city's stock of rooftop bars so we hope whatever they need to get done in order to get that rooftop bar, we will be able to get ushered through. and there's another project where there's a deal and the project sponsor has signed an agreement for good jobs for construction and staff and we want to urge that whatever process is needed to make sure that 816folsom has a total on that spot and get exemptions has needed, we wanted to make sure that the process is preserved for both of those to be possible. so, thank you very much. and i look forward to the rest of the hearing. [ please stand by ]

-- i commend this plan for helping the construction job to be good jobs for everybody. i don't condemn it, i congratulate them. i'm sorry. the hotel jobs that are being referred to by local 2 are going to be good jobs and the last piece of this is our piece, where we're taking entry level folks from the neighborhood, working with lowd and the designated target sectors to

ensure that these jobs also have an entry way for the neighborhood folks. and we're in the process now of working with -- over the seven hotels that are designated to be built there, we have not concluded all of our negotiations but we are in that process and we look forward to the policy legislation that will be developed around that to secure it in the future for all low-wage workers. because they deserve that laser sharp direction of our city planners. so thank you once again, supervisor kim, and the planning department. and we look forward to continuing this work until it's completed. thank you. >> good after nan, supervisors. my name is kevin carole and i'm with the hotel council of san francisco. i want to thank you and supervisor kim for all of the work that's been done on this project and especially the planning department as well. i'm here to talk about one of the specific programs and asks for an amendment that would be

prohibiting hotels on small sites. it would just ask that you consider to add language that allow pipeline hotels that are in the project to move forward. specifically we ask that you include an amendment to carve out hotel projects that had applications already accepted before may 10th of this year. one of the hotels at fullsom is next to the musconi center and as you have heard already there are jobs impacted by not being allowed to have a hotel here. and also that hotel would have 216 hotel rooms that would also provide for more positions and jobs that people would be coming into as well. i believe that there's about 30 permanent jobs and probably over 200 temporary ones, not to mention the actual construction jobs. so i just ask as you consider these amendments that you consider an amendment that allows the project to continue. thank you very much.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is tracy breeder and i'm with "jobjobs with justice" ande "good jobs for all coalition" here in san francisco. our coalitions are interested in not only good jobs for workers but making sure that there's affordable housing for workers to stay here in san francisco. as a result we're also part of with a local commission that has 50% affordable housing for the soma plan. so we're still very excited to increase the amount of affordable housing available in the plan. and one specific request is around the housing sustainability district and making that the boundaries include the entire south of market area, not just the central soma plan area. and that likewise the affordable housing goals, ambitious affordable housing goals are applied to the entire area. we're happy to hear about the trailing legislation for good jobs and we're excited to work with supervisor kim and others to make sure that is detailed

and make sure that it goes as far as it can to ensure good jobs for disadvantaged and local san francisco residents to make sure they can access good jobs and stay in the area. so thank you to supervisor kim and to the planning department staff for all of the good work that everyone has done already. the basic message here is that we all know that this plan will greatly affect san francisco for decades to come. and so at this critical moment we just really advocate slowing down, making sure that we get these things right in terms of jobs for residents and affordable housing. so it's really important to us that we really do this right now and enforce good, affordable housing and jobs policy. thank you. >> hello, supervisors, i'm david wu with the south of market community action network. we're glad that the city is now considering the right of first refusal as part of the central soma plan, however, we still

have issues and concerns with the plan as it currently exists and feel that the plan should still be strengthened. as we have discussed through our soma plan hearings, this is a plan -- this is a plan and a recipe for gentrification and displacement, not just in the south of the market, but the rest of the city as well. by upzoning and allowing luxury housing uses where they were banned, the city is raising the value of the land and inviting rampant speculation. these changes mean increased rents for residential and commercial tenants as new developments create a new and higher comparable value for the area. this plan will decimate the existing community. more needs to be done to ensure that existing community members are able to remain in the south of market and under the face of these pressures. the action must be taken now to address the jept risks and displacement. before the plan is passed we demand that the following are incorporated with acquisition of the existing rent controlled buildings and sites for 100% affordable housing.

and instituting with community organizations a right of first refusal for residential renters, along with non-profits and commercial renters. and creating a moratorium on the sale of existing rent control buildings and the sale of the land for private development. and on new market housing construction for projects not currently included in the existing plan. we also want to see the plan reach 50% affordable housing and to require a mandatory land dedication of sites for affordable housing for any development that is one acre or larger. as it stands the central soma plans represents a plan by and for developers. without adequate steps taken to address the reality of gentrification and displacement that comes with such a rezoning this will be a plan for displacement. we will discuss our e.r.i. appeal points that read in our file appeal. >> hello, supervisors, i'm jamie

mcdunn. and there's several issues that must be addressed. the central soma plan has a second financial district at the expense of families, youth, and seniors living, working and going to school in the soma. the scale of development and the mex omix of commercial and highd development are not conducive to a healthy neighborhood. we demand that this e.r.i. be studied against the measurement tool developed by planning and partnership with the development -- with the department of public health and community organizations during the eastern neighborhoods rezoning. next the inadequate transportation infrastructure and the impact of ride-hailing companies within the deri are not fully considered. the instruct within the plan area of the central soma lags far behind the infrastructure needs of both past and current growth. the eri is also negligent in assessing the new impacts of ride-hailing and services like

uber and lyft. the references in the draft on pages 4, d-65 and 4-d-76 are inadequate. their impact can no way be equated with bicycles in terms of traffic or in environmental impact. lastly, the proposed intensity of the development and relaxing of the development controls have not been equated -- evaluated with respect to state density, in the e.r.r. and it references these laws on page 2-22, but only in reference to increase heights. the derr references the bonus for affordable housing projects on page 6-2, but says that the increased number of units is not considered for the deir. and it's incomplete, if it does not complete the study the impacts of increased heights and the number of units for both affordable and market rate housing. thank you.

>> hi, supervisors. my name is chantelle labrento and i'm continuing with points in our appeal. first, the economic impacts from displacement were not ann liced in the eir and there's environmental impacts due to the displacement of residents from their homes or small businesses in soma. especially when considering the huge increase in the vehicle miles traveled that will result in this proposed central soma plan. the gentrification caused by this plan will have a quadruple impact by lengthening the commute times of people working in soma from their new place of residence outside of the city and replacing it a population more likely to own and use oks. and increasing the number of people living in soma as a bedroom community for their commute on a shuttle to the peninsula. and increasing the use of ride-hailing and the services whose vehicles idle and circle in competition for rides. none of these impacts are

studied which is a significant flaw in the eir. and next are the eir omits analyses of the trend of residential units not used as traditional housing. the inadequacy is that it studies the impacts of residential development as though it's used for residences. the environmental impacts of corporate rentals, short-term rentals and other commercial uses are different from residential uses. without enforcement there's no way to ensure that the new housing that is incentivized to be built will be used as housing. thank you. >> hello, supervisors, my name is clara modley and continuing with our points in our eir appeal and the following must be addressed. plan has inadequate open space in soma. they have a negative impact on the community for many reasons. they're privatized and overly regulated and restrictive and not friendly for children, youth

and families and not protected by the shadow ordinance. it's also difficult to establish a standard of shadow protection for these open spaces because seqa is not specific on this matter. soma has such a lack of spaces for public recreation and accessible open spaces that there must be a clear plan to create a new open space that are owned and managed by park and rec. and the eir does not study the health impacts from the increased noises and the degraded air quality and the pedestrian safety hazards and increased wind speeds. and those that work with seniors and people with disabilities in soma are concerned that the increase in the wind speeds with the height and velocities of the buildings will cause injuries to seniors and people with disabilities at both public open spaces and in the public right-of-way. and there's concerns around vehicle collisions. and the increase of the automobile traffic is underrepresented in the eir and the pedestrian injuries is also

underestimated. noise levels especially from the construction activity have not been studied in the eir. and after construction the degraded air quality from increased traffic and increased idling from the vehicles stuck in traffic or ride-hailing vehicles or from increased truck traffic will all have detrimental impacts. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is t.j.bosell with somcan. and continuing our points in our eir appeal. the uses in central soma is inadequate. the eir indicates that it is removing protective zoning for p.d.r. but there's no complete timeline of how much eir has been lost and which in part is to stop the loss of eir. and having incentives to protect the eir uses is problematic.

and it will quickly not be incentives tomorrow. depending on the land use, financial and macroconditions driving the development market at any particular time. more consideration of the continued pdr use is required in the eir. the eir does not address the lack of affordability of housing and inventicized for the plan and the social and economic makeup of the new residents that will result. the plan does not provide any studies or figures that support that the new development will drive down the housing costs. as the eir states on page v-10, what effects the development on the housing affordability is a matter of controversy and that the influx of real estate investment and higher income residents may increase the gentrification of the neighborhood with displacement of households being a negative outcome. further study must be done to see what effects it will have on the housing prices.

if the plan is about a commitment to maintaining a diversity of the residents in the area. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. my name is gigo. and to continue with the points in our eir appeal the following must be addressed. the central soma plan disregards the youth and the family, especially in this district. we demand that the part of the central soma plan are requiring a review approval by the residential groups and community organizations before they are considered by the planning department. we are demanding that this community approve our process, and function similarly to other districts in the city such as bernard heights special use district. the impact of new office space and the local environments are not properly studied in the even ir. and the eir is inadequate on the grounds that it does not

incorporate all of the safest policies with respect to development and controls. the eir's lack of clarity on how it can comply with the requirements, especially in light of the proposition o is a critical flow. given the intensity of the new high-end office spaces that are being proposed, the fact that local hiring and training goals are still in the section of the deir, is a controversy and it's not only offensive to the community but is potentially very damaging environmentally. when considering the increase in the vehicular mileage with gentrification. >> hello supervisors. my name is eugenia laoa, and continuing with points in our eir appeal. the project must be included in the even ir analysis because the new development of the central soma plan is being proposed as a

scale, driven be by the development, and to be approved. with it being the largest development in central soma they must be considered together. they have links that have impacts. the plan does not address the stabilization of the soma-based non-profit organizations. by encouraging the construction, the rents will be more expensive and placing non-profit organizations even at more risk. low income and immigrant communities in soma rely on many of these non-profit organizations for basic services and to be able to survive in the community. without these organizations the soma residents are further at risk for displacement and it does not result in the environmental impacts. therefore, the eir is not recommending the strategies for stabilizing the non-profit organizations in soma. as it stands the central soma plan represents a plan by and for developers.

without adequate steps being taken to address the reality of the gentrification and displacement that comes with such rezoning this plan will be a plan for displacement. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. my name is antoine walker and i'm with citizen impulse. it's backed by a dutch pension fund. we have another hotel project, hotels operating worldwide and another 12 in development in the u.s. we have a 200 room hotel at an 8,000 square foot parcel between forest and 5th street. it would be 18 stories and 180 feet tall based on rezoning and 180 cs height and bolt district. it's a parking project. construction of the hotel provides up to 30 permanent jobs and over 200 temporary ones.

we will participate in the first source hiring program for hotel construction. citizen m will work with the web core builders for construction of the project. we have executed agreements with unions regarding the construction of the project and with unite here, local 2, for hotel operations. citizen m purchased the property a year and a half ago and filed applications for the project in the fall of last year. regarding the proposed amendment to have a hotel on a small site we ask that you consider to add language to permit the pipeline projects to move forward. specifically we ask that you include an amendment to carve out hotel projects with ee applications that were accepted by may 10, 2010. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is adi and i'm the director of parks. and we encourage you to recommend the plan for approval along with all associated amendments.

we're pleased to see the use of 8073 to have a sustainable district that will bring housing to fruition more quickly. the plan is ground breaking and really important. a place for housing and jobs and sustainable environment. it creates critical new housing and addresses our housing shortage at capacity for jobs and the one place in the region that people take heavy transit and it considers how to keep the things that we like about soma and the funkiness that comes with that and to adjust the things that we don't like, like the dangerous streetscape for people walking and biking and creates community benefits and sustainability has been intgrated through the plan for the neighborhood in a way that has not been done before. including development with 100% ghg free electricity making this neighborhood greener and cleaner. one note of caution that we have sounded throughout is the feasibility and the benefits of this plan won't happen without the proposed development.

given where we are with the construction costs we may see a delay in these benefits coming to fruition. so we support any level of flexibility that we can have on a project basis to ensure feasibility and construction as quickly as we can. thank you, supervisor kim and director tang for your contributions. >> good afternoon, supervisors, cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition and i want to reiterate that i appreciate your office and all of the work planning. this has been a massive undertaking. we are support in of the plan and there's a lot of complicated things to work out. and we're concerned about one item with the feasibility and the project. we all know that putting together these plans are complicated and we don't want to lose out on the opportunity to get some much-needed affordable housing in the district. and we're going to be giving homes and creating homes for people in that community that

are already vulnerable so we think that is really beneficial. so whether that is duplicating the file and trying to move it forward to make sure that we don't basically hit that deadline clock with the financing with the project or moving the entire thing forward at once, we really don't want to lose out on that opportunity. but all in all we're in support. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. melinda sagenpar. and i would like to express a minor clarification. it relates to the pending projects within the plan area that are proposed under the eastern neighborhood zoning. these projects are subject to the rules in place in central soma becomes affected. the way that the code is written, however, it's unclear if that encompasses the legislation that is pending but not yet adopted. that includes the code correction ordinance to address the errors and the inconsistencies in the planning code. to correct this we ask that you

include the phrase "or legislation introduced but not yet adopted" into the section 175.1c. this is a minor amendment that will clarify the pipeline eastern neighborhood projects in central soma can be through the planning code six and with the ordinance that is pending. i have a copy of this language and i'll leave it with the clerk. thank you very much. >> this is -- i missed the beginning. can you speak with lisa chang, we believe that this amendment is not necessary so if you can connect, that would be great. >> good afternoon, supervisors. sam oss from the executive director of mission housing development corporation. you know, we have about 250 affordable units in the central soma plan and, you know, while we -- it was a 1-1 jobs housing balance, i actually thought that it pertinent to bring up the fact that there's an entire

other section of our city where we can add a lot more affordable housing. st. francis wood is five miles away and wedge wood park five miles away. we put the pressure on these low-income communities to take the brunt of all of our economic development while we let other neighborhoods just be encased in amber. and, you know, this body has the ability to change that. so, you know, i urge you to think about city-wide, one-to-one affordable housing and jobs balance. i know that it can't come through the central soma plan but we certainly can do something about it after. so, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors and my name is josie erins and i'm the senior community organizer with walk san francisco. we and our members look forward to the city fixing dangerous streets in soma such as fuls is som and -- fulsom.

almost every street is on the vision zero high injury network and the 13% of the city streets were 75% of the severe and fatal crashes happen. the central soma plan envisions soma as a neighborhood where it's safe and enjoyable to walk. vision zero improvements like mid block crossings and intersection and crosswalk treatments and until upgrades will transform the dangerous streets into safe, vibrant and inclusive destinations where people want to travel, live and work. the plan would allow critical projects to move forward. in addition though we hope that you can quickly and thoroughly address the concerns of our partners like somcan, around the needs for affordable housin houd evacuation -- eviction housing. and they want interim controls to prevent displacement and the lack of the strong measures in the plan to increase affordable housing and job creation for local residents. we look forward to you

addressing that those concerns. thank you. >> good afternoon, here on behalf of the kilrose flower project. we have been delivering a project that will anchor the southwest corner of the plan area and provide long-term affordable rents for the flower market and a new state-of-the-art facility. i want to say that we're strongly supportive of the plan with the changes recommended to you by the planning commission and with that said there are a few additional changes that are necessary to accommodate the unique needs of the flower market project and the wholesale flower component of it in particular. parking, first of all. right now the plan has parking maximums that limit the wholesale flower market to 67 parking spaces and that's less than half of the flower market's current parking and well under

the 150 spaces that kilray is to provide in the new project. it's been suggested that additional parking might be provided through a trailing site amendment but it prolongs uncertainty for the flower market tenants about an issue that is really central to the project. and it adds to the workload for the city staff that said that a change would prolong the schedule for the project consideration for approval. so you have delay and uncertainty and on the other the legislation before you has exceptions that are available only for key sites like the flower market. i urge the board to take the efficient route and to insert the changes needed for the flower market's parking now. this is a unique distribution use and it needs the parking to function. similarly we'd ask you to make

other minor changes to facilitate the unique site programming needs of the flower market. and that includes -- >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is vance hushita and i'm the board president for the san francisco flower market. we recently submitted to you a letter about our concerns that we have adequate parking at the flower market. and we have 144 spaces at the flower market and that does not include all of the parking available on the streets around the flower market for tenants and their employees. customers come as far north as

eureka and as far south as salinas. and it's critical that we have the parking. without the parking it will be very difficult for the vendors at the san francisco flower market to continue to be sustained. thank you. >> my name is alex lanceburg with the san francisco electrical construction industry. i'm here specifically speaking in support of getting the appropriate amendment to protect 81816fulsom as mentioned by cynthia and the project sponsor and others. but i want to kind of talk about this within the framework of something that director rames said and we saw within the scope

of this presentation. as this project has been developing over the past 10 years, we -- we've really tried to incorporate the lessons of the eastern neighborhoods plan. one of the things that we did in the eastern neighborhood plans is that the projects that have submitted their applications long before the planning commission to have action to initiate the amendments would get grandfathered. it's a reasonable request and it provides certainty and it's one way that we can, you know, take into account that the folks do make decisions based on the best available information that they'll be able to do what they need to do. and more broadly i want to talk about good jobs and the 816fulsom project has made a commitment to hotel workers and so both on the front end and on the back end in its operations it's going to really be providing good, sustainable

living wage and employment opportunities for san franciscoians. but as we talk about this policy we know that there's little that we can do legally but offer up goals and encourage project sponsors to do this. but what we can do is to reward sponsors who take the affirmative step on the front end like these guys did and it's important that as we continue talking with the project... >> hi, laura clark. this plan needs a lot more housing and it doesn't need to come in the plan itself but it does need to be coupled with a commitment to building housing elsewhere to compensate for this. because too often we have passed things that increased our economic growth and did not come with housing to boot.

we can speed up the production of housing in this plan with great legislation from assembly member david shue but we're talking but category off dwelling units a at the knees by not allowing them new cob instruction. -- construction. i don't see a commitment from this board to be advocating for the kind of housing production that we need to compensate for this plan. i see this going another step and another direction of continuing to see the displacement that we have seen. and so i would love if this is going to move forward for it to come with either a verbal commitment or some kind of legislation that there will be housing built to compensate and it needs to be said when we pass this legislation. it can't be a hand waving and it needs to be something more, a bigger commitment. this also brings to light the delay that we're seeing and it's going to affect the tndc's affordable housing projects. this brings to light how this kind of unpredictability can

affect especially the affordable housing developers. we need consistency and we need predictability, especially for affordable housing developers. so, please keep this in mind both for this legislation as well as others to come. thanks. >> good afternoon. can you hear me? is this loud enough? thank you. my name is denise diana and i have been a resident of san francisco for 50 years and i have thought that many other groups, san francisco tomorrow, senior action network, and senior disability action, etc., to lower the number of people who live on this small inlet and

we have fought for 50 years to -- on all issues to not manhattannize this city nor to increase the population to an absurd number of one million people -- we were to have one million people on this little inlet. and as an elderly person i have even today had a hard time getting here because i couldn't cross the street. i had to wait and wait for the traffic to slow down and it just wouldn't stop and so it took me quite a while to get here and i had to wait a considerable time and i also had to -- i almost

got run over by some high-speed cars that didn't want to pay attention to the lights. and so i, you know, have been through the whole nonsense. and we just can't continue the way we're going. thank you. >> good afternoon, board members, peter cohen with the housing organizations. it has been many years but this plan -- this is the next generation plan area for those of us who went through the first generation of not only market activity in these neighborhoods but other plans this is a fresh start to learn from the past. and one thing that is encouraging is that an affordable housing plan is baked into this one. we hadn't in the previous ones but that's a problem. so in that sense the planning

department has done very good effort to try to find as much affordable housing and to identify the sites which will help our member organizations but in general to achieve a higher standard of affordabili affordability. we have helped with other organizations working in their specific geographies and providing technical support. we did a job housing fit analysis for the planning department to really to project what the affordability need is and it's about 56% affordable from very low income to middles. so striving for 50% affordable whether it's in the plan area or to miss clark's point elsewhere is not inconceivable and it's actually meeting the workforce needs. i want to spend the rest of my time focusing here on the housing district and my colleague fernando will finish up as well. san francisco is setting the standard here and this say brand-new state law and it's not used anywhere in california.

so what you're doing here with this plan is creating this script for how this is looked at elsewhere in the city and there's two pieces that we'd like to focus on. one of which is a strong use it or lose it standard. make sure as you're providing that streamline entitlement that there's a time period to use it and to get into construction because it's all about housing units and as we know that there's been a lot of permits, and this is your chance. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors, i am with the council of community housing organizations. just to continue peter's points about the housing sustainability district as an overlay in what you all are working on, we followed 8073 closely when assembly member which yoassemblt and we had one thing that was

integral to 8073 is that there would be a 10% inclusionary housing as a capture in those areas that have no inclusion area. it's clear that providing the entitlement has a lot of value for developers. they want to see this. and we think that this is an opportunity to now set higher standards for what those developers will provide. in addition to the labor standards that are baked into the housing sustainability district, we think that we can hire on-site affordability and if what the original legislation said from going from zero to 10% it should be a no-brainer to provide an additional 5% affordability in those developments that choose the housing sustainability district and all of the benefits that are conferred by right and entitlement. going through an entitlement process means that you're trying to get something done sooner and faster so, therefore, we think that those developers should be

able to commit to actually building those units and that speculate on entitlement itself, their land based on the entitlements that say within 30 months that they will build if they haven't been able t to geta six-month extension that's what you get. and i think that -- we think that these are important things and can really take this housing sustainability in the district and make it work for a better plan in central soma. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. alexandra with kilroadway realty with the flower mart. you have heard about the issue of parking and how important it is to get those 150 spaces and 25 truck parking spaces as an amendment to the plan.

i wanted to bring up a few other issues as they relate to the wholesale flower market. and the first is the public open space so we ask that you make minor changes to the facilitate for the wholesale operations of the flower market. because the flower market needs a single 115 now ho 115,000 squt space and the circulation for the trucks and it's difficult to put it in a location that is in a location open to the sky. and so we'd like the plan to have an exception to allow up to 25% of it to be sheltered by a building which is 36 feet above so it doesn't feel that it's a sheltered open space. in addition the flower market has been an inward facing business and it will continue to be a inward facing wholesale use in the new flower mart. in a way to make it efficient for the customers. and the perimeter will be back of the office space for

refrigeration space. and this means while the flower market does provide windows and appropriate locations it's not able to comply with the requirement for 60% of the ground floor to be transparent because it would be looking on the back of house spaces. so we'd ask that you build this in as an exception for this requirement as well. and we look forward to seeing next week's amendments and hope that we'll address these issues at that time. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, john aberdeen. despite the page after page of rhetoric about affordable housing the plan is still far short of actually getting it done in south of market. it needs a number of things. first, the 33% goal should be extended for affordable housing to all of soma. two times or three times more housing will be built in a rest of soma instead of central soma.

and, second, there's about a half dozen monthly surface commercial parking lots still in the south of market that should be nonpermitted now given a year or two before they have to close because they're all good infill housing sites and to make those sites development for development for market and affordable housing. third, there's about three or four luxury high rises that will take advantage of the high increases in the plan and they should have to do 33% affordable on-site if they choose that option. now it would only be 19% or 20%. for off-site they have to do 33% affordable but i'm afraid that they'll take a way out and give us far less units. fourth, the city should condemn vacant buildings and the city has the power in a domain to chronicle the admissions for 20 years over 150 rooms and that slum lord owner has refused to sell it to anybody to reuse for affordable housing or homeless housing and you need to go after

these guys. last, but not least, it's out of control in the city and we're losing hundreds of units a year. the city needs to stop that and to resort to the nuclear option at its disposal to have proceedings by eminent domain and take those properties from those greedy owners and protect their tenants and protect that housing rental supply. otherwise we'll lose thousands of units to this. thank you. >> we can close public comment. all right, public comment is closed. so i have handed out to the committee members and the clerk the 48 amendments that we are

introducing that -- that i am introducing today. the city attorney do i have to enumerate each of these 48 amendments? >> you don't. the description you gave at the outset suffices and the document that you submitted to the clerk will be a public document that anyone here can review and come back to comment on at the next meeting. >> thank you city attorney. so i will make a motion to amend these 48 -- a motion to amend with these 48 amendments as i passed that to the members of the committee and the clerk's office and the city attorney's office. there's one tiny amendment to these amendments that i need to make which is on page 98.

that the site is permitted to have a establishment formula limited restaurant so i'll strike out retail restaurant and go to limited restaurant, the request of the key site. (please stand by).

>> supervisor safai: i'm interested to know what the concern is regarding the hotel project, and was this always proposed as a hotel project and has it gone through some different renditions? i heard some different things that it might not originally have been hotel, and so that might have been the confusion.

>> are you speaking about the 1 basta project. >> supervisor safai: no, i'm speaking about the -- >> 16-m? >> supervisor safai: yeah. >> so i'm not as familiar with the project. i know they have submitted an e.e.a. the sweeping reform that i'm making to the plan is from our community advocates on all sides actually ranging from our advocates like todco, and as much as yimby, which is that we need to build as much housing as possible in the central soma plan. one of the amendments that was suggested to our service in the last month to increase available housing is to rezone m.u.o. to m.u.r., mixed use

residential north of harrison and to rezone sally south of harrison to m.u.g. this would allow all of these parcels -- well, this would permit housing and not commercial in these smaller parcels. we are accepting key sites from this amendment, understanding that really, the key sites have really been working with the planning department for years on their projects, and this is really kind of the heart of the central soma plan, is really increasing the footprint of commercial activity in the central soma plan, but with the smaller parcels, by rezoning them into housing, that we would be able to build moraffordable housing. my -- more affordable housing. it is my understanding that one company is asking us to reconsider their site. i am making the amendment as is today, but we will be happy to discuss that specific project after today's land use committee. and so we did get the letters from both local 2 and the project sponsor, and so we will

be having a discussion with that project sponsor. >> supervisor safai: great. thank you. >> okay. great. thank you. so with that, public comment was opened and closed, and supervisor kim enumerated a number of amendments that she was going to make, so do we have a motion on that? >> supervisor safai: motion to accept. >> supervisor ronen: okay. and we'll do that without objections. and supervisor kim, on the underlying motions as amended. >> supervisor kim: so i'd like to make a motion to continue items 7 through 11 to the next land use committee meeting which i believe is on july 23. >> so we'll do that without objection. >> one last piece during public comment. i did take notes during public comment. i did hear on the comment about the youth and family s.u.d., and that's not a discussion

that i've had actually prior with the community or the planning department, so we'll certainly look at the overlap of the youth and family s.u.d. i completely understand the concerns there. with the parcel that includes fifth and howard, i actually spoke with don falk about his project. i don't want his project to get caught up with a lot of the work that we need to do with the central soma project, so we will reach out because we know 100% affordable housing is an important project. so we will certainly follow up on that, as well. so thank you very much, committee members and thank you so much to all of the community members that came to speak today. so with that, madam clerk, are there any further matters before us today? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> all right. we are adjourned. women's netw

sustainable future . >> san francisco streets and puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more than all the parks combined they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants by ininexpensive changing did new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of having this space for a purpose it is demands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative effort with the department we the public works and the municipal transportation agency pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is

the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way meaning streets that can have areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet and part of pavement to parks program basically an expense of the walk in a public realm for people to hang anti nor a urban acceptable space for people to use. >> parklets sponsors have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know saying we want to do this and create a new space on our street it is a community driven program. >> the program goes beyond just parklets vacant lots and other spaces are converted we're here

at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to do and plenty of space to play so we came up with that idea to revitalizations this underutilized yard by going to the community and what they said want to see here we saw that everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone. >> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden it start with a lot of jacuzzi hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees and flowers we have basketball courts there is so much to do

here. >> there's a very full program that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends and about be about the lighter side of city people are more engaged not just the customers. >> with the help of community pavement to parks is reimagining the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the pavement to parks or contact pavement to parks at sfgovtv.org >> this job, it's really not an i job. i wouldn't be able to do this

job without other people. i make sure that all the regulatory and nonregulatory samples get to access in a timely manner. we have groundwater samples, you name it, we have to sample it every day. i have ten technicians, very good team. we work together to attain this sampling. >> a sample is only as good as when you collect properly. if sample is not collect properly according to not the proper protocol, the sample could be biased, could be false positive or could be false negative. so all this to have good so you can manage the sample collectors, as well as the schedule, and she is pretty good, and she is very thorough. and so far, i think that she is performing a very good job.

>> this job is really not an i job. i wouldn't be able to do this job without my team. you can assign them any job, they can handle it, and again, without them, i wouldn't be here. i take pride, you know, for what i do. we are providing a very good water department. my name is roselle, and i have been working with the water department