Bought out before the developers this kind of unit rather than bought it a month in january of discourage it but if you 2013 and, of course, immediately supervisor jane kim if you are tried to demolish it so theres considering we put up we been tenant pretty Much Required the owner to provide continuing so discussion about additional affordable but their what could be developed it is though the building luxury unit pretty much wide open 7 units could be put on the lot without in in my opinion i will in the Richmond District for a a long the subdivision you need a 25 time with 3 bedroom new united percent raider but you could for 11 hundred secret its really affordable expand it i dont know about the thank you. Next speaker. Discussion you cant add a rear hi, im amy lee im not not yard if you could have the working on this project but overhead please. Speaking as a resident of the sfgovtv. Richmond district im a single this is the code required mom of 3 id love to have those rear yard o
With the project sponsor but i want to go on record to look at the situations that are similar as were dealing with on the other hand, a great project where were creating additional family sized unit ive been hardship on 3 bedrooms i think are great but on the other hand, trying to preserve the rent control heirs stock so id like to work with the planning staff to how do we tackle that. Thank you with that, colleagues any further comments lets take a roll call vote on supervisor mars 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
2013 and, of course, immediately tried to demolish it so theres 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 dont know about the discussion you cant 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 were trapped into options we dont have is not true heres 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 its one lot heres 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 w
Process to talk about some solution to as people are proposing the project sponsor is not provided that i dont feel like two additional weeks is going to move us closer to that point ill urge you to vote on this today, i know any colleagues might be more optimistic but for a long time ive been skeptical so i am for the motion to continue. Other comments colleagues okay supervisor wiener. Yeah. Im supervisor mar id like to withdraw the motion i think it would be worth exploring this but supervisor mars office has been involved for sometime so im 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 wed 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 were facing in San Francisco so but i think one of the public commenters made
There are 10 is 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 20132014 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