our block and our neighborhood being friendly to families and not have them have to move away in order to expand their family and have appropriate living spaces for them. i do want to point out that the family really was more than willing in terms of sharing their plans with the neighborhood, that they did make accommodations. and i think if they wanted to, they could have actually come in with a much larger project, as i've seen some houses in noe valley do. instead, they were very respectful of the neighborhood and respectful, this modest addition, at the same time supports their growing family. i urge you to not support discretionary review and approve the project. thank you. >> any other speakers in favor of the project sponsor?

seeing none, d-r requestor, you have two-minute rebuttal. the habitable room we have upstairs does not impinge on mr. keegan's homes. -- home. we kept it five feet away. we centered the large facade that we kept the same had been presented. so, all we did was move the room over and we made it larger to help the family. that's what we were thinking of. we had originally asked for glass walk just so you know. and the other reason we had to ask that it be moved back five feet is we were thinking of the cost. fire rated glass is extremely expensive. in that five feet it becomes a monumental cost. so, when you push it back the five feet you don't have that. there is another issue. the sun studies they have are not accurate. i stood out there for three

days, on october 2, fifth, you will see the studies in here in your handout. the sun moves across the garden as you can see from pages 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and it starts into the garden at 10:35 a.m. approximately. and at that time there is full sun. there is no more sun cast, shadow cast from their property at 12:45. it is not at noon. so, there is shadow going across and they get light from 10:35 to 12:45. that light is cut off. what happens, you can see it on this bottom photograph here. the building from the corner starts impacting the garden, not the yee's home first. so, they get about four hours of sun a day, half of that is

going to be cut out by this addition. that's why we asked it to be put back. >> sorry. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. first of all, i forgot to mention part of the problem with the shadow of the sun roof is they have very high fanses. their own fan is what cast a shadow on the photograph she showed you. your question on the accuracy, the architect can answer the question. thank you. >> thank you. this closes the public comment portion. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. actually, was able to go out there and see the site a little bit in the past, but i did have a question maybe for ms. barkley.

i guess, i'm looking at the two plans next to each other. if i am correct, there are no changes that are being proposed by d-r requestor to the lower two floors. it's only the upper floor -- >> that's correct. >> and i guess everyone is agreed upon the light gray color and the translucent windows to, you know, minimize the amount of darkness on that area. and i think -- that is already established. >> all i'm seeing here is the family room being moved to the sort of more to the center and taking up part of the open roof that would be to the east side if my direction is complete. and they're claiming this family room is larger in the version, the janet campbell version than the other version. i haven't quite been able to

figure that out and they're putting a couple skylights in that area. first of all, i think the first thing is that the owners wanted to live certain way and they have designed this building so that it accommodates not only the yees', but also the neighbor on the other side, which is mr. keegan who happens to have three dormer windows that provide light to both rooms that he had which i believe is the only place they get the light. so, as a result, the project tried to balance the concerns and the needs of both neighbors, not just one. i understand that the yees would and the architect [speaker not understood] their concerns, but in designing this

building the wrote et architect along with the project sponsor is trying to balance the need also of the building on the other side that had three dormer windows here. right here. so, if everything gets shifted, basically the last window would be totally blocked. right now they get a lot of sun. >> okay, i see what they did is they took -- moved this apparently five feet away from the yees' yard, and therefore they diminished the amount of roof on the keegan side to 4.8 feet, i guess, if i'm reading that correctly. so, you're saying by doing that it's going to have an impact on his light and air? that's correct. so, it's a matter of working with both neighbors to try to come up with a solution that will address the concern of

both, not address the concern of one to the detriment of the other. >> okay. well, i'll see what the other commissioners have to say on this and find out which way we're going to go on it. thanks. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah, while i feel, you know, i'm sorry about ms. yee's garden, as we know on this commission in a dense city, for panels people put a lot of money in, they're not protected. i feel terrible that your garden might not be as habitable. in terms of extraordinary circumstances, there is not anything in this case that rises to the level of exceptional and extraordinary. and that's what the threshold is for taking a d-r. there are many cases, like i said, in this city where people fill up panels, people have gardens, people have things they want protected. if you had a lightwell issue or an issue that wasn't being matched or something that was more planning related that would be different.

additionally, we don't -- it's not our business to redesign the interior of people's projects. they hire architects and they do that and it's not, you know, our place to make them redesign the interior. that's just not the purview that we have 689 so, with that i would move to not take d-r and approve the project as proposed. * >> commissioner antonini. >> i just wanted to ask one other question, maybe for ms. barkley, i guess, would probably be the best speaking for project sponsors. the other part of the picture was to take part of that deck and turn it into a skylight on the other section without moving the family room. would that have an adverse effect on your project? first of all, we are talking about there are five,

what they are basically talking about -- now we're talking about moving the privacy screen that they asked for in the five feet and there is a problem about how you support that going up when you're moving it into the middle of the deck instead of following basically the exterior because you're going to have to anchor that because it doesn't have any roof. and then in addition to that, in the front at the very end, actually, facing the backyard, we have created a -- to address the privacy concern, we have now created a fairly deep planter area. so, there are actually two railings in that area that run right about the property line is 30 inches, then going in three feet, we have what is required by the building code

which is 42 inch guardrail. so, that area would be an area that they can put planters in and trees and landscape, and that way it creates an area where you will not be standing right next to the roof looking at the windows of -- designed to address the privacy issue. and still allow a lot of light to go into the window. >> so, what you're saying is the area where the design is for the skylights rather, in your deck in the proposal, we'll have a recessed area that will have plantings -- at the very front, correct -- i mean, not the front -- yes, we actually have it both in the front deck and the rear deck. >> yeah. because they asked for some kind of privacy treatment. >> right. so, you'll have that privacy separation. the only difference -- yeah. there really would be almost no difference. if you're setting the deck away from there and having plantings, you've done the same thing as a skylight because the skylight only would bring light

to -- to an area that does not -- >> need light so if they don't want to -- i have the skylight but it's on the other side which was preserved, which was something they asked for to, you know, extend the staircase on their side up on the other side. but that will require visibly moving the bathroom and adding a lot of expense. and they have turned it into a very mod heest -- >> i understand. and it looks like there would be no significant impact improved because you're already recessing that deck. and the railing could cast a little bit of a shadow is going to be in the same place regardless. * modest and we also make sure instead of a 42-inch railing, we said the building code requirement back three feet. if you're going to have planters, we don't want them to fall down in their yard. so, we did a 30-inch [speaker

not understood] for safety. >> thank you. i think we moved a long way towards accommodating both parties on this. thank you for your work. thank you. >> commissioners, there is a motion to not take d-r and approve as proposed. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places you under public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? okay. seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. [adjourned]

>> president chiu: good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, november 20, 2012. madam clerk, call the roll clmpletsd supervisor avalos, present. supervisor campos, present. president chiu, present. supervisor chu, present. supervisor cohen, present. supervisor elsbernd, present. supervisor farrell, present. supervisor kim, present. supervisor mar, present.

supervisor olague, present. supervisor wiener, present. mr. president, all members are present. >> president chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> president chiu: colleagues, we have board meeting minutes from october 9, 2012. approve, motion by supervisor mar, seconded by supervisor campos. those are approved. are there any communications? >> clerk calvillo: there are no communications. >> president chiu: could you read 2 pm special order. >> clerk calvillo: the policy discussion between mayor edwin lee and mrs of the board of supervisors. this week representing two even districts, districts 6 and 10.

the mayor may initially address the board for up to five minutes. president will recognize the supervisor who will present their own questions sphp follow upquestions are in order as long as they do not exceed five minutes per supervisor. >> president chiu: welcome you back and i'm heartened at all the press attention on question time. mr. mayor. >> mayor lee: thank you, president chiu. thank you for asking me here to answer these two very important questions today. before i begin, i'd hike to thank everyone here, board of supervisors of course, the audience, and theas leadership here at the board, after a very important election. and the results that have moved our city forward in the right direction, from the payroll tax reform to housing, to taking care of our parks. i appreciate your advocacy and your commitment to san francisco. because of our collective efforts, san francisco voters were able to make a very thoughtful choices at the ballot box this past couple of weeks,

that have helped fund infrastructure, move to job creating tax policy, and invest in critical housing needs in our city. collectively helping san francisco families and businesses. with that i'd like to take your two questions, supervisors. thank you. >> president chiu: thank you. our first question will be provided by our district 6 colleague, supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you and congratulations on your leadership on the propositions we passed a through e. in our district we've gotten many e-mails and questions about this but something that hasa uát up with our resident what are current procedures for recouping cost for street closures. specifically, what costs are being reimbursed to the city, beyond permitting fees and what costs incurred by departments other than the mta and sf police department is being recouped. in addition to required traffic

control plan how is the city ensuring that major corporations allow pedestrian cyclist access in case of street closures. does the city evaluate increased traffic congestion in downtown areas when permitting street recoup that cost? >> mayor lee: thank you for your questions, supervisor kim. we don't take lightly the decision to close public facilities like streets and parks. but the events you mention, like oracles open world and sales forces dream force conference are full cost recovery events. this includes costs incurred by departments, public works, and entertainment commission. this is not just actual staff time spent on the streets and permits, but also administrative and facilities cost as well as extensive planning costs. for example, the mta recoups

costs associated with traffic engineering, road striping, removal and reinstallations of services. totaled over $53,000 for open world, and over $38,000 for dream force. with regards to pedestrian and cyclist access, we require advanced detour signage to be posted. in the specific case of howard street, we required that the south sidewalk be opened at all times for pedestrians and cyclists. any street closure that happens in the city goes through a public hearing at the interdepartmental staff committee on traffic and transportation, or what we bureaucrats call is cot, which requires extensive detour signage, personnel during any closure. all of these costs are paid for

by event sponsors. but above and beyond staff cost and street closures, these major events are very positive -- have that deserve equal attention. these events create and support thowntdz of jobs in this city, where tourism is our number one industry. let's examine these two events specifically. during the dream force conference this year, san francisco had a 94% occupancy rate in our hotels. during oracle open world, we ran a 92% occupancy rate. for both of those weeks, san francisco had the highest occupancy rate in the whole country. let me repeat, in the whole occupied rooms than anywhere else. high occupancy in our hotels means increased sales tax dollars being generated

focusing again on the subject of your question of the open world oracle open world, it is estimated that they had an economic impact of $120 million for the week that they were here. during that week, over 97,000 hotel room nights were occupied. on average, this means over $24 million in hotel revenue and $3.4 million in tax revenue, all our general fund. i want to assure you all that we are doing everything we can to limit traffic impacts caused by these types of events, and we execute these events. this isn't just about making sure we're reimbursed. it will bring economic impact to businesses and our own general fund as well as a level of activity and vibrancy that makes

san francisco unique. i believe that with careful planning and enforcement in place we should encourage these types of events in thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you. question will be provided by our district 10 colleague, supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, his good afternoon,e jpvz mr. mayor. mr. mayor, with the november election behind us our federal delegation is contending with potentially significant budget sequestration. have you examined what some of the potential impacts of these cuts may be to the city programs and services, particularly those that serve the poor and those in federally subsidized housing? >> mayor lee: thank you, supervisor, for raising this important issue. while we recently avoided state trigger cuts with the passage of proposition 30 we're not out of the woods yet. we all need to focus very closely on the fiscal cliff and

sequestration cuts that it includes. the impacts on san francisco could be devastating. until we have more clarity, what congress as a whole might or might not do we will need to remain vigilant about protecting our reserves and the city's financial position. that said i'm encouraged by the reelection of president obama and certainly for the leadership that leader pelosi has given and will continue to give. we will need their leadership as the president must quickly face the challenge of his second term, avoiding this fiscal cliff. in august of 2011 congress passed the budget control act which threatened automatic spending cuts if congress failed to come up with a planned deficit reduction by 2013. these cuts are what we refer to as sequestration. this would mean an across the board cut of between 7% and 10%

of all defense and non-defense federal spending irrespective of policy or its impact on everyday people. these cuts would be absolutely devastating to our national and local economies. our -- show that sequestration will reduce federal funding direct to san francisco by at least 26.5 million dollars a year, every single year. we would see over $5 million of cut to education, and almost $3 million of cuts from public housing. san francisco's allocation of medicare would be cut by $2 million. funding for the wic workforce program would lose almost $5 million. there would be a $1 million cut to housing services for people with hiv and aids and more than $1 million cut to the community

development block grant program. ladies and gentlemen, this is our safety net. and our safety net's already strained by years of state cuts and it cannot sustain these additional reductions in federal funding. in addition to the cuts i have just detailed, there are also competitive grants and state pass-throughs that will also see cuts, and totals for which we really cannot estimate at this time. although this is serious business, and we need to get engaged -- although this is serious, we need to get engaged as a city to advocate against request ration -- sequestration taking place. my office is closely engaged with the governor, his white house, members of our federal delegation and other mayors from across the country to make sure they are aware of impacts sequestration would have on san francisco. i welcome all of your -- supervisors in making the case to our elected officials in washington, d.c. about the serious impacts this will have

on our residents. thank you, supervisors, and i wish you all a wonderful season of giving, of sharing, and of caring for our vulnerable and most needy in our city. thank you very much. >> president chiu: thank you, mr. mayor. colleagues, why don't we go to our next items. madam clerk, could you read the consent agenda. >> clerk calvillo: items 2 through 11 comprise the consent agenda, they're considered routine. if a member requests discussion of a matter it can be considered separately. >> president chiu: would roll call vote on 2 through 11. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye.

supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: those ordinances are passed, resolutions adopted and motions approved. madam clerk, could you call items 12 through 14. >> clerk calvillo: item 12 is a motion affirming certification by the planning commission of the final environmental impact report for the california pacific medical center's long range development plan. item 13 a motion reversing the certification. item 14 is a motion directing preparation of findings reversing the certification. >> president chiu: colleagues you may have heard discussions between the city and cpmc have recommenced recently. at this time this is nothing yet to report so i'd like to entertain a motion to continue these items to december 11. >> so moved. >> president chiu: motion by supervisor campos, seconded by supervisor farrell. without objection that shall be the case. madam clerk, why don't we call items 15 and 39.

>> clerk calvillo: item 15 an ordinance reducing footage requirements for efficiency building units pursuant to california health and safety code. item 39 is an ordinance amending the planning code regarding efficiency dwelling units with the numerical cap and open common space requirements. this item was considered by the land use and economic development committee on november 19 and was forwarded to the board as a committee report was recommended as amended with a new title. wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. today we have two companion pieces of legislation that will help us to address our housing crisis in san francisco. this legislation is by no means the complete solution but it is one piece of the puzzle. we have a housing affordability crisis in san francisco.

we're at a point where one bedroom apartments are going for 2500 or 3,000 a month. even large studios are going for 2,000 or more a month. we've had housing affordability problem in san francisco for many years and it has gotten even worse than it normally is. we need flexibility in our housing policy to make sure that we are producing enough housing and various types of housing to meet our diverse housing needs in san francisco. i am a big supporter of public investment in affordable housing and with a strong supporter of prop c the affordable housing trust fund and we need to keep moving in that direction. but we will never have enough public dollars to be able to fund our way publicly out of our housing affordability crisis. this legislation will allow for the creation of smaller efficiency units, also known as microunits,"tjpq and will gives

some additional flexibility. these units will rent for less than one bedrooms and our allow some people, who can't afford current rents to be able to afford something. for some people this could be the difference of being able to stay in a neighborhood and leaving. to be clear, we already have many microunits in san francisco, and they are called roommate situations. we have a lot of three and four bedroom apartments in san francisco, where three, four, five, six or more people are living together, in cramped sharing a small bedroom, and then a whole group of people sharing a bathroom and a kitchen and no living room because it's been converted into a bedroom. this will allow people if they choose to live alone and pay less rent than they would otherwise have to to ge