>> i apologize for that. my name is jason withers. i'm with the central soma neighbors. we oppose the current central soma plan, however, we do support the midrise alternative in the 2013 draft plan. my neighbor, jonathan burke has put together a video presentation that explains our position in detail. >> do you have a handout of this? can we have it, please?

you might want to consider the handout on the projector page by page if your technology doesn't work. [ inaudible ] >> it's on the screen. it's just not something you can hear. there's actually audio to it, as well.

[ inaudible ] >> did you right click on the task bar at the bottom, on the arrow, to bring up the sound? i didn't see you guys do that. [ inaudible ] >> okay.

[ inaudible ] >> we can send this to you via e-mail. [ inaudible ] >> i'll let gina, one of my neighbors, go over there. >> all right. the audio portion of this was actually the most important part, and i'm actually giving you hard copy of the presentation itself. my name is gina carriaga, and i'm the president of the homeowners association for sf blue, and i brought today a statement signed by myself, as well as three other hoa presidents.

our buildings are compromised of over 500 housing units were not blocks of the development proposed. we support the midrise alternate enter as the 2013 plan draft as it is described in this video, and we oppose the current stratsoma plan. it really is an unwelcome expansion of downtown into our neighborhood. now, switching gears, i'm a little discombaobyodiscombobul. i'd like to introduce you to doug cermak, who's stepping in for rich today, and i will send this to you through the secretary this afternoon.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. again, my name is doug cermak. i'm representing central soma neighbors and sf blue, and in addition as gina just mentioned, there's three additional homeowner associations that have supported our comments. 300 third street, 350 bryant street, 77 dow. so as this presentation would show, central soma has enjoyed a renaissance in recent years to become one of the most economically and ethnically diverse communities in the city with a mix of residential and commercial office space. 60% people of color, 31% below poverty line. the proposal threatens to

undermine the neighborhood's character and livable. we urge the commission to adopt the midline proposal, which clusters taller buildings near the hubs of b.a.r.t. and caltrans. the midrise was supported by, until recently when staff made an abrupt policy change to support much higher building heights. earlier, they said the predominant character of soma has a midrise district should be retained, and the presence of high-rises by limiting their distribution in bulk. again, we do not oppose the development. we're supporting midrise proposal, which would achieve about 90% of the job and housing growth of the alternative while retaining livable, light, air, and open space and retaining a family friendly neighborhood. by contrast, the high-rise alternative contains 30 tall streets at the bay ramps and

there by encouraging automobile transit rather than public transit. the draft environmental impact report for the soma plan is fatally flawed in numerous ways which was set forth in detail in our 181-page letter that we submitted on february 13th, a couple of weeks ago, which was supported by several expert comments. today, i just want to highlight some of those obvious flaws in the draft eir, which would necessitate revising and recirculating it to address those impacts. on traffic, the plan would triple the resident population of the area from a current population of 12,000 to 37,500, and it would double jobs from 46,000 to 109,200. yes, the deir states that there would be no traffic impact. traffic's already grid locked in the area, particularly from

the hours of four to 7:00 p.m., and tripling the traffic will exacerbate this unacceptable situation. the draft eir is. [ inaudible ] it relies on sb-743, but the draft eir concludes that the plan will increase employer miles in vehicles travel from 8.7. traffic engineer dan smith attached to our letter concludes that the plan will result in unacceptable breakdowns of traffic delay at ten out of eleven freeway ramps and dozens of intersections. the draf eir also assumed zero traffic from the uber and lyft ride share services, and while the san francisco county transportation authority has indicated that 25% of soma traffic is from uber and lyft, so the eir is underestimating traffic by at least 25%.

this analysis is clearly erroneous and misleading, and the draft eir must be recirculated to analyze those significant traffic impacts and to propose mitigation and alternatives. on air quality, the san francisco department of public health has determined central soma has among the worst air quality in the city. asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease hospitalizations are twice as high in soma than the rest of the city. and almost the entire plan area is in an air pollution exposure zone, meaning that airborne cancer risks exceed 100 permillion individuals, yes, the draft eir concludes that the project will have no significant air quality impacts. yet it admits as a result of plan's generated traffic, the cancer risk in the zone would increase by as much as 226 in a million, and the concentrations

would increase by up to 4.54 micrograms percubic meter. the plan will cause cancer risks tripled. this increase exceeds the seek asignificance threshold by 22 times. of particular concern to the neighbors is the fact that the property as 631 folsom is not currently within the apez, but with planned implementation, the property will exceed the cancer risk threshold, and will be be redesignated as part of the iepz. couple more points. on public services, the draft eir concludes that there will be no public service impacts, yet you can't have triple the population without the need for additional police, fire, school, and other public services. so the draft eir must be

revised to address this impact, as well. finally, i would note that the alternative analysis is inadequate. the midrise alternative would reduce all of the project's significant impacts. the draft eir must identify this midrise alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. the city must select this alternative unless it's infeasible, yet it's clearly feasible. that ends the staff support alternative through 2013. in conconclusion, one, i will note we will get you the presentation. we have the slides now -- >> it's working. >> oh, it's working. >> yeah, the speaker -- >> we're going to run out of time. would you permit us to show -- >> how long is it? >> five minutes. >> five minutes. >> i mean, we're over time now. you actually had a couple extra minutes, so e-mail that to us.

[ inaudible ] >> all right, 'cause you have a minute left. >> all right. well, i'll just make a final concluding statement to note that the draft eir is woefully inadequate. it should identify the reduced height, which is the midrise alternative, as the environmentally superior alternative and consider it on equal footing to the plan as was done in the central corridor plan. also, i would note the city should consider our position that as an alternative that limits building height to no more than 130 feet in the block bounded by i-80 in folsom and second and third streets. this modification would make the plan much more consistent with the goals to limit tall buildings to the area near caltrain and b.a.r.t. while maintaining the midrise character of the neighborhood. thank you for considering the comments, taking a look at our

presentation. >> all right. thank you, and thank you to everybody for your patience. we'll know open this up to public comment, and i'll call a number of speaker cards. robert, michael, lance, heather, christie, 1y osjosie, rachel. >> hi, commissioners. my name is rob ciabatto. i own and operate the flower company. we're the tenants in the market. we're celebrating our 112th year of business this year, and my grandfather sold flowers on the streets in san francisco before there was a flower market, and was one of the founding members of the original flower market. i'm here to say that i support the central soma plan because among other things, it gives us a brand-new flower market, and we hope that we can continue to

sell flowers in the city of san francisco for an additional 100 years. some -- just as a note, the flower market, as many people think of the flower market as something that's quaint or they think of the flower market as a giant farmer's market for flowers, but it's not. the flower market is an important commercial entity that is part of the flower distribution in all of northern california, and just like the produce market and just like the commercial fishing fleet that we have here, commercial businesses depend on the flower market and its tenants. most of our sales are not to the public, they are to other businesses. flower shops, event planners, hotels and restaurants depend on a steady supply of good quality floral products that come from the flower market. and the absence of that in the city will impact a lot of

companies. so if you want to have the flower market remain in the city, in transition, the flower market is going to move temporarily to an undisclosed location. the location that's being promoted is the piers down by the embarcadero and what i want to say is that if the entire flower market is forced to move there, there's a chance that many, if not most, will not come back to bring all those jobs back to downtown, and for us to preserve the flower market as it's been. so the piers at the embarcadero is a tourist area. it's a commercial area, it is not a light industrial area, and it does not have the infrastructure there, and the building in particular, the piers do not have the things to

support our business. so you have dozens of semi truckloads, floral supplies, where are they going to get in the parking lot, if it's uploaded into the building, where are those trucks going to back in, and unload it, all those different issues. the flower market itself is a pawn in the high stakes gambling of city politics. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is michael mariani, and our family owned business has always operated in san francisco. we employ 12 employees, and some of the flower market

tenants have somewhere between 12 and 20 employees. i'm here to let you know that the plan to move the flower market is not something that the majority of the current tenants want, and there's no question that the move will force most of us out of business. the peers are located in the very busy embarcadero and of critical importance, there is just a single entrance and exit, making it extremely difficult for the many trucks that come in and out of the market. the typical flower market working times run all the way from 1:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon. starting at 3:00 a.-m is there -- a.m., there's hundreds of people coming to make purchases for their businesses. at the current location, we have seven separate points of entry and exit which allow hundreds of ongoing activities to occur. if we're required to go to the piers with a single entry and

exit, the entire process will come to a screeching halt. for example, how can numerous trucks with forklifts be unloaded out of a single entranceway, while allowing for current traffic. at the current location, trucks unload from several locations. at the pier, traffic would be blocked for hours as trucks are forced to unload one at a time. if we can't have separate being at the scene, we will lose a huge amount of customers. the customers are not going to wait hours to make their purchases. right now, they can make sures and yield their purchases to the vans and trucks and leave. in addition, there's not enough parking to accommodate the vast number of customers and employees. the tenants originally approved a site at 2000 marin street. we are asking the city for their help in helping us obtain this site for our flower

market. we did not approve of the piers, and the majority of the tenants will not go to the peers. many are talking about relocating out of the city or going out of business. we need your help to preserve the beloved san francisco flower market, so please thank you for your time. congratulations to the new commissioner, this is my first hearing, as well. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. alex lansberg. i think you all have received a letter from the san francisco building and construction trades commending you on really getting this process going in earnest, as far as, you know, getting the approvals going. just to repeat what that letter covered, we really see three components here: office, hotels, residential. on the office side, i think pretty clear that these major

projects that have been going through the planning process really do need to move forward. as far as hotels go, i want to again second what cynthia from local 2 mentioned. if they're not going to do what every other hotel developer has done sort of as a matter of course, there is no reason for them to get the benefits of this up zoning. in short, no benefits, no benefit. and in regards to housing, we all recognize we do need more housing. if it's not necessarily within the scope of this plan, then, you all need to start looking at that healthy, healthy land on the west side where it's just all single-family homes. but in terms of housing, we look forward to seeing, engaging in discussions with the mayor's office, with supervisor kim's office on how to actually create more housing, both in this plan, both within the scope of the plan as well as following on, and we really want to underscore the importance of

ab-73 because it really does pull all of these things about it. i'm really glad to see it moving forward. a couple things that i wanted to touch on that supervisor kim mentioned. in terms of community benefits, again, ab-73 is really vital, especially on the blue collar side. a lot of the blue collar coming out of this plan is going to be construction, and while we have some pretty good assurances that the labor standards that men and women working to build these office towers are going to be the highest they can be, the same does not go for residential. it's actually an extraordinarily wild west industry that's driven with wage fraud, and you as the planning commissioners can help remedy this, and this is part and parcel of the general plan. last, the other -- okay.

30 seconds. the other point is that there was a comment or at least a line that steve was making regarding grandparenting. [ please stand by for captioner switch ]

>> our families are in desperate need of affordable housing. for families who still cannot afford the skyrocketing rents, particularly in the market rate units that are being built in our community. our one public school needs support. those the plan includes funds for the san francisco unified school district, there's no language that guarantees funds to support a school that is

already overburdened and underresourced. we cannot count on sfusd to use these resources equitably. we need to use them to meet the most critical needs. real power is the most vital thing to make sure supporting the existing community. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is david woo. we stand with the community coalition we are soma and support their demands to make development under the plan be

already accountable and equitable. new housing units under the plan is unsure and unpredictable, as stated by the planning department in october 2017, given unpredictability of market conditions, it is impossible to predict when these will occur. new affordable housing sites have only been approved for 47% sites. the city must actively engage in purchasing soft sites for future locations of 100% affordable housing in the market. this must be done as soon as possible as the value of land will only continue to increase, especially with the passage of

the plan. the city can do this by using plans available by the downtown neighborhood's preservation fund generated from the 51st street development. this majority of these funds are for site acquisition and rehab. the city should explore using these funds for the purchase of soft sites throughout the market. new 100% affordable housing should also have an ami range that is 28% to 60% ami. the 20% range for this type of housing is essential for people who are on fixed incomes, such as seniors, people with disabilities, and people with hiv and aids. part of the central soma plan is also in the youth and family special use district. the size of new affordable housing units must reflect this by provided a an cat number of units -- adequate number of units for families. in the filipino home, the size of affordable housing units must reflect reality.

many other concerns were raised as comments to the ddir that we're waiting to hear back from. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is raymond castillo. i work for the community action network as a tenant organizer. i work with a lot of families. we stand with we are soma. the current plan does not create any new policies aimed at stopping eviction and displacement as a result of the plan. as the plan rezones the area to increase height limits, therefore can vary profit potential. pressure from eviction increase as speculation take place.

there must be new controls put in place around eviction to prevent eviction and displacement in the market due to the new plan. it's important that new affordable housing produced under central soma plan reach as larger level of ami. the planning department in october 18, 2017, they said the strategy for new housing memo, it states that though planning wants to see 50/50 rental and ownership, it will still likely be ownership rather than rental. this is a major issue as a majority of households are renters in the market. the type of new affordable housing proposed does not match the reality of resident needs in the market. below market rate rental housing

units produce available units for purchase should have an ami range of 30 to 90%. additionally, below market rate should be the majority of rentals rather than ownership. preservation of existing affordable housing must be top priority. this means purchasing affordable housing such as sro buildings. soft sites must be taken advantage of and purchased the city should engage in land banking for future use. it will only continue to rise, especially with the passing of the soma plan. since the city does not have a map of all the rent controlled buildings in the soma, some are currently working on the soma project where staff and volunteers identify rent controlled building and potential soft sites. we'll gladly go to the rent board and we look forward to

sharing this map with the planning department and also mohcd. thank you for your time. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is eugenea lejo. we at somcan held a community workshop on pedestrian and safety. here are some of the details of changes and improvements -- >> sorry to interrupt you. go to the overhead. >> yes. that's some of the details. >> can we get rid of that noise? >> all right. go ahead. >> keep going? >> yep. >> the safety of pedestrians must be a main focus on street

improvements on this plan. while the proposed street improvements exclusively on major streets, ally ways in so ma where residents live must also benefit from street improvement sidewalks. street improvements should be maximized and not be sacrificed for other transit and street improvements. the other issues critical to pedestrian safety must include the need for pedestrian lighting on sidewalk, up to date led lighting on all soma street lights and longer crossing times in crosswalks, especially for children and people with disabilities and senior citizens as well. thank you and have a great day. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. names is jubi. i'm here to comment about environmental sustainability. aspects of the plan that focus on environmental sustainability

should more strongly incorporate the concept of living walls into the plan. while living walls are briefly mentioned in the plan, living rooms seem to dominate. with lack of green space on the south of market, they need to be creative in ways that we are addressing global warming in cities, buildings both big and small should be living walls. this shouldn't be limited to central soma but incorporated in buildings all across soma. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the community action network. the plan calls for adding technology jobs to ma, yet these jobs are largely inaccessible to

residents. so many job types in the neighborhood that are not only accessible to community residents but provide a living wage that can support workers to stay in the neighborhood. somcan is part of good jobs for all, and we support the plans that address the lack of commitment in the plan, strong labor standards and funding for workforce training. these demands include living wages and fair working conditions, enforceable targeted hiring retention and promotion, funding workforce training, card checking neutrality agreements for all hotel projects. developer agreements for union construction for all junior contractor and all contractor jobs in all new construction. developers must sign responsible agreements for contracts regarding office buildings and housing. thank you. >> ythank you. >> i'm the last person from

somcan. we've been very active in the central soma park. aside from building the park, there must be dedicated source of funding that goes towards maintenance and programming. it is also essential the group that is responsible for maintenance and programming is hireded directly from the south of market community. minority to make sure that the new park reflects the community, culture, and people. somcan has held a lot of meetings, and these were the ideas that people wanted to see in popos. popos produced as part of the soma plan must be held to a higher standard than those previously existed. new popos must be youth and family friendly, providing open space that is accessible and designed for families. the majority are not youth and family friendly. they are hard to access, lack any type of programming, and

generally do not function like true public open spaces. there must be funding for new popos. in terms of the design review process, there should be a standard design already in place for all popos in the south market where they function like true public open spaces with cl.

>> i'm stepping in to speak for sharla flock because she had to leave us. i am a floral designer here in san francisco. i have been in business since 1988. you've already heard some explanations from previous speakers about how the relocation of the flower market is going to affect the vendors who sell at the market. i am here to tell you a little bit about how it's going to affect those of us who buy the product. there are hundreds of florists, both flour shop owners and independent designers in san francisco. and there are thousands across northern california, all of whom rely on our flower market to receive product. we have people come from as far away as fresno, reno, and eureka

to purchase the product we need. we service an extremely sophisticated clientele here in san francisco, people who demand quality product and innovative design. and in order to produce that, we need to have access to quality materials. we also service, of course, all the visitors and conventions and huge corporate evens that happen here in the city generating millions of dollars of income for the city. there's not a single person that i have spoken to in the flower market family, which is what we call ourselves, who believe we can survive the proposed move to the embarcadero piers that's been proposed by the developer. we have no faith that this is something that's feasible from the standpoint of either the vendors or those of us who have to purchase product. we're extremely fearful that this is going to mean the end of a 100--year-old san francisco

insurance student -- san francisco institution. this is a sophisticated business enterprise that pumps a lot of revenue into the city and into this northern california region. it's also a populated by legacy businesses, people who have been in businesses -- you've heard from them -- for two and sometimes three generations. also, it provides an entry point for immigrants coming into the city who are starting their own small businesses as vendors at the flower market. it's an avenue to create revenue for them. so more than a dozen of us came here today. we all have other things we need to be doing, flowers that need to be arranged, but we're here because we feel very strongly about this, and we're asking for your help in finding a viable solution for us going forward. thank you so much. >> all right. thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon. my name is patrick powell. i'm the owner of bloomers, a retail florist located on washington street and the pacific heights neighborhood of san francisco. it employs eight people. prior to establishing my own business 41 years ago, i was employed by in the union square area. i've been a customer at the san francisco flower market since i moved to san francisco in 1972. it's impossible for me to believe it, but i've been doing business at market for 46 years. as a small business owner, i arrive at the market three times each week, no later than 3:30 a.m. and the other three mornings, i'm at the market by the latest at 6:30. i'm here to say i'm absolutely opposed to the relocation of the flower market to the piers. the limited entrance and exit will create such difficulty not only for the wholesalers but for

the florists who rely on obtaining products from the market for their business. i believe this is an ill advised plan. it's not good for growers, not good for wholesaler, and it's worse for retail buyers. colleagues, retail owners, they're certainly not in favor of the move to the embarcadero. as already been said, i don't know a single person associated with the floral industry in any capacity who thinks this is an acceptable plan. many of the wholesalers and growers with whom i currently do business have indicated that they will close their businesses if they're required to make a move to the pier. so i'm asking, please, for help. please help us move to the marina street facility. thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you, mr. powell. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. christy wong from spur. thanks for the opportunity to

weigh in on the central soma plan today. as you might guess, we're really happy to see this plan moving forward as quickly as possible. we agree that central soma is an area that's key to san francisco and to the region. adjacent to the financial district, which is an existing job center and holds the most links to regional transportation infrastructure. downtown san francisco is one of the few places in the region where people actually can an do take transportation to work. public transportation to work. so this is therefore the right place from both an environmental standpoint and a job standpoint for accommodating growth for housing -- is that right? >> we'll give you a little more. >> okay. [laughter] >> particularly for jobs. we do need more space for jobs in san francisco. we are losing many of our, quote/unquote, normal jobs, non-profits and architecture and

engineering and other businesses are going to downtown oakland and to other parts of the suburban bay area and other regions. so it is important that we think about jobs even though they're not as appealing as residents. this is not to say that san francisco is done doing its part on housing. we could see future efforts to add more housing units in the central soma plan without come at the expense of the jobs. while there are many existing zoned opportunities for housing, we see room for over efforts as well. this could be the west side, western soma, gary boulevard or other commercial corridors throughout the city. the growth by this plan is planned to fund up to 1.2 billion there are in public benefits. that would be transformative once the development is approved and can move forward. the economy is shifting, construction costs are increasing, the fees in this plan are significant, so the feasibility of development moving forward is definitely

shakier than it was a few years ago. so i would think the time is now rather than later. this is a thoughtful and ambitious plan to improve the neighborhood for residents, workers, visitors. it will increase housing opportunities, provide significa significant affordability, transform being on the street in this neighborhood, make use of areas and allow businesses to remain in san francisco. we're here the move these proceedings along as quickly as possible so we can set these benefits in our sights. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. tony robles, . i know at least a lot of issues, a lot of talking points, a lot of things that had been spoken on. i want to bring up that the soma plan does not adequately address and take into account the

special youth district. part of the central soma plan is in the youth and family special use district. the size of new affordable housing units must reflect this by providing adequate number of units for families. in the filipino community, multi-family homes include seniors and are multi-generational. the size of housing units under the plan must also reflect this reality. again, you know, housing, housing, housing. we want a plan that truly reflects the community's needs. community control. with the anticipated growth in soma, we must ensure that seniors and people with disabilities are provided for, prioritized in housing and pedestrian safety. public spaces or popos or whatever they're called, are truly public and seniors and people with disabilities have access to services they need. also upholding the integrity of prop k and the provisions for

affordableability and many are under the gun, threatened with evictions and so forth. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mario demira. i'm with the new filipino cultural district. we're part of the we are soma coalition. we support many of the points raised by the other community members in the coalition as well as our friends in labor. we want to thank the planning department and steve for all the work that they've done. we look forward to continue to working with the commission and the planning department to craft a rezoning plan that we can all support. some of the priorities we would like to reiterate is direct funding for cultural districts to create strategies for the communities. we want cultural presentation

not to be about just plaques and museums but about preserving the living culture, the families, the seniors, the working people that all make soma a beautiful place. we also look forward to building a new art and cultural complex in a community kitchen that can support economic development for low income communities in the soma. have a great day. >> thank you. >> laura clark, mb action. for once, i'm going to read instead of speaking off the cuff. we the undersigned are writing to you regarding the central soma plan as the documents are currently written. the plan is currently presented in isolation, and it proposes insufficient housing. we demand that the plan include a clear and concrete commitment that san francisco will add a

great deal of housing in a similar time frame. the planned area is signing san francisco up for a lot of growth. that is exciting. with growth comes a responsibility to house that community. if you pass this plan, it must be accompanied with a concrete promise that san francisco will adequately house its workforce, which it does not have a history of doing. as it currently stands, the plan will create 50 or 40,000 jobs. the different numbers have been thrown out. and only about 7,000 homes. this currently represents the 6 impersonator 5 to 1 jobs-housing ratio, and it's unacceptable based on what we know of san francisco's track record of building homes has been. rents will increase, and future and current renters will complete over the scarce housing stock. we want to be clear that we are not opposed to job creation. san francisco has done an amazing job of creating all

kinds of jobs, and we do want that trend to continue, but ultimately, if we continue to add jobs without adding significantly more housing, we'll only further exacerbate the crisis. san francisco is capable of adding jobs. all it takes is will. towards the end of maximizing as much housing production as possible, we propose several solutions, providing an addendum to the current eir that adds more housing. some of the proposals by the planning department take steps towards that. none are sufficient. we support doing the ab-73 rights for housing. that will not be sufficient. add zone capacity for housing in other more exclusionary neighborhoods. it does not seem that the planning department has been directed to take on the next neighborhood. where are we going to up zone next? where is that housing going to

go? we need housing in a speedy timeline. we can renegotiate the housing deal that's currently tanking the pipeline. we can speed up the existing pipeline. we can get those adus actually built. my last point is literally anything that will ensure the 42,000 homes that are needed will be built. we are not picky. put the housing anywhere in this city, but do it before all these jobs come in. we can do this. just build the housing. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. steven bus with mission envy. i also want to say i am thrilled that we'll be getting more jobs in the city. economic growth is key to a well-functioning city and region. i also strongly agree with the

soma filipinos and the somcan speakers that came before me. cultural preservation is more than just preserving buildings and putting up a plaque, as they said. it's ensuring that people in the community continue to have a place to live. if we are going to add 40,000 jobs and 7,400 homes, what realistically do you think is going to happen? the people in those new high-paying jobs are going to displace the people that currently live in soma because at least not enough new housing. it's going to spill over into the mission. my primary concern, representing mission enby is it's no longer subject to gentrification by ensuring we build housing within the city. we must upzone the west side and allow more residential units to be built in soma.

new units are the only way we're going to keep people from being displaced from new jobs. i would also like to recommend that -- i've heard that the regional transportation $500 million may be in jeopardy, so i want to strongly say that definitely keep the transit funding because if we are going to upzone the rest of the city and upzone outlying neighborhoods and other cities are going to up zone for more residential, we need strong transit investment in both the city and the region. if we upzone the west side, we need cut and cover and put underground rail out there. we can do these things. we can add jobs and prevent displacement. we just have to build the housing. we cannot accept this job to housing ratio. it's completely unacceptable. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hi. my name is sonya traus. i live at 7th and natoma. just across the street, in a way, from the plan area. this plan has space for either between 25,050,000 jobs, depending on who does the estimate and 7,000 housing units, which means, if passed the way it is, at least 18,000 households will be displaced. that's about 40,000 people. i asked someone involved with this plan at a high level about the new 25,000 to 50,000 jobs, and i asked, where are those people going to live? in my conversation with him, he answered, exasperated, i don't know. he has to know. the people making this plan have to know. when you're making a plan, part and parcel of that is knowing where the people that you're building jobs for are going to live.

i am sympathic to people who are frustrated, oh, we already did the eir, all this time has passed. that's fine. why didn't you notice two years ago that there was a job-housing imbalance, or five years ago or seven years ago? this is something that could have easily been foretold, that there would be people here today objecting to this job-housing imbalance. san francisco has a lot of really, really smart people in it. it has had a housing shortage for a long time. i think a reasonable observer would wonder why are both of these things true? well, this is a great example why. we're planning to displace people ahead of time. so these new workers, some of them are going to compete with me in soma, with people who live in tenderloin, in the mission, and in west oakland. and they will outcompete us, and we'll have to move. some are going to live farther

afield in the east bay, in lafayette, or san mateo county. then traffic will increase. no matter how you cut it, this central soma plan is a dangerous proposal for the people that already live in central soma. so, as other people have asked for, please upzone anywhere. the planning department has an idea that they can change the plan to be 15,000 jobs and 10,000 houses. that's okay. that gets you a better ratio. or, there could be a plan to actually build those 18,000 houses that we need. we can aim high. let's build more. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm jane martin. i'm with the union that represents security off service and commercial properties as well as property service workers in residential buildings. so i'm sort of hearing a lot of this being framed as jobs versus housing. i would like to say that instead we should be talking about what kind of jobs and what kind of

housing? in our industry, there's going to be a lot of jobs in our industry created by this, subcontracting creates a race to the bottom. and working conditions vary widely between responsible union contractors and irresponsible contractors, which are responsible for wage theft and low-income jobs. we've been able to raise wages and win affordable health care but some are still struggling, especially in the bay area and housing. many people of color are being displaced and having to commute longer and longer distances to work. it's important that we award these giant development companies huge profit opportunities through upzoning and create good jobs for workers and create affordable housing for working people. that's why we're standing with the community coalition we are soma to support the demands to make development under the central soma plan more

accountable and equitable, especially for job training abcommunity throb. -- we have to make sure jobs are accessible to local residents and they're good jobsment for janito janitors, security officers, doormen, making sure the developers are committed to responsible contracting standards. our union has been able to partner with some of the developers planning projects in this area, and we would be optimistic that they would be able to provide good jobs. it's not true for all of them. some of them we really need to have further conversation. one company that we're very concerned about is alexandria, which has a project in the area that's not been willing to collaborate with us on ensuring responsible contracting. we're standing with our brothers and sisters here around providing good jobs for hotel workers as well as our brothers and sisters in the building trades, good jobs in construction, and with the displacement crisis that we're experiencing, the communities of

color, we can't leave this up for grabs, and we can't afford to let this go by without ensuring that this plan is going to require good jobs and affordable housing for our members. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is connie ford. i'm representing jobs with justice today. jobs with justice is a coalition of about ten to twelve unions and about 20 community organizations working all over the city but many are housed or live or work in soma. you can see by reading the comments today, that one of the big things that is missing out of this plan is about the good quality, the quality of jobs. you talk about jobs, jobs, jobs, everybody talks about jobs. but what are these jobs? are they going to be good jobs? are they going to increase the economic disparity that we all live in today? the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?

we in jobs for justice support our members of the we are soma. we support the demands. my granddaughter is seven, and she lives in soma with her parents, and she walks four blocks every day to her school, which is bessie carmichael. in that school, at that walk, forward and back, if you haven't taken the walk down fulsome, you should see. these services that are being asked to be paid for by the community here is desperate and needs. this is not an exaggeration of how we need to support the people who live there. some of them have lived there for decades. they need the support. they need the helping hand. and that's what the we are soma coalition is all about. the other part is the job question. we need good job standards. we need good job qualitificatio. and we need support for the people in soma.

yes, we support the building trades and getting their standards enforced. yes, we support the hotel workers in making sure those hotels are like every single other hotel in the city who have the standards that you can be a hotel cleaner and actually have a good wage and great benefits, but that's the kind of thing we need there, and, we need the kind of pathway that can give entry level jobs in these hotels to the community members after we train them, support them, give them the encouragement and go forward that way. we really support all the labor standards people are talking about. we need to work on this, the ab73 that's been mentioned by steve and others is one way to do that. but it's very important to know that we just can't have jobs of any sort or any variety. we need good jobs with benefits. and it is our position that if

the developers or if the hotels are not willing to sit down and talk to us about that, then we think they should not get the benefits that this zoning plan endale entails. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a community organizer on staff at the bicycle coalition. i'm happy to provide support for the initiation of the central soma plan on behalf of our 10,000 plus members, especially especially as it relates to transportation and bicycle safety. the neighborhood, the south of market expands, we want to make sure all our residents can bike safely. to get there, we need a network of walkable, bike friendly and people centered streets throughout the planned area. the plan, as it is and the proposed of tracks along fulsome, brandon, third, fourth street