tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 12, 2018 1:00am-2:01am PDT
1:00 am
injuries. as the city has committed to eliminate traffic fatalities by 2024 through vision zero, we believe the improvements proposed as a part of this plan are a huge milestone towards achieving that goal. the central soma plan and its proposed addition of cycle tracks along folsom, brannan, fifth and fourth street will bring us towards our goal of a safe, bikable neighborhood. however while we want to see more improvements for people biking in the area, we also want to make sure that these improvements and the existing infrastructure are built and maintained to be of the highest quality. given the history of serious and fatal crashes along the folsom street corridor, we know that anything that the cycle tracts protected bike lanes are sufficient and --
1:01 am
[inaudible] >> the san francisco bicycle coalition has been working closely with the city departments and the central soma neighborhood to address safety and local transportation needs over the past few years. in the future, we look -- about will look forward to working hand in hand with the community to make central soma a more life liveable and safe place to live. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, honorable members of the commission. richard drury representing the central soma neighbors, and we represent hundreds of residents of central soma. our letters and positions are supported by four homeowners associations who collectively represent over 500 residents of central soma. these neighbors are very concerned about this really once in a generation opportunity to remake a neighborhood of the city. and i want to emphasize that we do not oppose development.
1:02 am
we actually support the midrise alternative that was supported by staff at least until 2013, and until 2016, because it maintains the neighborhood as a family friendly livable, walkable neighborhood, and most importantly maintains a jobs-housing balance. everyone knows san franciscans need more housing, and we support that. but this plan doesn't deliver. what it delivers is more jobs. 63,000 more jobs, but only 14,000 more housing units. in other words, four times more jobs than housing. therefore, it exacerbates the jobs-housing imbalance that we already suffer. there will be even more employees chasing fewer housing units in terms of proportion which means it drives up housing prices, it -- it drives up displacement, and it increases gentrification, all the things that we should be avoiding. we support the midrise option which has a much better balance
1:03 am
between jobs and housing. we urge the board not to certify the environmental impact report. we've filed two extensive comment letters detailing the detectithe detectives in the eir. i'd like to point some out. in the final eir staff proposes creating a housing sustainability district under ab 73. ab 73 says you cannot do that unless you prepare an eir to analyze the impacts of creating the housing sustainability district. that's ceqa 21155.10. the eir not only fails to do that, it doesn't mention housing sustainability district at all. the word doesn't appear until the final eir, so legally, this creates a serious defect in the analysis. second, the eir concludes that this plan will have zero impacts on traffic. well, that's absurd.
1:04 am
you can't add 63,000 jobs and 14,000 residents and have no impact on traffic. the staff relies on sb 743 for this conclusion. well, sb 743 only allows a no impact analysis if vmt or vehicle miles travelled is decreased. the final eir agrees with our traffic expert that this will trell increase vmt. therefore, the traffic analysis is legally flawed and makes this document legally vulnerable. i'm out of time. i -- the other issues are detailed chapter and verse in our letters, but we urge the commission to send this back to staff and -- and fix these problems. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. drury. >> stephen bus again with mission yimby. i'm also speaking on behalf of sonia trouss who's running as district six supervisor but she
1:05 am
can't be here because she's meeting with future constituents. so as you know, yimby has been against the central soma plan due to the jobs-housing imbalance for well over a year, and we maintain that position that we think there's not enough housing. it's it's really a displacement time bomb. we know that we're doing this. we know that we're going to add 40 something thousand jobs and 10,000-something -- i forget the number -- housing units. obviously those people have to live somewhere and they're going to push somebody out in order to do so. however i would like to express some gratitude that we were able to effectively work together and come to a solution that while we're not totally happy with it, at least we got more housing built or rather more housing included in the plan. i'm hopeful that you'll also
1:06 am
approve the hst to make that housing get built. we've done -- we've put seven years into studying the plan, making eir. we know the impact of what this -- of what building the housing will be so there's no reason to drag it through more hearings. so i urge you to also approve the hst. and unfortunately, commissioner richards walked out of the room, but i want to point out, when he went to sacramento to oppose sb 827, because he says he believes in strong local control. well, i want -- i want you to hear that the local control in soma is speaking with a united voice to say we need more housing. everyone who's got a problem with central soma, it's not because of the jobs, it's not because of the up zoning, it's because there's not enough housing.
1:07 am
so hear us, and in the future, local control, if you truly want it, means building more housing faster. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please, and i'll call some additional names. [names read ] >> todd david on behalf of the central housing coalition. i'm going to miss these -- i think it's the 16, as they said. the san francisco housing action coalition is in favor of the central soma plan. we like -- we particularly like the housing sustainability district. we think that's great. we also have clearly expressed concerns about housing, but we also strongly believe that -- that housing is a regional -- at least an area -- an area
1:08 am
issue and that it cannot be solved in any one particular district or one particular area. i hope that we can always agree on whatever our opinions are on central soma, that one, a great place to add more housing would be along the west side of san francisco, along gary boulevard and housing -- to bring housing for people to work in central soma. i was also very pleased to here that supervisor fewer's office is concerned about public schools and us having public schools. as a patient of three children in san francisco's public schools, and someone who's been paying attention to this issue for years and years and years, sfusd topographers have been telling us for years that we're going to need more schools. i'm kind of curious with supervisor fewer because while she was on the board of education, she offered a resolution to give away excess
1:09 am
school district property that could have been used as a school, that it was sold to the city, i believe, for housing. so glad to see that now, after her term on the board of education, when she was giving away school district property, she now wants developers to return it to the school district. so i just think that that is something we're going to be hearing a lot about going forward as other projects come forward, the question of where people are going to go to school. i just want to say that as a public school parent, it is an issue that has been raised for about 15 years in the school district. so any way looking forward to getting central soma moving forward, and thank you for your time. bye. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm with housing committee. we work with thousands of tenants across the city. this plan continues to be a disaster waiting to happen for
1:10 am
tenants throughout san francisco. if you don't take full antidisplacement measures first before construction, building this many offices is going to lead to mass displacement. this plan is going to be known for years to come as speeding up and causing mass displacement of seniors and other people in central soma, finishing the mass displacement in the mission, and everywhere accessible by bus, chariot or scooter is going to be up for grabs by developers wanting to push tenants out. this plan is a disaster.
1:11 am
it is irresponsible to san francisco in your job as planners in what you're doing to all of us, to make a plan that is more high-rise offices in a case that is in a housing crisis. please take the displacement measures early on strongly before construction starts, otherwise, you are just throwing tenants across the city onto the streets. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is scott feeney. i am a volunteer with yimby action. i'm going to refer to some notes that i have on my phone. so i just wanted to remind you that the members of yimby action have voted to oppose the central soma plan largely because due to the lack of housing that's being added to
1:12 am
balance out those jobs, we have very similar concerns to what the previous speaker voiced. we've seen some progress revising this plan, but it remains still a 4:1 ratio of jobs to housing without a real answer of where are the rest of those office workers going to live and who are they potentially pushing out? much of what is in the central soma plan, unfortunately, is emblematic of some serious problems that affect bay area planning. we have relatively low areas of five and six stories ostensibly because of the midrise character of soma, which to me is really code of let's not annoy the luxury condo owners. it doesn't plan nearly enough housing for the jobs. it continues a pattern of doing most of our building in former industrial areas with very little in-fill in affluent
1:13 am
mostly residential neighborhoods, and it allows low-income communities of color to bear the gentrification caused by the shortage of housing. because yimby members and other advocates have complained about the lack of housing, we've gotten some improvements in the plan. it's good to see the job-housing ratio was increased from 6:1 to 4:1, and we applaud the planning department staff to propose a housing district, but that's still not quite enough. if the city's going to pass this, we have to commit to making significant up zonings to increase significant and affordable housing both in soma and noe valley and along the west side. we can't continue to prioritize office space while letting housing get delayed and negotiated to death, which is frankly what we saw today with
1:14 am
430 main street. when we do allow significant amounts of housing, we can't continue to do that only in low-income communities, while letting exclusionary neighborhoods with homeowners continue to say no to growth. this is a large part of the reason we've seen so many he vacations, so much ge gentrification, so much homelessness, and if we're going to do this, we need a plan to do better. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. laura clark, yimby action. we're all exhausted. half of the planning commissioners have peaced out because this has gone on and on, and that's how all of these decisions are made, is after an extremely difficult protracted
1:15 am
process where we are whittled down to the last lunaticks, myself included, where we are beating the last drum, and that is this massive program that we're talking about. and it looks like it's going to be the last area plan for a while. the planning department doesn't have another large area plan in the pipeline, and so the last one that we're looking at in quite a while is one that adds a lot of jobs without a lot of housing. and we have the capacity to build the amount of housing that this plan is calling for, but it does involve deciding that we're actually going to stop just chattering about upzoning geary and actually do it. it does mean that we're going to have to take those gentle in-fill two and four unit projects that get proposed and whittled down to death every day in especially wealthier
1:16 am
communities. we're going to have to decide that those projects should be approved as submitted as code compliant. it means that we're going to have to up zone places like st. francis would. and we could -- minneapolis is examining taking their entire city up to rh-4. every proposal that we have made to say how to address and how to have a compen -- compensurate conversation at the table. i've had people telling me, laurie, you're being unreasonable for thinking that we would ever really deal with this, and if up zoning the west side is unreasonable, then, building this amount of jobs is unreasonable. those are our choices. we are signing ourselves up for
1:17 am
growth, and i am all in on growth. jobs should be good. having a growing economic should not cripple a region, but that is what we have done. we have allowed growth to cripple a region by being unwilling to yes, battle with single-family homeowners. but that is what we need to do. and i know that it's nutty yimby saying we need to go and say upzone everything to rh-4. i understand how difficult it feels, but it's time. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is chris filipino. i am in favor of the kilroy project for the flower mart. i've been in the business for 35 years, and i love the flower
1:18 am
market and its history. and when kilroy bought the property, i got so excited of the plan that they're going to make it like state of the art, and then, one of the most beautiful flower market in the world. we had trans-america building as one of our landmark, and we have also the golden gate bridge, and having and giving kilroy realty a chance to make this -- to design -- you know, their design is amazing. to do this job of the flower market will be really -- it will be like the third landmark of san francisco. and i'm so excited about this project. actually, i've been here, like, 12:00. i left my flower business. it's mother's day, and it's my first time.
1:19 am
i'm sleepy. i hope you won't hold it against me that i'm sleepy. i'm just so excited to be in this project. i was telling -- when i say the kilroy people in the flower market, and they're talking to us, i said i'm already 72 years old. i hope i can see the unveiling of this new project, and that will be the exciting part. so i totally support -- i strongly support the flower market -- and then, they're gracious enough to us to move us to marin. and then, everything is a sacrifice. i think we can do a sacrifice. we florists are able to sacrifice. we can design anywhere, and thank you so much. i hope you will consider. >> thank you, miss lupia. next speaker, please. >> good evening.
1:20 am
my name is brittany gray, and i am here tonight representing the tuolomne river trust. we are concerned that the commercial development proposed in this project will increase water demand and accelerate the demise of the tuolomne river, which is where we get our hetch hetchy water. because of this, the number of salmon pawning in the tuolomne has plummeted. the san francisco bay delta is also on the brink of ecological collapse. the state resources control board is looking to increase fresh water inflows from central rivers in order to address this crisis, but the sfpuc is opposing this plan in part because it feels it needs this water to accommodate this proposed development. we need to prioritize how we use our limited water resources. there's a strong argument that san francisco needs to build more housing, but as long as commercial development
1:21 am
1:22 am
1:23 am
of money, and there is a lot of people who would benefit. but we need to make sure that the poor people in the city also get something out of it. and i don't know if you have seen that before, but constantly, we see that corporations make promises and then they don't really do what they promised. so i don't want, you know, that we approve something with you guys because you guys are responsible for this, if you approve it or not, if you approve this tack, you know, and there's nothing, then we will enforce that construction of affordable housing, then it will be on you. and it's already creating a lot of tension and i think that's the best way to deal with that is to continue talking about it and make sure that these will be
1:24 am
in place before you start something that will create more problems than solutions. >> next speaker, please. >> for the community that i'm from, often times the best laid plans are paved with evictions, displacement and gentrification. and many tourists that are calling for more and more housing. the plan appears, to me, to be more for developers and not for the central soma community, designed by developers for gentrification and displacement. the up zoning alone, and allowing office space and luxury housing that were previously bad is really a welcoming matt for out-of-control speculation. the plan, of course proposes nearly 40,000 jobs and less than 10,000 units.
1:25 am
most of the jobs will be intech in the housing will benefit how your income housing at the expense of low income and community people like myself. the proposed changes in the plan will further facilitate the evictions and displacement. some of the recommendations from our coalition would be to acquire existing rent-controlled buildings. acquire new development sights for 100 % affordable housing. and a moratorium on the sale of existing rent-controlled buildings and also the sale of public land for private or for-profit development, and on nenewmarket housing construction for projects not included in the existing kilroy realty -- central soma plan. thank you. >> good evening commissioners. on behalf of my family, the project sponsors of the
1:26 am
6,361st street project, it is a 250-foot residential tower. half a block from the transit baibay terminal on the subway station. we've been working with supervisor kim's office to explore means to increase the number of units in the project. within the parameters of a ir and in the proposed height limits. at the same time, we've been cognizant of the tower separation issue that this sight shares with the project next door. to that end we've been working with supervisor kim's office to propose few amendments that i wanted to draw to your attention. first, the amendment would reduce the power setback from fourth street to both increase the unit count and allow the power to shift to the southeast and to the site. this would increase the distance between our tower and the property line we share.
1:27 am
secondly, the amendment would allow a 30,000 square-foot towel floor -- tower floor pate -- plate and a longer dimension that is currently proposed good by doing that we can provide two additional units per floor on 23 floors. third, the amendment would provide tower separation flexibility when the commission considers approvals for our project capture the five '05 project be entitled first. we believe these amendments will provide significant public benefits and i urge the commission to add them to your recommendations to the board of supervisors. they would assure that it can move forward and give us over 300 new rental units including 54 bmr units to address that housing balance in the central soma plan. that modifications also allow units to meet unit exposure with no need for exceptions. and finally, the amendment addresses the trower -- tower
1:28 am
separation issue and a matter that works for urban design and a land use perspective. secondly, i would like to address the housing sustainability district. as we said, the current proposal is to not allow projects over 160 feet to participate in the district. it seems like an arbitrary cutoff. it's not mandated by state law. i would urge you would recommend to the board of supervisors that that limit not to be in the district but a compliant project such as ours which is 250 feet which is not a particularly tall tower. also have the benefits of the sustainability district. i can answer any questions you have. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. as we have said over and over again today, this simple ratio
1:29 am
of jobs to housing will create without strong measures to mitigate and prevent displacement, will create massive that is, what kind of housing is it that needs to be built in order to prevent displacement? well, the answer is well-established. that is affordable housing. i would like to ask you to amend
1:30 am
this plan in order to include the demand that there be affordability to accommodate those of us who will inevitably be displaced. i of course want to say we take strong measures to prevent and protect our already affordable housing. this includes all of the things that have been mentioned. aggressive sight acquisition of uncontrolled buildings and first right of refusal and a number of other measures that were mentioned. please send this back to staff for amendment. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. it has been a long day for
1:31 am
everyone here. i will try to be fast. first of all i wanted to say that we support the proposed language regarding community and having projects bring community jobs and employment plans for? urge you to adopt that and use it. when plans are brought back to you for approval, and we want to thank those responsible for adding it. i want to call out a few sights within the plan. there is a key site designation and some questions about exactly how much leverage is gained or lost with those. there is, you've heard talk about one vassar for example. we remain unconvinced, at least as of right now that the potential benefits would outweigh the impacts of the neighbourhood. but we will beat following it closely and urge you to do so as well. but something such as a development agreement would typically be included in the sight of this magnitude. that is one possible way to deal with some of the concerns.
1:32 am
as i said, we will be following it closely. a couple of other sights. it is a site that should be distinguished for their developer is having proactively come to us to find her sign an agreement that would protect and ensure that that hotel will be built and we are in good faith in negotiations with another project. on the flip side, a project that we are very concerned about. 565 bryant. the development company does much of the actual construction for their projects. and the president of olson construction is a gentleman, who was on the board which is an organization, a very conservative catholic ceo. please look up the record. we have some serious concerns over the cultural district and if it is an appropriate location for a development company with
1:33 am
ties to an organization with that particular track record. so, we are also part of a central soma coalition and we want to echo and amplify the concerns about the lack of or the need for proactive steps to be taken to protect tenants before the plan is implemented including acquisition of sites, affordable housing, renter protection, antidisplacement protections and other measures that should be taken. and we echo concerns about weather the plan really does have enough proactive protections in place to mitigate the impacts that will be felt on the community. those continue to be concerns and i will be sitting in the back as long as i can stand, as long as i cannot lose my focus and really listen closely for how the discussion goes on those protected measures as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
1:34 am
>> thank you commissioners. i am here on behalf of the organized construction trades. first of all i want to echo what cynthia said. we've been working closely with her on the hotel project to really ensure that those, as well as housing provides employment opportunities both for hotel workers, people who know how to operate these things as well as the men and women who filled these buildings. similarly i want to echo concerns about incorporating antidisplacement measures on the front end and making sure that we take this stuff seriously. we have seen what has been happening in this city. i did want to speak on a couple of things. first of all, is a question of job housing. it is interesting, my attorney at the time, back in about 2,008 we came up with the idea of jobs housing within the context of a very large area plan.
1:35 am
where thousands of jobs, millions of square feet of commercial space and thousands of jobs and thousands of homes that were primarily going to be single-family hig high-end operations. and in our discussions of a job housing, but we always struggled with the scale that you do it at. and one thing i think we generally agreed is a 60 block area plan is not the way to look at it. if you -- you need to look at it in a broader complex. when you do look at it within the broader context, we have thousands of units that are sitting entitled and undeveloped. sensibly, it will provide greater impetus to... lastly, i want to talk about the housing sustainability district. i briefly talked about it last week when it was introduced and i only have a minute to sing its praises. but as we started going down this road, the genesis of it was
1:36 am
a building trades and doing something that we are pushing for and we have been pushing for it for years. how do we take a look at these massive creations of value both in the residential and commercial side, and how do we make sure that we can incorporate labour standards into it as part of the value capture mechanism? it is indeed that mechanism. part of what, in crafting this thing and advocating for it, part of what we have been doing is really trying to echo many of the concerns that we hear from the community and that we have heard from the community throughout our discussions on a project by project basis. what have those been? is it user provisions? guaranteed on-site inclusionary housing? real workforce development opportunities? and being at the process to get more housing that we need to. so we need to do more.
1:37 am
but as this perceives, i urge you to vote and approve it and make whatever improvements you can. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i am a native san franciscan. i have lived in san francisco my entire life. lately, in the last five years or so, i've noticed a significant decline in my quality of life. so i think the question should be, which do we need more of? economic development or concern for the environment? and i think st. francis, the patron saint of ecology and pope francis himself, would agree that it is the environment, okay? and i'll give you some reasons. first of all, california is a biodiversity hotspot. that means we have an abundance of naturally occurring species
1:38 am
which, many of which are at risk of extinction because of human activity. our demand on water, for example was addressed earlier. it is threatening entire ecosystems all along the system going to the bay. so i urge you to ensure that the demand on water art weighed against what the science is -- what the signs has already told us. me to 60 % unimpaired below along that water system to avoid ecosystem collapses along the system. not the 20 or 40 % brought on by the pc or the state water board. okay? another reason that the environment really needs more attention, is that the board of
1:39 am
supervisors here recently passed a biodiversity resolution. which i doubt the documents before you have addressed or included. so please take that into consideration when you are reviewing the documents for approval. whether the environment and biodiversity are actually going to be considered peak thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. i am an architectural historian and i have these comments today. i just wanted to say that the comment on the commitment of public scholars for the restoration of the old meant, first of all, to the commission and to the department. thank you back thank you for ensuring that at least $20 million will be dedicated to the future and now a long overdue restoration of the old
1:40 am
meant. it is a national landmark, as you know, the long-term vision for the mint is being advanced in partnership between the california historical society and the city to realize the vibrant and colourful history and art and culture. to date, this commission has seen a strong turnout and as we can see from the restoration, the city's 20 million-dollar $2n commitment is a critical part of the overall funding strategy and the projects capital costs which would be significantly higher. many members of this commission have expressed a desire for greater allocation of funds and in addition, on march 21st, the commission voted unanimously to request at least $50 million for the meant. the community would welcome any greater amount of funding for the old meant should you see fit to do that, that i. that is my comment. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i am a land-use attorney in san
1:41 am
francisco. and not much has been said tonight about transfer development rights in the middle of helping two clients transfer the development rights to historic buildings to new development. i'm very pleased to read in the plan that the tdr program will be extended off the market and that new developments will need use of those programs. i hope tonight you speak a little bit about it during your testimony so that more people out there who own older buildings will become aware of this opportunity. i was a former board member for a nonprofit that try to turn them into a museum. i am actually very, very pleased to hear of this new funding through the program. finally, i would like to echo the comment of the speaker before. i represent a lot owner who could very much benefit by the
1:42 am
new sustainability district and its streamlined approach, but i too think the commission should look at exactly why a height limit of 160 feet was chosen, the pros and cons and what went into that analysis. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i am a volunteer with human action. staff from the planning department said earlier this is the right plan at the right time. and i cannot think of a more sustained way to see what -- say what this plan is. this plan would add a lot of counters who have that plan wrong. 33,000 jobs and lots of housing. that is 24,000, 24,700 units of housing we would have to build elsewhere in the city to break even.
1:43 am
if this plan is available we should do that. we should up some elsewhere in the city and upsell him the west sidwestside and inclusionary neighbourhoods that are close to transit. there's a lot to like about this plan. i like the bicycle improvements very much. i like the hst ordinance although they should not be an arbitrary limit. but this type of planning where we plan for 84-1 job housing balance and a housing crisis is extremely irresponsible. i encourage you to go back to the drawing board and do the right thing and build more housing than jobs, for once, because all the existent housing pipelines are not doing that. they're building more jobs than housing. we are not on that. we will build more housing than jobs to get out of this crisis. i have not seen plans for that so far and i would like to see some. if it does pass other areas at the city need to be compensated
1:44 am
for this. and 24,700 is the goal of that is the minimum. that is to make sure at this plan doesn't create more jobs than housing and i think that is a very low blow. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. a couple of points on the organization. i know we talked at homebuilders -- to homebuilders in the area who work for the housing that will get built there. there are residents in centrosome a, central soma even those who have signed on in opposition to in opposition. there are residents in the building to support the high-rise option. they do want the area to grow. i also believe that the neighbourhood legislation passed would apply in this area. so there is a lot of issues
1:45 am
certainly that people have raised in one of them specifically is the affordable housing. i do believe it is my understanding that part of that is untrue. all of the bmr units that are going to be available in this area in the future, 40 % of those belong to be set aside for neighbourhood residents. i do believe that is one fact. taking my hat off and talking as an individual, i actually really want to disagree with the clerk earlier. i don't think we are that far away from the political will to change the minimum... i think that politics are going to control us in the next 30 days. we are all well aware of that. after that we will have a serious conversation because we may have one leader for ten years. and what that city will look like in ten years is likely going to be determined by the people in this room and by the person who will occupy the room.
1:46 am
we will have perhaps mixed in the board of supervisors. and so in talking with elected officials and talking with folks that are involved in this and talking with the people who are making this decision, most people seem to think actually it is a decent idea. i was talking to a president of the neighbourhood association and she told me that listen, if there was no height increases whatsoever and it was just density being controlled, every neighbourhood association would get on board with that. i looked at her sceptically. i did not necessarily believe it at the time, but when the other option is eight stories, all of a sudden, four stories really seems reasonable. and i think those conversations are going to be can's continued at the state level. locally, what can we do to help the increases that we need to have? i think that there will be details that need to get worked out. i think perhaps looking at taking out area plans could be
1:47 am
something that may work. i also know a director mentioned one time that rates are higher in the richmond than they are in the mission area. so there is a complicated aspect and i encourage everybody in front of me and everyone behind me to give that serious thought and see if we have the will to get that done. personally i think we don't. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello i am speaking on behalf of the united mission here i see you pretty much every thursday for whatever number of projects. i wanted to just clarify one thing. the mission has the highest number of evictions compliant of any other district in the city. that information by korey was wrong. so i want to say something, i am prodevelopment in pro affordable housing. but i'm not pro- market rate housing over affordable housing. like this plan has been in the works longer than most people have been in the city. seven years. i find it insulting that the mbs
1:48 am
carrier to speak on and take credit for for addressing gentrification and issues of displacement when really you have no understanding of it. i've lived at and done at an been displaced. i've been evicted from my home and i am a second generation san franciscan. i want to go into the plant itself. fifty % of affordable housing on all the project should be the mandate requirement. is consistent with the housing balance policy passed in 2015. 30-90 % ami as a sliding scale based on the side of the project and the number of units. let's get into a local higher. i'm a tech worker because i have graduated from a workforce development program, mission techies. that being said, there is going to be 30-60,000 new jobs that are coming in there. we will only have 8,000218000 new housing units. we need to make sure they are available first or 18t for 18 -l higher. the community has an employment
1:49 am
plan and that will be a good option for that. we need to take it a step forward and -- further and make sure every company in here does that are -- they're part and that means basically we need to have internships and paid programs set up based on the size of the tech company. 1-25 they should have a minimum internship program. anything other than that they can afford to hire another employee from a number of different nonprofits -- profits. i can name on and on. there needs to be a sliding scale so that way we are making sure our community can get into the tech sector to work at a company where we have 25 employees and i'm the only latino. i want to see more of my brothers and sisters and community in the room. that being said there needs to be intermediate emergency controls that are put in place right away and right of first refusal for residential renters and nonprofit and commercial renters and rent-controlled buildings within the
1:50 am
neighbourhood. thank you for your time. >> thank you. do we have any more speakers at this time? >> thank you commissioners. i am excited to be her after a number of years working on this plan. i want to thank steve, my and josh. we have been working with in great detail of a gloss four or five years on these technical issues and many times do not rise to levels of this commission. i'm here to speak today about issues that have been caught already. we're working with staff to rectify those. there's a handful of other items that are outstanding and so i want to keep the conversation moving forward, understanding that we are still heading towards the board of supervisors and to have opportunities to make these corrections. i will leave this letter that was sent to the commission secretary earlier today. i just want to make two points,
1:51 am
1:52 am
>> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> good owning -- evening, commissioners. i just want to make a few quick comments, and the main one is let's not forget what this plan is seeking to do. it's seeking to manage growth in jobs that is going to happen in the region. we know that growth is going to happen. the question is where, and on a major transit corridor like the
1:53 am
central subway corridor is where that growth needs to happen. in emergency room its of jobs versus housing, of course we all support more housing -- in terms of jobs versus housing, of course we all support more housing, but this is one small slice of the city on a major transit corridor that is being developed with a huge public investment, and it makes sense to put jobs here. and in terms of, as you've heard from several speakers, preserving the character of the neighborhood, we are absolutely supportive of that. the flower narcotic is one aspect of that. we want to support the character and those jobs that are there today. i want to just also thank the director and the staff for the proposal for the compromise on the tdm plan.
1:54 am
75% is a reasonable compromise. obviously, we had been preparing for the 50% level, but 75% is certainly better than the alternative, so thank you for that. finally, i just want to say thank you to the entire commission and the staff, especially mr. wertheim for all the work that they've put in over seven years. it is truly an aachievement, and finally, i have a letter for the board. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker. >> commissioners, good afternoon. joseph smook with the south of market community action network. despite many hours of meetings and hours of testimony and public hearings, we in soma feel that the plan does fail to address the very real and persistent problems and pressures that are facing the south of market community. excuse me. we keep hearing about the increase
1:56 am
1:57 am
district seems to be a late but significant entry, so we would ask for your consideration of continuing this hearing to fully consider what that means for the whole plan, so thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. angelica cavanada. i have a letter here for you that's from 17 organizations across the city who expressed significant concerns about the impact that the central soma plan has currently written will have on housing, displacement and employment creation for soma residents and the working class community citywide. i know we're all tired, but you know -- i know i'm emotional right now, and it's not to
1:58 am
belittle the work that your staff has done, every time i hear seven years, ten years work, that really irks me because my community, the filipino community has been advocating time and time again around don't displace our community. since the 70's. that's four decades. we used to have over 5,000 filipinos in soma. now it dwindled down to 2500, and it's still declining. every day, we see filipinos that's being evicted that's the south of market, and now you're adding on this new plan that will add onto the stress the declining health of our
1:59 am
community, and the sustainability of our community. it's great that we have a soma pilipinas, a cultural district, but when do we say that we really need to plan for the future of our communities, that will have the people that actually fought and are proud to be in that neighborhood? we want a cultural district that has filipinos, not an after thought, not a plaque that we were here. we want to continue having our children growing from bessie carmichael and being able to stay here. our youth is wondering, are they going to be able to stay in san francisco, and these are high school youth, these are 8th graders trying to figure out, are they going to be able to stay in san francisco? this is our reality every day. so when i hear that it's been ten, 15, whatever, look at what's going on in san
2:00 am
francis francisco. we're losing our communities. and yes, we heard numerous times that there's some legislation here that you might not have the authority to add on or put into this plan as planning commissions, but you do have the full -- the vote to continue it so we could continue working to fix this. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please, mr. wu. >> hello, commissioners. david wu with the south of market community action network. i wanted to continue with some measures that we've been proposing that are seriously needed to address displacement and community concerns that are contained in the letter that was just submitted to you, again, signed on by 17 organizations against the city. we demand strong measures be adopted in the central soma
37 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
SFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on