ways to mitigate or change the project in ways to avoid effects the proposal the item before you does that changes the dir and the documents and the respond to comments no new information is available to change it more has the project sponsor said anything that lessons the effects it is the disclosure of the revised project explicit warrant anything the drs is sufficient and supervisors this is a desire by some in the community to find an alternative the rank of alternatives is reasonable for the impacts in relation to the impacts and the code compliant was developed by the staff not by the members of the community and the community development alternative is to be

submitted for review and consideration and provides no evidence suggesting why it is sufficient that exclaims with the approach and analysis of the cumulative impacts is sufficient and it is based on other things failure to account for planning and central soma as stated in the draft eir the future projects and cumulative promotions is linked to the circulation of the preparation and central soma is screwdriver in the eir all known promotions were considered and this is the cumulative effects to the extent they'll be in the future didn't render the analysis sufficient and future the central soma draft eir didn't consider by the 5m is 5 m is insufficient and the i'm the extroverted and to dates the eir

has not been published no cumulative impact analysis and finally a number of issues regarding the technical studies using the land use and planning and shadow and transportation is an example of how the complaints relate to the policies or to making findings that are outside the scope and the land use and planning in terms of the draft eir about the planning the appellant alleges that implementation of the special use will result in conflicts and imagine consistence with the eir less than significant finding excuse me. >> this considerations of possible conflicts it bans with whether it conflicts with the policies i'll emphasis that was

adopted forbids the purpose of mitigation no such policy is mentioned so it is significant solemnly swear heard about the shadow effects with with regards to shadows the appellants failed to provide evidence on the other hand, on how to say defective once the ceqa is suggested whether the shadow is on public open space to reduce the safety and the analysis is compliant as provide in the draft eir and is okay with the record the testimony of the compliance with the planning code section a city ordinance that restricts the shadow on open spaces and the shadow is insight does not effect the appeal addressed vision zero or zero tolerance of the application that characters some parts morning available to

accommodate shadows with ceqa with that, i'll remain open for questions that the supervisors may have about the adequacy of the eir we find that adequate. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> thank you supervisor president london breed where to start there's a lot of points brought up by the appellant i want to start with an argument that has been made several times by the appellants regarding spot zoning so any questions are directed to the planning department to talk about what constitutes spot zoning what especially the district is and roughly how many suds exist as large as the one before us i'll place there one little champs with 24 project is renewals separate from the

central soma and in general good city planning is when we do larger area plans verse singular parcels and look at the plan to make sure we have to the proper mix of housing and retail and open space and affordable housing, etc. and make sure that we're setting the same standards for competitive standards for the benefit that we call interest projects in the same areas so 3 we all reach the criteria rather than negotiating them one by one ms. one or more the biggest champs of this project i've wanted this to be moved with the central soma and be part of overall visions for the south of market that will run los angeles the central subway and to address this to talk about what constitutes spot zoning and what constitutes sud and relationships to the

planning code. >> through the chair supervisor kim dan with the planning department staff thank you for that question the idea of a spot zone is typically uses in the context of new legal spot zoning that is the focusing of the city's land use committee regulatory powers to lessens the values in the context of knowledge or frankly any of the other special use district in the city industry is today, we're specifically enabled to target our land use recollections and shape them that leads to better enhance public benefit on the other hand, we feel stronger this arbitration does that and it the pattern a long-standing pattern

for the special use district that has greater than value supervisor yee you raised questions respect to the central soma plan as well as and kind of stepping back historically where this project the 5 m site was stripped out of the eastern neighborhoods before central soma it goes back to a 7 and 08 the thinking it is essentially the same thinking in central soma was began to be considered that is it is a techniques opportunity site it is a major site and has possibilities that don't exist most elsewhere we wanted to give it a not lump into a much larger process this isn't to say we didn't take on board the vision and overall city goals of this planning process but only to its uniqueness and size and in the

case of knowledge the single ownership we wanted to take a deeper dive and what suits it in a development it benefits the city. >> can i follow-up with that i'm curious as to you know what the criteria of standards of planning department use to pressuring pursue an sud when this particular large parcel will have an enhanced or special or greater than plan in response how does the level of community benefits offered by 5 m compare to the similar udz say how it compares to the level of community benefits that are being explored by the adjacent central soma plan for similar site parcels. >> supervisors i can help ken oewd my colleague has prepared to go over a comparison with you

the benefits to this development and this special eye district compared the understanding the central soma is not passed but we we expect and a planning may economical we'll do that specific comparison for you. >> good evening chairman and board members i do is. >> sfgovtv please. >> thank you so our thoughts did working closely with the planning department as we developed the 5 m development agreement and we were tracking both the progress of central soma and in order to insure the 5m project is on pair are the the truth of the matter and so what you have

been 0 the slide central soma plan seeks to provide benefits in the bucket with affordable housing and transportation, open space complete streets nonprofit office so the central soma plan what we learned from the presentation and my understanding from planning the central soma is still probably under study and the development tools likely a year away from the implementation but what we did learn at a presentation is that in order to achieve one goal such 33 percent of affordable housing in the central soma plan there are trade offs so the plan could not achieve 33 percent affordable housing without the job housing linkage and the visionary fund and san francisco abatement appeals board other targeted benefits and vice versa in order

to achieve the 33 percent with the value the truth of the matter. >> do you mind i want to see by side comparison of the fees that are expected of central soma or if you want to look at the transit center district plan the open space fees the inclusionary fees and the transportation fees side by side can we see this project is giving equal set of benefits that is my one of my reservations about approving this is an sud when it could have moved alongside as large area plan where the eastern neighborhood but side by side xaern of the fees and benefits and it pace 100 percent of the impact fees and required in the c-3 donning and on top of we

laid on the transit district the plan is sill of actually, the one area plan that creates the greatest impact fees for the hundred to in order to accommodate they're paying 100 percent of the fees in the c-3 zones and on top of their negotiated $12 for the transit impact fees for the accommodations of the high-rise structure if you look at central soma again central soma uses all the tools and one central soma we'll know more clearly what central soma expects to do anticipates 22.5 new sxeej for the entire district and the planning expects to achieve $2 billion in revenues $89 for

public development per square feet and those are achieved over a 25 years the build out of the 25 years to build out the area when you apply the central soma analogy 5 m will be 90 percent of public benefit and more importantly we can trailer the benefits for the project and able to address critical affordable housing in the near future we achieved on pare slightly above what central soma intends to achieve. >> come back to planning i have to hear a little bit more about the criteria that planning undergoes when it determines to go through the process of creating an sud first, as having a large parcel move through larger area plans and not being in touch with the developers in the central soma there are a lot

of large project that have been obviously compiled from the fire hydrant to south of harrison on the bay bridge and fisherman's place there are projects that met the criteria and receiving a sud creation as opposed to in terms of the thinking process that planning went through to put 5 m on a separate track. >> through the chair commenting dan with the planning department frankly commission there are excuse me. you mentioned a range of sites, if you will, in the central soma or other significant area plans 5 m is one of which it really with respect to the central soma predated that plan it was thought of advance of the plan and on the other hand, to owing

to the plan that is not a project we thought should be sidetracked for a year while that plan perhaps has additional 12 months for additional project entitlement particularly in the case of central soma one thing beamed the central soma will meet the community as part of central soma process we don't anticipate regulation or an approach coming out of that suggests what is the item before you not the right thing for the next 15 or 50 years. >> what are some of the suds created near the 5m project. >> there are quite a few of the projects supervisor i'm not familiar.

>> just a small issue. >> the plazas involved the d-4-d type of documents. >> what it is in the continental hotel an sud. >> i'm not sure my colleagues, we can get back to you. >> it was it was seven hundred and 6 mission. >> yes. seven hundred and 6 mission was veterans bam /* alabama and the unique sites. >> this is back to the mayor's office of housing and community development around the affordable housing piece there was a lot of said about what is guaranteed and not guaranteed in this project whether this project really achieved 33 percent affordable or 40 percent and madam clerk, any announcements? >> housing i want to clarify

that we talk about very fluid what affordable housing means so i would like some clarification on what has been condominium and also how if there's a guarantee to insure those units come online and for example, the developer are project sponsor reneges what are some enforcement mechanisms to make sure those units get built. >> there was a lot of said ken rich with oewd i appreciate the opportunity to clarify the record and make sure you have the facts we have not every and will not ever negotiate an agreement with affordable housing or another benefits not guaranteed working with the city attorney i'll start with that the project produces 6 hundred and 1 market-rate housing the project produces an additional 200 and 41 affordable units a calculator will tell you that's 40 percent when you look at

those units when the project pulls a brirment before they pull the building permit for the first building they'll need to write a check for the city to be used for the project that is i'm sorry how many unit? >> for 71 units they'll not get a building permit or not been able to put is shovel in the ground until the city has a check at the same time they'll not get a building permit until they've turned over the parcel up the street to take a brief just recycle anyone that buys a piece of land the city if they find something nasty underneath the ground we have the ability to say no, thank you the cash value of lands and find another piece of land to built build on

none will incorporate that into their purchase agreement we get the trailer unit and the land for the senior housing when forest city comes to the pull the building permit they'll fwufs the money to build the senior units $234 million there was something said during public comment getting a piece of land but not the money for the unit that's not true we're getting the 0 money if they we don't get the cash no shovel in the ground the that building building will include 87 onsite unit at moderate and madam clerk, any announcements? >> that will be built with the building our assurance of enforcement on that they don't get a permit from the city until the 87 units are provide it is worth noting oversee are at moderate from one to one hundred

50 percent we working closely with the 40ers percent with our office and happy the office got the 40 percent and make sure that the teachers from the data district the hundred to one hundred 50 percent will cost the teachers a hypothetical two teachers and one child doesn't in one unit those income levels make the data we used the data from the school district so that is pretty much the overview i have kate hartley this is a pretty much how we're getting it down it is a real 40 percent and i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> have we had a project that met 40 percent in go on single project. >> never, ever. >> could you go breakdown i'd

like to get clarification. >> the rank of movement in the number of units as kate will do that my overview symmost of after being provided workplace a 4 minute walk of the project will be at low income only the 87 units onsite at the moderate by the way, can't give you the exact numbers. >> good evening supervisors kate hartley for the eddy taylor project we intend to build have combination of 87 set aside projects for the homeless and provide the operating subsidize the tenants will have very low extremely low incomes and with services provide.

>> what's the average rent in the units. >> the rents are $300 and they the rent is paid with the bebsz of the tenant will qualify what their stabilized. >> the average rent of the 19 units i'm will be at $300 per unit for formally homeless families. >> that's correct both the projects eddy taylor the balance of the units will be up to 50 percent of area medium income that is $35,700 the rents of that that apply to 50 percent unit at one bedroom is one thousand $19 at 50 percent of area medium income for one bedroom $2,000 a month less than

the market rent. >> how much for the 2 bedroom for an ami. >> at 50 percent ami is one thousand $146 it is - >> how many unit at 50 percent ami. >> the $18 million that is going to the eddy taylor project is the remaining gap to get that project installed for several years because of funding deficiency so the overall will be $18 million will fund 71 unit of hundred units and additional fun will be provided by the mayor's office from other funds but also the developer has been very diligent in getting state

funds as well. >> i want to clarify the eddy and taylor is one hundred units plus and 5 m will be fully funding 69 of these one hundred and 3 units; is that correct. >> we have 71. >> sorry i miss counted and they'll be fully accounted for i think this is the discretionary how many units are they really building eddy and taylor when you include 67 mission how many units at 50 percent of ami. >> we're building the total count we're anticipating 83 units so 20 percent is 18 unit so the balance will be at 50 percent of ami now - >> how many units ami. >> 83 times 80 percent so -

about 64 - 65. >> 65 total of this ami. >> that's the total ♪ development how many units at 50 percent ami >> at the moment is 8320 percent is homeless. >> it's one and 35 we're building one hundred 35 at 50 percent one hundred 35 who's rent is 8 hundred to one thousand plus dollars; is that correct? >> yes. on both sides sorry. >> thank you. >> let's talk about the middle-income unit i want to hear more about what we're building anothers one hundred and one 50 what the rents are and the average medium income.

>> so there are 20 percent of the onsite units are at 100 percent of ami that translates to one person howled at 71 thousand plus for two people many a household that is 81 thousand 5 and 3 people that is 91 thousand seven hundred for example, in two bedroom units that's affordable at 100 percent of ami the rent will be 2 thousand 6 hundred plus, the income is $91,700 so for example, the household of 3 with two wage earners and a child two workers macro 45 thousand there's a year each at one hundred 20 of the i'm that's a circumstantial person

86 thousand two 896 and 3 one hundred 10 thousand 50 rent for a studio the ones and two's is 2 thousand 38, 2 thousand 244 and 3 thousand 56 again, a 3 percent wage earners 24/7 people making $55,000 a year and their rent will be 3 thousand 46, again that is significantly less than market value rent in the neighborhood. >> what's the market represent and approximately $400. >> what percentage roughly do you on the city is building. >> how much middle-income housing is the city building in the pipeline and we built middle-income housing as part of

inclusionary project programming in san francisco middle-income housing is a type of housing no support from the federal government or state government or in fact, any local programs besides the inclusionary programs it is the group middle-income people are group of people that will or are at least well severed in meeting their affordable needs the regional ascertainment measures how much housing to be believable at various income categories in the protecting category we'll get the tax credits 42 percent of what the regional ascertainment arena says we should be this that's horrible but for middle-income people moderate income we're alters 19 percent we're really not doing a good job of building

affordable housing for people who are between say 80 percent of area medium new mexico income up to one hundred 20 percent in addition because rents are ohio in san francisco an affordability gap of area medium income in many neighborhoods not all we see that gap in soma. >> thank you very much i see that a couple of my colleagues have questions as well i'll give them the opportunity. >> thank you, supervisor kim and supervisor yee. >> thank you supervisor kim sforp asking about the affordability of units it was confusing with the presentation was made its a little bit clear in terms of number see my question is the soma youth and famed the special use district

was established as the eastern neighborhood plan so my understanding is that part of this project the 5m is going to be excluded in that particular sud how does the development support of vision of soma youth and family special district. >> through the chair supervisor with the planning department staff the southernmost four parcels along howard street in the 5 m projecting project will be on the piece of land within the sud and part of legislation change before you would remove those it is important to note two things first, that the project does comply with the precisions for the youth and family sud namely with only affordable and two conditional use when i think

that perhaps more interesting and relevant frankly is that the planning commission recommended and as land use commission amended the sud for the 5 m project the 5m sud so is actually incorporates o requirements that live together or today in the 5m sud but expectation for restaurants the adaptation choose the 5 m sud will expand the controls that exist of the youth and family sud. >> thank you for that one. >> this is in regards to shadows i know that you spoke quickly and i did not understand it was so fast about shadows in terms of the open space that the new speak up and i sort of realize there are issues around

that i'm curious what impact does it have in terms of shadowing impact of the new open space. >> michael planning department staff in the context of the environmental impact report we would liquidate the change from the existing future conditions so the open space does not exist so the mary court and the open space interior was considered in the preparation of the design for development documents in the parking space so not so we'll analysis in the context of the irtd we will look at the project shadows on existing parks in the area so the consideration of shadows on future parks is something to be considered as part of planning process for at project. >> do you know that with the

current vision of what they're planning to build and for the new open space is - with the sun be maximum missed are in terms of the spaces and there are a number of considerations included perhaps mr. guy is given he managed that process but, yes considerations with respect to building setback and massing that seaside this solar assess to the sidewalks and the ground plain and pedestrian plane. >> would you like to further elaborate. >> kevin guy forming with the planning planning department i was a member of the project team as mentioned the solar of the building was considered among

the factors in terms of the overall site planning efforts for the project there were earliest ration of the project that included one additional tower or building with the deletion of that building inspection with the reconfiguration of the site planning the massing on the site opened up opportunity to not only make the property open space a little bit more contiguous in its form but open up opportunities for responding to not only shadow conditions but wind conditions for the usability of those areas. >> thank you. >> thank you supervisor yee supervisor mar. >> i know you're probably as tired as us i appreciate the staffs persistence and stamina i want to say that i think there is a dick with the hours we've

heard from community testimony from the stories streets of displacement and multiple ways of filipino and displacement in other community to but i know that the gentleman went through a quick reading of the analysis and one you said you did a displacement analysis but you read through it so fast i don't know what that was to me this is a spur sized spot zoning and up zoning of a four acre parcel in an area arguably a resident area that has huge impacts of 6 thousand low income immigrants and filipinos and other low income folks it will impact for generations so i'm wondering what the analysis of displacement i believe that uc berkley an urban displacement projects staff miriam and mccain

in their early displacement process there are key neighborhoods like much the eastern neighborhoods that are facing advance gentrification and displacement and as many in the audience said there are fancy terms you're pushing out existing residents largo seniors and disabled and families in favor of development and up zoning super sized up zoning what's the analysis of the displacement in our planning has been. >> thank you supervisor mar we look at the question of displacement in light of what ceqa will ask us as part of population housing analysis that is constituent in the check list so what we have in our analysis as 3 primary questions those

really relative to whether the project will should the population directly or indirectly whether it displaced existing affordable units or create additional hours with the regional housing summit of housing u housing and whether the project displaces people in the construction of replacement housing elsewhere so the focus in the ceqa analysis is the physical environment and in that light what we will look at whether or not for example, there are existing residential units on the site that will be directly effects or the project would do so them population it requires additional housing the construction that potentially has significant effects that's the context we look at. >> so for the impacts on the physical environment is there a

consideration of impacts on the human environment of people that are displaced in that analysis. >> good evening supervisors sarah john's environmental review officer ceqa talks about this xeevensly and elaborate that the issue to consider in ceqa is impacts physical impacts on the environment so we need to consider the social economic gakz to other decree they cause the physical impacts or caused by physical impacts so the questions of the - issues around affordability, around social issues around the communities that is something that is explicitly limited within ceqa to the physical impacts so what

we're considering is whether the project is in fact, result in a loss of handout necessitating housing unit that could have physical impacts but in the the context of second consider the many issues that were raise by the community members those are planning related issues that are outside of the second analysis. >> i'll say i call it a super sized it is the doubling of height much higher than the international continental hotel and adidas chang talked about the past planning i'm not the i'm not talking about the eastern neighborhood but the planning that set a health of the intercontinental everything is down towards i'm wondering is the spot zoning he building that

spot zone we were seeing it is really an artificial separation of the project from a lot of the existing planning from the eastern neighborhoods to the central soma plan i'll ask that question that adidas asked is this in contradiction to the past neighborhood plans but also in that heights and scale down the intercontinental heights. >> john ram why? in the context one of the things we're doing in the advisory committee central soma plan we're looking at where the heights should be appropriate in the corridor from market to king street and what we're concluded in that scenario how to maximize the height near the station this is exactly what this side and whether a few feet within the

reasonable rank of the enter continental is less important than maximize missing the height we believe that the massness of the building on fifth street is it the right thing to do and then it steps down to the west certainly and probably person up to the time there is a number of historic buildings to the west of the site and because there is a significant number of units that are already rent ellis act protected in some fashion to the peftd e west and is this project in contradiction to the past or central soma plans. >> it was not included in the agreement and been include in the central soma i want to reiterate what dan said not anticipate any changes to that plan part of central soma is the

c-3 and our concludes not changes to the central soma plan. >> i'll repeat something that tony rob less said and echoed our director as the i hotel is raging on for several years in 1970 he said this is two value inform allow poor people to park on 2 that view is what is happening with this project i want to give credit to karen johnson and forest city for always sharing the community benefits and really explaining them to me i think there is a real disconnect that many from the community that do understand the community benefits page and this is not enough from what i've heard i heard one comment from the gentleman saying that the community if understand the quote robust community benefits but i know that people

understand in many ways what the benefits are they just disagree they're not adequate given the huge give away and the community benefits being no where near enough given the displacement and the social impacts that happy that is e happen that is the way i see that i'll stop right now and thank the folks for raising the issues save our soma and other for raising good questions thank you. >> thank you - supervisor campos. >> i have one question and what i heard from mr. schneider and i believe if i heard you credulous you said within a quarter mile radius of the

project 90 percent of the residents have some level of protection if displacement i this is a nuance i'm not sure what some level you're protected or not i'm wondering what the level of protection maples means and a what you see as there available not only for one member to protect yourself but what is in place for protection from displacement. >> through the chair supervisor campos dan what the department we agree that is nuance and difficult to outburstly analysis at the risk of displacement what you're department tries to do with commissioner richards was to take into account all the available housing resources between a quarter of a mile of the project site and look at those to understand what unique circumstances might apply the 90 percent figure you mentioned is

78 sub categories i'll run through them in the first to acknowledge one take at a level of risk might mean many ways to interpret the data the 90 percent is a did you want supportive and below-market-rate housing and the mayor's office of housing. >> those are options of people that are going to be displaced where they can find other source of housing. >> i'm sorry this is existing housing housing our the ground there are about 8 thousand total handout within a quarter of a mile of knowledge site and 90 percent of those are subject to one of those categories i'll go into if you like. >> briefly go both the categories. >> of course adult market-rate only unit

owned or leased by moe 50 sro units and nonprofit owned 100 percent housing projects and lastly building subject to rent control. >> and what if developer wanted to come and hike we're doing here and change the use of those properties take over the properties and want to build at high levels of luxurious and non-affordability. >> i know that is what people are concerned about. >> the first, this site didn't contain any housing this? not factored into the number, and, secondly, a range of controls that apply from the lumped and a rent control in terms of making sure that folks are not

displaced sxhifshgs at the planning commission channel his thinking he is very attuned and interested in tracking this on or about over time we can monitor and learn from what happened to generally speaking what a project last week 24 brings forward. >> how it this different i guess we didn't track the housing stock under the city's jurisdiction and the housing that was there that offered some level of affordability we xementd to be permanent we looked at the filipino community displaced historically in san francisco we this man i will arrest yerba buena area how does this be different in the way those community were displaced. >> supervisor it is my experience didn't touch on the

massive episodes. >> it's a rhetorical question. >> this site didn't contain new affordable housing it is robust set of land use controls of the loss of affordable units. >> thank you. >> all righty seeing none, seeing no other names on the roster it is time for the project sponsor to do a presentation followed by public comment for those members of the public who oppose the appeal. >> good evening supervisor president london breed and supervisors. >> i'm sorry you have up to 1 minutes. >> i'll not take it all evening supervisor president london breed and supervisors deputy representing the project sponsor for right for our time

and the numerous supporters i don't expect to take more than 5 minutes with respect to the appeal you've heard under the scope the ceqa and disclosure status and nothing put forth presents evidence in fact, the departments november 9th appeal response provides detail why the dr is adequate with respect to the conditional use appeals it is slightly different the planning commission which required to make a series of finding was evidenced in the record the kinds of things the planning commission discussed and put in the record relate to contextual comparable and the sites and uniqueness of the location, housing benefits and transit and hpc and plans and policies consistent and

supervisors why did this not the appellant refer to the standards it is because of the appeal is about something else about the appellants decide satisfaction with the project and it moves forward through the process the sfmta the arts commission and planning commission all made those finding all found the project to be approved and all recommended you approve it as well the appellants don't want the project to move forward and the appeal reflect their unsuccessful attempt to repackage their opinion on the merits of project navigate not an appeal in the acceptance it is just presented to this board a series of bullet points in a series about the project as staff indicated in the presentation the appellants have priority nothing new in the late

submittal that bears under decision by craft the evidence in support of planning commission depreciation he guess is eventually among other things testimony over several meetings, numerous staff reports of eir and response to comments on the memos prepared by staff november 9th memo by the sponsor and the testimony of the people and the testimony from the supporters of project it is based on facts and evidence it far exceeds the legals requirement and the commission are all supported supervisors 2, 3, 4 closing the appellants bear the burden that the record supports the rarely of the planning commission not there not close it is opinions that is bullet points and it is far outweighed by the evidence of the planning commission

determination it consists of plastering and commercial buildings the project computed 40 percent housing you've heard from the may i have who those serve theirs real units 40 percent a big number and those levels of affordability is unpreened and this is noted in approving the project created urban design and major office spaces open spaces and wide variety avenue arts and workforce and all misdemeanor in a way to go to people serving the community-based organizations serving the members of the public members of the community we ask you vote to reject the appeal and move forward to approve the project today. >> thank you, thank you okay since the project sponsor is done with their presentation i'd like to open up for public comment first speaker who are in opposition of the appeal so

basically those members of the public who support this project now is the time to speak you will have up to 3 minutes but not general obligation bond to used all three of those minutes first speaker please. >> good evening supervisors i'm gabriel metro cal can have from spur and against the appeal i think that is clear that the eir is adequate co-authored to the staff presentation but over the course the comments are not about that they're about housing policy there is no disagreement about the affordability crisis e.r. the displacement happening in the city was there is disagreement by a or about what we do as people gather in san francisco this project is on a

site that is a parking lot and under used office today for the benefiting anyone the project officer many of the things the city is trying to get market-rate address ann affordable housing and open space and workspace it offices those in a place that is among the best transit in the country it is exactly know the kind of project the city tries to get i know those voted are not easy change is though the easy i think you will almost every ever see a project great brown you there are a lot of reasons normal run of mile projects can't get to this be affordability this is in the planning process for a very a long time i'll ugly to move

forward tonight >> >> next speaker. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening supervisors my name is jennifer i'm here to speech from spur in support of knowledge project two main points this is a good project for the city and the objections in the appeal have no fwrounz so number one a good project 5 m will build housing and open space on a large under utilized transit this is exactly are the general plan calls for density near first time and 5 m will provide 40 percent of affordable housing for low income and other folks this is in direct response to our city's need of avenue and 5 m provides significant needs for the neighborhood in the stone as mr. ram spoke to and

number two the appeals have no fwrounz this as gone through scrutiny of the public hearings lake this one we don't agree with the objections the 5 m project will in the displace residents or conflict with the filipino cultural heritage more conflict with the soma use district and the fact 5 m delivers benefits and as part of benefits that serves the families in soma and the new open space and pedestrian improvements and the million dollars for the families the delay of this project will not support the project moving forward. >> thank you. >> at the time. >> rudy did you just cut in line. >> they gave me the green light we have to leave so first

of all, i want to say good evening supervisors thank you for having me. and i'm honored to be here to roeptd or represent for our neighborhood the south of market the soma and thank you for waiting brothers and sisters out there in the haul you guys have hard jobs this is the longest we'll waited in city hall for any project and any issue we believe in the project that is being built at 5 m people you see right here are from the neighborhood born and raised from the south of market tenderloin, treasure island boo where you stay at where you live? >> where you grew up downtown? as you where you at which i feel and where you at rock man? where you at? >> that's right. >> i'm at the jails man.

>> were youal. >> yale. >> this is us we are the people you're talking about that live in district 6 i am filipino if i believe if this project would have got rid of all filipinos i wouldn't be up here speaking we've been in the process of these 5 m listening to the anticipates needs they accommodated the community they sat with us for years and i - a lot of meetings and so up here we are the last we understand the gentrification we understand the displacement in san francisco that's why we're doing what we're doing we are building with the developers to figure out to to stables ourselves where people are being displaced now you want to talk about facts what's the first project that

startled really getting rid and displacing filipinos that's that project on fifth and howard the big hotel did we get any housing out of that what did we get we get us from the people of the neighborhood nothing there was an organization that opposed this project that for 5 m who actually made deals with them and obligate money we didn't get anything we are the people from the neighborhood so we stand here in solidarity speaking up for our community not all the developers are not all bad like police officers we want to build relationships to stay in san francisco we have people here born and raised i'm born and raised in the south of market of that south of market i know for a fact if we live in san francisco period is important for us to learn how to build relationships with the current situation we live in the

21st century i'm not here to hate on nobody we're not united haters we're the united >> thank you, thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hold on one more speaker. >> one more. >> hi, i'm reading a letter on behalf of don for the san francisco filipino and the mission hiring haul he asked you in support of 5 m project that development project is making a long latin electrician to the how are you u hour of the rich filipino community 5 m will a dictate 12 thousand square feet specifically for art and cultivate and education the 5m will create