of the original design, such as the circle at the center. all of these new streets and alleys are codified in this plan for development. there are specific parameters about where that are required to be and the public nature. that has all been very well worked through. in terms of the scale of development specifically, the western half of the site is essentially a four-story model

at the base, consistent with what we generally considered in residential neighborhoods around the city, a 45 foot scale. the eastern half is more of a six story scale. that decision was made to concentrate most of the bulk of the units on the eastern half, to ward where the transit infrastructure is. the existing powers, as you know, are going to remain. through the design process, the team decided to concentrate any new additional towers near the existing powers so as not to fundamentally alter the landscape and the view from surrounding hills and from the neighborhood in general. there are a series of slightly taller buildings that sort of rise up above the prevailing four 26 story four to six sto --

four to six story habitat. this will provide a little variety in the urban fabric. this is a monoculture, but there is a real texture, a sense of a neighborhood that filled up over time. on the western half, there are some slightly taller buildings at eight stories that are intended to mark important locations. they are open spaces and centers of activities that people navigate, as well as important intersections. on the eastern half, there are more buildings to add texture and density and infill he locations. these images give you a sense of what the variety and texture would look like overtime. on most of the western half of the site, you see buildings along narrow alleys, a 324

story character. -- a three to four story character. that maintains a fine-grained residential character, with predominantly low to mid rise scale. this is an image you might see from an interior courtyard. i will talk more about those in a minute. generally, lined by lower-rise buildings with some taller buildings punctuating the landscape that he vantage points. i mentioned the massing generally of the buildings and heights maintains existing view corridors. it is important to recognize there is significant typography on this site. it seems fairly flat, but there is substantial difference in the grade from 19th avenue down toward the west, toward lake merced boulevard.

as soon as you move up 19th avenue, the site drops about 30 feet almost instantaneously. what that means is that the taller buildings on the western side of the site barely rise above the level of 19th avenue. the prevailing height does not rise at all. it barely punctuates it. so the existing views from the surrounding hills, from residential neighborhoods from the east, will not be altered at all. there will not be viewed blockages, or anything of that nature. i mentioned that the bulk of the units is located on the eastern half of the site. we will hear a little bit more about the community realignments and transit investments. i would just like to point out that 50% of all the units are

located within a couple minutes walk of the proposed realigned streetcar line and other transit resources that are focused on the eastern portion of the site. the density diminishes in a slightly graduated way as you move toward the west. parking also follows this pattern. while this is not strictly an urban design issue, it is important to bring up in this context all the parking on the site -- chairperson mar: use of 50% of the housing units will be within walking distance of the public transit? supervisor elsbernd: just to be really specific, a five-minute walk within 8 light rail stop still hits the western edge. >> that is correct.

other transit rocking does permeate the neighborhood. all the parking will be underground, except for a couple of small above-ground locations on the eastern part of the site. almost all the residential parking will be underground, which is a major urban design advantage of the project. in terms of how the number of spaces are distributed, it is essentially the reverse of the housing units. to encourage transit usage, but still provide parking for those who want it, the project would be allowed, although not required, to provide one space per unit. most of those parking spaces would be built on the western half of the site. on the eastern half of the site, the overall parking issue would be approximately half a unit. it slowly graduates to the west. so if you live near 19th avenue, you would have access to a

parking space, but it might be a few blocks away in an underground structure. this meshes with the density and the transit goals of the project to make parking available but not design the whole project around maintaining parking immediately next to everyone's unit. there would be geographic distribution of the parking that underscores the bundling program, where all units would not be obligated to rent or buy a parking space. it would be more of a free- market approach. if you wanted to live near 19th avenue and wanted a parking space, you could pay more for a space located near where you lived. or if that choice was not your highest priority, you could pay less to have a space further on the west of the site. chairperson mar: there are about 2000 parking spaces over

at the west side. -- i mean on the east side. on the west side, there is more of a two to one ratio. >> that is the geographic distribution. it is overall a maximum of one space per unit. each individual development may not follow the exact ratio. we will make sure that overall the ratio does not exceed one to one. as you pointed out, 50% of the units are on the east side. it would not be possible to build a 50% of the parking on the east side. just in terms of how those parking ratios relate to other areas, if the commission is interested in this -- we sort of feel that it falls on the spectrum of where we have been

adopting various plan areas of the last several years. looked at it in comparison to the ocean avenue commercial transit district adopted as part of the balboa park station plan. the residential ratios are the same. the commercial ratios are slightly more aggressive. that are more transit-oriented than the hunters point area. the ratio falls within the spectrum. in terms of how the density compares with other neighborhoods in the city, the proposed density is about 59 units per acre. it falls within that middle tier of san francisco neighborhoods. it is half as dense as some of the densest neighborhoods in the city, but sort of comparable to the lower haight and other

middle-tier neighborhoods. taking a little bit closer look about the scale of the neighborhood and how it will be experienced once it is further built up, this is more than just about height and distribution of units. the team has taken a lot of care in drafting very specific design guidelines and standards in terms of how buildings will be articulated in used so that the buildings really feel like a residential neighborhood that has a vibrant character and the unique character we think of in terms of our best san francisco neighborhoods. there is a series of mandated building setbacks that are further articulated into a series of common landscaping setbacks and private transition zones where we would expect and

enforce standards and guidelines, a series of individual stoop and townhouse entrances on all of the streets, except where there are commercial units very specifically located. there will be a very rich ground floor experience throughout the neighborhood. this is something we have been trying to do and codify throughout a lot of the newly developing neighborhoods, this fine-grain prism of smaller increments and units in development. there is a variety throughout the site. there are some smaller setbacks. there are bigger setbacks depending on the street type. we feel we have achieved design intense through these guidelines. chairperson mar: what is the

dwelling units per acre for the hunters point project? >> we do not know about the project. there is other guidelines besides the town house and set back guidelines in the document that require other sensitive ground floor treatments to provide a proactive ground-floor engagement that encourages units to provide public outdoor space for the units and other articulations of the buildings. it is important to note -- if you take a look at the design standards and guidelines document, the back portion of the document is what we call the regulating plan. that has drawings of every block, down to the smallest dimension. it locates all these different

parcels and regulations as they lay out geographically on the different blocks. there are these sounds of different heights. there are pedestrian easements and pathways. there are open space parcels. there are setbacks. they are all detailed in great detail so that in the future when the developer or some developer goes to improve these blocks, there is no question about where the boundaries are for each block. the last point i wanted to make about the urban design was that we do have some taller buildings in the project. we have also taken a lot of care to craft guidelines for the taller buildings so that we have buildings that are going to be a little more sensitive and a little more interesting than the existing powers on site, that have smaller floor plates that arewe