i sfaufth there are still projects in the pipeline and supervisor kim said is easily we've got 50 percent of the affordable housing and 80 percent of market rate housing being build in our neighborhood our neighborhood is feeling the crunch i also want to honor people that moved for other reasons my mother hates it i live in soma people are shooting up and on crack and meth and having mental health breakdown so some people have less because they want a safer place and not kids to see that we need to replace the thats their agencies that's okay. there's a point when soma was teaching us everyone would lose i wanted to end quibble by saying we've been

used to be those sister it it want sexy to hire we've seen incorporating people into the community and making them feel responsible so for us to take into consideration a hood to save a hood from the homeless on the street to the on the we're in it together. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi i'm heather i'm al soma residents for that the last ten years live two blocks from the project sites and the executive director of city crossroads an organization that served youth and families in soma for the last years and personally involved 2, 3, 4 what is going on in the neighborhood you've heard from a lot of folks i'm just going to go ahead and say it one more time 40 percent affordable housing there is no other project that has reached

this benchmark and something our community needs and deserves the fact that it is think income - there were working families that need affordable solutions like homeless families in shelters and folks at every income level that needs help that is from that project will bring that not only to one segment but all segment on top of the affordable housing there is $73 million of hyper localized community benefits those are not just a blank check to be spent anywhere in the city i'm sure other district court supervisors think this is great if it is shared one public school in soma and the fact it is going to benefit directly in a prestige project in its backyard our community needs strong voices to city attorney

say it our community is important and i applaud jane kim for making sure that is is a great deal and i applaud 5 m our hosting countless meetings what does the community need and most want i think that has been made clear kwhu look at the fact the appeal is without merit the fact not one specific example can be given speaks for itself i urge you to reject the appeal and move forward with the process thank you. >> thank you. >> is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak to provide public comment at this time seeing none, public comment is closed. >> and the appellant will have up to 5 minutes for the rebuttal. >> good evening supervisors

first, i want to thank you for your patience in this whole appeals process i'm jamy an attorney and also a proud member of the filipino communities i've had the privilege ever work south of market and to say soma is changing it is true not a fact that is has been lost upon me but as a city eagerness to disregard the laws they were set forth to protect the cultural integrity of soma to establish and zone and adopt the plans and codes and recessions every regulars within a financial district dwellings in centers not neighborhood overseeing laws were designed not to integrate the classes with a major of luxury condos and so-called

affordable housing for hundred to one hundred 50 percent ami i stood before you proudly last month each of you voted in favor to recognize the only filipino district in the city now i sit before us as a adjustors on the most significant project in the heart of soma a project of powers for the weight that disregard did appropriate zoning standards and proposes a large standard twenty-four hour in the youth and family zone is with zero affordable housing to any of our seniors and families we serve in the south of market a project in which the majority of filipino communities and its allies are against we talk numbers of 40 percent affordable housing and i sat here listening the only overriding document it

is 40 percent is the development agreement that development agreement we understand it there is no question whatsoever and this purported been benefits but the numbers in the agreement don't add up i breakdown those 3 convenes the pressure portdz affordable housing the language itself is weak it says anticipated 33 percent that didn't give rise to obligation or duty a close number of 33 housing is just a dedication of land in about faegd i urge you senior affordable housing affordable senior or 83 units don't disappear here the gap fund $18 million for the tndc appears insufficient based on the

california study of affordable housing bring $406,000 that 18 didn't equal 71 what and questionable practice our inclusionary housing allows for gap funding to support inclusionary housing requirement the last component of that alleged 40 percent 58 units of oriental were 50 percent ami are the at least marketing i urge encourage you to search the agreement 50 percent ami is not there our concerns are real over community brought forth this appeal and i'll read san francisco administrative code which impossessors you as legislators and the boards the board shall reverse the planning certification of an eir from the boards find that the eir didn't comply with ceqa the evidence before sufficiently shows that

the eir didn't comply with ceqa here the failure to adequately describe the project in the last change on monday we were not provided any information or notice of the change refreshed the eir facilityly defective as a matter of law they can't adopt the offer riding consideration but analyzing and adopt feasible mitigation measures that reduces the significant impacts like traffic displacement height and construction the city has not done that and this project has not the newly negotiated deal for the affordable housing actually results e relates in the higher units that concurrently moving low income people out the soma into the tenderloin this deal must be rejected until 5 m incorporated

back and forth affordable housing and in the soma area among other things those highlight the appeals the appellants request the board reject the certification the choice to simply. >> thank you. >> all right. colleagues 15 and 19 are held this hearing is closed and items 16, 17 and 18 the eir are before us supervisor kim oh, before i acknowledge supervisor kim i want to be clear our consideration of environmental impact report under the

california california environmental quality act involves our analysis of adequacy accuracy and the sufficiency and completeness of the report again, this is a legislative hearing to overturn or it will require 6 votes of board of supervisors at this time i'd like to recognize supervisor kim >> thank you supervisor president london breed on this first order item i just want to make a motion to move forward item number 16 and table 17, and 18 i think that based on the presentation that we got i did not hear new argument that brought up questions about the completeness or appropriateness of the eir that came before us today. >> okay supervisor kim has made had a motion to strike to

approve 16 and table 17 and 18 is there a second seconded by supervisor cowen madam clerk call the roll. >> oh, supervisor campos. >> want to make sure we have some discussion i want to thank all the folks on both sides of this issue that came out to discuss this project and i have to say that for me it is a challenging decision it is challenging on so many levels i want to begin by saying that, you know, the focus right now is the eir but i do want to take the opportunity to thank supervisor kim so for the work she and her office have done on this project i think that the level

affordability is commendable and the idea we're near 40 percent is very significant i also believe that the issue of affordability is something that has to include the middle-income and marching to struggle to say stay in the city i think for me, the challenge is will you have a project that has many benefits one the benefits i want to be clear having worked with many developers over of the years i believe that forest city is a very respected and very good player i think from my commerce having worked well-being with folks that is hard to find people who are more

commented to doing this right. i know folks like a election and other who i believe really have the best interests of this community in mind and in that sense there is a level of comfort the challenge i have is that you have not notwithstanding the benefits a community that is in a very unique predict a challenge for me in some rights both sides of the community coming for or against this project but a significant number of people from the communities that are raising questions about the process and what this means for planning for this community ankle earlier today, i cast is a

vote in support of neighborhood preference even though i have my own concerns about that and a difference to the african-american members of that community who have expressed the desire to try something and so when faced with this community saying a significant number saying this is not what we want on the face so many benefits i don't care that i'm at a point to vote yes in terms of the certification my sense 24 project mr. will go forward one thing i'm encouraged folks on both sides of this project and i think one of the challenges here is that go well-intentioned as

some of the folks were against this project i would encourage them to reach out and sit down with the project sponsor with the developer do because everyo whether or not supported you have to make sure this goes forward it is done right and that is inclusive of everyone involved i hope that happens because of the concerns that this community has raised i'm not at the point right now that i can support the eir by the way, i also know the likely outcome this goes and there is a lot we should be proud of and look forward to working with supervisor kim in the community to make sure it is properly implemented thank you. >> thank you supervisor campos commissioner avalos. >> thank you a i is similar

comments as the supervisors comments this is really, really hard to witness and to be part of i do want to appreciate the long length of time that forest city has put on this project and the work they've done in the community despite seeing the community not on the same page and united you've heard from people in the in the room about the outreach that forest city has done and appreciate the information about the project in the south of market but disappointed that there is not a unit and not sure we can be in san francisco we've dealt with displacement over the decades and seems like every decade there is a wave of several displacement areas in the city that go forward i think of what happened in the fillmore where

redevelopment in the 1960s that effort was seen and negro removal we saw a huge displacement of african-americans from this fillmore with redevelopment happened there and the old manila town area and kearny and close to chinatown had the i hotel that went on this was a heart of the huge filipino community in san francisco and we - the i hotel was removed but a hole in the ground for a very long time despite the hotel went down and go nothing built there the filipino community left that area without a concentration after the i hotel went down and there was a whole waves of development a lot of people of the the neighborhood was improving i want to have better neighborhoods and neighbors i

want to have the development going forward not the displacement and mr. schneider and the planning department said we're not teacher of the year do you buildings not about tearing down building but rezoning the area of san francisco in the south of market and with the impact of that for the existing buildings and residents that are there of the people have protections around having the below-market-rate places to live and sro's that give security having the vendors accompany with lots of people money and take over the neighborhood that is part of what this project has now i don't believe that forest city is necessarily has that impact in mind they're well within the members working with them and actually having

stabilization people calling the stabilization measures the community benefits and actually, i don't necessarily see them as benefits but stabilizing the neighborhood public school will see a huge impact of rising land values that make pack that hard for working people to remain in the neighborhood but anymore stabilization measures we saw the south of market yerba buena a large filipino population as well and while they were not entirely displaced senior centers and senior housing where large contemplations of filipinos now not the same rich community there in the past around you see some of the senior housing around fulsome and fourth and third and filipinos used to this with the chinese residents and the

remnants of the 3 streets named after filipino leaders in the presidio and other places significant for the filipino community this is one of the vibrant communities that was there i'm concerned what will happen with that part of san francisco another we've seen the community history of big projects like this that displace people this can happen allergy feel while we're in a time of san francisco where gentrification is real displacement happening we can see the projected rise of land value and the impacts on community i want to stay on the right side of history where people have been resist resistant to the total of neighborhood that reject that type of rezoning and be on that side that's not the majority things that people believe are

worthy of this project to support and their puff by i can't i'll be voting to say right now no on you know the measures to approve those projects i'm been voting more more and more in support support of appeals going forward and that's pretty much all i have to say i want to thank the people on both sides i don't take my job not easily i vote either way amend those projects because of divided community and understand from labor and the developers and people are here from the community that do incredible work additional make san francisco the vibrant place that are in favor of this project i want to be on, on side of this vote. >> thank you commissioner

avalos and supervisor kim. >> thank you i was going to save my comments what we talk about the conditional use authorization and the approval because i didn't think my comments were relevant for the certification of the eir i don't see any issues that were brought up by the appellant for the eir but since my colleagues are starting to make comments on the project as a whole it is appropriate to speak about the project. >> supervisor kim before you do that we've not called 26, 27 and 28 we can only do that once the eir is approved. >> but we've had two colleagues that poke on those without calling them i don't think any of the comments were related to the compact reviews. >> i want you to know. >> if we're going to speak about the project as whole it is appropriate for me to make my comments now first of all, i want to

acknowledge the community input and advocacy that shaped this project to for the current project and design and recognize forest city in their outreach to our youth and families serving organizations acknowledged they're with the sud to a transit advocates for the bicycle coalition and todco and tndc and other members and residents including the tenderloin and filipino and the mid mall residents the project is swarltd along howard and 6th street removing buildings the construction of an offense tower and two residential towers with height from 200 to 4 housing unit plus feet with the historic believe the san francisco crocodile and the demster at the and other buildings this project proposed to build 8 hundred plus

units of housing 40 percent of those units last year affordable to low income go my mind income range from homes for the formally homeless and hotels and restaurant workers and 83 units for the low income seniors and 87 units for moifshgs from nurses to teachers they'll met the threshold of a minimum of 40 percent of two bedroom mixed in those developments and let me saythanasia that's an person requirement as well as the affordable units many developers are building studios and one bedrooms making that impossible for families to live in san francisco of they afford those market-rate housing this is the first time a developer is committed to building 40 and

middle-income housing we announced the giants this is the fifth development project that is meeting 40 percent affordable and middle-income without the public land that we negotiated with the giants back in june was actually many of the shareholders that are opposing this project this project proposed to include an acres open space mary kwourt park i'm announce in the engagement will be built in the phase one and a rooftop and include the maintenance costs this huge challenge with our current portfolio of recreational centers and paperwork i appreciate the project sponsor will be maintaining those on their dime it will include the following benefits some of which i'll be introducing $3.4 million in

transit fees we expect projects grandfathered and their commenting one million dollars to betsey carmichael south of market, only public school and the country's on this tagalog language program they're commenting of thousands for south of market focusing on those who preserve and setback filipino arts and those are through amendments i'll announce committing a certain number of federal reserve's for the soma fund established by many of the advocates in this room and my appreciation chris daily to make sure that any development south of market electricities to the stabilizations of organizations that implies and residents one $.5 million with the stable fund for youth and families serving organization in the south of market one .42, 3, 4 workforce

and now instead of three hundred thousand for the study of culture district the developer has announced will submit another $500,000 a half a million dollars for the implementations of the plan on top of the study of 8 hundred indoors this is on top of the fees we will expect a development to be assessed the one $.5 million with the downtown space we'll be dedicating to the park down the street the park this community fought for and 2.6 for the yerba buena are circle foreshadow impacts of this development that will come in through the phasing of this project and finally one million dollars for the old mint an historic building across the street from 5 m for programming, security and facility needs anyone on the board lives 5 m i

live one block away from in project i love this neighborhood may mechanic lives down the street i pass mercy housing on all sides on fulsome and howard and on clemente now we're building 100 percent affordable housing at hotel on the corner of howard and 6th street to my east i have 100 percent affordable housing seniors by todco and i walk down 6th street pass the single room occupancies hospitality i get to pass united playaz the vendors help to purchase they'll remain a community organizations serving our orchards and youth i live across the street from the victor park that is a community fought for in 2006 and live

across from the after-hour clubs everyday i see kids and families and seniors and a diverse neighborhood i understand the fear of displacement and change in this neighborhood that's why question have fought with the community so hard to perceive this neighborhood that meant pretty much 534 and other small site acquisition in the south of market we've taught for other affordable housing project again for redevelopment and recently working with the community we're able to save all the tenants of 512 down the street of my house that were challenged with evictions we call no fault evictions and finally two blocks away from my house working closely with the tenants thanks to the board and mayor's office to stop the largest eviction saving hundreds of tenants

living in affordable rent-controlled unit down the street ideally every project this board passes would be affordable housing but we know under redevelopment plans and the late project i mentioned we're building 40 percent affordable on public land depends on market-rate for the subsidizing of homes we know we don't have enough dollars to build affordable housing on every site we control this is not even on land we control this is the area plan we've had the ability to use the tax implements a tool we've built 28 percent in bay area and 35 in transbay yet not a single project not been able to use tax increments is building 40

percent affordable and middle-income housing we're not talking about a large area plan or redevelopment to use the tax incrimination but a single project on private lands committing to affordable housing and low income housing the question asked two the members of the public who are we build for so let's have a breakdown of the two projects that are before us that are building at 40 percent avenue, i only bring this up many posing 5 m are supporting it the giant projects are building inspection 4 percent this project is building 40 percent of ami and with candidates to units for families that are formally will homeless the giants have not made that commitment and 21 percent of giants are building and 5 m is 8

percent of one hundred to one hundred 20 and both projects are similar in that final 5 percent outside will be dedicated to those making one and sro percent of ami families that are in san francisco could 10 years ago afford to live here the average blend of the affordable ami in giant is one and 2 percent a.m. is hitting a blackened of '75ers of ami we're building more low income housing units in the 40 percent project in 5 m than with the giant s and we talked about the breakdown of the project 19 units commit to families that are formally homeless 15 percent of a.m. we're talking about rents between 200 and 68 to $344

a month those are studios that .2 bedrooms that cost roughly $300 and month and one and 3550 percent of the ami those are rent at 1 hundred to one thousand over with the examples we brought up hospitality and the rental workers and come to the middle-income units close to 87 units between one hundred and 50 percent we took the salaries we looked at in the city data hookt what teachers nurses and electricians and first responders making sure we are providing for a wide range the residents and i i also want to talk about consistency on this board two years ago with exception of supervisor christensen's

unanimously approved an sud that created one and thirty units of ultra luxurious housing without a single unit of affordable housing this is one block away from the 5 m project this project was passed unanimously not a single comment how 80 this project electricities to displacement on the south of market 24 board supports projects and area plans that build 12 and 20 percent affordable housing on a regular basis i have to ask when is it enough so i think there is two alternatives that we can look around voting for this project the one that was presented by the opposite opponent to build a code compliant project even at a code compliant you can lower the office space and the code

compliant 12 percent limo assume we would at 6 hundred and 1 market-rate that means we build 72 units 2, 3, 4 comparison to the 200 and 44 that are offend in this project the other alternatives, of course, 90 no project so let's assume that no project will mean and in the best case scenario no net displacement we know that displacement is occurring in san francisco throughout the city and south of market so it you believe that no project here about contribute to more than net displacement and rotating for no project on this site make sense then it does men we don't support development and this brings me back to the discussion on the moratorium something i actively of actually

supports i believe the more timer was a because of development in the neighborhood that was building very this affordable housing in the single digits district k9 has built 200 and 69 units of affordable housing with 6 hundred and thirty no fault evictions in the last 10 years and district 6 has built 3 thousand plus of affordable housing and we've had two hundred and 16 evictions in the last 10 years there's a difference between the two districts that's why i supported the moratorium in the mission that means no development to study how we can build more affordable housing and, of course, prevent the level of evictions district 9 has as second number of evicts in san francisco that make sense to support no more development in the admission here in this district we have different numbers

at least 6 district in the city have evictions 2 to 3 time the rate i'm not saying displacement suicides not real and all the market-rate in the world will stop it but 200 and 14 real family unit covers the 200 and 16 no fault vibrations in district 6 in the last 10 years that's important so i'll conclude i didn't think this is an important project for us to support if we can't support a project at 40 percent affordable madam clerk, any announcements? >> of middle-income housing i'm not sure what project this board can support i'm e i'd like to push for more we as an office push the boundary but not about building as many market rate housing but the balance so how the to subsidize the

maximum number of understanding we're creating a better balance in the city we've demonstrated through the project working with forest city and the partners when we were worship involved in the feedback we're putting the best project forward to this board i ask colleagues for your support on this project thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim before we move to the next speaker madam clerk can you please call items 26, 27 and 2 all an ordinance inform amend the general plan by amending the map of the downtown to reclarify various lots and block amending to reclarify the height and unbelievable with the fifth and special use district and sectional map amending fingers 2, 3, 4 of the downtown plan to

refer to the fifth special use district amending 4 and 5 thought urban to refer to the special use district and amending 2, 3 and 5 of the south of market to amend the map and in assessor oversee block from the boundary the south of market will area plan and adopting the appropriate finding number 27 to create the fist and mission special use eased the sectional map and reflect the fifth and mission specialemulsification use and make the offer riding considerations item 28 ordinance to approve the development argument between the, llc for various to include various public benefits for the

percentage of affordable housing, approving the impact fees and acts more affordable housing and other communities benefits as so forth in the all the time in article four or the administrative code and authorizing the acquisition of real property on mission street more affordable housing and conforming compliance with the awaiting provisions of the administrative code chapters and making other appropriate finding. >> thank you supervisor mar. >> thank you i want to get to a couple of points that jam i didn't the attorney for the south of market coalition and i think rachel the attorney before had raised those questions about the thinking adequacy of the eir and other points to supervisor kim's points about the community benefits package including the 4 percent avenue, i building that

was stated that the housing linkage fees are used inform pay for the eddy and taylor development not tenderloin that money is general obligation bond and not considered in the 40 percent they should be paying above that and the land dedication for the mission street is all that it is and unclear how much of that will follow through according to the coalition i also wanted to say to that when you double count jobs and housing linkage fees is sets a precedence tera south of market brought this up the gradual democrat a graphic decline of the filipino south of market i know that supervisor kim. >> brought up the contradiction existing within district 6 that has now the extreme i thought

weight and also the lowest income and highest passport a project like this i believe that so out of scope for the residential neighborhood and the small businesses and other including the mid mall will increase the land values and over time increased housing and commercial rents and other things have a general first degree impact on the whole neighborhood unless we looked at the planning like the south of market coalition has come up with central soma plans and other and try to fit velocities in that approach i epic that the mission has done it with the people's plan with these other neighborhood i them that spot zoning like this without consideration of the historic and the gunmen first degree

gangs leads to the inner experts uc berkley is seeing a total push out of the filipino community some said that is happening anyway i don't buy that we should as a board doing everything we can to look at the cumulative and historic impacts and look at the community planning as a keynote allowing spot zoning like this i also wanted to add to it forest city as other have said good about reach out early 5 years of a process clearly support the shared arts support and sf made and other good things about the neighborhood going i don't like backroom deals and underlying in the face of community planning that bother me by a what is going on i'll vote in favor of the appeals and veto in

solidarity with the filipino and the south of market community. >> (clapping.) thank you supervisor mar supervisor christensen. >> something a little bit robust from this corner i want to thank forest city and congratulate supervisor kim and all who hoped to shape that project i think contrary i'm encouraged no existing units are lost and one solution to displacement rather than the cause my primary comment a tactical one the impacts of this on the surrounding areas have buffoon considered by i've been thinking the impact on fifth street and the disappointing and plaza i'm expecting will be a main trite location for the residents and workers for 5 m i wouldn't imagine tampa perez

with the fees that have been set aside yerba buena and other but it would be why to see the transit fees perhaps plied to stelgd the cord and see if we can't do something about holiday as we're doing wonderful things associated with 5 m. >> thank you supervisor christensen supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much madam president so i too support this project i think that is a terrific project i think there was a terrific project 33 percent affordable it more a terrific 40 percent affordable there is a lot to like about this project i mean, i'll be supporting that i want to address two things the first a lot of focus on the affordable housing aspect of this project it is critically important and deserves a lot of focus another piece i have think doesn't get

as much attention and should i know that is stripping but the transportation aspect and i'm glad that supervisor kim received referred to the 706 mission project not onset affordable housing but the other part it didn't pay as far a dime in transit impact fees that's not to blame that is our law was to blame and corrected that last week and this week by finally taking the historic step of not standing the impact fees to residential so 7006 mission would have made a large impact fee if if was in place despite what poem say over air force that project we've seen a series of projects in south of market

area that were not paying any transit impact fees whatsoever and in addition when the western selma plan came forward to this board it had odd provision as a project get bigger it paidlessly transit impact fees we have a big fight but able to fix that and land use commission that was not appropriate after 706 mission i sat down with department heads and indicated i would struggle to support projects not paying transit impact fees and that even though we were going to eventually adopt an extension of impact fees to residents it was important particularly with zoning to include the full impact fees we want to thank the departments for coming forward and honoring that and so 5 m is

paying in full the equivalent of the sustainability fee and when i met with the developers early on i made clear that was and high priority for me and that needs to happen they made that happen i'm very, very appreciative with so many needs in the transportation in the south of market and in particular so parolee served by transit so it needs a lot more transit and obviously this project is a drop off of market street i hope to mention i appreciate that supervisor kim is beginning her remarks talking about how there is no way i wish we had all the money we needed

just to build below-market-rate housing everywhere and supply the lavendz we don't have that kind of funding i agree what supervisor kim we rely on plenty of tax dollars again rely a significant part on resources generated by privately produced housing to create affordable housing whether onsite affordable or paying fees to build affordable housing elsewhere that's at&t's our core part and the two go hand in hand creates a green good partnership, however, i don't agree that means some sort of differentiation with the mission moratorium you either if you believe as i do and people do privately produced housing i'll support and pay more affordable housing that applies everywhere

we know that are that the mission moratorium is shutting down privately produced housing will damage our ability to build affordable housing in the mission i think that is important to do housing in the city that we not just do it by negotiating a deal on a specific project but actually having good housing policy overall and talk about moratorium and shutting down housing production that puts us in the wrongs direction and supervisor kim statistics prove a point less displacement in district of and in the midst maybe precisely because so much housing production and anymore housing production in district of 6 both market-rate and

affordable that has a moratorium that puts the fire to it and makes that worse that is a good project i'll support it. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you, madam chair. >> when i first heard of this project i really doesn't know much about it and the major reaction was what the hell is this another project just build aichlt just build market rate housing i found out more in terms of not 40 percent initially by eventually reached there one of the things we've done wrong in our city and probably everywhere in the u.s. how to integrate our housing with poor and rich communities and the types of housing in

those communities i think in this situation it it becomes closer to what could be the ideal situations where you have mixed use not - it would have been nice if we had had the eddy taylor united within this block but whether you look at it overall in terms of the affordable units that are being built in the sited or in the project itself it is a well-balanced project and so we talk about housing and affordable housing and the other piece of this, of course, the office building and the commercial building the thing that gets lost in the discussion is this whole notation of caregiver facilities that need to be built we're so far behind

further behind in housing in terms of the housing to serve our young children i met with forest city reps just a few days ago i mentioned we didn't consider childcare but you know the situation in the city that we're basically don't have enough slots for the kids and they listen and said you know something that is last minute we didn't think about that that hard but i think that is important we include this so to you know, i was pretty hard the developer is offering actually to make a good faith effort to include childcare space so later

on when we introduce the amendments needed this will include the language that will go into the agreements section indicating this will be the developers will include 3 thousand square feet of childcare space for nonprofit providers and so i'll be making those amendments later it is another example of what other people said in terms of forest city in regards to they're willingness to listen and to see what the needs are and try to work with them but, of course, for the commercial piece of the development this could be childcare facilities fees that la be charged to it anyways but for someone to say step forward and say i'll be able to look at

it and seriously consider building for childcare we know the needs of the community that's another motivation to say this is a very good project. >> thank you supervisor yee supervisor cowen. >> i'll call the question on the eir madam clerk roll call. >> on. >> oh, i'm sorry the motion that supervisor kim made a motion and senthd by supervisor cohen specifically for the approval of the items 16 and tabling item 17 and 18. >> supervisor avalos no supervisor breed supervisor campos no supervisor christensen supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim

supervisor mar no supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee there are 8 i's and 3 nos with supervisor campos supervisor mar and another supervisor. >> madam clerk go to 26, 27 and 28 i believe there are amendments supervisor kim for item 28. >> i'm sorry so we're now on the d da and the sud did we skip over the requesting you. >> we are required to do items 26, 27 and 28 first before we move to the next item. >> i did not realize yes, i'm

submitting the first but supervisor yee. >> as i mentioned the amendments in which you have a copy of will go into the agreement one of the development to add the following to the section 7.9 and basically childcare use i don't think i have to read the whole thing i have it. >> okay. >> and the other amendment i want to make will go to the ends of knowledge section 249.74 d-7 a and any open space says any open space to satisfy the chvrn to use for collaborating

coincidental residential and non-residential. >> is there a motion seconded by supervisor cowen can we take this thing without objection. >> supervisor christensen. >> there's a daycare at yerba buena center a large facility and others private childcare on how does that work near 7th street so i can't determine a sufficient need to set citywide this sacrifice for this it specific purpose i don't know we've generated an indication this is an absolute necessity. >> supervisor yee clarify is this a requirement or a suggestion. >> this is i'm asking them to build a childcare center and do

a good faith effort to do this the centers it supervisor christensen are - is referring to their fueling fuel with a waiting list and this can be more families and more needs. >> thank you, madam clerk call the roll. >> for clarity madam president the childcare is to 28. >> correct. >> and the sud was made to item 27. >> ; is that correct supervisor yee. >> correct. >> okay. thank you. >> wait i want clarity i missed - >> deputy city attorney john gibner, deputy city attorney please explain why the second amendment was maids on item 27 and not 228.

>> john gibner, deputy city attorney so the first amendment is not an amendment for legislation only a change to the extremity agreement at the end of the hearing we'll provide the clerk with an agreement what all the changes reflected in that the second item in the document that supervisor yee handed out the 5 m sud amendment is actually on amendment to the ordinance on item 27 reflecting the same content. >> okay. thank you for clarification madam clerk, please call the roll. >> commissioner avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor christensen supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisee