lottery it is hard you have a get square footage is 11 hundred medium income husband and wife secret so to swedes 3 bedrooms with three or four kids its in 11 square feet is not easy impossible to food it i support that's pretty much any private this. >> are there any members of the builder can do on affordable basis now if you take an public who wish to speak seeing none, why not a rebuttal by the additional unit for the affordable and put on the appellant court mr. williams up affordable side 3 unit are to 3 minutes. affordable then the other 3 >> thank you president chiu and members of the board thank you for your attention to this and units are slightly larger make your intelligent comments them as affordable then the it sounds like this is going to be continued to have a further private owner has two unit to look-see i want to correct some recapture their investment this of the errors this building is is discouraging where people are occupied by tenant up until the trying to develop additional new housing for the city so you have purchase until december 2012 all to realize the city should give the neighbors informed me who extra incentives for a smaller students probably a lot like jeffrey that lived up there and builder like marching to build

bought out before the developers this kind of unit rather than bought it a month in january of discourage it but if you 2013 and, of course, immediately supervisor jane kim if you are tried to demolish it so there's considering we put up we been tenant pretty much required the owner to provide continuing so discussion about additional affordable but their what could be developed it is though the building luxury unit pretty much wide open 7 units could be put on the lot without in in my opinion i will in the richmond district for a a long the subdivision you need a 25 time with 3 bedroom new united percent raider but you could for 11 hundred secret it's really affordable - expand it i don't know about the >> thank you. next speaker. discussion you can't add a rear >> hi, i'm amy lee i'm not not yard if you could have the working on this project but overhead please. speaking as a resident of the sfgovtv. richmond district i'm a single >> this is the code required mom of 3 i'd love to have those rear yard of 25 percent which the neighbors is fine the size of rental apartment this is a city that is favorable present could be expanded if unfriendly with one bedroom built right could fall under studios i've moved to the

richmond and stuck in a house rent control they can add more this is too expensive because rent control unit by expanding they're not unit like this the building so the thought available to families like we're trapped into options we myself i felt strongly but this don't have is not true here's with the developers the project and feel for marching she is he is so developed department asked them to do a 25 percent rear yard on both of the previous projects that are skeptic to the community and i rear lots there are a lot of confusion the lots have not obey understand you guys have an important citywide policy with subdivided it's one lot affordability but we're looking here's what the department at 2 units that are 2 hundred pretty much asks for 25 percent and 50 sfooet e square feet and of each lot at ground floor the other one thousand plus not they saw an exception and said assessable for anyone to rent i the reason we need this understand we have a challenge exception we can't put rear yard and major affordability problem or synonym those are odd lots but moving forward this particular development it might this is much of a disappointment be weighing on her shoulders from the neighbors they were not flexible about the rear yard and being the fact she's looking at open space they proposed less building the user frantically in

than 10 percent zero rear yard the richmond i would like you to and open space in lot a and the balance out this citywide policy possibility of expanding the and start with a smaller lots and building on b there's a developer so thank you very much and i think you may need to lot of possibilities out there there's really no limits on what legislation late a policy for can be approved as dictated by the small developer thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. zoning it requires the >> i'm jeffrey currently eagle demolition of sound rent control in the property right now units so me and couple of friends thank you. >> thank you, mr. williams college friends moved back in colleagues any questions to the parties? may of last year you can okay. at this point this hearing has been held and this marching needed a permit at about we've lived there short matter is in the hands of the term we don't pay any rent but in board supervisor mar >> so let me start by thanking return we manage the property and make sure there's no trash planning staff and the project sponsor and mr. williams and on and she was getting fined from that have people in favor of the rats from the city and so after appeal it's been about a year

living there after a year and a i've been involved and contacted by ms. lee and the owner gabriel half there's a definitely liveable condition like sweeping i feel this year's time to look floors and maybe the power goes at the preservation or the don't guess but the creation of out the problems but definitely it's a place that is good for protection of two below market rate units within the project living short term and free but definitely we have to pay rent i'm not sure that a continuance to live there long term is not of time would allow movement on botsdz i'm open to that if this reasonable thank you. is what the body wants i'm >> knapp u president chiu. >> jeffrey what time period did willing to vote on this today as you live in the building my colleagues have said as there starting from may 2013 to policymakers in the city the discretionary under 317 that the planning commissioners looked at current and currently right now. the 3 that voted against the >> it's not vacant your project i feel they're making currently living there. the right policy call in making >> yes. >> okay. thank you. sure that we are preserving such >> >> next speaker. we can in the rent control and

>> hi, i'm bryan a resident housing stocking in the city we need family sized housing like of the richmond district i'm in those from the public that have favor of this project affordable housing to buy where can you buy spoken in favor of the project 3 bedroom units in san francisco but not losing two units of also it costs a lot of money affordable housing it is where can you buy it you have a revealing that jeffrey said he's husband and wife and two kids been living in the unit i'll say the project sponsor were saying where are they going to live it was vacant i feel that is it's extremely difficult this is people have not been truthful in affordable because of the square footage of this property 11 the process any office a looked hundred square feet for 3 units for the progress that supervisor this is something people can afford they can't afford to buy kim have been bringing up but no movement on their part and even otherwise so i'm for families and for purchase of those if we could guarantee as supervisor campos said like a beautiful units so i'm flavor park merced type of solution i'm not sure i'm that open administrative being that my thank you. >> hello, i'm andy chin on hope as this bystander body is thinking about this and looking clemente street i have a small family my i did not know it is 8 at the rule 37 of the code i'll

going to school in the richmond district for the last 4 years say wherever there's the project sponsor demonstrated that the residential structure is not i'm done with renting and call un10u7b89d and people are living myself a san franciscan there right now point number 7 homeowners but two bedrooms is easier to find i really like 3 whether the project removed and just having looked at around rental projects subject to the inform three or four years i've arbitration it clearly does and there are a couple of others got to tell you it is hard we've done all the open homes and clear discretionary guidance to broker tours it's difficult when the planning commissioners, i you find something your feel like under the don't guess competing with buyers with all section 317 we s have to vote to cash that's crazy so i'm in favor of this project the more have this appeal i ask you to inventor of 3 bedroom type of join with the residents not only places would be great i know i'd like sue from the sierra club like to stay in the city myself but from the richmond that feel and again, i approve that this you have wealthier individuals project and hopes it goes forward thank you. buying and displacement of >> hi, i'm sharon protecting folks this is a

concern and rejecting the planning commission decision in basically me and my friend annie favor of boarder levels approach looking at section 317 of the planning code i urge you to vote supports this building the reason he support this project to the appeal and and a as is 6 units, 3 bedrooms is just described seconded great for the neighborhood supervisor breed further discussion. it talks about the diversity and >> supervisor breed. >> yes. i want to make a few people who have a family some people have 4 kids and no where comments about this particular to go no where to go item if the property had been one bedroom, 2 bedroom units and delipidated or issues with the property i think it would be a possible it's not possible to have a quality of life different ball game i'm not supportive of agreeing to when controlled unit and one of demolish rent control units a million chance to possibility whether or not their are we talking about out or someone you know get one occupies them or not its a and on top of that you're limited housing stock it's something we can't take for talking about 11 hundred secret, granted i would be more open to

3 bedroom unit that is affordable for people to guy to continuing the item that if go out and buy a 3 bedroom house supervisor mar were open to that based on his experience it's or condo in san francisco right now is like you have to win the clear he believes the project sponsor is not willing to negotiate or make sure that, in fact, there are options to maintain some level of affordability so i'm comfortable with supporting the appeal to maintain those rent controls if the project sponsor want to look at an alternative and look at a way in which he or she can support maintaining some level of affordability for the two units whether the of they're building or proposing to build and making sure that 2 of those somehow below market rate units but clearly it's not on the table at this point, i'll be

supporting supervisor mar in the motion. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you president chiu i think i would genetically side with supervisor breed's comments we've got a larger stock of housing units this project is great in that regard on the one side you know two sound units of rent control stock that's a tough one to shallow especially in this environment i think i have questions as supervisor mar accident about they're vacant but not people saying they are they're being occupied so that lends itself to ms. claborn-welch i'll be open if there's discussions all around know for sale having two of them

being bmr units for a win-win situation i understand that supervisor mar said that's been going on i'd like to see that decision continue this is not going to be the last time we're going to hear this subject and if we create a pathway to be a win-win situations moving forward as we increase the housing stock is something i'll be in favor of and if this appeal gets upheld this project i hope comes back with that discussion in mind and relatively put forward this is a challenging one but at the end of the day as supervisor wiener mentioned as well two sound rent control unit today to tear them down for this without discussion i think supervisor mar mentioned over a year he's been trying to broker and clearly some

misinformation about whether or not those units are vacant i'm going to vote to uphold the appeal. >> supervisor kim. >> having not worked on this i'll prefer the continuance that being said i've not worked on the issue maybe there wasn't a clear viable option it would have been presented so if the vote is going to happen i'll be supervisor mar on sporting supporting the appeal i'm very excited about the possibility of building more 3 bedroom units and feel is certainly a block we've only built 23 units over the last 5 years in san francisco that being said bobby kohlman mentioned this but i'm one of the members of this board that made a commitment to support a band on demolishing of

rent control units here within the city certainly i've held up to that two developers approached me on van ness billboard that wanted to demolish project that i've let them know i can't support their project of this is on 2 units i'd like to see an alternative option i hope we can workout i think that the project sponsor attorneys oppose a solution i'm open this self-end the discussion but if the vote is happening today i'll be supporting the appeal. >> thank you it sounds like common ground on the issues and so i'm going to make a motion to continue those items by two

weeks. >> if the motion fails then we'll have to obviously look at the appeal but it seems like there are enough questions raised by a what is possible that we should give ourselves two weeks more information from the city attorney's office and see what makes sense so i move to two weeks. >> it takes precedence so is there a second and second by supervisor yee further discussion supervisor campos. >> thank you just i guess through the chair a question for supervisor mar i would defer to him in terms of not working on this project he believes there are as point in having a further discussion but

i certainly will defer to his judgment as he and his staff has been working on this matter. >> supervisor. >> i guess i should say that about a year ago i started the process to talk about some solution to as people are proposing the project sponsor is not provided that i don't feel like two additional weeks is going to move us closer to that point i'll urge you to vote on this today, i know any colleagues might be more optimistic but for a long time i've been skeptical so i am for the motion to continue. >> other comments colleagues okay supervisor wiener. >> yeah. i'm supervisor mar i'd

like to withdraw the motion i think it would be worth exploring this but supervisor mar's office has been involved for sometime so i'm going to request to withdrew the motion. >> supervisor wiener has withdrawn his motion to continue. >> i thought i would support a continuance i wanted to stated some of my comments the lion share i hoped we'd seen a come mice i know that the planning department has heard my time and time again, i building in creating additional housing stock it addresses some of our problems we're facing in san francisco so but i think one of the public commenters made it clear in saying we're struggling

right now with competing policy goals i'd like to see additional units created i said the struggles that supervisor mar went through in trying to talk with the project sponsor but i want to go on record to look at the situations that are similar as we're dealing with on the other hand, a great project where we're creating additional family sized unit i've been hardship on 3 bedrooms i think are great but on the other hand, trying to preserve the rent control heirs stock so i'd like to work with the planning staff to how do we tackle that. >> thank you with that, colleagues any further comments let's take a roll call vote on supervisor mar's - >> so i motion we table item

thirty and we approve item 31 which disastrous the conditional use authorization with the planning commission. >> second on that motion. >> seconded by supervisor breed and mr. john gibner, deputy city attorney in her. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney two comments first, the board should loss approve item 32 directing the clerk to prepare the finding and second just to inform that finding motion i wanted to make sure that i understand number of points have been made based on the record supervisor mar referred to some of the factors in section 317 that regular meetings are held on the second and fourth tuesday of each month. the conditional use authorization for circumstance one of them is that state converts rent control housing to other forms and removal o 0

removals the affordability of existing housing and i believe that because many of the comments made eye by the supervisors it doesn't preserve the neighborhood cultural and that economic diversity. >> that's correct. >> okay supervisor mar assumed what you're city attorney has suggested is part of your motion okay with that roll call vote. >> supervisor mar supervisor tang supervisor wiener. >> supervisor yee supervisor avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor chiu supervisor farrell supervisor kim

there are 10 i's issuance of the conditional use authorization is disapproved and with that, colleagues that concludes our 3:00 p.m. special orders now back to our regular agenda item 10. >> an ordinance to amend the administrative code to authorize the department of public health to designate another department to carry out the cat traffic program for the city families. >> on item 10. >> supervisor mar supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos. >> i'm just reviewing and item 10. >> oh, yes. >> supervisor avalos p supervisor breed supervisor campos

supervisor chiu supervisor farrell supervisor kim there are 10 i's ordinance is finally passed. >> item 12 arrest ordinance to revise the schedule requirement for the urban forest council. >> same house, same call? this ordinance passes. >> item 12. >> so appropriate approximately $8.73 to tell us to the refers in 2013-2014 and conditional loan for a project on van ness avenue. >> same house, same call? this ordinance is passed on the first reading. >> item 13. >> so cloout execute a land acquisition agreement with good well sf for the property on mission street the anticipated cost is $337 million. >> same house, same call? this ordinance is passed on the first reading. >> item 14 is an ordinance to

authorize the municipal transportation for security services provisions that require the payment of prevailing wage by the subcontractors and contractors for security services and same house, same call? this item passes. >> item 15. >> resolution to authorize the director of public works for the construction management with jacobs for the general hospital increasing the contract from $16.4 million to approximately $29 million. >> same house, same call? this ordinance is passed on is the rest i submit first reading. >> so authorize the proposed lease for the human resources on third street in the basis year of $373,000 and estimated to cost approximately 3 hundred and 65 thousand.

>> mr. john gibner, deputy city attorney in her. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney i communicated with the controller's office and the board can move forward. >> colleagues, can we take this item same house, same call? this resolution is adapted. >> item 17 to authorize the city manager of the public works to execute engineering services agreement for the new tunnel project with the u s corporation ending 2016 and revised amount of $16.9 million. >> same house, same call? this resolution is adapted. >> item 18 a resolution to approve a modification for the operator lease and agreement between signature flight in the