walking and relying on the muni and an occasional taxi cab, so i speak in particular about the comments that some of the opera -- opposition made in terms of vehicular access and congestion on van ness. many projects in the city have been killed or could have been killed based on aspects of vehicular access. i say that is nonsense. what we should be doing is exactly what this project proposes, which is building what is long overdue to give people who are willing to take transit and what to transit an opportunity to travel almost as quickly as those in medicine to drive in their cars each and every day. i also wanted to make comments of the openness of their outreach. the chicken with my experience at the davies campus, was involved in the neighborhood there and lived several blocks away and participated from more than a year in the community outreach process, which was very deliberate, very inclusive, and

i saw them address issues in a very innovative way to make that particular location more transit accessible, mainly by moving one of the main entrances right down there close to the train station or the train stopped 40 n-judah and allowing people to access that -- for the n-judah, so i wanted to say that as someone who has seen this. chiar mar: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is bernadette. i am a single mother of two completing my internship, and it is not easy. and thanks to them putting me back into the work force. it is an awful feeling, and it

is good to be a good role model for my children, and they will look at me and know that that is what they have got to do when they grow up, to be productive. lif these products do not go through, and long-term job is in jeopardy. i asked you to support these. thank you. chair mar: >> i am the president of in neighborhood association and also a resident of the fillmore neighborhood. i grew up in the fillmore. when i look at the development and and hearing all of these comments, it seems that there is in line between mitigation versus solving all of the neighbor and transportation issues. it is being blurred.

i feel that we are trying to solve all of these issues with this one to limit what the recognizing the fact that oewd is managing about one dozen house and -- a and housing aspects. we are not creating a mechanism that will allow people to stay in the area. i feel like the film82m=t more t even being discussed in this develop, and we are the other side of valencia's street. i reached out to oewd about one year ago. zthey are sf

these resources. i feel if we are going to slow this development down, it should be to look at how they have managed their money over the last couple of years. chair mar: 1 last speaker. we are getting ready to close !b2cçpublic comment. >> i would like to see the data element go along with a couple of caveats in turns.

the outreach, working with the cbo's in the western addition. a and i'm thinking it is only open until 1:00. g9i

it will create the -- increases congestion. you have an asian community with a large senior group plus you have a growing young group of people who are looking for their first housing opportunity period. none of those opportunities are round and the western addition. people are sneaking in with their grandmothers and that type of thing. there is a lack of rental housing that young people can take advantage of and that is the critical issue that needs to be addressed with any type of formal housing that goes up in that area. >> seen no other speakers we will close the public comment. i am just wondering if there are any questions for mr. rich or if

he wants to make some concluding remarks. >> thank you for so much time. has been over 20 hours in our for hearings, and for everyone that testified. then also people from the community, thank you so much. >> just a couple of things. when i was talking about the safe passage program i erroneously described it as creating a safe@xu passage froe school -- is actually to after- school programs. in the tenderloin area. i made the same mistake at the planning commission saw want to make sure i corrected. it is from school staff to after-school programs. beyond that we are happy to answer any questions for any

that are left. beyond that also we would request continuance of the call of the chair at this point. >> s housing linkage should be an additional amount that goes for affordable housing creation and they are saying -- whether to exempt a hospital restitution from the requirement that about 17 million more towards affordable housing be contributed to the city for four blousing. i am is wondering if you could just respond to those points made. >> i think i might need a clarification on the question. the linkage the number, just to make sure it is clear, we calculated would be for all of

these facilities. i am not sure if that is what you are asking, just to clarify, could you ask the question again? >> in addition to the 2010 policy, they argued that an additional 12 new dollars would be contributing to affordable housing, given the impact of the new work force on the city, but also of mitigating other impacts on housing needs of the city, especially for lower-income residents. >> again, i will try to answer as much as i understand the question. the district offers a number of alternate formulas to calculate housing needs. +sincluding the option to be completely absolves of it. we did our best and housing was in it the lead on this to come up with a package that made

sense and where we landed was what you have seen and what you have been presented. something like five or six times higher than the jobs housing linkage fee would be. that is what we have to present to you at this point. i may still be missing the question, and i apologize. >> both should be contributing to the huge impacts on housing needs of the city, but i appreciate that answer. colleagues, is there a motion? i should just mention that for this item, these items before us, 5-l eir appeal scheduled for tomorrow, july 17, so we really cannot take action. is there motion that we continue these items? so move, is there any objection? pplq÷supervisor wiener: my prefe

would be to move the items with no recommendation. we have now had four lengthy and in-depth hearings in this committee and at different times we have had various quorums with the board present at this committee. at this point, even though i understand and agree there is additional negotiation that has to happen, i would prefer to move this out of committee and then track this with the eir, and then if necessary committee -- continue with the full board. this point where we are at the process, in any hearing that occurs needs to happen before the full board. to keep this bottled up in committee, which is what we are doing, makes no sense after these four link the hearings. i will not be supporting the motion and it happens to fail, i

would be movingñ recommendation. >> we have been urged by our staff, by the project sponsor and by the appellants to continue these items so in some ways it seems like all the parties are urging us to do this. i definitely understand your perspective. supervisor wiener: i am exercising my own judgment. we understand that these retrofits have to happen and has been unfortunate, what has happened over the last few weeks and the lack of negotiation or whatever is that does happen, has been very frustrating permit me. in terms of the big picture, it is about the future of health care in san francisco. this is not going in a good and it is my hope that we can get it back onmdcvy track and he

the world class system that we need for everyone at every income level in this city. my position here has nothing to do with what the parties want or what the mayor's office wants. it is what i think is important fficial. chair mar: there has#tç been a motion to continue to the call of the chair. can we have a roll call? [roll-call vote] to continue to the callv#a! ofe chair. ms. miller, is there any other business before us? thank you so much, everyone. meeting adjourned.