supervisor elsbernd: mr. albert, would the other -- what the other piece to have 19th avenue study does is looks and kind of sets up the various mitigation measures in a tiered fashion. tier three, tier four, tier five. tier four is the extent to which we have -- maybe in my head the way i think of it, the total extent of all the mitigation measures proposed in this e.i.r. and what the city is planning to do. and then tier five is that last piece that is unfunded at the moment. is that a fair description? >> peter albert from m.t.a. what i would actually -- i'd like to reinforce that important description of what we've done with the analysis. the m.t.a., having the opportunity to look at the area of the project, if there were no development, helped us virbleize the potential minutes if we had to develop and had to provide the service as we do. i do want to emphasize how important the congestion is on the reeblet of our service. tiers one through four looked at what what would happen with successive layers of

president chiu: supervisor elsbernd . supervisor elsbernd: thank you. i've got a number of questions. let me start with what i imagine will be an easy one for you. but still i think an important point. i think the number is something a little over 200 cities in the state of california who are also subject to ceqa have granted the categorical exemption. for this project. not one of those cities has said an e.i.r. is necessary. i imagine what you're going to say generally in san -- is san francisco is unique but let me put the ball on the tee for you. tell me why san francisco, unlike any one of these 200-plus cities, needs to do an e.i.r. and why all of those cities who are also subject to ceqa are wrong. >> i don't know the evidence that was before. assuming 200 cities said fine, i don't know the evidence that was before those cities. yes, this is a uniquely beautiful urban location in areas, in many of the cities of california have more space, more urban -- excuse me, more rural areas, even within a city that they can place these, so they may have diff

supervisor elsbernd: thank you, mr. president. first let me start by thanking supervisor wiener for recognizing that the initial resolution he introduced didn't meet the mark and that we needed a couple more weeks. and i appreciate his efforts to begin to turn the dial just a little bit. that said, i don't believe the amendment he's offered does enough. and let me just articulate why. first and foremost, i think the resolution fails to recognize and fails to appreciate all of the voices involved in this issue. there are a number of advocacy groups, a number of individuals, a number of people who have spent years on this issue and the resolution, even with the potential amendment, frankly is completely one-sided towards one group of people who have participated in the issue. and it completely ignores the voices of many other folks. you know, without question there's the environmental issue. but there's also a group of people who we haven't heard from in this forum, but i've heard from. i hear from a group of people who consistently

supervisor wiener: i have to disagree with supervisor elsbernd's remarks. what was voted against was not a single sentence talking about that. it was a series of things, including eliminating our opposition to the current proposal and in terms of a number of other things as well. it is sort of like when you run a hit piece on a politician saying you voted for x when there were really 20,000 items in a big budget bill. i do not disagree -- excuse me, i do disagree with that characterization. supervisor avalos: i would agree with scott wiener. my vote was not against reality. >> in response when supervisor chiu starts opening the door and divides was appropriate and what is not. is he simply voted no amendment, -- what did you park at exactly what you agree a way you did not. supervisor chiu: any further discussion? colleagues, if we could take a roll call vote on the underlying resolution as amended. >> chu aye. cohen aye. elsbernd no. farrell aye. kim aye. mar aye. mirkarimi aye. wiener aye. avalos aye. campos aye. chiu aye. there are 10 ayes, one no. item

supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: thank you. if i can, ken, start with you. using case law as president to help us to understand what we are doing here -- using caseload as president -- case law as precedent. cities that are being asked to apply the exact same lot as we are today. the urban settings of california? >> sure. we have deployed these in every major city of california, and, in fact, we are now in the central valley, up in your rica, other areas -- up in eureka. there was deployment about three years ago, and we had issues before the board. we withdraw the application and continued to build in other cities. we have statewide ceqa laws, as you all know. most of the cities, over 260 cities, have not required any ceqa at all. as the total vacations kroatian, a utility. there are four or five cities that have required a ceqa review, and they have given us an exemption. supervisor elsbernd: you have not had to do an eir? >> we have not. supervisor elsbernd: thank you, ken. if you can complete your analysis? >> sure. in fact, i do not think i got to the c

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

i of that supervisor elsbernd -- i know that supervisor elsbernd has experience with transportation as well. we see a disproportionate number of the victims being children and seniors. your work will be very useful. if i can entertain a motion. i think without opposition, i would like to move this forward as a committee report. can you please call item no. 2? >> appointing supervisor scott winer to the met -- wiener to the metropolitan transportation commission. supervisor kim: the mayor has appointed a supervisor helen wiener. any amendments we would like to entertain? ok, i think we can move that ford without opposition. we will open it up for public comment. >> we are very pleased to endorse a supervisor campos. now more than ever, it is essential that san francisco has a very strong voice advocating for san francisco's interests. we're very pleased with the developments here. to have him on the board will serve us very well. it is essential. there is a transportation plan that is beginning to be formed. that promises to make this region a leader in the state and in the nation under

supervisor chiu: supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: someone who has been in it for a long time, i know that they fight really hard, and that is a compliment. they are very, very passionate about their neighborhood and they are parts of this district. are you saying that if there was that kind of significant opposition in a particular neighborhood or a particular block that at&t under no circumstance would say, "we are going to go forward anyway, because we have to have the service around here? >> that is something in a neighborhood would have to take into consideration. my boss will add to this. >> scott, you are right, yes. but also understand that each of these cabinets controls over 400 poems, so you as an elected official would have to help us make a decision. if they have a vocal group, do they truly represent the interests of 400 homes in your neighborhood? as i said, not one week has gone by when somebody says, "when is this coming to san francisco? they want the service. they have this competing interest. t

supervisor elsbernd: present. supervisor farrell: present. supervisor kim: present. supervisor mar: present. supervisor mirkarimi: present. supervisor wiener: present. >> all members are present. president chiu: can you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? [pledge of allegiance] colleagues, you should have copies of the march 1, 2011 board meeting minutes. can i have a motion to approve? motion by supervisor mar. seconded by supervisor avalos. any communications? can we go to the consent agenda? >> these items will be acted upon by a single roll call vote unless the members request discussion. president chiu: would anyone like to sever any of these items? roll call vote on items 1-3. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. >> there rare 11 aye's. president chiu: item 4. >> ordnance appropriated $1.3 million for the ethics commission public electio

supervisor chiu: supervisor elsbernd . supervisor elsbernd: this resolution endorses the support. it does not in its self imposed or create the recommendation -- impose or create your recommendation. it needs to be evaluated by state and federal agencies, and if those recommendations are implemented, they will have to come back here to be implemented. one example would be the creation of an ombudsman at the airport. we would have to validated through the budget process. as a way of validating the work that has begun, i am happy to support it, but to be clear, the work is not done. as supervisor mirkarimi says, there is much work to be done. supervisor chiu: thank you. i would like to be added as a co-sponsor. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. i vote -- a very much to appreciate how this does happen. it is really good to read this report. i am looking forward to the follow-up in terms of the findings. i am very interested in learning about the accuracy of the request for authorized investigations that happened out of the pgo audits. i had a lot of questions. i will follow

supervisor elsbernd: thank you. supervisor mar: any other questions? let's open this for public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to speak? public comment is closed. move forward without objection. thank you. please call the next item. >> item #5,preliminary fiscal year 2011/12 annual budget and work program. this is an information item. supervisor mar: i think that we have missed phong again. >> yes. i have a short power point slide for you, i can walk you through the different components. and you will get a second look at the budget next month. we will have the opportunity to review the budget with a full month's meeting, seeing this committee in may. the board will also have the opportunity. so, if with the start on the power point. -- so, we will start on the power point. the annual budget includes projection of sales tax revenue, federal, state, and regional graph revenues, investment income, administration costs, and financing dead purposes. the budget package includes four components. page 32 starts the fiscal year 2011-

supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: to the president, supervisor campos or to the city attorney's office. the two cases you referred to, did those analyze the density bonus exemption in costa hawkins or did those analyze the waiver exemption in costa hawkins? and with the legislation that will be in front of us, the development agreement, is that the waiver or is it the density bonus exemption? supervisor campos: i don't know the extent to which we can discuss this, but the problem, supervisor elsbernd is that there is no case that specifically addresses the issue before us where density bonus actually satisfies the exemption this is -- which the issue here which is there is no case that specifically addresses, how do you know what you're doing is in fact enforceable? supervisor elsbernd: when you said you wanted to put on the record these cases are the precedent, i wanted to be very clear, they're not the precedent because there is no precedent on this issue. and i think we agree on that point, the

elsbernd, aye. 9 ayes and two nos. >> the amendment passes. supervisor mar? supervisor mar: thank you, president campos. i disagree with president chu's statement this is fiscally responsible. this fosters the believe that the non-residency's do not pay for themselves. the rejection shows that for the future revenue, this is a 52% increase that is highly optimistic. i love how this is open to everyone, not just of the residents but also, this should be free to the non-residence as well. when the board of supervisors passed legislation allowing this last year, i was up -- i was in opposition to that. they approved a city-wide tax increase in november, when the real-estate trust was raised. the non residency, is a slippery slope towards privatisation. and keeping this freak -- to educate me on the process. i am a member of the botanical garden society. i support mr. mackenzie and the staff, and the workers there but this non-resident fee is unwise. you only have to look at parks and recreation -- there was an editorial that said that the botanical garden fee sh

this is an item called by supervisor sean elsbernd. from the office of economic and work force development, we have michael yarney. we have several folks from the planning department as well. whenever you are ready. >> great. commissioners of the land use committee, mayor's office of economic and work-force development. i am going to introduce a member of the planning department who will lead of the presentation today. i will pick it up after joshed as the general introduction. thank you. -- after josh does the general introduction. thank you. >> today's -- ken i speak in this microphone? >> i think so. yes. >> sorry about that. for today's presentation, i am going to start by giving an overview of the parkmerced project, so you have a general way of the land in terms of what is proposed. then michael will get back up and discuss the development agreement, the economic and fiscal benefits, phasing, and housing and rent control issues. just to remind you of the general hearing schedule, today we have the first informational hearing. tom

supervisor elsbernd: just one more. you talked about all this were. your ability, your financial ability to find that development agreement, precluding yourselves from passing through the cost, possibly, you are able to do that largely because of the increased growth and development and density and dollars that went to your bottom line. i do not want to put you on the spot of saying what would happen, but presumably, this work needs to get done one way or the other. >> that is correct. at some point, the work does need to get done, and the question is how and what is the best way to do this without really passing those costs onto residents. we recognize that. we have developed this plan with that in mind in a lot of ways. it is not intended to be anything but a fixed and a solution and it will not protect the long-term viability of the community and neighborhood itself. supervisor mar: thank you. is that the end of the presentation? thank you so much for the great presentation. colleagues, if there are no other questions, let's open this up for public

supervisor elsbernd: fair enough. but i do not think that answers the question of whether captive orca exemption applies. it applies or does not apply regardless of whether it can go to private property. president chiu: i think we might have a difference of opinion. are there members of the public who can speak to that? if you can please step up to the microphone. >> i worked as an architect and am familiar with land use issues. there are a number of locations were fences and yards across the public right of way. there are side streets where blocks turn and people have a side yard and sent directly abutting the sidewalk. that happens all over this city. it would be a simple matter for at&t or another utility to sign an agreement with the property owner to move the band back three or 4 feet, create and build job -- create a little jog, and have their equipment accessible. that is one example of how these can be placed on private property throughout the city. president chiu: we have a lot of speaker kurds but i know a l

we're here with supervisor elsbernd from district 7. supervisor elsbernd was appointed to the board in august of 2004 and elected to his seat in november of that year. he is in the middle of his second term. we will get to know him and learn about the toughest issues facing the city. welcome. tell us about your background. >> i was born and raised in district 7. i went to st. cecilia's grammar school. i went to a small school in los angeles and came back here to teach law school. -- went to lost cool. i went to work here immediately after passing the bar on the first try. i worked at city hall for a few years. then lightning struck and was appointed as a member of the board of supervisors in august of 2004. i have been here ever since. the choice to live in san francisco was made for my family about five generations ago. we have been here a very long time. i could never imagine leaving. this is home. this is where i am raising my son and hope that he raises his children. >> what motivated you to get into politics? >> i attribute a lot o

supervisor elsbernd: i wanted to follow up on one of the points. tens of thousands of these boxes are out there. i think with the clearly illustrates is the notion that there are unusual circumstances that should negate this categorical exemption. that answer was that of the water. tens of thousands does not strike me as unusual. all we have got left is cumulative impact. just to follow up a little bit on the outline, you also have the notion that 726 might not be right, but let's do reverse logic. if we are going to say that 726 necessitated, what about 300? you can't have it both ways. that is why it is absolutely inappropriate to follow the guidance given to us by planning. the project description as it is, the hypothetical was that you will fall about a rabbit hole. you're going to screw yourselves up. let's focus on the project in front of us. if we want to look at the other parts and whether or not the cumulative impact is there is fine. that will lead is the path we don't want to go. [applause] supervisor cohen: >> i understand that the cabi