construct up to 98 dwelling units as of right and i'm going to turn it over to lisa to discuss the connecting appeal. >> thank you, ann marie sxooepd and members of the board i'm lisa the question you're considering today is whether the community plan exemption that was issued for the 2000 bryant street was prepared no longer to ceqa and the ceqa guidelines it was raised on the 16th street environmental impact report that was heard on july 26th the familiar issues specifically whether or not the growth projection and eir remained value for the subsequent projects the board denied the 16th street appeal affirming the

planning department reliance on the eir for the focus for the eir i'd like to briefing recap the planning department position on the gross projections the gross projections eir reviews to assess how population growth supported by the eastern neighborhoods zoning area plans can impact the environment they didn't establish excuse me - not establish limits on the pace or the extent of growth further the eastern neighborhoods eir did not establish a growth threshold above which the eir is no longer valid in approving the eastern neighborhoods eir and zoning in 2008, this board voted to manage and control the density type of and location the g board didn't establish the growth caps that some cities and

places in california do that to restrict the quality not what we have in san francisco further the growth projections in the eir did in the establish in fact an inspiration date the eastern neighborhoods eir will remain valid under ceqa until such time that the plan is amended or updated ceqa did isn't permitted the planning department to reopen the environmental plan in the absence of an update is that plan that's in ceqa guidelines so how were the growth projections used the ceqa evaluated the population growth in areas of land use, population and housing, business activity, employment and transportation and air quality and art and utilities and public services the eastern neighborhoods

determined with prelims alcohol, tobacco & firearms plan will there will be unavoidable impacts into twrit and traffic and shadow and on the impacts too that were identified as migration measures the adaptation the eastern neighborhoods plan required implementation of those mitigation measures the board adapted a statement of overriding consideration accepting the trade off between the plan benefits and the environmental impact once a lead agency adapts a community plan and certified a program eir for the eastern neighborhoods the california environmental quality act mandates that process to review the project that process is the c p p process we're following ceqa mandates that projects that are consistent with the development density established under the plan shall not be subject to additional

environmental impact only to examine if there are significant impacts peculiar to the site we're prohibited from renaval the city as a vision in the plan purchases of determine where a c p is grand for a density provided by the plan the accuracy of the congregate assumed in the eir is relevant only in that vaulting whether the projects will result in new or substantially more impacts in the eir the departments response growth has not exceeded the projections in the eir rapid development is developing in the very impacts that are disclosed in the eir those are the changes we've heard that the speakers speak of that's the case with each of bryant street impacts

they're identified in the eir and anticipated and those included the land use due to the pdr and traffic and transit and recreation and open space so the proper question to ask here in the appeal were any such differences in the gross projections readies to substantially more significant vifrl effects we've not seen in any evidences presented to us. >> madam president can i before we. >> supervisor peskin. >> ms. gibson. >> can we pause the time thank you. >> supervisor peskin. >> i heard something different in core than what you represented and in co-sponsor have an i was the dissenting vote any recollection of that conversation about actually there was a recognition by the

planning department as to that sub region of the problematic document that we might be running up against those numbers and the impacts i think there was a statement joment but indeed time for - you don't see your statements i think you've attempted but nostril allowed to tell us what questions we're allowed to ask but that being what that is the real question to me if we analyze as many as 2000 units and now have 25 hundred units in the pipeline what are the associated impacts

as to all of these things whether offering riding considerations in 2008, i agree with you, you that that did not on the face mandate having a new eir but think we have to once we are saying hey we built for units in 8 years than expected to build until 2025 how do we recognize that. >> thank you supervisor peskin through the chair the question that you asked it we noted what is a different position i'm concerned stated when that was stated at the 9001, 16th street hearing regarding the projections at that hearing the department acknowledged that the numbers that have about projections the current ones that are participating in the eir show that there are the

amount of housing in the mission district i'm sorry in certain locations is reaching a level that was near what was projected at the time of eir was prepared so and today, we have that can speak in a better manner with the specifics of those numbers i can tell you how those numbers were used is relative for the subsequent projects and wear studying as we do exemptions we evaluate the conditions and the project site location determines that anything that has changed would change our conclude and analysis that we had at the project impact so we have certain tops on the projections

to evaluate and look at it land use, we use it for analysis of the population and transportation and air quality, etc. we have new information we just want our analysis and identify where the individual subsequent project will have a severe impact the projection itself didn't - you have something else to add we'll have you continue with the presentation since that was going to be a part of it madam clerk can we reprogram the times please. yes chris through the chair fannie mae to clarify ms. rogers

classified that on the appeal she acknowledges that going forward as growth continues on the eastern neighborhoods plan that maybe that the department conducts more project specific analysis that is not to say that we will no longer rely on the e-mails eir or the planning exemption for a project but rather as we did in fact, on the 90 1, 16th street focused on the eir that look at a specific topic one of those tops that the impacts on traffic in this case we found after a focused eir that look at the transit impacts this project will not result under a significant impact on the transit as growth continues we may do more of the projects analyses that is not equivalent

of the eir and good afternoon chris department staff briefly first, the eastern neighborhoods eir remains valid as a basis for the communities plan booemdz the remarks about the population estimates were used in the eastern neighborhoods eir the population growth and the loss of pdr space have not exceeded what we anticipated in the eir mr. schneider as growths slides with the gentrification and displacement constitute a significant impact that were not anticipated if the eastern neighborhoods eir as important as those issues are those are social and connective impacts

that are nostril subject to ceqa unless evidence to a physical effect on the environment the appellant has not provided that evidence we came to the permitted - such a physical impact not considered by the eastern neighborhoods eir as occurred as a problematic document the ooirmz eir did evaluate the impacts associated with displacement in the context of the amended increase in population and intensity o density clicked the physical environments was less than significant with that said gentrification is policy issues and addressing those as a separated matter for environmental review and claudia is here talking about the 2020 and with regards to the public benefits are not provided public

benefits are provide the public benefits plan was with the plan in 2008, as shown in attachment d with the response public benefits are provided as the permits are issued gun matthew schneider is available for questions near and dear to my heart in regards to the consortium the project is not with the applicable plans they conducted angle clalthd analysis and determined it is as the exclusion in conflicts with the plans that a significant impact previously identified in the eastern neighborhoods eir will occur thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors rich department staff we review the conditional use authorization and the planning department responded to the appeal on june 2016 the planning

commission considered the project the majority attributes were approved through the large project authorization those elements are subject to the second appeal to be considered we the board of appeals the conditional use authorization was needed only for the demolition of a 3 dwelling units relative to the issues on the appeal the planning commission found the demolition to be necessary and desirable in order to incumbent the mixed use project it is consistent with the urban mixed use zoning district and the height and bulk district the project meets the open space for the roof terrace that measures up to 15 thousand square feet and a decade of a parcel measuring 90 feet and mohcd has certified the land dedication will exceed the 35

percent more affordable housing by mr. matsuoka up to 98 dwelling unit more affordable housing the project provides a public assessable mid block right-of-way and also undertakes did sites the project is not required by current law to replace the pdrs by provides 12 it thousand ground floor of pdrs it meets the planning code and general plan and not relies on the - this that concludes my presentation. we're all available for any questions thank you. >> with that, i know there are questions from supervisors we'll start with supervisor mar i wanted to go back to one of the comments by chris thomas you went through that quickly in

rejecting the appellants suggests that are cumulative impact of displacement and impacts especially on low income residents artists and small businesses as i recall you said that ceqa didn't allow you to look at associate and economic impacts not subject to ceqa your concluding you e conducting you looked at the displacement could you clarify that because 2008 to now i'm in agreement with the appellants that there have been significant changes whether your latino or chicano and the demographics of that population from huge areas of mission and the southeast parts of the city to push out low income residents and people with disabilities the

artists and small businesses like some that have been in that space potential legacy businesses and i think that to call that some of the displacement less than significant didn't strike me as factual i guess that's my question first. >> chris the guidelines say they'll be the threat as social effects and an eir may change the effects through anticipated economic and social changes to physical changes from excuse me - economic or social changes to physical changes accused in return for the economic change the intermediate changes may not

be billed and greater or necessary to look at the change of cause-and-effect the focus should be often the physical changes the eastern neighborhoods europe concluded this could be with the gentrification and displacement will not result in the physical impacts on the environment so for the department to consider the gentrification as significant impacts under ceqa we'll need substantial evidence last week the jobs housing and balance whether not occur without the plan, and, secondly, after stabbing that their causing physical impacts on the social environment when the case the eir we're not aware of the

relationship between the physical effects as physical impacts on the environment. >> can you do your best to paraphrase what you just said. >> (laughter). >> i think the city attorney will like to elaborate in essence what ceqa is directing us to do no consider the social effects so the changes and demographics. >> you can't look at the human impacts or social impacts it is outside of the ceqa guidelines. >> that's correct except to the degree and result in the physical impacts of the environment and perhaps the city attorney can elaborate. >> excuse me - deputy city

attorney mirena burns. through the chair it schis stated it well, i'll say that the ceqa statuettes and the ceqa guidelines and several cases that are directly think point on this question clearly state that can't consider the socioeconomic under ceqa in and of itself that separation needs to be made and physical impact on the environment like air quality, transportation, all the other effects we look at typically under ceqa related to growth so it is not that we can't in any situation consider the socioeconomic under ceqa unless the impact has to contribute to it a case out 6 backings fields

they're the board of supervisors were considering approving a couple of wal-marts and the opponents were arguing the super supervises will lead to urban decay and blight in the downtown bakers field it is important to look at the blight they very evidence that showed that approving the wal-marts were going to cause physical changes in their downtown area that's the link that needs tobacco made to us to take into consideration the socioeconomic simply in the ceqa process not to say those are not important policy considerations the city look at a policy process through the large project authorization this is just to say that ceqa is a

state law we are implementing the state law it requires you require the physical changes the environment. >> and you're saying prominent thank you, ms. burn your rejecting the significant changes that have happened that we should be analyzing it based on the conditions now we have 2008 eastern neighborhoods analysis i guess it still didn't stick with me not significant changes to require an eir based on the current position by the uc berkley and others have looked at consensus looked at the mission and down to the consensus track to me the

changes have about so traumatic if usual a low income person or one of the businesses from the demolished buildings it is hard to see that is not a significant change and our policies ben tech companies in 2011, 2012 have led to this rapid change especially in the mission but now stretching thought richmond integrity and other places hard for me to accept not significant changes whether you're looking at socioeconomic and human a impacts or the physical ones what would transpiring the need for a new eir what's the conditions. >> lisa gibson you have speaking the eastern neighborhoods eir in that case the ceqa guidelines provide a

road map when subsequent review is needed for an eir in section of the ceqa guidelines once a project is approved the lead agencies is conceded until further discretionary is required if there is further discretionary review after the approval didn't require the reopening of that approval if after the project is approved any of the conditions described that are in a different section of this document occur the agency needs to prepare subsequent reviews when it is prior to granting a next discretionary approval the eastern neighborhoods didn't have a discretionary review approval on 2 it we have

discretionary review approvals on a project that is proposed pursuant to the rezone but not discretionary action on the plan itself so by further it says when there is no further action if the situation that we're - there's no other responsible agency grantsdz an approval for the project there's no action that the agency needs to take so basically, there's no reopening of the eir unless there is a modified project for the eir itself. >> even though the conditions have changed so significantly from 2008 to 2016 you're saying never going to be reopened i ska asked was what would trigger the reopening short of human

suffering and impacts of low income and cultural communities that many are expressing from the audience. >> what you're describing it what i characterize as the people perspective and experience based on build out in the planned area and accumulate as a result of the zoning district there is a dissatisfaction for the significant impacts identified in the eir and what would require reopening the eir to address those changes revisiting the zoning in the decision maker or policymakers want to look at this in the eastern neighborhoods because of the data showing that the

consequences are not desirable that's a policy matter whether that needed review under ceqa when we have a project that is relooked at. >> so basically you're hands are tied you can't even if significant changes in a neighborhood like the mission or around the project you can't do a current analysis that looks at even the physical or eir. >> now we are talking about for those promotions we're conducting our environmental review through the community process that's where we identify whether the individual projects will have project or cites specific impacts peculiar to the site and from the standpoint what is peculiar.

>> for the 901, 16th street street appeal that was before in july was one were there was a peculiar impact related to historic resources and in that case that was no an impact in the eastern neighborhoods eir and therefore we did a exemption for the environmental impact report and higher level of review to address that and also transportation impacts that were addressed that were considered peculiar to the project. >> if this board 11 votes were to require a current date eir how long would that take and how much would that cost and delay the project. >> you're asking if you require an eir you mean for this

project how long and how much it would depending on the finding with regard to the sufficiencies you'll wish us to secure i'd like to point out that we conducted a special technical studies 5 or 6 for that project not only for an eir you do technical studies but about - so we look at the environmental tops and specific areas are we'll feed to study and in general preparation of an eir take between a year to two years for a focused eir between the two. >> would likely delay the project for one or two years and how much would that cost. >> that is not a question i could go answer best answered we the department.

>> wyoming you estimate. >> emery rogers through the chair. >> how much of other irs eirs. >> those fees will depend on the special studies but let's see roughly there easily could be hundreds of thousand even if dollars to a million and put in your costs for a consultant it can be well above that. >> hundreds of millions of dollars i appreciate your

answering my question. >> thank you supervisor campos. >> thank you thank you madam president wanted to follow up on the line of questioning that supervisor mar and supervisor peskin were following and i appreciate the question from supervisor peskin as it relates to the corbin appeal because i think consistency is important he was the no vote on that item so i appreciate where he's coming from i respect that i think what supervisor mar is getting at we have two types of appeals the ceqa appeal and the cu and sort of what the limitations of the appeal are

and what i find the most frustrating about ceqa is the very limited and narrow way to look at social impacts like displacement and so i'm wondering if i don't know if it is a question for the planning department or the city attorney but sort of what is the relevance of that issue of displacement as we engage in environmental review. >> because i think know that is the question for so many of any constituents; right? why can't we look at that and deputy city attorney mirena burns. the ceqa status addresses it through the definition of what you substantial evidence and

which way need to support our decisions under ceqa this can, found in the public research code subsection c says substantial evidence arguments and unsubstantiated that evidence that is erroneous which don't contribute or caused by physical impacts on the environment is not substantial evidence this is specific dwellings and the ceqa guidelines further describe that by saying through the definition of a significant effect on the environment an economic this can be found in the ceqa guidelines an economic or social change by

itself shall not have an be subsequent effect but were related to a physical change may be considered that's the key in ceqa we're looking at under the state law mandate what are the physical changes to the environment the question before the board is whether there are - that link is between the social changes and economic changes and the physical changes of the environment and that link needs to be supported by the substantial evidence in the record the board know the question before you in the context that is very specific type of exemption that was created by the ceqa statute itself that says where a project is consistent with the development density the zoning and general plan that has been adopted through an eir that is what the

eastern neighborhoods is consistent with the zoning sdrent general zoning we look at the specific set of questions the question is i understand that the board a grappling with wrote a there are previously identified impacts in the eir as a result of new information which was not known at the time the eir was certified or determined to have a more savior impact that discussed in the prior eir so the washer and dryer needs to look at whether or not this is substantial evidence in the records those previously identified transportation impacts, impacts air quality all those to population and housing the eastern neighborhoods eir does consider have been changed because of substantial new information in the record to show the impacts will be more

severe that didn't reopen it means the dp e if you find substantial evidence to support show have looked at and directly the planning department to do >> judge following up on that point; right? people say off ramp this project has impacts in terms of traffic a number of things environmental in nature so the question is the extent to which the neighborhoods eir look at those so maybe there are no through the chair to planning just building that the analysis in eastern neighborhoods that with standing that is the crux of ceqa appeal here.

>> through the president. >> could you speak into the mike so we can - >> sorry. >> the eastern neighborhoods eir. >> i'm sorry just for the record whether each person speaks please identify yourselves thank you. >> chris thomas planning department staff the e-mails eir covered rapid tops and many of the tops were evaluated on the basis of the impacts from the new zoning and projected population that results in the prelims of the eastern neighborhoods plan so that's the pragmatic review of the tops that were covered and we looked at. >> number of issues and do kite the tops for transportation for example, that was of there was a transportation impact

study done and evaluate each issue there a study or a matter of information in the eastern neighborhoods eir. >> another issue related to the ceqa analysis on the issue of the greekt projections in the eastern neighborhoods eir i want to have a better understanding of what your response to this question of you know whether or not we're talking about in any units a number of units that have been approved that go past what was anticipated in eastern neighborhoods if you can if you can address that specific point. >> through the chair chris thomas many of the speakers point out the number of units

anticipated for the mission district have been exceeded in the itching range of the units have been square feet, however, what the eir looked was population projections and not a significant amount of development of non-residential properties the population projections have not compete what was anticipated in the eastern neighborhoods eir. >> i have a question through the city attorney related to this point i sort of see the point from the appellants and from what communities members said at some point, is it appropriate to cap the number of units built in the neighborhood you know the impact because of impact of those units can have on a neighborhood and i'm trying

to i think to me that's an appropriate exercise and better to be safe than sorry we plan the future of a neighborhood like this one i'm trying to understand how to go about doing that it is appropriate to do that. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. through the pointing mechanisms through the planning code and state law for issuing the zoning moratoriums that maybe something the board may want to consider or another route through the planning code what is described through the staff the eastern neighborhoods eir analyzed growth and what analytical tools which were the projection of at the time the departments and the planning commission and the board in uphold the eir and appeal thought what was a reasonable analytical tool 24

was not a in the eastern neighborhoods eir but a cap but do board can create that. >> as the planning department a question about that i know that there is you know map 2020 that the department is looking at i mean is that something that is considered rezoning can you can you believe there is a point at some point we want to cap the number of units that are being built as a way of protecting the character of the neighborhood and claudia adachi the action plan 2020 we are looking at the larger policy changes and we think first and foremost acknowledging the gentrification are real in the mission and they were important to look at and so we there's been conversation whether it is

appropriate under a ceqa look at that and as far as specific zoning tools we've been discussing one of them for example, a pdr requirement we looking at to allow for affordable housing on a number of limited pdr paralyze that will trigger that will be a policy change we're also looking at on corridor as well as are there additional zoning tools to look at affordable housing in the mission those are the co-changes we're starting to work on. >> thank you i have a final question that i'd like to ask 9 mayor's office of housing as i mentioned that land

dedication has been a tool used before i want to be completely blunt about this you know we've heard a lot over the last couple of years about the meta project that basically, had allowed for the building of luxury housing in challenge for a developer buying property pies piece of land in the neighborhood 100 percent affordable will be built as a concept that is something that can makes a lot of sense because it actually allows us to think outside the box to maximize the number of affordable units that are ultimately built the problem with the meta project you had the luxury

housing the market-rate housing that was built on site and yet we're still waiting for the mayor's office of housing to build the affordable housing and you know i don't want to dispager anyone but as we're moving forward here in visions of affordable housing being built and i'll tell you that a big concern that i have i know that members of this communities have can the mayor's office of housing actually make this happen do this? and is it going to be the kind of thing that if something like this goes forward takes a long time before we see my thought affordable housing built what is the commitment the

mayor's office of housing because from my perspective you know as a concept i think that for something else to work we have to see the construction of the affordable housing piece as quickly as possible quite frankly as i mean, i think my goal would be my hope would be it happens same thing can you address that issue to me that's a big question that rightly people are raised i certainly worry about. >> yes. i'll be happy to address that kate hartley mayor's office of housing we are very aware of the criticism moving slowly and no denying it we're constrained over the years by the fact that affordable housing costs a lot of money and the mayor's office of housing and years past have not had

large budgets in a way it has now there are years in the very recently past our total budget was $5 million that's not funding a project we are very fortunate to be in a very different situation right now we have a large amount of affordable housing fees job length and job fees as well as the three hundred and plus million dollar housing bond and our partner in housing production occ has been able to issue bonds on their project area income so i have sense my department has september a letter to your department that commits to expediting this project with an rfp out in 4 weeks that includes a normal outreach to the communities about the rfp which is why it didn't go faster and have the

money in place have $2 million ready to go in the fiscal year of predevelopment funding for is this project can move immediately into the design phase we can't make architect and engineers work faster than they humanly can work there is typically a 12 month period of architecture design is he will include in the rfp the importance of expediting this project and we have the funds to do it and we firmly believe that it will be unlike previous land dedications because of budget authority that we have and because we know this project we know that affordable housing in the mission so so important. >> myself and so many people in the community working hard to pass the housing bond $310 million, $50 million of

that has been dedicated or pegged for the mission how much of that are you thinking of using can you belietalk about t actually. >> the 50 mental illness we issued a notice of funding for the prop a funds that is specifically dedicated to the mission one response and that we hope. >> so the 50 mental illness that remains available for the neighborhoods and absolutely. >> how much are you

dedicateing. >> we have $30 million dedicated in addition to not having the acquisition fees we have the price of the development the developer will investor this preshovel rode in the having hazardous materials and upgrading activities that add costs to the project the overall cost of this project should come in lower than a typical project we buy the law land. >> a final question in the letter you talked about the issue of having affordable units how many will be built from any perspective we want to see as many affordable housing units built as possible i understand a projection of one and 36 units

can you address that issue. >> we believe you can build up to one and 36b units on that site the minimum amount of units that mr. meet the section is 80 that will the total production will be well over waterproofs we don't know the exact unit account because for a community-based developer to binge think a design team to limousine with the community input and working with the developer we don't have a count right now but telling us in the mission affordable projects that are underway like 17 fulsome and shot well and on the density we're achieving are exceeding our original projections we will put into our rfps that

developers who submit proposals must maximize the affordable unit count and the number of units they can deliver will be part of selection process. >> supervisor campos can i ask one questions are any of those including federal funding at all for any of the subsidies. >> no. >> thank you i know that my colleagues have questions so thank you. >> supervisor campos is finished i want to make sure it is made clear that in all of those instances we plan to use neighborhood preference. >> absolutely. >> neighborhood preference and woeven and ellis act a work preference all of the things eave passed here at the board of supervisors apply in the case of any

development that includes affordable housing on site and we have legislative preferences we will apply certificate of occupancy i know your refer to the difficulties at kennedy we were unable to implement overseeing preferences due to flood action and appreciate the hard work you've put into restoring that decision ironically hud has slowed us down on the last capital project in the hud funds in san francisco a program funded with called section 202 money and hud has eliminated that program and no others capital funding available so those difficulties were going through are on the

kennedy's no longer apply because hud as capital projects. >> just to be clear the 202 program would go away but the possibility of new potential capital programs or no. >> not currently inform. >> thank you for that claefrts and supervisor cowen. >> please excuse my back i'm going to speak into the mike here we go another ceqa appeal we have a lot of them them one thing that is consistent the call the eastern neighborhoods plan is constantly called into question and framed as a document it is updated and why the heck are we using it basically i wanted to know from the planning perspective why we continue to us the eastern neighborhood plan when it is

updated. >> lisa acting environmental review officer the reason we have continuing to us the eastern neighborhoods eir plan is as i stated in any presentation we're mandate to do so the ceqa guidelines established a streamlining progress when you had a problematic eir to evaluate a plan as we did in this case, the subsequent projects development in cornerstones with the plan should be evaluated to what we're calling a community plan exemption process. >> what entity mandates we create a plan and that we implement that it is it a state and the requirements for that a jean plan is a state

requirements the eastern neighborhoods eir fulfills that mandate and then we're required from the california environmental quality act that was established by the state legislative for the impact analysis of that plan we courthouses to prepare a problematic eir we do so we can achieve the benefit of evaluating in one document and comprehensive set of cumulative types of issues that result from implementing a complex plan that covered so many of the large geographic area so we did a problematic eir to consider the interrelated rezoning effort issues and to a that informs the rezoning progress and the

decision makers choices with zoning action abc real quick what was it create. >> the eastern neighborhoods plan was they are second reading in 2008. >> it took 12 years. >> more than 10 years. >> more than 10 years. >> between 8 to 10 years to create this plan a large community effort. >> how did we plan prior to the eastern neighborhoods plan. >> so we had zoning in place at that time, in the areas of eastern neighborhood that identified what the land use controls in terms of height and bulk and we reviewed permits in accordance with the wlumd. >> you took project by project and now the eastern neighborhood

plan covet like a map that if you want to build in a certain area either set the criteria you must meet. >> that's correct. >> so my question and don't interpret it as disrespect i'll asking on behalf of my constituents that has has many ceqa appeals how do we get rid of eastern neighborhoods plan. >> that's a question that is quite frankly 0 outside my area of expertise the implementation of the california environmental quality act i think that is a policy matter and one that decision makers should. >> so a policy matter so take up with the board of supervisors and even the planning commission i see people first ann marie and then - and get a legal thinking

outside the box. >> emery rogers the board of supervisors when they feel a need to update the planning to undertake the efforts to initiate staff to work with the communities to update the policy that's one way it can happen and the board of supervisors can make gentle policy addictions and amend the planning code to the general plan as the zaff has said you can do a moratorium and change in every manner the zoning controls or ask the planning commission to engage in a big community process. >> i i know you guys are tired of coming here we're tired - no. your not tired i'm the only one that's tired of that. >> oh, another one that is

tired. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. i think that ms. rogers stated it the entities that can initiate it the planning commission the planning commission has a long public process and hold hearings and refer them to the board of supervisors that sends the vote up and down to the amendments to the general plan any changes to the eastern neighborhoods a community plan of the general plan needs to go through the same process the board can initiate to the planning code didn't have to wait for the planning commission as with the general plan amendment so if any amendment is made not to conduct plans to the specific zoning you know density and requirements all those things in the planning code it is something this board can initiate and refer to the planning commission for its recommendation recommendation.

>> so self-we get rid of the eastern neighborhoods plan we can go back to the prior and deputy city attorney mirena burns. through the president the state law mandates we have a general plan. >> i'm sorry the subsection of the january plausibleness no state law we have to have a community plan that is a planning tool we've chosen to implement the general plan is citywide a broadly brush stroke like market octavia plan, eastern neighborhoods is a broader planning area and sub plans within the eastern neighborhoods like the central soma, western soma. >> thank you so i guess my question ann marie and may predate you in the tenure in the planning department but it seems like the eastern neighborhoods is giving

us a lot of coronation and makes it extremely hard to move the projects i see the for fathers and mothers that thousand it was a good idea as a tool to streamline the process; right? if you have a project that meets the guidelines we don't have to go through certain i even an eir; correct? >> that's the ceqa side effect but not an effect of the plan. >> okay. okay. so what do you think if you can look at your crystal ball if we getting into the weeds of the eastern neighborhoods plan how much work it will cost hear me out what would san francisco what would the san francisco process begin to look like. >> we have a good crystal ball

for that when the eastern neighborhoods eir was underway we look at the effects without the plan so the ceqa at that time, said the goldman sachs impacts for displacement foreperson loss of pdr would be much worse and the communities were engaged if an effort and throughout the plan they were uncomfortable with the prelims through the zoning code and the laws to adjust that. >> thank you, matthew schneider i heard you had slides or something could you kind of briefly describe what is on your slides. >> many of my slides matthew schneider had the numbers and have general slides of what the communities benefiwe're lookingu

could say a benefit with the impacts that came with that note existed before had we probation officer not had the eastern neighborhoods wouldn't have rays the millions of dollars that have leveraged other fees and made the projects on the front burn eerie have a map and happy to go over that but essentially going to provide. >> thank you i don't think we need the map at this point but curious to know thank you for entertaining my questions and taking that walk down the infinity road supervisor peskin perhaps take that underway and talk about it offline but a perhaps have it san francisco historic preservation commission

about the eastern neighborhoods make its third reading. >> throat president. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you. i have other people that are on the roster. >> thank you supervisor cowen the last time it took a decade. >> thank you supervisor yee. >> i video a few questions the staff is correct in terms of what would be easier for to change some of the codes i'm looking at some legislation to make amendments to the house we look at the 40 percent of multi bedroom units and that will change things also but the question is for the any such

effort. >> i agree the land is part of a

entitlements that will prevail. >> is that's correct from the city attorneys. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. i apologize i was conferring with any colleague and didn't hear the question restate it please. i have sp fear you have two developments of two buildings next door to each other possibly at market-rate and might be built before the affordable housing so what would someone moving into the market-rate building to appeal the affordable housing because they may find some excuse not having it built i guess she was saying it is part of the deal and it

would not be any pail is that true. >> the appeal is before you now this is the same project the market-rate project and the land dedication of affordable housing at least this portion of the project is before you now three quarters that project for the affordable housing needs to go through a separate approval progress and approval process at this point we'll do the environmental review and need whatever the planning code it is true that the latter project will need to go through the imprisonments progress and the ceqa process at that point. >> can that be appealed. >> yes. able to be appealed. >> you tell me it couldn't be appealed. >> kate hartley i wasn't sure

i defer to my colleagues. >> i'm sorry it could definitely be appealed what can't be appealed the dedication that the curing the mayor's office of housing will still own that lands the rightful owner what is potentially appeals whatever actual project that was proposed for that thing. >> oh, okay. i don't know how to express that that is really a concern we have to look at it because that is both lesson and now the other comment the housing units the number i'm pushing from the other ended in terms of discussion of what it means to have single families

one bedroom and studios are units and basically, when you have two families many of the people that are being pushed out of the mission are families i have a comment about that. >> educating hartley mayor's office of housing we are concerned been that i will say that what the trends we are seeing that families in so san francisco seek the two bedrooms that the two bedrooms are very, very chief and tlooemz are not as desirable because of higher rent we want to build the housing that meets the needs of low income families and we will work with the community-based developer to achieve that rate balance of units size.

>> thank you supervisor yee supervisor kim. >> thank you a couple of questions on the affordable housing i know that you said that can't give us an accurate number of units that can be built on the lands that is dedicated can you give us a rough estimate of the maximum and minimum given the multiply affordable units. >> 1 hundred to 1 and 36 and does the mayor's office of housing have any thoughts or thinking about what kinds of affordable housing and little income ranks will be built on this site and 2 will be the typical affordability that is 20 percent of the dedicated to say

folks and the balances to households of 50 to 60 percent of medium area income in xhofrn conformance with the tax rules. >> by the way, they give you more flexibility in terms of funding autopsy that's true and you know within of the things i'm struggling with in terms of this we don't do a lot of land dedication i think that it was you know a worthy option that was explored in the eastern neighborhood process and one of the concerns in the developments that our office gets to work on length of production even if affordable housing to the market-rate so even if they're not on site we link the certificate of occupancy of the market-rate to the affordable in this case we're depending on the city to build the affordable housing not the developer so i

guess i'm struggling with how we're going to make sure that the timelines of those two projects will sync in line i know that supervisor yee's question raiseer concerns about the appeals further down the road with the new residents and master residents coming in and appealing the new environmental approval permits even that go on the affordable housing project sites i know you tried to answer that previously with supervisor campos i curious what is the number of land dedication projects on the mayor's office of housing roster i know i added one last month could you give me a complete list. >> we have action on brandon and shot well in the predevelopment we got 101 hyde

sort of a different procedure coming to the mayor's office this is the third project that came through section 419. >> the thirds because you don't consider 101 hyde a land designation project. >> not coming through this legislative project. >> so 4 projects could you give me a better sense of the timeline for how those 4 projects work distinctive the work that the mayor's office of housing needs to do with the flex proposals and the financing opposed. >> it is in predevelopment we are working hard community outreach going on with the architecture work is advanced 801 brandon a time constraint because of the market-rate

developer had staging issues we were delayed and at the time, we didn't have the plumbing available we understand the project will be coming to us and he accelerated the reservation we're happy to see that coming along and 101 hyde there were funding issues we were going to accelerate that a little bit so we are working on that and . >> when you say accelerated i'm happy to hear but in that case the developer committed at a pay for all dedicated costs. >> there was a $5 million contribution so that's great we when we first received it we thought we cognizant get gap

funding up to 10 years that's much accelerated and sorry the gap funding was within 5 years. >> uh-huh. >> and so again what do you anticipate the housing for the housing on this site. >> as i stated to campos we equipment to rules of evidence a proposal within 4 weeks for the lands dedication he typically we give the developers six to eight weeks to prepare they are proposals and it takes usually for this type of project about 4 weeks to go through the city process with the city and interview the candidates, etc. than the selective developer takes 12 months to do design and that may or may not be a little

bit longer depend on communities input the bedroom size will be important as we discussed the open space will be for those are issues to work out and then the permitting process takes about 12 months so that's the normal timeline for the affordable housing great just one more question i probably can do the math we're looking at the project before us is 2000 plus market-rate units total is that correct? >> could you repeat that. >> the at the moment number of market-rate units. >> oh, one and 96 market-rate housing on the project plus. >> one and 96 matters of units will be sdpielt for this project if the project is approved and

roughly one to one and 36 units of affordable units on this site if we took the lower amount what will the percentage be achieved. >> if you have a total count of three hundred then the affordable is 33 percent at hundred, however, the way it looked at the percentages the number of affordable units as a function of market-rate so that's 50 percent it will achieve having percent at the low ended. >> i appreciate that there is confusion in the board chamber how we calculate the units and onsite and offsite it is clearly late out in the housing ordinance thank you for that clarification thank you seeing no other names on the roster, we will get going

and a presentation from the project sponsor or their representatives good evening supervisors supervisor president breed and i'm steve of marcille the planning department explained why the project complies to ceqa and i won't repeat that testimony but focus on the appeal first, the facts the project is code compliant and the incursion ordinance not taking up xhoingz from the board yet 22 percent a total of

hundred plus master units we lost 6 units at the planning commission hearing there's no condos proposed in addition the project includes 19 thousand square feet of pdrs use in the zoning district no replacement is required a terrific example how the mayor's office of housing and planning department can maximize affordable housing and pdr space isn't mission a point of appellant and the supporters disagree the project has dedication of 19 thousand square feet of lands to moe view the to 46 percent of the market-rate one market-rate units and brt's in a 6 story building and full ceqa cleaners for the one plus an dedicated lapd's and dedicated to moe in a shovel ready condition missouri identified the gap financing to

construction it's building in the near future and 19 thousand square feet of ground floor and art space in discussions over the last week, we agreed to further revision adding 3 thousand square feet to the pdr space on the moe building that incumbents a arts facility and they've committed to provide 5 thousand dollars in capital to build out the community space and agreed to provide 4 thousand square feet of pdr on the market-rate building as substantially reduce the grants for years the project this project is vastly different than 2014 the original plan further 2 and 74 units only pdr and no pdr art

space for bmr. >> more than meets the building alternatives with the appellants prepared in 2017 going for dedication 36 percent to moe and the preservation of 10 thousand square feet after the planning commission approved the sites this appeal was filed a few words about the ceqa appeal the appeal it bans an assertion, however, the number of units completed in the eastern neighborhoods including the mission district is well blow the projections, however, the ones under review the units are approved remain well below including this project in july on july 26th this board object

the appeal on the street project you made that determination this appeal is almost identical and we urge you to look at this appeal several 100 percent approval - just as this c pe don't on fulsome street and on mission street 96 unions on shot well street over one hundred on south van ness and plus affordable units on this site the board to determine the eastern neighborhoods ceqa sclaernsz for those affordable will be delayed we ask you not to take that action i expressed

with the planning department if the pdrs needs to be revised we looked at the context should be in the context of the eastern neighborhood plan not on the c pe of yields projects the c pe included several technical studies with transportation, air quality, noise, historic resources and hazardous materials and it computed the mitigation measures but not note for review and resulting in a c pe because of the peculiar impacts of this project turning to the appeal the appeal is solely the decision to look at 3 vacant units to create for units one and 39 will be affordable finally it requires conditional

approval regardless of a number of replacement units or the number of - no others element requires a cu rather it was approval for the large project authorization an oil that had been heard by the board of appeals tomorrow 2 of the existing units were owned and the third was empty those are subject to rent control the 3 existing units are replaced by the market-rate projects plus the one plus on the dedicate lands the planning commission required the 3 units above and beyond that is satisfied with the land dedication planning code section sets forth the criteria the planning commission must conditioner they determined that meets 15 of the 18 criterias and on that basis

project finds that the public interest is served by granting the cu we ask the board uphold that sensible position in its appeal the gentleman made no attempt to address the section 317 but want to accept the land dedication on this 70 to units what result in the dedicated lands and commissioner president james it doesn't justify the rent-controlled units excuse me. however, based on the concept design determined the dedicated land can yield one one hundred and 36 units the new pvrment affordable units will meet the criteria for demolition of 3 existing units as testified

missouri identity gap financing needed to construction the one and 36 units and the moe issued an rfp to choose a developer and should be under construction by plate 2017 or early 2018 as soon as the gentleman has cleared the site and gone through mitigation addressing supervisor yee's issue the ceqa about before you covers the market-rate and the moe sites the c pe will be the ceqa clearance for the one and 3 a 6 affordable project and want to point out the earliest on the market-rate is 2019 another 3 years from now and kate described the permitted process for the moe building we completed long before that in 2017 but under the planning code with supervisor wiener he sponsoreder earlier this year

year didn't require the projects to going come back to the planning commission but can be approved by the planning staff that will afford opportunity for no opposition and the gentleman said a 6 story building to be constructed on the dedicated land and claims that moe can't take advantage of the density bonus program - it provided up to 3 additional height for the developments and an 8 story building can be built on the dedicated land the appellants assert that the proposed demolition of one of the building which was occupied by intermission for the commission not have approved the cu and they addressed this by

requiring 18 percent of pdr space and the commission found the project makes the adjoin plan - as i mentioned the pdr art space can be increased and the gentleman has pledged $500,000 for the art space the same size as the former mission and pledged an additional monies for the subsidized grants ambassador as a mission action plan 2020 as confirmed for the construction of affordable housing in the mission this is the lack of land the land decade directly provides the land at no cost to the city in consideration the planning commission required the plan

required 19 thousand square feet and the last thing we found a way to increase that to 22 thousand square feet and is available for the legacy in the site this is a code compliant project consistent with the mission plan, with the zoning, the height limit that is the 42 percent ratio and the pdrs replacement space that appraise $7 million in funding to the eastern neighborhoods money to the transportation sustainability fund and the childcare funds we ask the board reject this and allow the project and affordable housing to proceed thank you. >> can i ask for the reduced years i think i miss it was

reduced for what the pdrs or units autopsy for 4 thousand square feet of the pdrs use in the market-rate building. >> so you're saying the reduced rent you're putting rent control other than commercial space an pdr space particularly. >> that's what we offered. >> i get it. >> and the 98 units what's the i'm for those units area medium income units. >> those units that moe built. >> the anarchies. >> 3 units on the manifesting those are 55 percent of ami a rental project 55 percent and haitily can address them. >> we will have our typical project for the balance. >> no what's the area medium

income requirement for that the units in general just the standard or is it a higher like 80 percent ami or 50 percent or 55 percent ami. >> i'm i'm going to turn it over to supervisor campos. >> i'll pass so as you, you know we were engaged in mediation and doing things that

go beyond how the project came out of the planning commission i want to make sure i understand what you're saying so can we go back to that my point how to increase the number of affordable units how do we increase availability of pdrs especially affordable pdr can you go back to what you're doing in negative declaration to what came out of plan. >> the planning commission required us to have 12 thousand of pdr space in the market-rate building and 20 thousands of pdr art space in the building that's what coming out came out of the planning commission to get to the ground floor we've lost 5 units of market-rate housing that had that been property as ground floor on there under

street those have been converted to pdr space the revisions the moe design a inefficient car share parking garage a garage that communicated 3 car share space and a configuration took up 25 hundreds square feet question offered to move those two car share spaces into the market-rate building garage and reducing our patricia's by 3 a total of 5 car share spaces in a market-rate garage to both the market-rate building and the other building that increases the amount of ground floor pdr space like 25 hundred to 3 thousand square feet that again niece to be feinstein finally

designed. >> the second thing the gentleman offered money to create a community art space in the 10 thousand square feet or approximately that amount. >> so the total pdrs goes from 19 thousand to 22 thousand approximately, yes. >> if well, one possibility is that that additional 3 thousand can be used for pdr but could be used more affordable housing units ; right? >> could be again, the final decision is moe. >> can i ask a question not for you or to moe if we are talking about an additional 3 thousand you know square feet in space that can be used for potentially more affordable units you have a sense how many

units we're talking about if it is 3 thousand if that additional 3 thousand feet is used for affordable units as opposed to to pdr. >> three to four okay. now can we get clarity on the number of units at the beginning of this presentation sir, you gave the number one 99 i believe is incorrect. >> i don't believe i did the one 99 is our proposal the planning commission reduced that by 5 units because they required additional pdr ways to eliminate 5 ground floor units from one 99 to one 94 their bmr units to

replace the 3 units that the project was we're demolishing a total of one and 91 market-rate and 3 bmr's on the market-rate side. >> and one and one is the actual number of market-rate housing. >> that's correct. >> in terms of affordable units one 36 is the maximum that is projected depend on what happens; right? plus - and then depend on what happens on the three to four more units. >> okay can i ask you about the $500,000 you mentioned can you explain what that is. >> that's the capital money to support the build out of the ground floor of the moe building for the communities arts

facility. >> can you can what do you mean that's a broad term what are we talking about here. >> that's a combination of a gallery space other spaces i think that is what people have in mind as a potential arts facility on this location as a similar concept that would be operated by community nonprofit or more than one community nonprofit a combination of program space, gallery, performance space other community artists. >> it will be run by a community member, player what does that mean. >> moe and it's developer will

go through a process of celebrating. >> maybe we can hear from moe. >> kate hartley we'll want the developer to take the lead and others developer being a community members on the team we have ongoing some arts dedicated space and other mission developments we'll be able to understand the market better and learn from that lease up as the gentleman said the space can does have the size to accumulate a dense gallery or office work spaces that can be used by artists also there are organizations in the city that do master leases of that space so we have good operators in the city that can participate and look at it for the development team to bring on those players.

>> now just a final alteration out of the planning commission they designated 12 thousand square feet for pdrs one thing that was confusing in the process do they say anything about whether or not it is market-rate or below-market rate out of planning. >> it was completed and market-rate. >> so you said that you're doing we'll pledge to contact 1/3rd of the 12 thousand limit that to 250 a square foot for 55 years okay. >> with the minor increase over that period of time we'll pledge we will engage the sprofrs to send he property tenants our way to make sure that subsidized space goes

studio a tenant. >> okay. thank you ladies and gentlemen, at this time it is time for public comment so if you are interested in speaking in public comment not general public comment renewable for the appellants please come up step up to the platform as a reminder you'll have - sir unfortunately you poke so for the appellant. >> okay. >> i'm sorry. >> thank you come on up.

>> hi, i'm candice president of the merchants association. >> you have a bigger mouth and stronger voice. >> i getting. >> hi, i'm candice i'm world in support of 24 project 24 project is going to be amazing for small businesses in the area. >> i'm dave part owner across the street and we're talking about significant changes to the neighborhood earlier and there have been a large increase in crime directly around this building a lot of encampments and bicycle chop shops and drugs and not talking about marijuana we believe this project building this project will help from this and break into the by building my main pointing point i want to it is a san francisco is going

through a housing crisis and to stop the housing units is counter preview to solving this crisis we're in a mixed income h mixed income building in between 18 and 19 dwindle across the street we've been there 8 or 9 years i don't see that will directly effect the neighborhoods our goal is simply to make your or our neighborhood. >> beautiful staff of save place to work and live this will put us closer to this goal. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm a i have a small business around the corner a board member the mission creek association we like to see the improvements

productive not left vacated in a way that is meaningful and resonates with the communities from what i'm concerned read and seen the ground floor project does that how it provides much needed housing as my colleagues said air force one and 36 units thirty percent will go to homeless and special needs - that will provide artists communities and up spaces that is really, really important and near and dear to my heart to have it going through any communities obviously many artists in the community can't find spaces and must relocation to the east bay and provides space for hanging how the gardens and cafes and community

centers and provides a vibrant visually enhancement to the neighborhoods i would urge the board to vote in favor of this bryant street project thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you. >> good evening supervisors my name is alex a research with carpenters local 22 a proud member of the local and just in light of something that was said earlier i'm concerned not worked on a job sites i'm concerned worked on carpenter projects as much as the person that smears all the men and women that the cia has first of all, talk about the shorted history of our involvement locals involvement with this project involved and a half we knew it wasn't going to

fly we got up on the developer the gentleman made the decision better to work with carpenter union and our organization and we really worked to turn this thing around and bring you the project today i want to speak specifically to the concerns directly to many of the supervisors since supervisor campos is the only with an the first one here immediately wanted to direct talk to first of all, we all know lands for one and that of units didn't come cheap or easy your inspected successor as - if we can't do one and 36 units and someone is giving the city the lands that will not happen ever supervisor avalos has stepped out supervisor avalos was one of

the big proponents the unit contractor takes citibuild we got a write up and supervisor avalos knows 2 takes more than public works and this will help supervisor peskin i hope i remember how hard mission assess fought for land designation in this this process this is really amongst the best we were in the project 8 years ago when building the eastern neighborhoods and contrary to some popular statements here we approved that right as the economy was collapsing not when the - to the supervisors as a whole and urge you to stand against the sin cynicism whatever when a project gets

this kind of treatment where we talk about building affordable housing and have people saying we don't want that and talk about the blue collar workers hundreds of people working on this project for getting through the project and the same goes for the multiplied planning process what's the point of doing this for 10 years. >> - >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is a lisa and here to talk about item 43 the california save bill 1289 i'm sorry ma'am, we've not opened up for general public comment that will be after we finish with that particular appeal i apologize thank you. >> next speaker >> i guess good evening

instead of good afternoon my name is michelle jones the co-owner of the auto shop i'm here to tell you as a business owner in that location for 3 seven years we're in support of this project being built when the scoping was changed from pdr to land use we knew there will be urban development when the gentleman worked with us and helped us move 4 blocks away in the mission and still in supervisor campos district my husband and i have owned that business for 6 years and he's worked for 17 and lived in the neighborhood in supervisor campos district for 2 two years this project spelling needs to

be built the gentleman has been straightforward and straightforward with everyone of the tenants in that project he helped us to relocate if we wanted to stay in the city one attended purchased his own building inspection and the only the building was no where near and nice as this building we have the ability to hire more people and have a nicer environment strait up the gentleman said everything he did and he was honestly and forthright he did everything to help us move and he at this time 34 blocks away from from we had a homeless person murdered one a half of a block of our new location if people had a place

to go and live in housing maybe they'll not be murdering on the street and i ask you to build 24 project thank you. >> next speaker >> i'm a resident of the missionary specifically pretty close by the construction live on bryant between 20th and 21st about a block away i guess first i'll speak to you know a lot of the sentiments that the appellants talked about in terms of concern over general displacements certainly as a mexican-american living i'm sympathetic i'll say that given

the large amount of affordable housing that is part of this proposal that you know stalling it or you know putting the development into a halt threatens the increase of affordable housing in the region which you know, i think to anyone that is concerned about people having affordable housing in that region that should be a concern about blocking the project i think secondly, you know when it comes to talking about the environmental impact of the project people that have spoken previously to me talked about the down side in terms of crime i walk by that area frequently and walk any daughter frequently by that area there is a lot of crime you see police officers there frequently and people are breaking into the building and people getting assaulted in that

area so when i evaluate the net impact of constructing and renovating that area versus leaving it in a status quo states not ideal for me, i have to error on the side of renovation versus you know what i see going on what is day to day in that neighborhood. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening supervisor president london breed and supervisors my name is richard davis i'm a homeowner and at the union condominiums at 2125 bryant street those condos are coming priced of over 70 members and on the owners board as a

private citizen the bryant street represents over two years of discussion and compromise with the community the interesting note as proposed today bryant street resist 100 percent the demands of the mission as an activists and transforms vacant warehouses into the vibrant use apartment rental development including three hundred plus in 19 thousand square feet of pdrs and art space bryant street representatives from the largest affordable housing projects in the mission by a private verbatim a total of one plus certainly proposed thirty percent of the affordable units will be offered to homeless, special needs resident and housing aribnb no more than $30,000 a year that's social

justice per mayor's office of housing and community development has identified this as a nonprofit affordable partner if successful this appeal will kill the one and 91 units of market-rate housing but the affordable housing project that shares this site please deny the appeals and vote in favor of a much needed accountable project. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is adrian carpenters local 22 in san francisco lead organizer in san francisco born and raised in san francisco from visitacion valley went to school at the john o'connor and city college and to clear that up the folks standing right here to any side are carpenters that want to go

to work at this job we are here ways we support the developer, the sponsor of the job that because he's supporting us to use a signatory jsht for signatory union contractor that's why we're here there is jokes involved and homes that is what a san francisco needs jobs and homes the other part is staff it was interesting he really liked staffs input the appeal didn't seem to hold water according to staff you take that appeal and $2.50 and get anywhere in the city it doesn't matter if you don't look the mri missionary planner or the eastern neighborhoods plan well change it but don't sit here

tonight and hold the spokesperson head underwater because a plan that is in what i believe is legal and it is justified and that's what everything in san francisco is going with don't try and change hours in the middle of the road the plan is what is here that's what we are working with i would like you to know we definitely support it thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening supervisors tim colen, san francisco housing action coalition. three hundred members the benefits that project givers ever delivers are unprecedented in our code compliant project that has swelgdz it's officer for many folks it's actual bins e by the people are irrelevant

in market-rate is acceptable and next, we reject the argument in the changes in of the eastern neighborhoods have in the cabin accepted by the eir part of analysis conform that we haven't come close to building to the eastern neighborhood plagues projections they published this; right? the sunlight u result of the testimony tonight where the development that has occurred so far stands in relationship to the eastern neighborhoods we participated in the eastern neighborhood plans passage and it took hundreds of community meetings and pausing public hearings it took 10 years we're in the eastern neighborhoods less time to produce it we understand the pressures but can't fagot how this reduces the pressures and finally this question of affordable housing production and through the land dedication this project loan

delivers nor inclusionary housing than produced in the last 4 years something has to happen at this site unless it is supposed to city foul and unproductive to anyone we look to i for pragmatic telling them and solution and building a fair office was made to the city and will ask you protect us from purists that will rather turn down one and 39 units than allow a single market-rate to be built in the mission that's dangerous we get the extreme pressures on prices in the mission the same thing is happening on my side of town on the west side prices through the roof not because of housing but it is not the prices are going up in spite of that and unfortunately, it is true in the mission district that is

what reason of the lower according to the data lower producing neighborhoods in the city the solution to build nor housing and did it in a hurry no purpose that be secondary in turning down this project we urge you to deny the appeal. >> thank you at the point in time. >> hi laura clark grow sf i want to say i agree with the appellants about one thing we should consider the scientific impacts of the projects and consider the scientific impact of not building housing force thirty years we've chronologically under built and now in that housing shortage and the scientific impact of that is deis it a fair statement, time to turn around the stipulate and build significantly more and more housing we should consider the sir, the secretly in the

endurances we've chronologically under built and the result is economic and social negative impact through the throughout the city we build housing and directly addressing the shortage this comes along with thing sweetly the package i'm pleased that supervisor jane kim has been making part of her quest for office election to be. >> sore quest is a bad word part of her campaign advertising. >> ma'am, i'm pausing your time no election talking in the challenged. >> innovate electory i'm glad she's been making part of her campaign the number of units being at the and the posh for every single supervisor to make paad