medium income husband and wife with three or four kids its impossible to food it i support this. >> are there any members of the public who wish to speak seeing none, why not a rebuttal by the appellant court mr. williams up to 3 minutes. >> thank you president chiu and members of the board thank you for your attention to this and your intelligent comments it sounds like this is going to be continued to have a further look-see i want to correct some of the errors this building is occupied by tenant up until the purchase until december 2012 all the neighbors informed me who students probably a lot like jeffrey that lived up there and bought out before the developers bought it a month in january of

2013 and, of course, immediately tried to demolish it so there's been tenant pretty much continuing so discussion about what could be developed it is pretty much wide open 7 units could be put on the lot without the subdivision you need a 25 percent raider but you could expand it i don't know about the discussion you can't add a rear yard if you could have the overhead please. sfgovtv. >> this is the code required rear yard of 25 percent which the neighbors is fine the present could be expanded if built right could fall under rent control they can add more

rent control unit by expanding the building so the thought we're trapped into options we don't have is not true here's with the developers the department asked them to do a 25 percent rear yard on both of the rear lots there are a lot of confusion the lots have not obey subdivided it's one lot here's what the department pretty much asks for 25 percent of each lot at ground floor they saw an exception and said the reason we need this exception we can't put rear yard or synonym those are odd lots this is much of a disappointment from the neighbors they were not flexible about the rear yard and open space they proposed less than 10 percent zero rear yard

and open space in lot a and the possibility of expanding the lots and building on b there's a lot of possibilities out there there's really no limits on what can be approved as dictated by zoning it requires the demolition of sound rent control units thank you. >> thank you, mr. williams colleagues any questions to the parties? okay. at this point this hearing has been held and this matter is in the hands of the board survisor mar >> so let me start by thanking planning staff and the project sponsor and mr. williams and on that have people in favor of the appeal it's been about a year i've been involved and contacted

by ms. lee and the owner gabriel i feel this year's time to look at the preservation or the don't guess but the creation of protection of two below market rate units within the project i'm not sure that a continuance of time would allow movement on botsdz i'm open to that if this is what the body wants i'm willing to vote on this today as my colleagues have said as policymakers in the city the discretionary under 317 that the planning commissioners looked at the 3 that voted against the project i feel they're making the right policy call in making sure that we are preserving such we can in the rent control and housing stocking in the city we

need family sized housing like those from the public that have spoken in favor of the project but not losing two units of affordable housing it is revealing that jeffrey said he's been living in the unit i'll say the project sponsor were saying it was vacant i feel that is people have not been truthful in the process any office a looked for the progress that supervisor kim have been bringing up but no movement on their part and even if we could guarantee as supervisor campos said like a park merced type of solution i'm not sure i'm that open administrative being that my hope as this bystander body is thinking about this and looking at the rule 37 of the code i'll

say wherever there's the project sponsor demonstrated that the residential structure is not un10u7b89d and people are living there right now point number 7 whether the project removed rental projects subject to the arbitration it clearly does and there are a couple of others clear discretionary guidance to the planning commissioners, i feel like under the don't guess section 317 we s have to vote to have this appeal i ask you to join with the residents not only like sue from the sierra club but from the richmond that feel you have wealthier individuals buying and displacement of protecting folks this is a concern and rejecting the

planning commission decision in favor of boarder levels approach looking at section 317 of the planning code i urge you to vote to the appeal and and a as described seconded supervisor breed further discussion. >> supervisor breed. >> yes. i want to make a few comments about this particular item if the property had been delipidated or issues with the property i think it would be a different ball game i'm not supportive of agreeing to demolish rent control units whether or not their are we talking about out or someone occupies them or not its a limited housing stock it's something we can't take for granted i would be more open to continuing the item that if

supervisor mar were open to that based on his experience it's 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 city to extend the lease by 5 years for a new date of 20022 for approximately $70.6 million during the extension of the term. >> same house, same call? this resolution is adapted. >> item 19 authorizing the

multiple single families needing for $49 million for a financing for multiple family urging known as the hunter view. >> this resolution is adapted. >> commissioner dooley's. >> sorry to interrupt i need to reaccepted the vote open item 14 i meant to continue that item approximately we made an amendment and the language has not been developed so i want to continue it. >> supervisor avalos as made a motion to resend seconded by supervisor kim we'll take that without objection. this is the case and supervisor avalos as making a motion to continue. >> to december 9th. >> seconded by supervisor breed we'll take that without objection. this is continued to

the ninth madam clerk call item 20. >> there's an item on the floor mr. president, item 19 you've approved it with an objection we're on item 20. >> if you could call it and to approve the issuance of tax exempt for college of the arts needing 2 of million dollars. >> colleagues, same house, same call? item 21. >> the city manager to exclusive an agreement with the engineers for specialized engineering services for the proposed new head works facility at water floougs pollution control plant. >> same house, same call? we'll take that without objection. this resolution is adapted. >> next item.

>> mr. president, 0 would you like me to read the historic property. >> those were recommendeds mills historic contracts with the city and he was the owners of the following property on peers street 563 water street and 621 water street. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. president colleagues today before us is 3 contracts under the millions act the state legislation that initiate advised improvements to in maintaining historic properties in historic districts two years ago as you recall i introduced legislation this board passed unanimously to reform our local process around the miles act i worked with the

san francisco historic heritage and other advocates in drafting that long overdue legislation miles act for people to maintain their properties in a historic way the intent of this legislation that we passed a few years ago was to increase access to the miles act that helps homeowners to make costly improvements to roars structures we prioritized the historic preservation around the architecture of the thought city we want our historic building to be maintained as costing hass as that would be the miles act provides for property tax credits for owners to restrict a 10 year maintenance for a deliciously in terms of what the owner has to do to the building

the miles act applies to property that are contributing to a local state or historic building or landmarked we've put a lot of maintenance and want them to be done the miles act provides an incentive to maintain them in an appropriate way in 2012 other communities for example, la had a robust miles program and oakland across the bay a smaller city than san francisco had a robust plan significantly bigger than san francisco over time there were few miles a acts in san francisco other than a larger properties almost no small homeowners that were participating because the process here was difficult and

long and expensive and unpredictable legislation we adopted a few years ago has significantly improved that and made a streamlined and more predictability thanks to the planning department and the assessors office we've seen a bunch of miles act glutton and last year, it was approved a series of small homes for miles act contracts 3 miles act contracts before his today are from the newest historic district in san francisco one that i authored and this board elective last day last year the historic district immediately north of delores park the all of a sudden dead end street pierce carmelita it's

a behalf historic district and the earth is remarkable and those 3 contract were all recommended for approval by the historic preservation commission and in addition the 3 contracts have the support of the san francisco architecture heritage and we've described a letter from the executive director of the heritage strongly supporting those krikts contracts so colleagues, i ask firing support and any questions about the process for the miles act the planning department is here to answer our questions. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you president chiu so clooepgz colleagues which of those in committee last week, i was not ready to support it i'm kind of on the fence i actually feel the miles act works pest

when it's looking at preserving the property in blighted areas of the city and this part of san francisco is definitely not an area that is blighted perhaps in 25 to thirty years ago it could have been but 40 years ago it was in that condition but right now not those property are already in pretty good condition one of the projects where the building is looking for the miles act designation as accomplished much of the work that is done in terms of the renovation i know it covers maintenance a separate issue but i actually feel that the miles act is really geared towards looking at parts of neighborhoods that are more blighted where the tax break can actually help people who have