that but the bottom line it's a private agreement. they are free to go to court. the city the city should be a party to it. the city is not a party to it therefore the city can't enforce it. none of these rise to the level of substantial evidence. based on sequa and 16 b 6 you would have to find there's absolutely no substantial evidence in the record you have to find this document document as adequate and you should deny the appeal. thank you very much. >> seeing no questions for the project sponsors, i'd like to invite any members of the public who are supporting -- sdmroo >> i'm sorry i think i have 3 minutes and some seconds remaining. >> good afternoon madam

president and supervisors i was hoping to get out of talking but do i have 7 and a half minutes? >> you have 3 minutes remaining. >> there's a long history to this project i'm looking forward to it being over. i think it's very unfortunately it's come back to this body and that the appellant continues to persist after so many complaints all of which have been addressed it's very frustrating for me as the architect for this project that i have to get up here and defend defend that it's okay to have lowered the door 18 inches. really i think everybody has missed that including the planning department the focus of this

sequa is about lowering the front door and the front porch that's visible from the street because those things are visible from the street. the dorm ers in the back are behind the roof; they are not visible from the street. everything else the appellant has brought up are subject to permitting issues and all of those permitting issues are being handled now with the building department. he continues to obstruct the process by asking for more things. the project sponsor continues to address them and more complaints arise. i've had it.

>> thank you and now at this time i'd like to call up any members that wish to support the public sponsors so if there's anyone here from the public please line up. last call. all right seeing none then our hearing under item 37 has been held and is now closed. >> oh, i apologize let me take that back and offer the appellants the opportunity for rebuttal 5 minutes total so you may do so at this time. >> appellants were very pleased to have had an agreement after 4 months to start construction

and build the home that she wanted to build. what's behind this issue is a back story. 2821 broderick was bought by another individual and that individual proceeded to to remod l it was remodeled for a couple of years and convert i convert convertible into a home this is a dollars and cents issue. what you see happening here is the building out of history out of homes in san francisco for greed and profit. i think it is important for us to remember that diversity of housing allowing the diversity of individuals to live in the neighborhood whether middle class or upper middle class whatever they are it's a

blessing. it allows the kind of neighborhood that we have always had in calhalo build the history out of them and create mansions that can then be sold for incredible amount of money. it will create a lower density but it will make a golden ghetto. and the kind of home and diversity the kind of wonderful neighbors that we have had, that's going to be gone and the issue whether this is in fact an impact on people other than the building is false. i think mr. moore testified to what happens when buildings are raised to such a degree and there's no air and light. you can see what happens with underground streams when the water is backed up and you can see in fact what's happening when roof

tops are expanded to such a degree in fact you don't have the kind of environment that you had once before. the point of the matter is that this issue should have never happened had the project sponsor followed the rules. that's what we have asked all along. follow the rules. had she gone on july 1st 2013 corrected her plans and came back on a notice to their neighbors we could see we could have been done in very short order but in fact no one knows what she really wants to do. when i met with ron and he told me he asked them to bring in the materials and he and one of the top engineers went through to look at it and he said to me mr. zuretski we could not decipher an alignment

between the works and plans the work in progress and the work to be done and hence forth they asked bring us clear, distinct plans so we can see what the project is about and this is why the supreme court in the laurel heights case said in in sequa the neighborhood should have the total ity and whole view of what the project is about the question of logo lowering the doors 18 inches found a new life i'm sure as we get through the hearing new permits will emerge that's the that's the mod u.s. operandi of this project sponsor. we're asking the preservation of

the neighborhood and asking for families to return to san francisco of course. you are looking at one individual who was raised in a flat and turned out to be a pretty good person . i think our supervisor was raised in a flat. i think that we ought to remember that there are other ways to live except in mansions. [applause]. >> >> thank you. now at this time our hearing under item 37 has been held and is closed now item 38 and 40 are in the hands of the board. supervisor farrell. >> thank you madam farrell. colleagues in terms of this --

we've been working on this for years an incredible amount of time over the years. since then new plans and applications have come up that were submitted to record will to rectify that the that the neighbors filed a dr not taken by the planning commission and today what's in front of us is a cad-x appeal regarding the project that was approved in july at the planning department. over the last few weeks we continue at this board

a few weeks ago until today and i want to thank all the neighbors for coming as well as planning and dvi and everyone else from the city staff and also the project sponsor and her attorney to discuss the concerns. as we all attempted to broker a compromise as well but unfortunately this time around was unsuccessful as much as we tried. i will say that over all, you know, i have a number of issues with how this has been handled over the years this project including you know, how the project sponsor has or has not worked with the neighbors i think there's frustrations on the both ends. i think the neighbors are fortunate to have mr. zuresky bird dogging this issue for a number of years and i do wish a compromise could have been

reached and i understand the frustration. that all being said our hands are tied here. we have to look at environment issues now. there were germane issues raised and i've looked and looked and in good faith i can not say there's an environmental issue here with this project that should overturn the planning department decision from an environmental perspective. you know whether it be the lifting of the property and the height issue one of the major issues and i understand exactly what happened here and you know, the unit merger i i understand concerns around that again that's a permitting issues we have very strict limitations in terms of how we can look at this and you know, at the end of the day dvi is going to review the plans. if there's

anything new that gets submitted it gets reviewed to planning and if it's substantially different then it's going to be looked at in another environmental go through. you know, i want to be clear for me this is far from a stamp of approval on this project i wish it was handled differently i'm very very frustrated i and my staff spent a ton of time on this issue and the job today whether the planning department and i just don't see any evidence to the contemporary at all despite my reservingations. i'm going to table items 39 and 40. >> motion seconded by

supervisor campos. all right. colleagues can we take this same house same call or do we need a roll call vote? all right so the motion has been made to affirm item 38 without objection the determination of the categorical exemption is now affirmed now item -- madam clerk if you could read our second 3:00 p.m. special order. >> pursuant to a motion for items 41 through 42 to consider the proposed resolution. to approve actions the subject of item 42 actions by the commission on community investment in a site designated

for affordable housing for the construction of the transbay transit center. >> thank you for this item i'd like to first offer the opportunity for the district supervisor and sponsor supervisor kim for comments proceeded by miss tiffany bohe with that supervisor kim. >> thank you. however tjp is not able to draw down on the loan until certain conditions are met. we're currently on track to meet the conditions in in late 2015. the

construction costs in the interim many of my colleagues will remember some some of the concerns that come up over the fact that we really operate almost month to month during some of the some of the controversies back in september and to this legislation is necessary to close the loan. it allows the city to subordinate the specified interest related to certain parcels of land in order to use these parcels as collateral. the loan will be repaid as soon as the loan is drawn down and the cost for the 12-month loan program can be covered within our existing phase one

budget. the legislation has no impact on the city and the legislation was unanimously approved by the finance committee and it's important to note regardless of the repayment status of the bridge loan it will still be subject and i urge my colleagues to support the resolutions so the interim construction funding can proceed. we have members on hand and i see our director tiffany bohe to speak on behalf of the agency. >> thank you supervisor kim and president tang and supervisors as the district supervisor indicated we do recommend your approval of these transaction documents both if your legislative capacity as the

city as well as supervisor kim outlined this bridge loan allows the development of certain parcels parcel f to go forward while this bridge loan is outstanding and even if a worst case scenario, if the unlikely event happens that the lender forecloses on the property which we don't think is likely those requirements including the affordable housing requirement that would be enforced really travel and run with the land. we expect the bridge loan to be repaid in approximately 1 year after the board's consideration of this transaction the state department of finance will review it and the bridge loan is expected to close in january. so with that that concludes my presentation.

members of the tjpa as well as claudia gorum are also here with any questions you have. >> do we have anymore questions or comments for the staff present here today? supervisor kim? no. okay with that then we have items 41 and 42 before us. and we'd like to take public comment on those two items. any members of the public if you wish to speak you have 2 minutes to speak. seeing none public comment is closed for this item. any further discussion? all right. all right. so hour hearing has been held and closed and now 41 and 42 if we could -- so we could take that same house same call without objection. oh, i'm sorry. our

house has changed now we're going to have to go to roll call vote. >> on item 42 tang aye. supervisor weiner aye. yee aye avalos aye breed aye supervisor campos, campos absent. supervisor cohen aye. farrell aye. kim aye mar aye there are 9 ayes. >> that resolution is adopted and madam clerk to our third special 3:00 p.m. order. >> pursuant to a motion approved on november 25th the board of supervisors will convene items 33 through 45 to authorize the execution of the first amendment for the purchase and sale of real property and to the

conditions of the bridge loan with the value of 171 million not to exceed the amount from gold man sacks bank and item 45 is the resolution to authorize the director of property to execute the first amendment to the option for the purchase and sale of real property between the city transbay joint powers authority for the execution and consent of conditions of the bridge loan with the value of 171 million. >> items 43 and 44 we did hear this the nature of this item 41 and 42 but 42 so at this time i'd like to see if supervisor kim has any comments or any other member of the departments. seeing none. any

members of the public wishing to speak. public comment is closed and the hearing has been held for item 43. 44 and 45 let's take a roll call vote on items 44 and 45 tang aye weiner aye yee aye. >> supervisor avalos, aye, supervisor breed aye supervisor campos aye supervisor cohen aye, farrell aye kim aye mar aye there are 10 ayes. >> the resolutions are unanimously adopted item 46 was considered by the committee at a rescheduled meeting on on december 4th at 3:00 p.m. and recommended with the same title

and forwarded by a committee report. report and renumbering all sections amending the business and tax regulations code and applications fees and making the environmental findings. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you president tang. colleagues, this item is a major historic act i call it act. it will help us reduce tobacco sales by one half and i wanted to thank the early cosponsors but also recent and current cosponsors david campos and former president and this is an important piece of legislation that's youth driven

that came out of 6 years of work by the reduction force and many other youth-led organizations so it's really an important example of youth led laws in cities to create better health equity for our communities it's really about protecting kids and schools and vulnerable communities from smoking and targeting and marketing by big tobacco corporations it will help us reduce gradually tobacco permits to have healthier air as well. this policy is a lot of hard work. my staff worked hard with the department of public health staff and especially the young leaders from our communities many many neighborhoods were represented

and we passed this unanimously last week and my hats go off to the leadership institute to really empower young people with strong skills in organizing research and effective advocacy here at city hall so my hat and off and tremendous respect to the where to the young people without their efforts we we wouldn't be here today but it's been 6 years of work, though. in san francisco our low income communities and communities of color and with a large number of young people we have a a disproportionate compared to other neighborhoods.

>> we know that tobacco and cigarettes use is the leading cause of preventible death in san francisco and thanks so much for the department of public health leadership for emphasising that along with

community-based organizations. i wanted to give -- and nearly 4 hundred $400 million a year is spent on health costs related to cigarettes and tobacco. also ucsf and stanford researchers gave us recently their up to date research and premature death in low income communities and also tobacco density the higher concentrations of tobacco permits and sales that density results in increased youth smoking rates as well so this is about limiting access

access but also reducing big tobacco's efforts to hook young people on cigarettes and also the e cigarettes as well and this over time as i said will cut our tobacco permits in half according to our estimates through attrition and reducing the number of tobacco licenses. creating a cap of 45 licenses per district and that cap was calculated by looking at the density and to not allow neighborhoods to go above the existing caps. it takes nothing away from existing businesses. in addition any new permits must be located at least 500 feet away from schools so it's protecting kids and limiting access close to schools and also limiting permits 500 feet away from an existing tobacco retailer and

it's limiting clustering. and no new permits are allowed in restaurants and bars. bars and no new permits are allowed in any new location so it's reducing over time drastically in half within a 10 to 15-year period according to our estimates so there's small businesses we've worked with to give us input so we're protecting small business owners by preserving the value of their stores and allowing them to sell their businesses without being impacted by these regulations. in response i'm

going to be incorporating these minor amendments today the first allowing applications for new permits submitted for approval by the director by today's date so if somebody is submitting a permit by today's date, they are not subject to any of the requirements also cigar bars the owner came and testified that they were subject to the exemption in the health code section 1009.23 e and that their cigar bar for for five consecutive years can and both can obtain new permits on a one time basis it's only a couple of cigar bars bars that are being included in this

amendment. so this tobacco sales reduction act was crafted, again, in coordination with a number of stakeholders groups and i thank again the arab american grocers association and others from the department of public health and especially the community advocates and the youth leaders the tobacco sales reduction act also is part of a coordinated approach that includes healthy retail sf that allows us