of city owned paurpt located at [inaudible] van ness avenue. a portion of the proceeds of the sale up to approximately 25.87 million in outstanding amount of certificates of participation up to 5.9 million in outstanding amount of certificates of participation, build ings and multiple properties. excluding the sale and [inaudible] >> supervisor tang. >> thank you, colleagues you have been you a proposed amendment for this item on page 4 and 5. i just wanted to explain what happened in budget committee and some of the concerns raised that the potentially the board of supervisors wouldn't be able to see the final details of agreement reached between the director of real astat and the company that is purchasing in the site. what we have before

us today is a amendment that would say that within 5 days after our department of real estate reaches an agreement with a purchase their report the final sale price and conditions of sale in writing to the clerk of the board sw afterwards there would be a 30 day date timeframe which fr which a resolution is introduced at the board of supervisors and passed and adopted in order for the transaction sale to go through. i think that amendment addresses the concerns that were raised that the board of supervisor would not have the aability to way in on the agreement and give our director of real estate the ability to compete competitively in the market given the circumstances. colleagues i make a motion to amend the legislation as i stated and pending that i hope we can pass the overall item. >> supervisor tang made a maegz

to amend, is fl a second? >> second by supervisor mar. colleagues can we take this amendment without objection? without objection the amendment passes. supervisor kim. >> thank you i just want to make comments on 30 van ness project. first i want to say i do support a unified city office building. i think it is important that we insure men adepartments are in the same place and location because often i think that can make it easier for many of the residence and developers that come with a project and have to go through multiple projects. i think it also helpwise coordination and we can update the offices that exist. i did have concerns about the process by which this came to us. i think it makes sense for us to approve what is commonly called the good will project where we partner with office buildings along with residential

development. before we approve the sale of 30 van ness approving will hamper our ability in 134 ways if that option isn't the best one because we will have sold the building for development. it might have made sense to couple with 1660 and 1680 mission and maybe could have gotten a stronger deal with 3 sites and a better deal around affordable housing. i do recognize the good work the department of real estate is doing. i want to make sure we maximize the value of the site and appreciate your work on the aamendment because i felt very uncomfortable with a approval not coming back to the full board so i want to thank you for your work on that with supervisor katy tang. i will support both the amendments and

this ordinance before us today. >> thank you supervisor kim. colleagues can we take this item same house same call? >> president breed can we take a roll call? >> madam clerk can you call the roll on the item as amended? >> supervise r breeder, aye. christensen, aye. cohen, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, no. supervisor tang, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor yee, aye. supervisor avalos, no. there are 8 aye and 2 no with supervisors mar and achb lose in the descent >> the ordinance passes on the first reading. item 49 >> item 49 is a ordinance to amend the business and tax regulation code to conform the

business tax and real [inaudible] expand the circumstance squz extend the time in which the tax collector with [inaudible] extend the date for purchaseoffs filing a claim for refund of business tax squz making other revision to city rules regarding are fund of business taxes and real property taxes. >> supervisor farrell >> in front of us is a [inaudible] seek tooz reform the business tax refund process. the current process in place is not only in efficient but very confusing and this legislation lines the calendar for business refunds so it is clear when to file a refupd and to which city agency. we [inaudible] claim frz refund to the controllers office and improve processing times and limit confusion for taxpayers. this legislative change allows a year from the date of requested refund and

denied [inaudible] submit a claim for refund and colleagues i ask for your support. >> seeing no other name thonz roster madam clerk can you call the roll? >> breed, aye. christensen, aye. cohen, aye. farrell, aye. kim, aye. mar, aye. tang, aye. wiener, aye. yee, aye. avalos, aye. there are 10 ayes >> the ordinance passed unanimous on the first reading >> item 50 is resolution to approve the terminal 3 retail store lease between wdfg north american with 163 thousand in the first year of the lease for a 5 year term with 2 year option toextend .

>> colleagues item same house same call? >> without objection this is adopted >> item 51 is ret row anthively authorize public works in to extend a grant [inaudible] high wibridge replasment and rehabilitation program for the 4th street bridge for project and settlement cost for the period of january 2007 to january 2012 >> same house same call [inaudible] >> engagement to accept a grant in the approximate amount of 2.9 million from the san francisco interface counsel for the purpose of ren ovateing and opening the san francisco navigation center and assisting with supportive housing exist for one 3 4 f1

>> >> on site units by priced at

75 percent of the max. to clarify the requirements for designated units in downtown districts affordable to house holds of 120 percent of ami and 150 percent of owner and meet the monitoring and procedures for affordable units under the affordable housing program and afirm the department and sequa determination and other findings >> just for clar tee i heard you say 68 and 69 were not afforded by understanding is 67 and 68. >> that's right, 67 and 68 were not forwarded today >> thank you for that clarification. supervisor avalos >> thank you i want to thank the land use fit xhity for

restoring this legislation back to its original intent to clarify inclusionary housing program will apply to group housing projects. group housing is housing that does want include a individual kitchen for each dwelling unit like a boarding house. the housing program was created in 2002 and the program is base odthen fact more luxury housing increaseathize needs for low income worker squz the demand for affordable housing. the housing program is designed to apply towards a wide range of housing. the definition of the housing projects, it included group housing but at some point the planning department made a determination group housing was not subject to the inclusionary program. however, this determination was never formalized in the written determination which could have

been appealed to the board of appeals therefore we only became aware of unofficial policy and developers proposed a number of market rate group housing projects. this brought to light the fact the planning department is not requiring them to comply with the inclusionary housing program. this ordinance clarifys that the planning department is to follow the original language of the housing program and apply it to group housing. it is encouraging to hear the gep developer of [inaudible] agreed to comply with this inclusionary project and other projects as well in the works that will also be complying as we move forward with this clarification. i want to thank the land use committee for bringing this ordinance back into its original intent and hope we can all support this colleagues, thank you. >> thank you for visor avalos. supervisor kim. >> thank you i want to thank

supervisor avalos's office for their work on this as well as april [inaudible] from my office for her work. i want to add a couple words to the ordinance that is before us today and reitthrait points we made. again this is clarifying language back in 2002, the board of supervisors when they originally passed the affordable housing program they stated group housing developer would be part of this program provided onsite inclusionary housing or the in lieu off site fee. it only came to light recently as supervisor avalos mentioned, that the planning department interpreted this differently due to a variety of definitions arounds housing and dwelling units. we do expect group housing developers provide the same requirements that every other market rate developer in the city provides. we do know now that group

housing has become lucrative in the hot real estate market and the reason this hadn't come before us prior is not a lot of group housing was built in san francisco because it wasn't always viewed as financially feasible. i want to thank the budget committee for bringing the ordinance back to its original form and i look forward to passing this today. colleagues we ask for your support. >> colleagues can we take item number 66, same house same call. without objection the ordinance passed unanimously on the first reading. can you please call item 69 >> a ordance to amoned the planning code to allow existing restaurant in the north beach to open a second restaurant provided it meets certain criteria. >> same house same call.

without objection the ordinance is pass ond the first reading. madam clerk let's go to roll call for introduction >> first up to introduce new business is supervisor christensen. >> i have a in memoriam for father austin conturno who was born in 1915 in italys alba region. we know him as a associate pastor at saint peters where he retired in 2000 at 85. fath rer conturnero [inaudible] severed as teacher and principle in schools and assistant and associate pastors up and down the state of california. we celebrated father conturnoes 100 birth day. he was respected and loved and will be missed.

thank you, supervisor christensen. supervisor farrell. >> thank you madam clerk. colleagues today i am introducing public safety reforms in response [inaudible] the murder at pier 14 was a tragied. every crime in san francisco is unacceptable and the family is testifying back in congress in washington dc. as a parent of 3 young children i can't imagine the grief they are induring. as for the likes of donald trump and fox news and any and other individuals and organizations that sought to take political advant objectf the tragied they should be ashamed to take advantage for rate squgz polls and kudos to supervisor wiener and tang who stood up to them with fanfare. over the last week we have seen a public back and forth between the sheriff, our

mayor and deputy shaifer association ending for the time being with a request for the apublic hearing from the mayor to discuss the policy and legislative clarity from the board of supervisors. what we don't need is hysteria. i don't believe we need a public spectacle at city hall. in response today i'm introducing 3 items. first is a resolution confirming this boards support for our existing law which is a pillar of our public safety policy in san francisco for decades as well as due process legislation authored by supervisor avalos in 2013 and calling our sheriff to resends his memorandum in march 15,

2013 which was a gag order on his department. discretion giving to law enforcement to communicate with other law enforcement agencies. both our sanctuary city and due process ordinances seek to prescribe limitations in certain circumstances but it is impossible to legislate every situation our public safety leader squz person elwill encounter as law enforcement person el. there is no way as we as a board or the mayor could have anticipated the circumstances surroundsing this individuals presence in san francisco and there are sure tobe unforeseen circumstances in the future. as a result, i believe this discession that exists is necessary. necessary for the public safety of the residence and the job of safety officials. if the discession is handled well it should be applauded and if not

open to chrisicismism however thrks shaifers department wide memo issued this march took the sanctuary city and due process a step further and amounted to a gag ord er unless the sheriff approved otherwise. this took the city and processes a step forward. it is violation of federal law. the resolution calls for rescission and restoration codifyed in the city ordinance. second of all, we have been work wg the city attorney on this issue for over a week, a formal drafting wequest to create a requirement that before a sheriff brings a

--we need to turn the page. this should not be discussed in terms of a immigration issue but a discussion about public safety. our sanctuary city policy served us well over the decades and we need to stand behind the policy in the immigrant community as well as due process ordinance. had you ever if the public safety leadererize not appropriately handling this as prescribed we need to take a hard look to make sure other instances don't happen in again in san francisco. public accept is a priority in city hall. >> thank you sfr visor farrell. supervisor wiener. >> thank you madam clerk. colleagueed today i'm introducing along with the mayor

the sustainability program which is a successor ordinance to our long standing transit impact development fee. this is the fee that we impose on new development to pay for transportation impacts that that development generates particularly around public transportation but also about street design and safety measures. the tidf has been around for over 30 years but there were some very very major exemptions particularly around residential development. for the last 30 plus years residential development in san francisco has not paid transit impact development fees so you can build a 50 story high rise and not pay one penny if the entire building is dovoted to

residential use. the tsp will rectify that by modernizing the approach to transit impact development fees and extend the fee to any project of 20 or more unit so this will be a major step forward. it will increase what we see from transit impact development fees to fund muni as well as regional partners and other transportation needs in the city. this is a important step for the transportation system. i look forward to discussion and earning your support. thank you. >> thank you supervisor wiener. supervisor yee. >> thank you madam clerk. so today i will be introducing an ordinance called inclusionary childcare. after many months of discussion and research, today i'm excited to stand

before you and introduce probably a first in the nation legislation that will address our historic underfunding and underwellming production of childcare centers. we currently have 3500 children on the eligibility list waiting for childcare services with only 42 percent of license capacity of children for parents in the labor force. all this means we simply have to do more and think creatively about how to increase the availability of childcare for our families. the legislation i'm proposing willect pand a collection of the impact fees. a fee collected 25 years ago when i was on the other side of the desk as a childcare provider will increase the fees

to those analyzed in the 2014 nexus city wide study. these fees result into 5 million dollar frz the childcare facility funds for the next 7 to 10 yearsism . it cost between 400 to 500 thousand dollars to build a small childcare center in san francisco due to high cost of construction and stringent state licensing requirements. the real innovation is finding more affordable options. one of the best ways is through license home based family childcare. this legislation will create an option for developers to dedicate housing units to family childcare. each one of the units could serve up to 6 children. generally speaking family childcare providers do take

care of most of our infants 0-3. developers of rental projects will have a option to dedicate up to 3 units dependent on the size of the projects to be dedicated to family childcare. this will allow them to receive a decrease in the amount of the childcare fee. we strongly believe this will lead to the creation of dozens of units that will have the potential assisting hundreds of families will allowing residential useage. i want to thank [inaudible] carson michele [inaudible] from the office of early care and education. i also want to thank candous wong from low investment fund and also people like rosy kennedy director of family childcare association. and also to the staff of the planning department who helped us work

on this. kristen disenjure and man icumohann and steve [inaudible] all these people contributed to this piece of legislation that i am introducing today. i look forward to having your support on this legislation as it makes its way through the process in the fall. thank you very much and the rest i submit >> thank you supervisor yee. supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos is not in the chamber. we can rerefer roll call for introductions. >> okay >> if appropriate when he returns >> okay, madam clerk at this time let's go to our-is it time for 3 p.m. special order? >> on our watch it is in one minute madam president >> okay. supervisor tang. >> thank