we will in three weeks consider the final item regarding authorization of use of real property locatedthere. and we will begin to mean that until july 28. what we not now go, collins, to the first 3:00 special order? . colleagues? -- colleagues? if we can go to the first 3:00 special order, items 43 and 44, and if i can ask the representative from dpw if you can please step up. >> good evening, president shoe, -- chiu, board members. the department is working with those properties on the case by case basis. president chiu: why do we not pause for a moment until we have given everyone the opportunity to clear out? ok, why you not proceed? >> kenny bruce. dpw is working with all those property owners on the case-by- case basis. president chiu: ok, so at this time, there is nothing for us to amend? and you recommend that the board can adopt the report today? >> that is correct. president chiu: ok. supervisor mar? supervisor mar: ok, i did want to ask about a number of people said that there was mural art work, and there was confusion was some of the inspectors with what is art and what is

ordinance to make sure there was no sensitive uses within the property location that would prohibit an m.c.d. from opening. after doing our extensive search, we did not find any primary or secondary schools or any other prohibited uses located within the 1,000 feet. we did have questions regarding childcare facilities and addressed them in our letter of determination to the zoning administrate are and planning department. i am referencing san francisco m.c.d. ordinance under section 795.508, which defines assembly and social service views, paragraphs following b through e, not referenced by section 790.141 define childcare, educational service, religious facility, residential care indicating none of these uses are prohibitive. after addressing these concerns, zoning administrator issued a ruling for the subject property stating that the property located at 3139 mission street seemed eligible as an m.c.d. location. at that time we felt comfortable proceeding with our plan top an m.c.d. and health care facility. at that time i began working with the outreach consultant. i felt it was imp

item 53 is a public hearing about the property located on lombard street.s is consistent with the playground-library master plan project, and i did 54 is a resolution authorizing the use of real property located at 701 lombard street. -- item 54. president chiu: ok, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, here is my suggestion. we will hear on the project and other items from various city staff, including our chief librarian, the general manager of the recreation and park department, and the project architect, as well as from the director of the department of public works. after that, we will then hear from the planning department about the rezoning. we will then turn to the eir portion as well as the public comment portion with regards to the eir. the appellate represents two different organizations, and we will give them up to 15 minutes to jointly to present, and they can choose how to break up their time. the appellate will be followed by a public comment by anyone who is opposed to any of the hearing items or believe that the eir should be rejected, and memb

and county of san francisco and treasure island community development, llc, for certain real property located within treasure island/yerba buena island; exempting certain sections of administrative code chapter 6, chapter 14b and chapter 56; and adopting findings, including findings under the california environmental quality act, findings of consistency with the city's general plan and with the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1(b), and findings relating to the formation of infrastructure financing districts. item number 10. resolution approving the amended and restated base closure homeless assistance agreement with the treasure island homeless development initiative; adopting findings, including findings that the agreement is consistent with the city's general plan and the eight priority policies of city planning code section 101.1 and findings under the california environmental quality act. item number 11. ordinance appropriating $1,925,000 from the general fund reserve and $360,000 from the public library preservation fund available fund balance to the department of pu

district for property located trade commending the zoning map to increase the height. thank you. >> thank you. i think we should proceed with this trade by the way, this -- this is the first time that this board has entertained an appeal on the special use district ordinance. it has not happened before. i think we can appreciate that this is actually a breakthrough in our own process. your indulgence if there is a little bit of clumsiness on it. in order to 45 the package that has been presented to us, evidence has been decent that there is overarching need and creating transitional age housing. the concern that has troubled me the most was about the case that the city is on in trying to deliver on 400 units. the goal which was instigated in 2008 and hoping they would arrive at an objective by 2012 is now -- has now been extended to 2015 because they are now were on pace. only 119 units have been pre identified, a pre developed, not developed. when you look at the spectrum of what the need is due out the city, i think that a strong case has been made that this is quite

public hearing or those interested in april 28th, 2009 decision for the property located at 800 presidioproves the decision and a conditional use authorization. item 45 is the motion is approved in the planning commission's approval of a conditional use authorization. item 46 is a motion directing the appropriations findings. item five -- >> on today's calendar, there are two hearings as well as a legislative item associated with the project a 800 presidio ave. this would allow for a new construction of facilities and up to 50 units of affordable housing. the appeals will be as follows. first there is an appeal of the final report and secondly there is an appeal of the planning commission's approval of a conditional use authorization. both appeals were brought by the same appellant. the issues are different. our consideration of the final eir appeal involves our analysis of the adequacy and accuracy, sufficiency and completeness which is a legislative hearing into either overturn or a firm planning, six votes are required. there is analysis on whether to determine this was appropriate. t

planning code by adding section 259.53 to establish the presidio-sutter special use district for property located at 800 presidio avenue -- assessor's block no. 1073, lot no. 13 -- amending sheet ht03 of the zoning map to change the height and bulk district from 40-x to 55-x -- and amending sheet su-03 of the zoning map to reflect the boundaries of the presidio-sutter special use district; adopting findings, including environmental findings, section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i am pleased to submit this proposal for the longest serving african american center community. the center was established in 1919 in san francisco and its home has been there since 1952. since it has been at the same location since 1952, there would be great cause and merit for there to be some considerable enhancements of that facility and the building. there is a shortage of transitional use of housing in the city. many foster youth in this city become homeless once they turn 18. in an effort to

and i explained to her the situation that the property location is a vacant lot, and i have plans to build a single- family residence unit. and i was just putting together the house according to the building code, and many other things like the land survey and the application their, and this process is the longest feature. and i would like for this to be accepted for review. the department of public works did not give me the chance with a compromise for some kind of arrangement. and there was no consideration at all. i strongly feel that the invoicing is a financial burden. and when all the utilities on the ground, i will be required to rebuild the sidewalk. and to install a new sidewalk. all of this, with 13 square feet that will be drilled again. i was given a chance to voice this, and for you to give this to me. this is, this is one of the ways, contrary to what i have paid to the department of public works. this is the invoice from the department of public works. this is charged -- may i finish? >> you have an opportunity to speak in a few moments. >> good afternoon, i represent

i of and have lived in the property located at 27 31 cents 1988. it is the property that alliance up immediately to the east of the backyard. i like to emphasize that as a collective group, the neighborhood has been overwhelmingly in support of this project heavily expressed concern about the size in density. the main goal of this project often seems lost. the goal is expressed in 2006. building a new community center and a gymnasium. that was at the heart of this project. the only way they can raise the necessary funds is to sell the airwaves, which is a good idea, but they don't have as much air as they need to sell. in either private or nonprofit developers can come up with that. the hike, density, and air requirements for the residents of the building itself. to get some context, it contains hundred and 10 units on the entire city block. it isn't even a quarter of a city block in the original plan also called for 110 units, only 10 of which were dedicated. it was down to 50 studios. 25 of which now will house the kids. all of this is sharing wit

ordinance amending the planning took to establish the presidio-setter special use district for property located at 800 presidio ave. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank supervisor farrell for his leadership in this community and helping try to strike the right balance. last week, it should not be lost on any of us that it was an extraordinary discussion because the first time the board had entertained both an appeal on a cu and eir and special east district all at the same time period has not happened in all the years i have been here. to the effect of why i have spoke out when i was surprised to learn about the jim usage. i have had now a fair amount of meetings with booker t.. i have stressed that i think it is important that the gymnasium, which is private, be a community asset and be retained for community asset as much as possible in that of the hours that have been testified of nearly 700 that would be used for one private institution, it is actually up to 2000 hours that would be used for those to be able to read it out, giving a remainder nearly 3000 hours, p

development agreement between the city and treasure island community development for certain properties located within treasure island/your buena island. -- your bubbling island. supervisor kim: many of our community members have been involved in this process for the last several years. i would like to thank members are city worked tirelessly to make this happen and get a lot of last-minute moving pieces going. i want to personally thank the treasure island development committee along with [reading names] i also want to thank our city attorney's for all of their work. and the planning department. mta and pc also contributed. two groups that i did not mention which contributed heavily to the process for our neighbors on treasure island and yerba buena and the it is freeboard that has been chairing this committee. president chiu: unless anyone has any amendments for further discussion -- excuse me, if we could have order in the chamber. why don't we move to a roll call vote? >> on items 18 through 22 -- [roll-call] there are 11 ayes. president chiu: the ordnances are finally passed. item number 2

approving a the city and county of san francisco and parkmerced investors, llc, for certain real property located in the lake merced district of san francisco, commonly referred to as parkmerced, generally bounded. item four, ordinance reflecting the special district. item #5. supervisor mar: thank you. before i introduce supervisor elsbernd, let me just say we have a lot of public comment today. we will limit it to two minutes per person. i urge people to keep it as short as possible. brief remarks in the mibeginning 39 yen, he will talk about amendments or changes. supervisor elsbernd? mr. yardeni, would you like to make opening remarks? >> good morning, supervisors. i will keep my remarks very brief. i think this committee has received several informational presentations. i will focus today on the revisions to the draft development agreement that was submitted to the clerk on friday. supervisors csupervisors cohen:k that members from the public restraint supervisor mar: conversationsmar thank you. please continue. >> i'm going to highlight key sections where there are red lined changes. the re

. >> the property is located within the zoning districts within the special use district. there is no zoning requirements. however, they do add in the section 312 notification, certification is required for expansion of a building. we do require notice of the adjacent property owner. there is no specific notification for the tenants. not about would be applied idea. gooattendance and were informedf the issue. -- tenants were informed of the issue. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, the item is submitted. >> commissioners, the argument that has been named by the appellant is related not to the loss of tenancies. i do not see anything relating to due process or to the actual permit itself. i find the property owner has his rights. i believe that should be addressed with the board. it >> i would agree, and i would add that although we do not have an opinion about life safety issues common -- life safety issues, it would seem and we are required to rely on the report by the engineer, and i find that to be compelling, and there would be furt

property line. we went to great pains to pull it back with a three-foot corridor and we can take care of the issues we have about construction and noise. is that where the woippeds are located? >> yes, the cutback at the end of her property and the windows are in her kitchen and the bedroom on top of that. but those winds are six feet off our property line. >> i understand that. i heard you say that. what height are those windows? what floor do they occur on? >> second and third. >> and the appellant's building is a three-story building or four-story building? >> i think it's four in the back, i believe. >> scott sanchez. the subject property is located within the zoning district and seeks to merge the dwelling units from three to two. that was approved by the zoning administrator and includes a horizontal expansion at the rear but doesn't extend to the property line and maintain a three-foot side setback. the subject building application that was submitted in october of 2008. the required neighborhood notification was completed in august and september of 2009. there were no discretionary review requests filed. the building permit was reviewed and issued and we have the app

the property is located within the zoning district. the building permanence and -- of building permits were firele. during that time, two discretionary reviews were filed. there was a resolution that met with a project sponsor on a live operator and -- non-. they unanimously approved a project. the board of supervisors upheld the subdivision of the properties so would argue the subdivision. the board of supervisors upheld that on october 5. the permit was issued in on october 7. the building permits were appealed to this board on october 21, scheduled for hearing on january 12. a few days before the appeal, the appeal was filed on january 7. the board of survivors heard the matter on march 22 and unanimously upheld the appeal, so we have had unanimous of holding -- upholding of the project end of the permits that are before you -- and on the permits that are before you. i would like to point out that no variances were sought. it was determined of variants was not required, and that was withdrawn. the board of supervisors has found the

the properties are located within a single-family zoning district within the bernal heights special use district. the properties are configured in such a way that both buildings straddle property lines. this is an exceptional circumstance that does not apply to most properties in the city. it is not something we would want to further. it is against any municipal code requirement. we would want all buildings to be on their own properties. the first property, 260 mullen avenue, is 26 feet deep. based on records we have, the building was constructed in 1929. 264 is the triangular plot, roughly 906 square feet. the building there was constructed in approximately 1906, based on our records. both contain single-family dwellings. unfortunately, they do cross onto each other's lot, not a condition we want to maintain. the applicant submitted the request to change the law lines. it is not creation of a new lot. it is not a case of one lot that was developed with a building at the rear and then subdivided out. these are lots that have been subdivided for quite some time. unfortunately, it is a di