basically split the lot. >> do a lot split. >> in order to put in another kitchen this is rh zoned and that's my motion not to take the dr and approve that. it provides a large home but a lot of folks need larger homelands >> second. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks on this case in particular i do think the project sponsor has followed the rules and regulations. to commissioner moore's thought. we recently changed the criteria again for mergers even under the new mergers this exists. there are a number of working groups to work on the issue of affordability. maybe we should look at if

mergers are appropriate or not >> commissioner moore. i like to psyche those people in city government who are entertaining the issues to look at closely with the department at the section of the code. we have a finite number of land

pickup truck >> once this merger take place and the lots are annoyed the way the floor plan is laid out it's not going to be going back to two units unless someone spends a lot of money. then you have a house in this area that essentially a ann anonymously. and that's what i'm concerned about. and it's different i think from

condo mergers we've had the one where they were worthy a couple of million dollars that got merged south of market it seems different in this case it's on its own piece of land so to speak. i'll vote for the motion but especially the triggering mechanisms it should be examined and look at it as the city is taking on the housing issue. lastly and we're not aware of these but whatever i have confidence that the staff made american people analysis and had the information to be able to go in that direction rather than having to come to the commission

>> director ram. >> we tend to air on the side of caution so in this case it was well beyond the 1.3 number so relate to the larger issue. one of the things i neglected to men tomorrow is the first meeting of the monthly task force the mayor has asked to set up or i'm co- chairing the number of department heads to look at the range of issues that the city needs to address with respect to the production of housing so i'll be continuing to meet over the next several months >> commissioner hillis. >> just a question any prosecutions for merging lots to me it's more not an

affordability issue but your disrupting that pattern. >> the code doesn't establish the prohibitions but for opt mergers that are within that can be approved administratorly those can optional be done in rh one property the rh 2 it couldn't be done administratorly it has to be done from 9 commission. >> commissioners there's a motion and second adding a findings the two building are two separate building the merged building would rain remain the appearance. >> sdmn. commissioner hillis. commissioner sugaya. commissioner wu and president

fong >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to one with commissioner moore voting against. that places you on any public comment? there are no speaker cards >> be seeing none, public comment is closed and the first meeting of the year is good mo

everyone welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget & finance committee meeting are. i'm that supervisor farrell and i'm joined by supervisor avalos and we'll be joined by supervisor mar. i want to thank jennifer leo and is clerk linda wong. also to the people in the audience if we don't get through the yawned in time we'll be

breaking for the swearing in of a member. madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> >> yes. please silence all electronic devices. and all copies of documents shall be submitted to the clerk. the items today will be on the january 14th agenda >> thank you very much. we're going to take one item quickly out of order so call item 5 first, please >> item 5 is an ordinance amending ordinance reflect the two addition of 5502 for the recreation and parks capital improvements. >> okay. we have don here from rec and park. >> rec and park just foul on

our appropriation this item was continued until today to get the information to the budget analysis office and as you're aware i believe in november 2012 voters passed another 1 hundred and it 5 thousand funds. this requires additional staff to make good for the public. we appreciate the budget analysis support and we've move forward forward on some items we'll be introducing those next week for architecture services >> so many mr. rose. on, on page 21 the new project

mortuary position will help with the manager services to help with the bond promises as provided and that's shown in the tangible on page 21. on page 22 of our report we point out that including the fringe benefits the total annual ongoing salary of infringement are 21 thousand for the requested two new positions. this ordinance says the positions will be filed in january and those two positions couldn't be filed until at least april 1st, 2014, with that start date the total cost will be approximately 82 thousand instead of one hundred to tell

us plus. our recommendation is we recommend you amended the position to 5 f t e for the positions in 2014 and we recommend you approve the proposal >> everyone is in agreement if no comments we'll open this up for public comment. anyone in the public wish to comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> we have a motion to approve the amendments. >> just a quick question those are positions that are considered permanent or project funded. >> project funded supervisor. >> thanks. >> ongoing can we make a motion to first amended. >> so the motion to approve the budget analysts recommendations and then i think to appropriate

a line. >> as amended and we can take that without objection. >> madam clerk, call item one. >> approving an emergency protract contract that to appropriate 82 thousand. >> good morning supervisor farrell and supervisor avalos i'm the project manager for the commission. the measure before you is for emergency contract to replace the monitoring system for the seat belting earner plant the san francisco public utilities commissions asked to monitor the system to be replaced. this process is known as a head

works project that's for the sewage coming to the treatment plant. the plant observed a underwriter of their movrpt system. basically this monitoring system as name suggests monitors the low objection didn't even and other potential hazardous gas. it required immediate repairs to mitigate the risks for the treatment plant and protect the health and safety of the plant operations and also insure osha and and it is to be awarded to the construction in the amount to exceed $225,000.

the reason for the m k working or in this emergency contract they're working on two existing contracts and their mobilized on the site. they have technical resources to repair this. we recommend you, you pass this forward if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them >> okay. thank you any questions. mr. rose your report, please >> mr. chairman and supervisor avalos on the bottom of page 3 not to exceed 2 hundred and 25 thousand procurement one hundred and 35 for labor. those costs will be paid from the 2013 revenue bonds that was previously appropriated by the board of supervisors and we recommend you approve this >> no other questions open this

up for public comment. anyone to comment on item one seeing none, public comment is closed. >> so a motion to approve the resolution. >> okay. and we can do that without opposition. >> this is on enter agreement with pg&e for the servicing of the halls. >> thank you very much. we'll hear from the puc. >> i manage the - this resolution authorizes the puc has general manager to enter a long-term agreement for one hundred and 65 project located they symphony hall. the city must enter into the agreement. the puc is cricked several projects in the past for one

hundred kill waits loektd at a muni facility. the current agreement is for a denomination for the electrical grid for the life to exceed 10 years. the agreement doesn't require any costs by the city the pg&e and puc ask you approve this agreements >> any questions? okay. we don't have a budget analyst report. any any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> okay. can i get a motion. >> this is a resolution to direct the property to be sold square feet for the development rights from the memorial rights

and to convict this for action necessary for have the corners in the signing code. >> thank you. we have mr. updyke to speak on this item >> good morning supervisor farrell and supervisor avalos. we're seeking authority to sell up to 1.1 million from a city property that's located at the thirty 1 to 401 van ness. i will walk you through this. it's unused historical rights from the significant guess so that can be transferred from sale in order to develop the developers floor area on their

property. it could be directly from a donor site. for a victor to walk i threw the t dr site. the donor site will not be improved in the future so there's a volume of the site that won't be upgraded. the t dr can sell it the folks find a small footprint but entitlement for height that they can't get to because of floor area ratio. so the t dr allows the developer to maximumize their height.

this is a picture of how that can happen. t dr can only come from 3-ds sites or if the code was replaced for the c-3 zone districts >> so this has been an opportunity that's afford to the city since 2004 not graufl used from the city. t dr can u be used to increase the areas or for the prestige districts. heersz a map of what t dr can be used. as you see it's focused in the financial district not surprisingly and along the market street corridor again not spiraling where we have small

footprint particles. then difficulties for the developers to get to the height limitations. so i want to make it clear the t dr process in no way trumpets the process. the t dr allows the developer to maximize to their sgiements e entitlements. the proceeds of the sales >> can i stop you real quick on on my question and thanks for speaking will be the item. the concept will have taller skinnier building but this won't trump many part of the process but given f this is a newer

practice i'm curious as your thoughts if a developer purchases those t dr can they use one hundred percent of the t dr rights in the building therefore the commission has a hard time saying you can't use the full amount of that? >> if the receding sites has the entitlements in police radios to produce that volume of development i'm not sure there's a process that could prevent that from happening outside of the normal sequa or euro process that the developer would be going so there. it's sort of a maybe >> they would only purchase those after the entitlements so how could they get the entitlements to a building if

they're limited. >> well by right they have certain height and bulk restrictions. so your question might be more to the point of development factors that still are an entitlement and review process >> right. >> that's continued. >> i guess the answer is because this is somewhat of an unused process and i understand the policy behind it i agree with it. but it's untested yet if a developer you know how that kind of entitlement proposals works afterward and how did he people are seeing how the developer pays for one hundred percent of the t dr >> what's been tested is the city entering this market.

t dr is not an untested produce. we see the t g r energized developments. most current is the transbay project where the t dr facilitated maximumizing the project. we see about one hundred foot for the marketplace. it's one hundred thousand it's variable based on the market kindly but that gives a sense of traction load out in the community >> thank you. >> sure. i was mentioning the proceeds they're required to go back into the donor site it has intoxicate a restoration or other project it's very clear what the project is that goes to the part of the

certification 0 process. as you know, we anticipate budget challenges as we're dealing with the rising cost market and the unforeseen conditions that are typical on any historic preservation but to an extreme discovery. so therefore it was felt this would be an ideal property to kick start our foyer into the project. we know we have a project and a budget challenge this is an opportunity to secure revenue on a prosperity. we know we're not going to change in terms of what's on that site. so or so evasion efforts that's in the legislation to set a minimum acceptable t dr price

and that's $25 a square feet. we have robust requirements built into the legislation come back to let capital planning committee and this committee on a quarterly basis to continue to keep you advised to the pace of the process or lack thereof. and then based on the recommendation from the budget analyst we've put into the board foil an amended form of legislation which also includes the reauthorization of the midway point of sales. so this requires us to return to this body and the board when we're approaching the 2 hundred and 50 square feet of the board. to check into the marketplace and continue to the second half. i really see this memorial project as a pilot. the city has a potential for t

dr but we need to take care how we enter the market because we have you such a great volume of t d railroad. much of that is coming from a report it was produced this summer lead by a city capital and planning took the lead in putting a consultant team to be looked at the t dr markets to understand it's dynamics and this legislation reflects the concerns that were expresses in that report. a cell of t dr has to be prepared to act on a market opportunity. this is by its nature a reactive program. i usually come to i with a transaction in another party and you know what the price it going to be. this is exceptional we're

selling anything to unknown parties elsewhere. it's to enhance the memorials restoration project. that's why we're seeking a one-time authority so we can very quickly strike. we'll bring you back to earlier and in the spring of 2013 when hyperglycemias needed t dr remaining increment that he they approached the city and we try to move as as quickly as possible to sell the t dr but we were not able to act fast enough. literally the weekend they struck a deal to secure the t dr at the same price from the city.

that lost opportunity focused our team so we want to structure a program that's reactive enough. the planning committee approved the plan. i'm joined by elizabeth and others from t p w and a supervisor >> i want to thank beth murphy for being here and walking to the $154 million project and thank you, mr. updike for the simmer reports. i have a question i know that other historic preservation advocates how are they involved in the process in the summer report in the t dr that's a

question >> i'm not sure exactly of the outreach that the consulting team did but i know they interviewed a number of stakeholders on both sides of this issue. one concern is development but the the other is the city entering the marketplace as a seller and other competitions to facilitate their restoration. and so in that respect there's some choices that need to be made so we move forward cautiously so we don't influence that market to a great degree. there's competition in a marketplace. there's legitimate questions raised by those who want to sell

t dr they have flexibility and we have set a floor on pricing that's firm. there are avenues who can be explored for development rights to sell. the public nature of the discussion has been at the capital planning committee and, of course, this process today and a could you comment on the budget analysts recommendation amending tow cutting it down to 5 hundred and 50 thousand gross square foot and come back to the board >> all right. supervisor we're comfortable with the 1.1 million square feet of the t dr to the planning department but a reauthorization for 5 hundred and 50 thousand square feet so the amended documents are in the file if you choose