item number 24 amendment no. 1 to the 20102012 transport union workers of america local 200. item number 21 to adopt the first amendment to the 2010-2012 ford of transport -- the non mass transit authority -- an item number 22, adopting the amendment no. 1 to the 2010-2012 for the transport workers union of america, local 228. adopting an and the no. 5 to the 2006-2012 unit 8 -- and adopting an and the no. 5 to the

2006-2012 for unit 1188, 324. no. 25, for a minute -- 24 -- >> this is item two-five, 7-24. we will turn this over. >> good morning. does so from the department of human resources. these are all the amendments with the alternative health savings agreement, to the provision that we had negotiated in the spring of 2010. when we bargained with the various groups at the public employee labor council, we

agreed that we would seek certain health care savings starting in fiscal year 2012. we have the city only paying up to the second-highest for the employee only coverage, and the parties complicated up -- commented that we could come up with an alternate, and often it would be health care savings with the premium health care pick up. >> thank you very much. do we have any questions? we will open this up to public comment. is there any member of the public would wish to speak on these items. the public comment is closed. we have several items before us and supervisor -- >> we have a motion and we will take this without objection.

these items will be afforded to the board with the possible recommendations. can you call in number six? >> item #6, the ordinance adopted an amendment no. 3 to the 2007 -- for the international union -- fire rescue paramedics. this is an amendment affecting the dental provision as well, but there is also the addition of the wellness program. there are well on this program changes. the parties bargain with the contracts, and we said there be certain limitations for the fire rescue paramedics. this was not included in the original files, so we would like the document to reflect the

original intentions. >> thank you very much. is there any member of the public would like to speak? public, is closed. we have a motion to approve. we take this without objection. >> thank you very much. can you call in 25. >> this is for amendment no. 3 to the 2006 -- this is for the district attorney in -- investigators association. >> this amendment is a little bit different -- last year they agreed to extend the contract for one year, so when we reopen the contract, they added an additional year -- >> great. are there any questions?

let's open this up to public comment. and is there any member of the public wishes to speak on this item. public comment is closed and we have a motion to move this forward with a positive recommendation. can we take this without objection? can you call in number 26? >> this is for compensation those -- for those not represented by an organization to establish a method of payment affective july 4, 2011. >> this is the annual ordnance that is filed for the employees who are not represented by labor organizations in the city, including the majority of the mayor's staff. everyone will be subject to paying their own employees retirement contributions, and in return they will get a wage

increase, and all employees subject under the ordinance will have the city's health-care contributions. >> thank you. i see no questions so we will openness to public comment. and is there any member of the public would wish to speak on this item? i see mr. paulson. >> good morning. i just would like to let you know that they work hard for the money. ♪ hard for the money so you better pay them right they work so hard very very hard they wroork hard for the compensated funds

so give them all you can today ♪ >> thank you, mr. paulsen. is there anyone else? public comment is closed. we have a motion by supervisor farrell. we go forward with the positive recommendation. thank you to the staff for the good work and the work that went into the bargaining units. can you call item 27? >> ordinance amending the code for the health care ordinance. >> an item i introduced. iwant to thank avalos, mirkarimi, chu, chiu, and kim for the co-sponsorship.

i would like to continue this t to the call of the chair. let me open it to public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on the health and security ordnance. up. i hope you had a good day. >> i put most of it back. and i just wan ttt to say. ♪ smile a healthy smile for me. won't you do that, please i hope that you smile so glad and i know you'll have healthy smiles won't be sad. smile a healthy smile for me

won't you please today ♪ >> thank you. mr. paulsen. and one thing we forgot during the america's cup. there may be a need for a singer for that project. is there another member who wants to speak? public, disclosed in we have a motion to continue to the call of the chair. do we have any other business before the committee. >> there are no other items. >> thank you for the attention. the meeting is adjourned. have a good day.

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

supervisor mar: good afternoon, everyone. this is the regular meeting of land use and economic development committee for monday, june 6, 2011. to my right is supervisor:, to my left is supervisor wiener. we are also joined by supervisor mirkarimi. before i ask the clerk for announcements, let me say that there is an overflow room in the main chambers if anyone cannot get into this meeting room. are there any announcements? >> please turn off all cell phones and pagers. completed speaker cards to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items at the dupont today will appear on the june 40 the

agenda. >> there are five items on the agenda today. i know that the treasure island a development agreement is one where there are a number of speakers. that is no. 3. that should be coming out much later in the agenda. for the meeting today i would like item number one. >> item #one. draft ordinance amending the san francisco planning code by adding section 259.53 to establish the presidio-sutter special use district for property located at 800 presidio avenue -- assessor's block no. 1073, lot no. 13 -- amending sheet ht03 of the zoning map to change the height and bulk district from 40-x to 55-x -- and amending sheet su-03 of the zoning map to reflect the boundaries of the presidio-sutter special use district; adopting findings, including environmental findings, section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i am pleased to submit this proposal for the longest serving african american center community. the center was established in

1919 in san francisco and its home has been there since 1952. since it has been at the same location since 1952, there would be great cause and merit for there to be some considerable enhancements of that facility and the building. there is a shortage of transitional use of housing in the city. many foster youth in this city become homeless once they turn 18. in an effort to try to reach out to this burgeoning population, of liberty had been working with the city and neighborhoods, looking for the most effective project that would help to reach the demands and interests of the surrounding community. when we to a point on the -- when supervisor alioto-pier to a

point on this project, i was very happy to support her in her efforts and pursuit of this particular project. once again, more than happy to lend assistance in seeing this project to fruition evidently, possibly as much as i can. i think that the western addition, which has fought for a great demographic changes in the surrounding areas, they still cry out for the kinds of needs, resources, and services that are well known for being chronically under-served in that particular region of the city. especially in the post- redevelopment area. before today is a review of this particular project it has been

advanced effectively and effectively by the planning commission and i think will allow the planning department to help to give greater context to this project. of course, there are people who have strong feelings about this project on all sides. i look forward to hearing their point of view. for this project we are looking at 50 units of housing that we think are affect the formula for this project to go over and succeed effectively. fifth and yet i know there are alternatives out there to try to reduce this 59 units. -- by nine units. we will see of that meshes with the overall plan. effective, successful, i keep using that same word because we are concerned about the ability of this project to be made real based on any kind of modification.

without further ado, i would go ahead and ask for the planning department to come forward. >> midafternoon, supervisors. ann marie rogers -- good afternoon, supervisors. this legislation would increase the height limit by 15 feet to label products with substantial public benefits. the project is approved by the plant commission would demolish their rundown can existing building and building new mixed use project. this project would, as the supervisor concluded, a ford up to 52 minutes of affordable housing and a program to include child care and a gymnasium. at least 24 of the units would be for low-income housing and another 24 would be for the

project as proposed. allowing for density and height bonuses for projects that would be affordable housing. in the development, including design and uses, consistent with the plan for policy planning occurs, particularly with regard to the size, density, and need for affordable housing. regarding public comment, staff would like to acknowledge that in the spring of 2007 this project was proposed with 110 units. records at that time indicate 250 letters of support. prior to the hearing we have opposition to the proposal from six individuals in nearby neighborhoods. at the hearing a great number of people gave widely varying comments. but opposition from the immediate neighbors on the

subject lot and resident labor groups and support for nonprofit community is fast, groups, local schools, politicians, in users of the facility. the supervisor has put in support for the project. in light of public comment they recommended approval of this ordinance but to enable the project as approved. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: miss rogers, that was a little quick. in the planning commission the approval was on the 50 units, correct? >> correct. supervisor mirkarimi: what was the vote? >> 5 in support, one absent, one of his brigitte one opposition. supervisor mirkarimi: in that deliberation, was there any consideration of the 110 units philippine had that ever come

before? >> no, there was discussion of a lower budget proposal. supervisor mirkarimi: why is that? >> because of the public benefit that they found that the project would provide given the types of housing. supervisor mirkarimi: in that public benefit community center, is that also because of the question of transitional housing provided for youth? >> yes, the commission made comments that they would appreciate the production of such housing. supervisor mirkarimi: in response to those that expressed concerns are opposition, but was the intent on trying to address those particular needs democrats when we checked with the project manager i know that the commission was responsive to the work that have happened prior to the hearing where we have already sculpted down the project significantly and come forward with a much reduced

project shown by the commission. let me see supervisor mirkarimi: -- i would -- supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to see more on that project already. >> the project planner is more familiar with the history of the project. supervisor mirkarimi: very good. >> good afternoon, a supervisor. part of the sculpting process was approved during the initial certification to the general comments from the public. at that time the commission had provided some initial comments to the funding staff and public with concerns as to the mapping of the project itself. from those initial comments given by the planning commission, staff worked to shape the down-scale and specifically to address the rear of the project. supervisor mirkarimi: are we talking about the premise of

scaling down? >> that actually occurred prior to the shelling for the eir, prior to the certification. at that point, when it got to the initial hearing, it was already been proposed the 55 seats at a reduced scale of 50 minutes. the -- 50 units. pfft if i may, as a side note, the other 10 units initially proposed were being proposed as part of a development project outside the city. supervisor mirkarimi: is there anything else further that you would like to add? >> i did have a couple of questions. there were two homeless that were adjacent or behind the back area. one is 20s -- 20-55 sutter,

owned by a couple. my understanding is that the original proposal had a huge block and that the planning department and planning commission changes made significant setbacks where at least one story was pushed back significantly. are those the major innovations for that small, peach colored home? >> if i may, a supervisor, i think that they are looking ex that diagram -- they are looking at that diet -- diagram. initially the treatment was more monolithic. this was starting to set back here. also, a one story portion on this side of the building that was pushed back away from this shorter building. keep in mind where the peach

colored building is, approximately one to one-and-a- half stories in height, the predominant block face, if you look at the remainder of the building, similar to character as this, it was three-four stories in building height, but it was something of an anomaly. it was acknowledged that there should be some kind of shaping to accommodate that building. >> there was an 8 ft. to 10 foot driveway separating the home and the community service center, right? >> there is a pedestrian door for the community center. that we have a garage door adjacent to that. supervisor mar: how far back as the building go to where there

is a garden right now? how much more does that encroach on the open space in the back area? but believe that neighbor had a fence that fell upon and had to be resolved. >> the architect is your -- the architect is here as well. i am not quite certain to what you are speaking. supervisor mar: the second or third house from the corner. >> they are currently facing an open, rear-yard space. the proposed building and this year. -- and this year. -- ends here. supervisor mirkarimi:

considering the bust of housing given the economic meltdown, there has not been a lot of building of housing. especially housing for affordable and transitional housing. if you can talk about that and where the city is that with housing being developed, that would be helpful. >> typically, new housing, according to section 315 at the time -- was at 415? it is typically required as part of the project under a certain percentage of affordable housing in development. in this case, the project was triggering 110 units, approximately, for this project to occur. in frank when they decided not to go through. however, booker t. washington

decided to pursue this project for affordable housing. it definitely, i would say, in these economic times, is to be applauded, considering there is not much housing being built. transitional use and general affordable housing, i would say that it is something commendable and something that the planning commission echoed as part of their deliberations. >> to get a greater feel of the surrounding area, i know that we have diagrams, but it is important for this to be laid out. what is across the street, to the left, the right, the back, is a bit more descriptive of what the area is like on the presidio blocked. i know that across the street we have a muni building. five, six stories?

>> it is a two-story building, but i believe it is also a three story building. across the street is in a location where the a lot of different neighborhood districts come together. if you are speaking to urban form, it is located at the top of a hill. it kind of reflects the national typography of the site. supervisor mirkarimi: are there any other buildings juxtaposed that are four, five, six story buildings? >> they probably occupy half of a block, but there are other large apartment buildings of a similar scale, perhaps 10 feet shorter along the avenue. supervisor mirkarimi: ok.

supervisor wiener: in the planning commission discussions, there was a mixture between residential and commercial. is there a formal term the to use for that? >> i know that the jaycees the building on california might be one of the taller ones, there are buildings that might be about 45 feet tall that are very boxy. >> there was not necessarily a planning term or even a layman's term, but it seemed to be very transitional period there is a shopping complex there. it is also where the residents