legislation will also make the tdr market transparent. it will amend the requirements for the buildings designated as contributary buildings on the level of the planning code of an inventory buildings eligible for tdr's, buildings where tdr's have been completed and where tdr's were completed within the year. this will allow sponsors eligible for tdr's as well as policy makers and preservationist who maintain the balance of the tdr's in the local area and revitalize market areas from transfer to that district to

other districts with the pros reinvested. the ordinance also makes correction of the timing of this requirement which is codified in another ordinance that a preservation and maintenance plan for buildings preserved under the tdr program when tdr's are sold. i want to take a moment to thank my aid who has been working on this packet on the zoning ordinances and i want to thank livable city for their efforts in this regard. the commission unanimously supported this change to the tdr market would like to invite the planning staff to say a few words about this measure. >> thank you. earn star from the planning department star.

as supervisor chiu state, the planning commission voed unanimously as regarding a piece of legislation introduced by supervisor chiu, this is under phase one to approve phase one on march 1st, 2012, each pc also heard this piece of legislation on january 18, 2012 and also voted unanimously to prove this legislation. we have our assistant administrator here, dan cider. if you have any specific questions about the tdr program, that concludes my remarks. >> our office wasn't offered a briefing on this legislation. would it be helpful if you can go through the history and also through the c 3 area with a

plan. i tried to follow this legislation. it would be helpful to get a visual of the different 3c areas and what is currently on going because i understand the initial objective of, the original restriction which only allowed tdr's within the same district was done to ensure the development wasn't concentrated where everything was going into one area. i'm hoping you can crazy why that's no longer a concern? but it would le helpful to get a visual and an understanding of the history. >> sure. supervisors thank you for the opportunity. dan cider with the department staff. supervisor kim, your question is very on point and forgive me while i struggle to answer, the most with how it led today with

respect to tdr, if we can have the overhead. the screen above you right now is a map of the version of the targeting of the tdr. first i will explain how it functions essentially tdr is based onto the intentional gap between the an allowable height and bulk of a given property and an allowable far. when the 95 downtown plan was put into law, the thinking on the part of the board and the mayor, he is what we would like to have built however we are going

allow this certain amount to be constructed. and using that credit that was proposed to be built. there are controls in the planning code right now that help channel i was that and that was on the slide. the areas are where the planning codes controls favor tdr transfers if you will. every district permits the transfer of tdr within that district. in addition to that, there are transfers incentivised to other districts. the red area is mostly the sd for special development districts where it's channeled. and by way of

evidencing the very complex behind that, about a year ago to show you the chart perhaps to give you the insight as to complexity of this on the right hand corner of the screen you can see the series of lines. this deals with from the district that tdr's can get -- generate and that's where the downtown plan development should go. >> until that area is selected is that because of the district plan or the transbay terminal. it looks like it's howard to folsom? >> it looks like it's howard street is where you focus the development to happen. >> for the most part, it's the general area. forgive me, i'm not qualified to speak. it's

part of the 1982 work. this effort predates the thinking that we have gone through in the last couple of years on that and maybe 1 kind of phenol thought to wrap up the summary if we can get the overhead again for just a second and forgive me for skipping around. i do not want to waste your time. when the tdr program was first put into law in the mid 80s it has about 24,000 square foot, all of those lots, developers have come in and required those tdr's and today we are down to half of that. there are still tdr's out there but the fluidity in the market really has begun to dry up.

this legislation would help free that up and help to allow that red area in the market to be directed more equitably. >> there are some challenges for those that want to develop their area plans that have been unable to because there is a grid lock. that's what i read, right? m materials of what was allowable to their area plan. that's something that you have been hearing. how do you track that. i'm curious about the need? >> of course, there are questions are on point. we track every tdr transition -- transaction in the city or

everything in between. the both first person and secondary transfers between intermediate portions of tdr we make a record of it. first of all what was the result of that market constrain and the economy. the difficult task. it does come to a bit of anecdotal finding. what we are being told from the development community, what we are hearing from the preservation communities and those that have td r are less able to control in the marketplace. some of our older buildings downtown and our experiences and findings what we have been told is getting

consensus to the families is an impediment for the tdr market. >> if the challenge has been more the ownership as maybe their inability for the trust to come into agreement or the property owner may not have the capacity in order to engage in this type of transaction, then this change in legislation which would allow tdr's to transfer freely wouldn't necessarily help those owners that are having these challenges. it's not going help family trust come to a unanimous decision. this doesn't address that issue. >> know. it wouldn't address that issue but we think what would come into the equation is help ungum, the properties that do mr. president to be tdr and couldn't participate and for the south of market. >> do you have a sense of where

these tdr's are stuck in their area plan? >> would they be able to sell >> we can show you a map that list all the properties that are able to participate in the market but haven't yet come to be certified. this is based on the assumptions that we have made and a very slow computer. forgive me. >> okay. the map on your screen now shows buildings in the cr that are certified to participate. the darker green colors with the higher amount

of tdr, the lighter green with the lesser amount. i should say the properties in the far left hand side of the screen, the civic center on public buildings should be taken with a grain of salt. they would have to be a legislative under taken here. some of them certainly not all of them but we believe there is potential there. >> okay. i want to acknowledge the work that president chiu has been done on this. i think it would have been helpful to get that information. this isn't going to be forwarded as a committee record, is it? i have a lot of questions and i think i want to under this legislation. i think my main concern is the, it's preventing the concentration of development in the areament i want to ensure this is not going to impact that, the

equitable development . we want to make sure that is allocated evenly as possible. this is not in one part of the city and not another and the infrastructure to be able to absorb that density. thank you. >> did you have anything else? >> i want to mention that i have a number of clean up amendments if i can quickly go through them on page 4, line 16, the phrase historic preservation, page 26, 11-16. lines 20-21, page 19, adding

the word historic preservation. i ask that it be included at this time. but at the moment we can go to public comment. >> is there any member of the public who would like to make a public comment. come forward. >> do we have 3. why don't we do 3 minutes for public comment. >> [singing] you have transfer

personality. [singing]. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon supervisors, executive director of livable city. we did work on this ordinance and we are here to encourage to you support it. we think the tdr scheme has been effective especially with the ordinance changes of last year. in terms of challenge money and in essence taking money from businesses downtown and channeling that money back to history buildings in the city that has some real challenges in their rehabilitation. we are hoping that this particular piece will do two things, one is like mid market where there

is a lot of resources but they are going unrented. if you walk down our strip of market street where offices are you see a lot of buildings where they have not be rehabd and unoccupied right now. for example the trans-bay area which was recently -- as you saw a lot of the areas of the c 3, may -- may i mason street and many buildings will also benefit. the other thing this will do is for the first time in the history of this development is great transparency, where it was never totally transparent. that has allowed a few things

to happen. a few brokers who were able to corner this market and where they are able to charge large fees and people who owned historic buildings and the brokers would take this flesh. we think this will help to correct that and also the transparent -- that we create. the transbay that did support did make changes about what districts can contribute. i think it's up to larger streets. as we make changes like that now we'll be able to better understand the impact of those changes because of these annual reporting requirements. we urge you to support this and thank you for your time today. >> thank you, mr. buler?

>> good afternoon, members of committee, mike buler, san francisco heritage. we reviewed this back in 2011. we held our report because of lack of transparency right now and we thank you for providing the tracking requirements and others recommended measures to adjust along the way. we urge your support of the legislation subject to the technical amendments introduced today that provide a clear role for the historic preservation. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hi. my name is michael nolte. i'm the executive for

lines for better district 6. our organization is in support of transparent and also legislation. it's helpful to have a way to development for the more done in a way that actually helps everybody. and it's too bad there aren't more people here from district 6 to address this and i also want to point out that when i attend a hearing like this and one item is given 3 minutes and another for 2 minutes for public comment. is it the discretion of the chair or should all be equal. so i just want to make that point too that i think all items should be given the exact amount of time and not one item gets 3 minutes and the other

item gets 2. i don't think that's fair. any further comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor kim? >> i want to thank again the members of the public for their feedback on this particularly the heritage architectural work. what i would first like to do is move the technical amendments and make a motion to that effect? >> okay. this is a motion to adopt the amendments. can we do that without orange -- objection. >> i would like to ask supervisor kim if there is enough time for to you get that briefing and to ask questions. i do think and believe that this is a measure that will

relieve development pressures. i want to make sure there is enough time to do that. >> i feel comfortable just on face to move this without recommendation given the full support from the planning commission. i think my concern is a little bit different. we have a lot of development right now in the downtown area and i'm concerned about not measuring that development better without us having adequate resources to ensure the infrastructure that is in place but also making sure the development is not concentrated in the south of market but development is throughout the city. i want to make sure one part of the city is not being burdened with all the of the development. i want to gather the legislation and it's hard to tease that out without a full briefing. but i'm looking forward to this meeting and

happy to send it forward with recommendation but just so you under what my concerns are. >> i will just make that motion that we move it out with recommendation. >> okay. can we take that motion without objection? >> is there any further business for the committee? >> no, there is -- are no other matters. >> then we are adjourned,

>> [gavel] good morning everyone and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance sub-committee meeting for april 3, 2013. my name is mark farrell. i am the chair of this committee. i am joined by supervisor john avalos and will be joined by eric mar mar. i want to thank the members of sfgtv for today and the clerk of the committee mr. victor young. mr. clerk, do we have any

announcements? >> yes. please silent all electronic devices. speaker cards and any documents should be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. they will appear on the board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much mr. clerk. can you please call item one. >> item one is amending the administrative code and establishing san francisco city hall preservation fund for proposing the 100th anniversary including outreach activities, preservation, repair and improvements and similar post anniversary endeavors. >> thank you very much. i introduced this and i know we have bill barns from the city administrator's office. >> bill barns from the city administrator office. i am joined by rob rider from the city manager and allen who runs

our program. about a hundred years ago this friday construction began on the new city hall post the earthquake and that was completed in december 1915. to commemorate the activities we wanted to have programs and educational tours, lectures, that sort of thing in city hall so the public can learn about the building and second to raise more money somewhere within one and $3 million for capital needs in the building and energy efficiency in lighting and stabilizing the dome and that sort of thing and this would allow us to ask individuals and nonprofits and others to contribute to this effort. we would report on the board both on the sources who is donating and the recommendations of the uses and the fund would sunset again with a recommendation in 2016 so we have no objections

to the budget analyst's recommendations and mr. ryder and ms. smiewmer are here if there are questions on the types activities we are will be engaged in. >> thank you very much. any questions? at this point we would like to go to the budget analyst report. >> mr. chairman, supervisor avalos as was indicated the city anticipating the fundraising will result about 1 million to $3 million for the city hall centennial and for the expenditure of any goods or cash above this and waves this requirement. we also note on page six of our report that the proposed ordinance does not

include the reporting of the city hall expenditures. it requires the reporting of the contributions but not of the expenditures that the contributions would result in and finally there is no sunset date in establishing this special fund, so our recommendations are the bottom on page 16 that we recommend that you recommend the proposed ordinance to recommend board of supervisors approval by resolution and accept gifts exceeding $100,000 and we made that amount based on the fact that the board of supervisors and the expenditure -- acceptance of expenditure of grants is $100,000 so that's the basis of our $100,000. we also recommend that you include and require expenditure reporting in the february first annual report to the board of supervisors and we recommend that you include a sunset date of june 30, 2016 and our recommendation is to approve this legislation as amended.

>> okay. thank you very much. any questions? okay. seeing none i would like to open it up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment on item one? okay. seeing none public comment is closed. again i want to thank mr. barns being here and the others as well and for the budget analyst report. i would like to make a motion to accept the amendments. we can do that without opposition and approve this ordinance as amended and we can do that without opposition. mr. clerk will you call item two. >> item two is authorization for the department of the environment to accept a grant in the amount of $6,500,000 from the california department of. >> >> >> and we have.

>> >> >> beof the environment we are here to seek your approval of this resolution which would provide the department with $229,000 from the california department of resources in recycleel for the program and the primary objectives are to make easy and convenient free used motor oil recycling in san francisco and mostly for do it yourselfers and abandoned filters and used oil on the streets and work creatively with collection sites. i have my colleague here to talk about the outreach. it is a program that this department has