same house, call? this is adopted. item 30. clerk calvillo: a resolution approving the second amendment to the refuse collection agreement. president chiu: supervisor chu? supervisor chu: this is really to allow recology pick up the trash. this was initially approved in 2007 for a term of 4.5 years and had two one-year options to extend the contract. when we allowed that to happen, one thing we did not do was to increase or allow for the authority, that is what this does. this a really changes the not to exceed amount, so we really can spend that money. part of it is just the appropriation authority. we sent this out of committee

with that recommendation because we wanted the budget analysts to work to make sure we had the proper amount for the contract that will last us through the end of the fiscal year or this current fiscal year, which coincides with the extension that has been exercised already, and i believe that we do have that value, with the comptroller's office working, what they have come together with, so if i can ask a budget analyst to share with us what that is? president chiu: mr. rose? >> just to clarify, originally, we issued a report last night's, and we recommended that you reduce the total authorized amount by $2 million plus, in this was based on the actual projected need out of $26 million plus an additional 5% contingency of $285,000.

and then we said the recommended that you approve the resolution as amended. they should work to identify all of the specific discounts and the mou be amended to clearly offer these. this would be subject of people -- future borders supervisor approval. this was just prior to today's board of supervisors meeting, regarding unpaid bills owed to recolgy that date back to 2010, and we now want this to be amended to instead reduce the total authorized amount by over $1 million from the originally

proposed $29 million to a revised total. this revised amount is $619,000 plus more than the money that we previously recommended in our report that we sent to you last night, and that is based on the additional unpaid garbage bills from july 2010 through july 2011 and to reflect the contingency, which we agreed would be reasonable. i would be happy to respond. president chiu: thank you. supervisor chu? supervisor chu: i will make a motion to amend that down, reflective of that number, and i believe that because that number is lower than what has been noticed, it is not a substantive change. president chiu: supervisor chu

has made a motion. is there a second on that? seconded by supervisor elsbernd. supervisor campos? supervisor campos: discounts not be included in the mou? supervisor chu: all the provisions of the contract are the same, so nothing has changed about it. the only thing that has been changed is to include a lower level. we had the additional years of service and the two one-year, all this does is reconcile the amount to go through the end of this fiscal year, which corresponds with the extension of the one-year contract. supervisor campos: thank you. president chiu: any further discussion? colleagues, can we take this?

and on the underlying resolution as amended? can we do this same house, call? supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i just want to note that i will be voting against this amendment, and this is not something against recology. for me, the underlying issue is we still have the case where we have a sole source contracts, and on top of that, we have a company, notwithstanding good performance, -- the only jurisdiction.

this was simply as a matter of principle. i will be voting against this today. thank you. president chiu: any additional discussion? roll call vote. clerk calvillo: on the amendment, [reading roll] supervisor mar, supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor wiener, supervisor avalos, supervisor campos, president chiu, supervisor chu, supervisor cohen. there are 10 ayes, one no. president chiu: this item is adopted as amended. item 31. clerk calvillo: item 31, an ordinance amending the san francisco transportation corp.

-- code. president chiu: roll call. clerk calvillo: [reading roll] supervisor wiener, supervisor wiener, president chiu, supervisor chu, supervisor cohen, and there are 11 ayes. president chiu: this ordinance is passed on the first reading. next item. clerk calvillo: item 22, a resolution for the sale of a general license from 6333 geary boulevard, for the necessity of the city. president chiu: supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you. this is an application from wh ole food a license, and for what

i can tell, they did very little outreach to the neighborhood, to the neighborhood association, to me dbd, my office -- to the cbd, my office, and there was a split vote, and i think that is indicative of the conversation continues to happen in the neighborhood about this, so i am going to move that we continue this item to january to give whole foods the opportunity to do the outreach that they need to do. president chiu: supervisor wiener has made a motion to continue this item. apparently january 17 is a holiday. supervisor wiener: athe 24th. president chiu: this is seconded by supervisor farrell. supervisor mar. supervisor mar: i was dissenting

because there was the selling of hard liquor, as they call it, in addition to the existing beer and wine is sold in whole foods, and i think they raised concerns of the impact on small businesses in the area, so i am appreciative, but i still have concerns about the impact on the small business sector. thank you. president chiu: any further discussion, colleagues? on that, on the motion to continue, can we do this? without objection, this item will be continued until january 24. item 33. clerk calvillo: item number 33, a resolution urging the united states government to reduce the military budget and and the wars in iraq and afghanistan and redirect the savings. president chiu: roll call. clerk calvillo: [reading roll]

supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor wiener, supervisor avalos, supervisor campos, president chiu, supervisor chu, supervisor cohen, and there are 8 ayes, and 8 -- 3 nos. president chiu: this item is adopted. next item. clerk calvillo: item number 34, rezoning. and making environmental findings. president chiu: roll call vote. clerk calvillo: supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor mar, supervisor maxwell, supervisor wiener, supervisor avalos, supervisor campos, president chiu, supervisor chu, supervisor

cohen, and there are 11 ayes. president chiu: this item is passed on first reading. item 35. clerk calvillo: item 35, transferring the jurisdiction of and improve real property located at 341 corbett avenue. president chiu: supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president. colleagues, this legislation transferring 341 corbett avenue to the department of public works will allow the neighborhood to do what it has been wanting to do with this space for a long time, and that is to transform it into usable public space, a public park, of sorts, a community garden. this neighborhood lacks

significant open space. and this space, which is the largest open space in the neighborhood, has a significant history in the neighborhood. for a long time, it was used by the neighborhood as open public space. at some point, it was closed off after someone was injured on it, and for quite some time, the neighborhood has been wanting to reopen it. it has a beautiful slow, with great views, with dozens of mature trees. almost a decade ago, this property was transferred to the mayor's department on housing. surplus property ordinance he has many merits to it, but unfortunately, in my view, this property never should have been transferred. it is not to release surplus property. this is neighborhood open space. -- it is not truly a surplus property.

they are instructed to either develop or sell for development and use the proceeds to help formerly homeless people. the idea of selling off neighbor and open space to a private developer, in my view, is questionable in this circumstance, questionable at best. this slump is typical to develop, as housing, and as a result would only be developed by a private developer, probably placing luxury housing on it. this lot has been vacant since the transfer, and i am unaware of any significant activity to try to sell it, so it has sat there vacant in the neighborhood. the neighbors, the neighbor association for the neighborhood has a terrific plan to transform this space to a

usable public space. to place a community garden there for donating the agriculture produced there to win organization like project open hand, to create a park, to put a terrace on the slope to reduce its steepness, to place stairs there, in the future, at some point, they hope to have a playground to plant fruit trees. this is a terrific project. this is why i had this legislation. i believe it was back in 2005, and this was transferred out of the surplus property program, because it was open space for the neighborhood. i know there is some opposition, and i believe that is not meritorious.

i do not understand why some advocates are pushing to sell this neighbor and open space to a private developer. that does not seem particularly neighborhood oriented or progressive to me. the advocates of pushed for the department of public works, and dpw is not exactly teeming with the funding to do that. i know that someone like to take a broader look at the surplus property ordinance, and that is fine. i am very, very supportive of that, but that has not happened, and i do not think this project should be delayed so that can happen. now, i have, at land use, i introduced two amendments at the request of the mayor's housing. those amendments do two things,

or did two things, number one requiring that if this space stops being used as public open space, if the neighbor and abandons it, i do not think that is going to happen, but if it does, it will be transferred back to the mayor's office on housing. this also requires an automatic five-year review to determine how it is being used, but the benefits are for the neighborhood, etc., and in addition today, if there is any profit that is derived from this property, whereby the neighborhood, starting a farmers market, the profits would be transferred to the mayor's office on housing. this is in consultation with the district supervisor to

explore options whereby a nonprofit dedicated to the preservation of open space could potentially purchase the properties so that it would be maintained as public open space, but we could do that for housing. those were the amendments offered at housing. colleagues, i ask for your support in maintaining this important open space, and i also moved to adopt the amendments that were not adopted at land use, and i have it distributed to the amendments to each of you. president chiu: supervisor wiener has made an amendment, seconded by supervisor farrell. supervisor mar? supervisor mar: i was wondering

if miss mcnamara from the department is here? , services and housing, we recently heard a hearing on monday that supervisor avalos called and that we attended, where families came to us, up to 5000 homeless children and parents in the city, identifying at least 22 under children this year that are homeless or need housing services from the city, so it is a major crisis before us. i want to see a win-win for the neighborhood, and i really appreciated in the land use committee not only supervisor wiener, trying to find a win-win for everyone. neighbors have been wonderful and try to identify open space and talking about creating a community garden, and they seem

like a great people to do that, but it puts us in a policy dilemma about how to deal with policies that have been transferred to the mayor's office on housing, so there was the transfer. i know that you have analyzed this property. supportive housing for homeless people, if it is not, is in developable by a developer? -- is it developable by a developer? >> mayor's office on housing. yes. when the site was transferred in 2003 or 2004, staff did a side suitability analysis, and we determined that the site could be developed. however, because of the slope, additional costs related to putting in a retaining wall and additional foundation would

probably because prohibitive for the mayor's office on housing to develop as supportive housing, so it would push our per unit and a total development costs much higher than the ranges we were used to, -- and the total development costs. it was recommended to sell this to subsidize the pipeline. supervisor mar: what was the value? >> $2.20 million. that was based on either eight units at two bedrooms or 17 units at studios, which is the two scenarios we looked at. supervisor mar: i guess i see that money as potential money

that could help ease the suffering of many of the families that were before us in this chamber yesterday morning, and i am just wondering if the mayor's office on housing is not proposing this proposal to turn this into open space, how do you intend to make of that essentially $2.20 million that could have gone to easing the suffering of families in san francisco? >> that is a difficult question for me. perhaps i can have to recent young come. i usually only to technical questions -- perhaps i can have teresa young come. >> those proceeds, whether it is through the program are other mitigation or inclusion erie housing fees as alternatives, which it inclusionary housing fees as alternatives, -- or inclusionary housing fees.

>> could you just repeat that a little more slowly? >> we would try to collect the fee payment. there are large developments with the determination letters from our office that would be far more than what we could get from the sale of the site. we look to that to fund our family housing development more than the corporate side because we want to look for a win-win for the community and try to be good neighbors and find other means. supervisor mar: but it is your charge to look out for the funding for homeless families and services? >> absolutely. we understand that and we know it is the desire of the

community we would try to find alternatives. whether it's other surplus properties or something else we could be selling in lieu of this site. supervisor mar: colleagues, i still support and effort that would provide a win-win, but i feel we need more time and i move that we continue this, not too long, but a short time, until our next meeting. i feel this is a terrible precedent that could be set and that a supervisor winner has said there has already been a precedent, but a second -- supervisor wiener said there has already been a precedent. but the needs of homeless families and children -- i do not want to see this president said. i move that we continue it to the next meeting.

president chiu: is there a second to the motion? seconded by supervisor avalos. further discussion -- supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i don't want to be nit picky about other parcels and other supervisors districts, but after reading this surplus property ordinance this morning, the policy we set in 2002 is pretty clear around what surplus property is used for at, which there are three uses that are predetermined and voted by by the board. if the surplus property is determined unsuitable, it is city policy to encourage a sale. i'm not saying it has to be a sale to a market rate developer. i'm very sensitive to the

neighborhood concerns and the need for open space. we need an open space everywhere. but if we are determining the open space is the use of this surplus property and we have a city policy that states must go toward housing for homeless families and individuals and for affordable housing, then i think we have to say there is a transfer of budgetary allowances. i talked to some of my colleagues as morning and said i was reluctant to take money out of one starved line item to another star of line item. i have fully support open space, but after reading the policy, i think it is clear what we have determined. we either ought to change the policy itself for we need to transfer funds over to say we are changing the priority of the surplus property. i am more than happy to support that neighborhood for how the space is utilized, but i think

we need to see a sale occur for this transaction to move forward. president chiu: this is on the motion to continue. i know this has been a difficult conversation for many of us. for me, i think the fact that this site has been extremely difficult to develop on, the fact there has been no takers, neither from the affordable housing world nor the private sector community, the fact the committee would prefer rather than a vacant and blighted site, a site that encourages community gardening. i do want to figure out a way to support what we are trying to do. i appreciate what supervisor wiener has provided and others did as well to allow for an evaluation in five years in case the situation changes.

the fact that the amendments would allow for the sale for a nonprofit which could potentially bring more money is into the development of support of housing and the fact that if there are any moneys that come out of that project, that goes to them. but this has been a conversation that has happened over a number of months, and i do plan to support with the amendments we have today, this moving forward. i know we don't have a second reading on this until january 10th and if there are any last creative ideas that come out, i think everyone would be open to considering them. given this has been out there for a while, i think it would make sense for us to move forward. supervisor campos: i appreciate the discussions we at the land use committee. as a general rule, i am inclined

to support the wishes of the neighborhood, especially given the involvement by the district supervisor and i want to be respectful of that. i desolate see the value in open space. one thing that have concerned about is the potential implications of the surplus property ordinance. because of that, i see the benefit, not withstanding my inclination to have some time about what action on this matter could mean for purposes of the surplus property. for that, i would be supportive of a continuance, but it is important to be responsive to the wishes of the community and i appreciate the work supervisor wiener and his office have put into this item. i am inclined to be supportive, but i think we can benefit from at least a very short

continuance to the beginning of next year. having additional time could be helpful. supervisor wiener: thank you, and i would like to thank my colleagues for the thoughtful comments. it is always difficult when you have multiple policy goals we all share. when there is apparent conflict , and i think they're necessarily is here, i understand the challenges for people. there are a lot of public assets we can sell if we want to fund this priority or that. there are a lot of different things we can sell and there is no way any of us would think about selling a lot of different public assets