>> that members of the board, -- >> i want to make it sure that it is unanimous that she can speak. >> no problem. >> there is a contractual relationship between, and a 700 hour is the minimum amount of time that will be reserved for them to use throughout the year. that money is what funds the after-school program, and a team that -- teen program. to limit it to 700 would require

it to break a provision of an existing contract. >> our contract is for a minimum of 700 hours. in order to fund a program, we rent the gym out to other entities as well. it is the only way we are able to get current income to support the program, including our summer camp, where we have 80 kids and we have no support from the city. in order to be able to support the programs, but we used pumping -- we use the gym to do that. currently, at $100 an hour, i

think we got about $73,000. in addition, we got another $50,000 from other entities that rent office space. if we did not have that money, we will -- we would not be able to function the way we are able to function now. >> thank you. >> it is distressing when asked them to explain the hours that are provided. i expect complete disclosure. when i asked for the numbers of hours and a breakdown of how many hours per day will be provided for the the public comment the answer was 3.5 hours per day. i do not want to see their to be a ceiling -- that there is a unilateral decision to go ahead and not allow for public hours. there has to be some reconciliation of that. there is a financial desire to

help, i think it is important that there be public hours provided. >> they are public our spread other public entities used the gym. other than that, we rent the gym in order to be able to support our program. the city does not fully fund all of the programs. what ever else we have going on. i dealt with full disclosure in terms of what time they were using it. but we also grant it to others so we can have income. i am repeating myself. that is what we do. our kids use it. like this summer, we do not have

very much outside usage of the gym. the kids and the summer school program are using the ogym. and they use it all day long. after school during the year is when they use it because the kids are not available credit they do not come after three or 4:00. >> what is the maximum? >> this past year, we got $137,000 and come from the rental of the gym. >> how many hours, please? the minimum -- it is 3.5 hours per day. what is the maximum? >> i cannot give you that answer because i really do not know. on saturdays and sundays, it is also rented.

>> i have to say that i have been asking for this information, i have a strong feeling that this gym it provided for four community as well as the contractual relationships. in order for the operation administration, but i am still looking for what those hours of art in public so that i am clear that 700 hours equates to 3.5 hours per day. i had been very clear about that. that has never gone away. i expect that to be honored in some respect. i do not know if there is a more general provision that can stress this point, but i do not want to see it privatized. not in the fact that we are using antel been approved the

city money. i expect that this will be somewhat adhered to or respected. >> based on that discussion, we have the amendment that you have proposed. are you adding any additional language? >> is there a way that i can dilute what is the i have stipulated so that i can try to accommodate their business proposition at the same time our regard? >> i want to cause a new that the condition has to be tied to a legitimate land use purpose. i do not really think that you can say that the opposite that it has to be open a certain amount of hours within the community. you have to be more restricting

outside users coming into the neighborhood to use it. you could perhaps change, increase that 700 our number. it is hard for me to note without knowing what the numbers are. >> right, here. >> quickly. >> i would suggest the condition on the use of the jam --gym by the public would be during the summer when school is not in place. they have the need for the space. any of the vacation time, during christmas, easter break. to the extent that during the

school year, we can work out an arrangement where after school is out, until about 7:00, the kids that will be attending -- will be coming to the facility. they can be open to the public so that during that period of time -- it is a period of time when they will be out of school. >> thank you. >> i was just suggesting that perhaps one way to get at this, it sounds like the gym is used sometimes exclusively by a contractor and sometimes it is being rented out accurate and that is the case, may be the

language could be modified to say, pursuant to a third-party contract where that third party is exclusively using the facility shall not exceed what ever number of hours you want that to be per year. >> that is not going to work. i will withdraw this amendment. i will come back at this from another vantage point on this question. i will stick with the -- i withdraw that comment -- that condition. i will return back to this through trailing action. i will go ahead and continue with three conditions that i have already outlined for support. >> the supervisor would like to amend item 45 to include the additional. is there a second to that?

can we take the motion to amend without objection? have you made your overall motion yet? >> yes, i have. >> do we need a roll-call vote? this is going to be to amend the conditions of approval, table 44 and pass 45 with the conditions that we have included a great do we need a roll-call vote on that? i'm sorry. item 46. >> [roll call vote]

there are 11 ayes. >> we do have one more item, which is item five. >> it is from the land is in economic development committee. an ordinance amending the planning code to establish the special u.s. district for property located trade commending the zoning map to increase the height. thank you. >> thank you. i think we should proceed with this trade by the way, this -- this is the first time that this

board has entertained an appeal on the special use district ordinance. it has not happened before. i think we can appreciate that this is actually a breakthrough in our own process. your indulgence if there is a little bit of clumsiness on it. in order to 45 the package that has been presented to us, evidence has been decent that there is overarching need and creating transitional age housing. the concern that has troubled me the most was about the case that the city is on in trying to deliver on 400 units. the goal which was instigated in 2008 and hoping they would arrive at an objective by 2012 is now -- has now been extended

to 2015 because they are now were on pace. only 119 units have been pre identified, a pre developed, not developed. when you look at the spectrum of what the need is due out the city, i think that a strong case has been made that this is quite in order to make the project feasible, it is affirmed by the fact that we have 92-story buildings, three-story buildings, 34-story buildings in that area. across the street, we have a bus yard. it helps explain why this is justified. realizing some of the impacts that are of concern, but also

realizing that as it was testified, it is strongly residential. it is sandwiched between those two or three blocks is the oldest public housing project development in san francisco. it started in 1952 were client and children do use booker t.. the other side, you have it on the hill itself across the street from a four-story building that is right off. the sud, as uncomfortable as it might be perceived by a number of neighbors, also speaks to the mitigation that have been affirmed by the planning department that does impact will not be as adverse as one would

think. that is why i asked that we support item number five. >> thank you, president. thank you for your work on this. this has been one of the more bizarre project that i have worked on. there has been a little bit of scrutiny on a -- around it. i want to explain to do exactly what has happened. when i first came into office, the first piece of legislation was to sponsor this project. in my opinion, i like this project culottes. it will do great things for the neighborhood and i completely understand the need for more housing. there is no debate about that trade -- about that. what we do have differences of opinion on it is the way to achieve that.

within a month of introducing the legislation, i received letters of opposition from 5 different neighborhood groups and dozens of the immediate neighbors, some of which you heard from tonight. a lot of them could not be here. i took this to heart. that is what we are here to do, listen to our constituents. i took it to the project sponsor. what do you make of this? there was a concern that the neighbors did not want the project built because they did not want that type of timidity in their neighborhood. but we do my job -- that type of community in their neighborhood. let me talk to my neighbors. if they do not want these kids in the neighborhood, i will not stand with them. but if there are other concerns, i want to listen to them. i spent time trying to

understand the two main concerns. the concerns were over parking. there are 50 new units coming next door to an area where people do not believe they can park and the streets to begin with. that is a real issue. despite how much we tried, there is not that much we can do. i appreciate the amendments, there is no teeth to them at all. this really does not do anything. the second part was the wrong height. -- was around height. if i can get this project lower by a story, it would still have to be -- you would still have to approve special legislation. i want you to turn these letters of opposition in to support. i want you to be advocates for this project. that is what i have here.

every single neighborhood group that opposed the project would not supported at 45 feet. they agreed not to appeal the project and not to file a lawsuit. that is a big deal from our point of view. i took it back to the project sponsor. they have rejected that. they have been able in a china shop here at city hall. we can agree to disagree. as we talked about beforehand together, i think it is a very slippery slope. we need to be really careful on this board about introducing legislation in someone else's district. i know there are issues like treasure island that amount to a citywide issues. everyone will have their

opinion. but this is about one building, one story of one building. where does it stop? if i do not like bill looks up the door in your district, am i going to introduce legislation? it becomes a poster child of why we do not need district elections. that is inappropriate. it is a slippery slope and we need to think about that as a board. this is a different vision of how we will do housing in our neighborhood. quite frankly, i do not care if it is affordable housing. to me, the 55 foot project is literally telling the neighbors , this is the produce, take-it- or-leave-it. we will not listen to your concerns. you have to take exactly what we give you. i had a different vision.

i want to listen to my neighbors. i think we should all do that as supervisors. if we bring affordable housing into our neighborhoods, which is a good idea, we can do that with -- in conjunction with our neighborhoods. that is the long-term vision. if we continue to stick it in the eye of our neighbors, every single project is going to be fought. there will be appealed, lawsuits, that is the way it works. there is a way to go against that and do it differently. it is not perfect, but it gets us there. it says that we can work together with our neighbors and we can build these projects. let's not forget what this is all about. it is not about us or the project sponsor. it is about the kids who live there. there is a much different proposn