interestingly enough, i have to live on this area called brewster street but my address is 55 rutledge. so it's a quaint little tale and we are all very used to rooster street and we feel that by introducing another name into this small area with the disruptive and further confusing. if you have any questions or be glad to answer. >> no questions? thank you. any other members of the public that would like to speak of on this item? please, come up. >> good afternoon supervisors.

my name is perry medic. i live it 55 rutledge. the woman who just spoke that's my wife. anyway, our house faces on this so-called unnamed street. but as always been known as brewster street. this really is not unnamed in our neighborhood. i just want to emphasize that. various merchants trying to find our house, they find it very difficult and for you to change it to another name like this would make that process even more difficult. so i would kindly request the situation on that section of the street remain unchanged. iq. >> thanks. any other members of the public that would like to speak? public comment is closed. at this time >>[gavel] >> quick question for the dpw representative. how would like change for the people that live

on brewster street? >> theoretically the area being renamed or i should say be named, not renamed, there's nobody living there. actually going over dpw property at the moment. so addresses will not change. >> no economic impact? >> no. not for the local households. there are signs in the area that can be confusing. other than that, there's no direct change to people living in the neighborhood. >> okay. >> mdm. chairman if i may respectfully make a suggestion to normally when we rename a street the policy is that for a period of a believe five years, the two names are on the street. granted, this is on names public right-of-way but perhaps in deference to the individuals that testified

today, we could have the sign read, martin m ron street -rooster for a period of time. i'm not pointing put it in the resolution unless the chairwoman wishes to do so but as a family suggestion, that might help the transition here? >> we could certainly do that. they departed the sign. we follow everything is the same procedures one of the how this would be an issue. >> that sounds good. to provide to peskin i'm happy to entertain it if you are put it as a motion to change the language good the other thing is i want to understand no one lives there. right? at the public right-of-way? >> correct. it's the roads are built by dpw and it sort of bands off of brewster street property or >> wield this-is this a land with the street you guys built, is their land that's available around? with 30 people residential living at some point in the future

>> most likely, not. just because the lots are substandard now for planning, most likely probably remain as open space in that area >> okay thank you very much. wanamaker motions of her visor because if not we can accept it >> i could. why don't we hear if you're willing to reopen public comment mdm. chairman maybe we can ask the nearby neighbors on rutledge whether not i would be an acceptable compromise for them >> i'm going to open up, reopen public comment at this time it is a reminder you 2 min. to speak >>[gavel] >> ma'am, do want to share your thoughts on this compromise? >> thank you for your opening comments. i do want to say that there is a stretch of undeveloped lands in this area

and often times cars from out of the neighborhood park along their. they throw beer cans, condoms, debris in this undeveloped lands. recently, the neighbors in the area and after many calls to the city to please, and cleaned it up, there've never done so. i should not saying never. they came one time and i actually just which of the area. having done trees recklessly.. it was just terrible. so recently we've had two days where the neighbors have got out there. they have cleaned the streets. they print the foliage, swept, washington post streets and they really take pride in this area. it is interesting grab a

compromise but i don't know how naming a street martin ron, in all respect to him, and brewster will make this any less confusing. >> thank you. public comment is closed. at this time >>[gavel] >> let's do with the legislation we have in front was >> i know amendment and i would suggest we send this item to the full board recommendation as it is >> great. without objection it passes >>[gavel] >> clerk please call item to >> item number two >> ordinance amenity minister to go to berlin city from entering into an extending the leases the extraction of fossil fuel >> supervisor avalos is a sponsor for this item. he's not able to join us today but we have his aide germy public will be speaking on this item was

>> welcome >> good afternoon. germy public legislative aide to supervisor avalos did this the ordinance was before you the full board of supervisors and full hearing of the budget and finance committee did the last moment of planning department realized they in overtly do not require ceqa finding and 78 amendment of for you at the finding that this amendment is categorically exempt from sql makes reference to planning's findings on that so we would ask you simply forward this to the full board again as a committee reports after public comment thank you for your time >> thank you very much. >> adam chairman i the couple questions for the department of real estate because i see them sitting there and in so far-i'd knowledge am a cosponsor of this measure but i actually have three questions for the department of real estate. one is: do you have any sense of

what the sale price assuming the sale of the 800 acre property subject to the deed restriction would be? >> currently i don't have that information get ugly happy to get it to you >> the second question is, i assume that pursuant to chapter 23 of the administrative code the sale and form of deed would have to come back to this body that were sold? >> correct. i believe director of date mention that at the committee at budget and finance. any transactions that sort would come back to the full board >> then the third question is, how did you come up with the thousand dollars per acre for the solar energy revenue estimate? >> i deferred to the puc on that matter. >> is the puc here?

>> john-with the puc do we can come back and explain how we have that dollar amount could >> if you can be ready to do that tomorrow when we consider the item at the full board all be curious to see what solar comps you have at of current county that would substantiate that. >> we will get that for you >> think it does take public comment. any member of the public like to join us in this conversation? item 2 is open for public comment at seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> all right. colleagues, or supervisor jim peskin motion for this item? >> i move we move this to the full board with a recommendation against the was as a committee report >> as a committee report without that passes >>[gavel] >> clerk item 3 please >> item 3 a ordinance amending

the planning code to change the requirement from five-to two years to the student housing >> we have missed andrea powers from supervisor weiner's office. as well as [inaudible]. >> good afternoon pres. cohen and supervisor peskin. san francisco issuers staggering number of approximate 40,000 student beds that this is just truly remarkable. these 40,000 students compete with everyone else is looking for housing which makes housing more expensive for everyone. if you years ago supervisor generator offered legislation to identify new student housing while making it abundantly clear it's illegal to convert existing general population housing to student housing in san francisco. student housing as it is today is generally exempt from inclusion rate requirements so long as that

housing remains a student housing. hence existing law requires that any point housing entitled the student housing later decides to convert to general population housing at that point the project is required to meet all of its inclusionary requirements, plus intricate today ordinance in no way alters this requirements. student housing to be provided in two ways. the educational institution itself can build housing for its own students or, when a more educational institutions can band together and master lease a building that is built by third-party. in the latter circumstance the current law requires that the master lease be for a minimum of five years and has the planning commission report points out which is in your packet, those five years are said to be a significant barrier for educational institutions for overriding of reason. in fact there was a hearing earlier this year the

land use committee, on this matter and he educational institutions brought this up as being one the primary obstacles to entering into housing for their students. so again this legislation to make amends the master lease requirement from being five years to two years. again, as is today at any point whether it's at five years, two years, 10 years, 20 years, the housing converts to general population housing their required to meet all their inclusionary housing requirements and again >> can you repeat the last five? so when i read this over the weekend i was like, wait a minute five years-two years. you are saying if at the end of the two-year master lease they don't have another two-year or five-year master lease, then other provisions kick in the require them to do inclusionary

housing or how does that work? >> yesterday whenever the inclusionary housing reforms were at the time the project was originally entitled, they would be essentially be out of that those requirements. they could not convert to general population without plus playing interest over that die for deferred. >> how does the planning department-i know you was to work there but how does the planning department enforce that? >> so it's a relationship between mou acd and the planning department. the original ordinance requires these projects to report annually to mou in terms of whose attendance are and who's living in these buildings. if any violation in fact that son under penalty of perjury just like the much of the house in the city. except that the planning apartment is the entity that their commission entitles the original project

to do with any enforcement issues should they arise. >> but at the end of the two years they either have to do another master lease in that location or another location, or the out with interest? >> would talk about a specific building so it's that location. at two years, should they choose to revert back to general population housing perhaps all that erin speak of is more concretely, but they are required to pay and presumably other things as well. >> is this a counterintuitive to me because it seems to me you would want to enter into a total longer master lease because reduces your risk of having to pay the inclusionary fee. i mean, >> i think i'm happy >> have addictive flexibility but it seems like two years as

a short-term act on >> is also a letter from a variety of educational institutions that describe it >> i saw it. >> the concern is that being for the smaller institutions in particular, the longer commitment as a being that and to being a risk for them as well. so having a shorter duration it's better for them without of course though always have the option to renew generally speaking that would be that they would >> that make sense to make it was there any consideration by supervisor weiner's office to have a size threshold differentiation? >> no. when going back to when we originally offered the legislation we totally made up to five years. that's something that seemed reason it wasn't necessarily based on a feedback we received at that point. we been told that five years is too much for these institutions and again i think the point to co-op supervisor peskin's boardroom this master lease provision generally is used by small institutions are the large institutions are

presumably opening their own housing. >> it seems like there's a sea difference between uc hastings, albeit the not partially subject to local law and the san francisco art institute on chestnut street that has a very small student population. >> right. to your question, no, he did not think about a variation but if you have any thoughts on that i am happy to think about it. >> i am inclined to support our likely outgoing supervisor in his final piece of legislation. >> appreciate that, supervisor. i will hand it over to erin from the planning department >> thank you. >> mr. starr >> thank you supervisors. the planning commission consider this item on september 8 and

unanimously voted to recommend approved and make a decision commissioner of the shortage of nearly 40,000 beds in the city and the shortfall insurance that overall housing crisis as students are forced to look for limited and expensive house. they propose ordinance does not change the current law. the ordinance lease in place requirement that student housing projects to fill their inclusionary housing requirement should housing a pretty diverted back to market rate housing. that includes my comments based on the ordinance but am happy to answer any questions you might have >> supervise them as question any questions because >> not that i have enough >> thank you for your presentation. we will go to the public at the time. public comment is open. good to see you. >> good afternoon. the hack is proud to support and past the two pieces of legislation that brought student housing first

with supervisor duffy in 2010 and second with supervisor weiner. when the second one past was a lot of news about it and i was getting a call a week from national student housing developers same great get were coming to san francisco. we want to build student housing and three much nothing happens and what became clear is that the schools are really pretty risk averse. they had to carry the small schools had to carry the master leases on their balance sheets. being prayers lease finance and risk averse they do not want to do that. they felt that five years was too much as mr. powers suggested that two years would be something that might entice more of them into master leasing student housing. something that we strongly support and want to see take off the accelerator a lot more. so this actually came at the request. we've heard from some of the small schools. would this work? yes, we think so. i

think it deserves to be tried to put it in and see of two years will get were of it going. i think it deserves your support. thank you for a much >> thank you. any other members of the public like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> motion for this item? >> i move this item to the full board with a recommendation >> without objection the motion passes >>[gavel] >> clerk please call item for >> item number four is a planning code zoning map mission and nine street special use district >> i got in my notes we've got [inaudible] from the planning department get to present this item. if she's not here. it's okay because what we will do is i'm going to take public comment but this items going to be continued. perfect. so let's go ahead to public comment did anyone here like to speak on the item four, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor peskin is minor

stand this committee can act on this item until we hear the course one in general plan amendment did therefore i'm going to ask for a motion to continue this item for november 28 meeting >> i'm sorry >> i like to make a motion for you to make a motion to this item continue to our november 28 meeting >> so moved >> thank you be without. >>[gavel] >> item 5 please >> item 5 is a ordinance and many the house go to her by that definition of development projects in large and small residential objects subject to the water >> thank you clerk. again to present as i'm >> afternoon. this ordinance before you is a cleanup amendment two original ordinance that supervisor weiner author back in 2005. that ordinance