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 proposition for kids coming into a neighborhood -- is something that we need to fight for. having them come into a neighborhood where a large majority of the immediate neighbors opposed the project. bursas kids coming into the neighborhood where the neighbors embraced the project. that is a different vision and a different atmosphere of what we can achieve. i want to be very clear. i understand the need and agree with the need for more affordable housing, and on happy to do that in my district. i think this is going to be a great project. this is about common sense and working with our neighbors. i knew taking this on was going

to be an uphill battle. i did been proven right about that. i am not afraid to stand here and say, i will fight for my neighborhood. that is what i will do and i believe in that very strongly. i am going to make a motion to reduce the maximum height from 55 to 45 feet. for those reasons, i would urge you to support that. thank you. >> is there a second? abediscussion? >> thank you, mr. president. thank you for that very powerful remark. thank you for that. and for reminding us of a lot of things. and for your incredible work throughout this process. i know this has been very difficult and i have not had to

deal with the land use issue in my district yet. i want to give you credit where credit is due. i made some statements and i want to reiterate to that. there have been a lot of accusations going around on all sides that are unfair and unfortunate. insinuations or outright saying it that people who are opposed to this project just do not want certain kinds of people in their neighborhoods. people do not want or kids in their neighborhood --poor kids in their neighborhoods. i do not think that is true. i effort implications about his motives that are completely

baseless. i've also heard accusations or implications about booker t. washington. that is completely untrue because they are doing this because of the incredibly important mission of providing housing for transition aides used. what we have here is a very important project and a very important mission and a completely reasonable objection of neighbors were concerned about a large building going in on their block, which is something that we see all the time. there is nothing inappropriate with people taking issue with the size of a building. i am going to be supporting the amendment out of respect for our district supervisor, and out of respect for the neighborhood

surrounding this project. i am very supportive of this project right if that amendment does not succeed, i will be voting for this project at which ever hide it goes to the final bout. i think it is that important of a project. and that important of an issue up for our city to address. >> thank you, mr. president. this renders the previous discussion moot. if we go ahead and dress down the 55-foot to 45 feet and reengineer the question of 50 units. i think we have made a strong case supported by evidence provided to us on all sides, but i think it has been cleared because the planning commission

had voted on this five-one in support of the 55-unit proposal as it had been addressed by planning on the question of appeals and concerns, in many hours of meetings. i note is getting late. it helps us further understand a strong need of us continuing on this track of providing for the 50 units of housing. at the same time, i think we have well acknowledged and well- respected the efforts and our offices to gather in reaching out to the neighbors of trying to find some common ground. in an area, by the way, that has not a pleaded seat -- fluidity

of an area that has multistory buildings. the genesis of this is that the supervisor asked for my support of the 55-bit unit building. when her successor came in, it was the same exact request. we're not being fickle here, we are being consistent. it is important that with that continuity of supporting that project, this is exactly on track with everything that we have been sagging. we very much appreciate -- everything that we have been saying. we have had this conversation and we are arrived at the right place. >> thank you.

i want to thank my colleagues for facilitating this and fort -- for shaping our dialogue on this issue so that we can have disagreements and do it respectfully. i do support this at 55 feet. i would have supported it at 65 feet. being a good organizer and being a school board member, i note how important is that we serve our young people. we are deficient and the services that we provide for our youth. we have a lack of affordable housing in our city.

i think it is important that we maximize every dollar that we can spend on affordable housing. i have multiple sites in district 6 that i would like to have funding for. i am very cognizant of how we use funding from the mayor's office of housing and a different variety of projects. if we have an opportunity to build affordable, i think we should do it the best that we can. i really appreciate that he has been such a strong advocate for his neighborhood and for his residents' association. he has done an amazing job and has been genuine about wanting to do the best for the city. coming up with a compromise solution that works for everyone. i do want to explain why i am supporting the 55 foot.

we have so few opportunities in front of us to build housing, that is really important that we take advantage of this opportunity. we had a goal of building 400 units. we're only halfway there. we have not identified other units. it is not like we're having a discussion where we have other opportunities available. i think that we have to take advantage of this opportunity now. it is a citywide issue. i do want to thank all of the advocates that came out today. this is an issue that has not been at the forefront. it is important that you are raising this issue for the city and raising its visibility. thank you so much for your work.

this has been going on for many years. i think that the supervisor has been doing a great job in terms of being an advocate and i appreciate your work on this. >> thank you. i do want to thank all the members of the public who have spoken on this item. all the residents have spent a lot of time advocating on this issue. it has been a very interesting case to listen to and to hear the comments that have been made. i do want to thank all of my colleagues. i think that this is one of those projects where it is important for us to be responsible at how we talk about

the issues that are before us. it is one of those projects where there could be hyperbole that could be negative to the underlying goal. the reality is that you are looking at a number of good people who have different views. i did not co-sponsor item 5 because i have been struggling with this idea of how far we as supervisors engage ourselves in a project that is in another district. it is a very important issue for me and i do think that he raises some very important points. it is something that we have to think about. my own personal view is backed

-- is that we probably should not be your. the entirety of the issues that have been discussed, i do think it would have been possible for us to reach a point where about all the underlying concerns could have been addressed. it is very unfortunate that that did not happen. i understand that a lot of work was done to make that happen. i think it is unfortunate. the one thing that i hope does come out to their respective of what the outcome is is that to be adults on both sides of this issue remember that to -- they -- remember the kids that are impacted by this, my hope is that does not impact how those kids are treated. the reality is that the differences of opinion are not

things that they can control. my hope is backed regardless -- my hope is that regardless how people feel about this project, this is a program that we should all support. i know that that will happen. what i would say on this issue is that it is not happening in a vacuum. even though my preference would be to defer to the district supervisor, the unique situation here is that the issue of what is happening to transitional based youth is something that we have been grappling with for quite some time. that is what makes this a little different and more challenging for me. while i believe that we have to provide deference