things that i don't think we talk about nearly enough is the fees. you know, we often say, and we believe it, housing in and of itself is a community benefit, and it is, but what are the other benefits that come along with a project like this? about $276 million in fees for the community. that's $70 million for public infrastructure improvements, $20 million for park infrastructure, $40 million for maintenance of parks, $6 million for child care and public education. these are key benefits that help everyone in san francisco truly like when we're seeing housing built, new developments being created, new neighborhoods, like, we often need to think about what are the other things that come along with that housing. you know, the other things that i personally really think are kind of amazing, the india basin neighborhood association,

the build's plan that s.l.m. is also a part of, it came out of the india basin neighborhood community plan. current zoning allows for an additional 500,000 square feet of development, right? because of the -- because of the india basin neighborhood association's plan, they're moving back, they're pulling back development from the waterfront, right? so there's a lot of the -- the community has a lot of input into this plan. and so -- and then, the last thing -- i'm sorry, the ability to actually get a supermarket into the neighborhood. there's space for one here. any way, thanks. bye. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i have a letter to submit officially, if i can just provide that. >> clerk: just leave it right

there. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is tom fisher. i'm here to represent myself and my partner, chad white. we're residents of bayview-hunters point, and i want to applaud build for thinking about their innovative way of looking at the space 700 innes. i think it's a really great design overall. we're for development. we're not nimbys. i used to run sustainability operations at salesforce for five years, so i'm quite aware of all the inconsistencies within, you know, low-income communities when it looks like economic development. the -- the thing that we're here to basically speak about, though, is to object to quite a few of the things that we're seeing within the plan for 700 innes. i think you're hearing a lot of those things that are coming out of the -- the other people

that are speaking out here, and i'll try to summarize what i -- my thoughts are, you know, and you have a letter, which you can read, as well. but at the high level, i think what the thing is that's bothering us the most, when you look at the site, and you see the proposed development, there really isn't any justification for the need for such a high-rise amount of buildings to be built on that site. i mean, they are at a lower size right now, it provides a good amount of opportunity for any developer to take that on. however, what i'm not seeing is any justification except for the over density that's going to happen in that space, which i think is going to bring on a number of problems. i know there's been a set aside are 25% for b.m.r., but you also have a lot of public housing around there that is not going to have a good connection to the community.

and we are wanting to see more connection and more effort by build to see how that is going to play between those -- those communities. we also have seen here today that there's been a failure by -- by build to win the consent of the neighbors. the shipyard residents who spoke earlier i think was a good indicator of that and a notification of that. and although there has been a large number of meetings that have been held, it has been really kind of difficult for us to find out the next information we need to be able to make a decision and come here collectively and present what the real -- what the needs are of the community and those that are actually live there and own within the neighborhood. overall, we feel that it's an overdense development. the building heights are incompatible with the rest of the neighborhoods. there's two inappropriately tall towers that will be developed on the space, and it's an every denseification

and transportation is not going to be supported by what's currently on offer. >> clerk: thank you sir, your time is up. >> thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. it was actual not originally going to speak here today, and i rarely kind of get emotional of these projects. i do so many of them that at a certain point, you become a little bit detached to it, but then, i heard a lot of people prioritize views over homes for people. based on this unit dex, we're talking about 3500 people. that's how many people are going to get to call this place home. 25% of this unit is going to be subsidized housing, permanently. that's 875 people who will have housing security in our city if

we build this. one of the things president cohen pointed out earlier is that 40% of those homes are going to be available to neighborhood residents. that's 350 people. there will be 350 people that are currently living in the neighborhood, low and middle-income folks that are presently housing insecure, that like me, are feeling the pressure of all of this, and people don't like it because of their view? i frankly think it's an embarrassment, and if we really are going to prioritize that, prioritize what people can see over the basic human right of shelter, then i think we just have a fundamental difference in world view. please approve this project. melg me >> vice president melg thank you. next speaker, please. >> james bryant.

i'm the western region director of the a. philip randolph institute. good evening, everyone. today, i'm not going to take a position on whether it was to be or not to be. i just want to bring you all to one important attention. this community is torn apart over this housing. this community should not be in this position. you know, one of the things that i do is i mediate construction workers, construction projects, called construction partering. you -- partnering. you all ever heard of that? it needs to start here. there needs to be some mediation where the folks who need housing, the folks that need opportunity for jobs, the folks that need opportunities for land all can have a conversation, and we can reach

a reasonable conclusion to this problem. our community should not be torn apart by these kinds of activities that are put forth, whether they're opportunities for housing, whether it's opportunities for jobs, because the reality is this community has been offered a lot of the same stuff over and over again, ladies and gentlemen, and obviously, this community has not been serviced with those opportunities. so i would really hope that today, you all take a -- maybe a step back and really think about how important it is to come in with a total concluesive opportunity of the meeting of the minds because that's what we need here. we need a meeting of the minds,

we need the community to feel as though they're going to have an opportunity to have this thing work. now, i've been out in that community -- a lot of people was telling you about how long they've been out there. but i've been literally on those shores where the old power plant pg&e used to stand for 12 years. and most of these folks, i haven't seen. but i will say, my brothers and sisters from the carpenters have been there, laborers have been there, operators have been there. so as you all know, i'm a union guy. but i want to stress, the importance today is for you all to take a leadership, lead this community and say to everybody, class, we're going to sit down, and we're going to work this problem out. thank you very much. have a great day. >> vice president melgar: thank you. you, too. next speaker, please. >> hi.

laura clark, yimby action. i'm going to second a lot of what cory was saying. i get a little dead inside too, and it takes hearings to really remind you why you got so mad in the first place and why i've been out here fighting for housing for what feels like way too long. you heard a lot of community members talk about their personal needs for housing, you've heard about people that are excited to build the housing, you've heard about the amazing community benefits that the project is going to have. i think you get it. i think you all have seen the level of crisis that people have. so i'm going to speak to people that are here fore the banya. i hope that you all have also learned something from this hearing. i hope that you have heard and listened to the people that are out here asking for those 1,574 units of housing.

i hope that you have listened to yourselves talk about views. so -- and i'm saying of this from a place of views. sonia trura got married on the roof of the banya. it's a beautiful place that feels like it's surrounded by nothing. there could be so many more people near you coming to the banya. they will be your new neighbors, and they deserve the opportunity to be near you and engulf you because they are human beings. they deserve housing. and i understand we had someone say, i'm not a nimby, but i want this to be less dense, and i want less people to live near me. i want you to listen to yourself. i want to hear yourself when you talk about views here because people talk about views here all the time, and i am so

sick of hearing about your views. it is not okay anymore. we are past that point. we are way past the point where we are okay with hearing about your views. i am done listening to it. it is not okay anymore. the people who are here because they are worried about contamination, they are completely valid in their fears about when trust has been lost, it is completely understandable. and i want everyone to know i am not lumping those people who are worried about the future of their community with the view conversation. the view conversation needs to end. san francisco doesn't have time for it anymore. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. are there anymore public speakers on this item? yes, please. anyone else who wants to speak

on this item, standup, and you can stand to my left, thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i'd like you all to close your eyes for a minute and i'm sure you know the property that i'm talking about. can you imagine if it's a public park, can you imagine how the whole community as a whole would benefit from it? do you think that mclaren didn't have a vision? it could be high-rises, it could be all condominiums. the bay in this environmental impact report has not been mentioned once. the birds, the animals that are there since the shipyard has closed is immense. when you build a walkway on a low layering area and do not take into consideration the

shadow that will remove the these animals, we're not thinking of the bay. to me, san francisco bay is the essence. it should be enjoyed by everybody. we -- if this -- if we had somebody like the haas family that preserved the marina green and bought the property and donated it to the city, those houses that the projects, everything there above, would be able to enjoy it. you're talking about if you put a world-class park there on that whole parcel, it would enhance the development of the hunters point shipyard once it's cleaned up. the city should have cleaned it up completely before they took certain parcels, but that's a different subject. but i want you to just know, when you're thinking about planning, and you want to go down in history, think about what a world class park on that whole parcel. you can probably change my name to eminent domain, and mr. mr.

vasquez and his company are excellent people. they could be compensated for their investment in this property and make this a world class park. then everybody in the city of san francisco, in california, in the country, in the world could enjoy it. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. any additional speakers on this item? okay. with that -- oh . >> good afternoon. thanks for hearing me speak. i'm thomas fowler. i go to the banya, and i'm not here for the view, but when you see this space, it's very clear that it was a landfill, and with waters rising over the next 80 years, hard to believe that it's not going to rise to some of those levels.

and there is a -- very little i have -- i'm hearing about the environmental impact of all of this, and i don't know how they're planning on cleaning up, you know, the toxins of the past, but i want housing for people, and 25% of low-income sounds great. you know, it would be ideally 100% affordable housing for the people of san francisco, but, you know, i see people rolling their eyes, so -- you know, i do believe that the cityscape would change and -- if it's towering over the hunters point. they have these 160-foot towers put up and everything gets approved today or whenever,

then, a lot of -- a lock of fo foresight in the environmental impact would be devastating to the hunters point community. because like other members had said, there's current issues going on with the safety of the people that live there, and there does need to be growth there. there will be growth, but there's no rush to the decision on this project, so i believe, and i urge you to look a little bit further into a better plan and a better project for the future and not this proposed one currently. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. any additional public speakers on this item? okay. with that, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: so first, i want to thank president cohen, and i want to thank all of you for taking

your time to come out and share your perspective. a j the word jewel has been used to describe this community, and it is a beautiful jewel, a place to call home, but it's great that you're engaged in the shaping of this area in a way that will both benefit and meet your needs. and also, i think an exciting development for the rest of the city. i had the pleasure of walking this project twice this week -- just this week in in fact. one time with community members, and i thank those community members for inviting me in and this is also with project sponsors. i want to honeor the folks tha have come out and make sure that we are addressing some of

the core concerns that have been brought out, and i'd love for a combination of city staff and the project sponsor to answer some of the following issues. the first one is the concern around landfill on this land and the issue of potentially if there is a higher building height on this property, whether or not it will be safe for future -- for -- structurally safe. the second is concerns about the precedent that the s.u.d. would set, and just, you know, maybe there's -- from the -- from the planning department, just explanation about s.u.d.s and how they work just so people can understand that. and third, from the project sponsor, i've heard a lot about banya. i'd love for you to talk a little bit about how you've tried to engage banya, and just answer those concerns, as well.

thanks. >> vice president melgar: will the project sponsor come up and -- thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm courtney pasch, the senior project manager with build. so i'll address, i think, your last question first about the interactions with the banya spa, ownership, and managers. so before i started on this project back in 2014, the project staff from build met from the banya to try to understand, to try to work together to understand what their primary concerns were about future development at the site. we heard from them that they were primarily concerned about their views from the upper deck and privacy. in march of 2015, after i came on board, myself and the s.o.m. staff went out to the banya to take some photographs from their decks so we could do some

photo simulations to see what the buildings would look like from their decks. over the next few months, we evaluated several options internally to present to the banya. these options included moving around our buildings in front of them to ensure that they would have a view corridor to the water from their upper deck, relocate the banya spa to a different location within our site, build a roof deck on top of their existing roof deck so that they would be above the -- higher than the buildings kind of directly between them and the bay. we offered, you know, we had a dialogue about those. the owner didn't really seem interested in any of them at that time, but we continued to offer and talk about them and try to understand what they

wanted. we also offered in an e-mail to include them in our rezoning effort to increase the height of their building, allow for a commercial kitchen that i believe they had already had in there. they declined that offer. in september of 2015, we met again with mikel, the owner, to show them our revised plans, and we reoriented, without -- without his, you know, direct input, we reoriented the buildings in front of his buildings to ensure that there was direct view corridor to the bay. we also moved some of our buildings around so there's now a 55 foot parcel break that we're calling it directly adjacent to his building on the north side; which is, you know,

about as wide as it is tall. and after the last meeting, we met with mikel at s.o.m. to talk about the revised plans because it appeared that he was looking at a previous version of our plan. we continued to work with him and we want to continue to work with him. we just need to -- to understand what it is that -- that he's asking for. >> vice president melgar: okay. great. >> commissioner johnson: so the next question was around the thinking of the density of the 14 stories in question. can you talk a little bit about that? >> sure. first, i'd like to talk about the fill. because in 1956, this site was open water. it was subsequently filled -- the site was owned by a grading contractor, and all of the -- we own a lot of water parcels as well as the current filled

land, which\ are very, very available because they're not worth much, if anybody wants them. in those days, you could take materials from a job site and dump them into the bay if you owned those parcels, and that is what happened in this point. when the cut through the landfill and the cut through daly city happened, it was brought and dumped to this site. so between 1949 and 1952 and when this site was filled. we have gone through complete e.i.r. now, wefr ae gone through -- we've gone through various tests on the site. various contaminants are at the site because they were there subsequent to the fill. it was used as an informal dumping dump for many years.

so you've got construction debris, you've got lead paint, you've got a variety of things. that being said, we are -- we have a program in place and are required by law to mitigate all of that toxic material so that there is no doubt that that has been done. the -- as to nuclear waste, we've looked very carefully -- believe me, we've looked very carefully at that. it concerns us, as well. there is no indication, once again, in thousands of pages of analysis and testing that nuclear waste or any materials having to do with the decontamination of ships on hunters point was brought here or dumped here. during the course of something, if we see something, we will stop, and we will figure out what's there, and we will mitigate it, without question. in terms of the density, you know, there were a couple of issues there. one is the tradeoff is obviously higher density means

more open space. that's quid pro quo. the amount of density that was available to us on the site, we actually didn't take advantage of all of it. we didn't take advantage of the 2 million feet. we got 1.5 million feet of square footage. we put that back towards innes. the tall buildings that are there now are -- will sit on bed rock, they will not sit on fill because we pulled back towards the original shoreline. that was deliberately done. these buildings, there's no issue of safety in these buildings. but the -- in order to provide a five-acre park and pay for it with this project, a totally public park, permanently public park, an enhanced shoreline, a connection to other parks in the area, working with r.p.d., we pushed the density on the proposed site, and that

included two 14-story buildings. those buildings, we don't believe are out of scale with the neighborhood. we're in san francisco. this is not the flat earth. there's a large cliff right behind innes, and the sites behind that go up rapidly to more than 200 feet. so we believe that there's context for tall buildings. we believe that it provides the ability to provide open space. which thi we think it's good planning. we think it's smart to form the project in this way, and, you know -- and it was four years of planning. none of this was out of the hot, and all of it involved the community. does that answer all your questions? all right. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. commission commissioner ko commissioner koppel? >> planning staff, i wanted to elaborate further on commissioner john's question on the landfill.

we did have a geology and soils section in the initial study. it it's attached to the draft e.i.r., and that was scoped out, meaning we found less than significant impact on geology and soils, because any project development that would be required to conform with the san francisco building code which ensures safety in all -- for all construction in the city. we have standards for their -- their -- they have to analyze and -- and -- and clear the geotechnical studies for each and every building. [please stand by]

>> i remember him documenting that the eastern side of the city will be completely transformed. i also toured the site earlier this week and a lot of thing became clear to me then that

weren't before. the fact is that just driving down the road to get to our meeting place, there was a culdesac road around it. it's setting the tone already for this had huge empty parcel that can completely be developed. i think bill has done all the right thing what they are given to pull back as much as they can with the density and leave as much open space as possible. there are hills and cliffs just behind the site which won't leave any ridiculously protruding towers as they are being referred to. the make up of what we're looking at is on par for what's best for the neighborhood. looking forward to hearing what other commissioners are saying. very confident that the e.i.r.

is adequate and looking forward to seeing this project more. >> commissioner moore: i i have followed this project for the entire time. i walked the site and spent time with the community to hear them. at that time it was like coming into a fishing village i thinking where am i. i was hard it find and two very unusual to get there and see a this was possible. now that all of the other projects are filling the southern border from planning this project is a natural and i think it's time to collect. i'm amazed about how it has been able to really connect 70 down to bayview and shipyard. i think it's in a complete response to the larger ideas of

developing the southern front. sitting on the city's northern water front. i see first ideas really dealing with developing san francisco as a waterfront city. i believe that the work is thorough. i believe the work is creative. i'm intrigued by the sizing of buildings. i'm very intrigued a the building height. it's not actually protruding above the cliffs beyond but it nestles in front of it. i think that's a positive sign.

i'm sensitive to the questions that community is asking. i appreciate commissioner johnson actually digging deeper and having experts talk to the particular aspects of it. we have actually supported development agreements and certainties that come with supporting them. many of the larger projects in the last eight or ten years are all based on that same model. i assume he will come up and speak to it. i'm very confident that the document that thorough planning effort are all spot on and i feel very comfortable of supporting them including the guidelines package.

at this moment, i'm in full support of all aspects of the project and i like to also say that i believe that they presented themselves as extremely responsible developer who has been open to questions and challenges. i think that it needs to be said. this is a project that has challenges and we need to be sure that what we are approving indeed has a very high likely build as we are approving it. >> thank you. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i have one question for ms. richardson. can you come up a second?

i was really trying to understand the history and what you were trying to say in the three minutes. can you expand on what you said. >> yes please. i appreciate your time. when the site -- when a.e.s. was going to build the power plant. we've been very prodevelopment. we went to port of san francisco to the planning commission. we ask them. this neighborhood is a mixed use. we welcome houses. we put together the bayview master plan which you have in your 100-year anniversary.

no neighborhood in san francisco. you have residents, youth, seniors and workers trying to create this vision. you have that plan. we created the india basin neighborhood plan. i wish everybody here can look at that. we have housing in there. we have all the mixed use element. that is not the case. >> commissioner richards: what's the difference between what was in front of us today? >> that zoning, we have shown -- [indiscernible] i wish you can go. how many the commissioners have chance to be there. you all need to go to india basin. we can create housing. we're already building house. we are creating the bulk. we are very pro-development.

you can create housing and i would like for you to see the plan that the community has put together. you will be impressed. >> when you say dangerous, do you mean physically dangerous or economically dangerous or social justice dangerous? >> let me qualify that. the ecosystem, we have identified places where you can build houses. we have done all that. it's in plan that we have given you. innes avenue is only two blocks long. all the developers that have come out there, they have the zoning that you have. you will be creating this blank wall. it is bad planning. i know the pressure on you to go ahead and do that.

it has opened up spaces of discussions where do we go from here. that place, innes place, it's not place you will be able to build that 16-stories. what is behind you today is to up the zoning of that area. dozen in the compatible. it is not good planning. the ecosystem that one of the people mentioned, it is a place that we want to create restaurants and everything that is in that plan. >> commissioner richards: are any developments in the southern waterfront -- if you looked a the planning and developments from mission bay all the way down. i'm not sure what area it covers. what actually looks like the plan calls for. what areas? >> i worked on mission bay pier

70 up to shipyard. all those areas. we have the master plan for that. i was here supporting pier 70. i was here supporting work space, everything. have you ever seen that plan? director has the plan. >> commissioner richards: if you move around and keep going south in candlestick point, 120 and 1 foot buildings buildings -- 14t building. >> if you look at the candlestick where the stadium used to be and you look at the area, they came out here. that is not the same place. it cannot introduce those kind of elements. not everywhere in san francisco is the same.

even though we cannot treat everywhere in san francisco is the same. you have the greatest opportunity you'll have on broadway. we have identified places. some of the people do not want homeless out there. we were here saying no, bring it. we cannot accommodate that? we are always pro-development and pro housing. people should not mischaracterize what we are talking about. i would have you go there to study bayview and look at the plan that we have. together it has a lot of housing more than anywhere in san francisco. richard >> commissioner richards: can you comment on this plan? >> i think the will be helpful to look at the plan for the shipyard in candlestick point.

there are buildings there similar to this project, there are low rise and high-rise buildings. the candlestick point has buildings over 30 stories. all these projects have had a combination of high-rise and low-rises and mid-rises. as it was said earlier, the high-rises do two things. they free up more land and they provide certain amount of density that help pay for the amenities. the combination of those two things, led us to believe that that combination works. it pays for the amenities and frees up land. all these projects are pulled well back from the edge of the water. that's why the high-rises make sense. >> commissioner richards: the

thing that startles me, all these other projects have been a love fest. here we have this one project in this one specific spot. i'm trying to understand what's the difference? can you comment on that? >> i really don't fully understand the difference. >> commissioner richards: the direct said, we have height in the southern waterfront up to 300 feet in candlestick point. i think one of the questions -- what's the difference between this project and the shipyard. there's no radioactivity on it. we heard mr. vasquez tell us that. i think one of the issues is, some of this trust around the contamination and people saying there's no dig sign next to where they live.

i think community kind of like wow, we just did this a few years ago. who knows what's going on here. mr. vasquez and his company so great. they are a local company. there maybe more falsified results. i think that's where we're getting the anxiety this. we're living through the social justice. i get what the community is saying. the question i have is, how do we prevent that from happening again what happened at the shipyard? is there an independent verifier that the test results go through that verifies mr. vasquez says there's no radioactivity. >> we didn't hire at th tetra tr one. for two, there is an independent body that verifies the materials that come off the site.

during grading, we done multiple borings on the site already. that's how we know what's there. the question now becomes during construction, how do we identify and mitigate it in we need to. we are beholden to the state of california in terms of testing and mitigation. >> we do have plenty of mitigation measures in this draft. aside from the cleanup that's happening on the rec park, we have measures for any construction during the construction and before obtaining a site permit for development activities involving subsurface disturbance. the project sponsors have to comply with the requirements of the department of public health, health code article 22a by

causing a qualified person to prepare and submit a site mitigation plan to d.p.h. for review and approval. we have menu of items, mitigation measure, mhv2a. we have put bullet point list of things that can go into that site mitigation plans. it includes on site experts doing testing while the soil is moving around. they have to test the soil before it goes off site to determine where the soil can go. if there are soil -- if there's something other than what they had found in the phase one and phase two site analysis, they would have to stop all work and figure out where that is happening. >> documents is available for

everybody in the public. it's on page 58. it's extensive. not just a one liner i want pages and -- i want -- it's pages and pages long. all care will be taken with any talks that equates to contaminates that may show up. thank you very much. i have couple more points. can you tell us about the sea level rise issue and how you might have covered this. just quick sea level rise issue and how we're going to try to mitigate that. >> sure, i can also s.o.m. can answer the question. what the site itself is doing to mitigate sea level rise. how the landscape will deputy overtime. in addition, you were asking me about is the community facility which will be on the site

itself. it net present value of $43 million. the city will be able to takeout years and put toward all my allegation an -- mitigation and surrounding areas. it will be applied to outside >> commissioner richards: thanks s.o.m., anything you want to comment on on the sea level rise? please. >> we do have a graphic in the presentation on the sea level riess. one of the things to start with, this ground, because it is landfill is different than others. the existing grade is approximately on average about 10 feet higher than existing high tide. by its nature it is already well above most areas which are going to be safe sea level rise.

if you can put the diagram up, what we've done -- we don't have an issue with any of the current sea level rise projections. what we have done is in order to help with the open space and the wetlands, is try to give create a series of wetlands so those wet land have a place to retreat and continue to thrive. so the landscape itself is resilient. >> commissioner richards: thank you very much. we have a large parcel of land just like driving down a street and have 100-foot parcel. this one is large. it's acres and acres big. somebody bought it. it's sitting there now contaminated. we have a definite housing

shortage. i will trade height and density for more open space. it's a win-win for the community and city and also for the residents there. i think the building has one of the highest levels of integrity of any developer that i know. i won't mention any other names. this is a heavy lift site. you got lot of issues going on. the height and tensity will pay for -- density will pay for the benefits. i like the project. one last question, gentleman can you come up. you had offers from the developer to mitigate the issues of the effected of the development on your business. >> i want to say, chemical testing was done in 1999. i spent lot of time on that.

before they came in the picture. i was accused of not -- this is what i don't like. i was incorporating this build from the beginning. they ignored us. they tried to present different projects which were blocking us. it's not about the view. it's about privacy. it's about noise and it's about parking. i was open to build off this building which is impossible by our own funds which we don't have. it's basically nonprofit business. people come there and they pay exactly the same. can you imagine that somebody

coming in and said, you signed to me the papers and i will get zoning for you to build up yourself. it's reasonable. he want me to move. he don't know anything about structure, nothing. it's a disaster. people are speaking hig hypocri. we have to be open eyes.

thank you. >> commissioner johnson, did you have any additional comment. >> commissioner johnson: yes. as i shared this community is a jewel for so many reasons. i i have to say that, i want to impart on the community that we hear your concerns. we understand them. we understand that this is complicated multilayered project. behalf of my colleagues we have taken our time to pour through each the things in front of us and really hold ourselves that we want to be able to walk by this property or be at the waterfront with you and enjoying and so proud this has happened in our community. i have to say that i also want to thank city staff and communities for working with the project sponsors. i know ' not talking about the

community agreement yet. i think it's headed in the right direction. the focus on workforce equity and inclusion, the affordable housing and low income housing this project incorporates child care and other benefits really are right size for this community. i'm excited about them. i also just think that this project is visionary and exciting for the city. with that, i also do want to say that i think that the trade-off of density for really opening up this waterfront and making it a place in which all san franciscans can enjoy is worth it. i would like to move to adopt ceqa and approve section e and f and adopt g.

>> second. >> i also very much support this project. we have couple weeks before the community benefit agreement comes back. i would really encourage the sponsor to work with our communities to see if we can get something that is a little more robust on the table to mitigate the impact on this local business. because i do think it adds a lot to the community. i think the project overall, i very much support the increase in density as a trade-off to have open space. i don't remember the last time we got this much in this high quality open space for the city. it's pretty ground-breaking. i'm really excited about that. i'm really excited about what it does for the rest of the neighborhood. it's right across the street

from the rad project in little bit south of public housing. i remember when the walker development was built years ago. there was nothing there. folks bought those v.m.r. communities and now we have community preference and it's a different world. i think this community that has been underserved and underinvested in is going to benefit greatly for having a thoughtful development that has walking paths and public space that's open for all. i'm excited about that and i'm ready to support this project. although i'm on the record that i'm very much encouraging the developer to go back and look at the community benefits agreement before it comes back to mitigate the impact on the existing business. thank you.

>> commissioners i would recommend that we take a matter of certification of the v.a.r. separately. the motion was for the project itself. >> did you want to clarify something in the motion? >> just to clarify that your actions would incorporate those changes that we move forward in the memo before you today. >> thanks. >> commissioners on the certification of the environmental impact report, commissioner fong. [roll call] motion passes unanimously 5-0. if the making of the motion the amendable to including what staff inserted in the record today. very good. second? thank you commissioners on that motion. to adopt ceqa findings and

findings and shadow findings approve general plan amendments and approve planning code and text amendments as well as adopt design standards and guidelines document amended by staff. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> with that, we're going to take a break. sorry about that for the folks who are staying for the rest of the agenda. we're down a couple people. we need to take some biological relief. >> clerk: good evening and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular meeting for thursday, july 26, 2018. i will remind members of the

public to please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. commissioners, we left off on item 16. [agenda item read] >> clerk: this is a conditional use authorization. please note, that on july 12, 2018, after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter to july 26, 2018 by a vote of 6-0. commissioner fong, you were absent, and so in order to participate, could you acknowledge that you've reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> yes. >> clerk: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners and staff. as jonas indicated, the commission heard this matter two weeks ago, and the commission continued this to allow more time for the sponsor to work with some neighborhoods. it is my understanding that an agreement has been reached and signed by both parties.

again we are here to just recommend approval of the project. i am available for any questions, and the sponsor and the neighborhood groups are here, as well. and just to add, in reviewing the terms of the agreement, there is one item that is related to the purview of the planning commission relating to hours of operation, a limit between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. to ensure the location is family friendly and appropriate fore t fore -- for the neighborhood. if the commission wishes, that can be adds -- added as a condition in the final motion. >> good evening, commissioners. peter papadopolous with commission economic agency. we just want to thank you for your patience in working

through this and encouraging the constructive out come. we think it's going to be a successful out come and hope it's going to be a successful business for the food and community. we also want to thank supervisor ronen's office and amy bynart. a and pata wanted to describe the out come for you. >> so i hope you remember me. first of all, like i said, i'm really new to this place, and thank you for sending amy to make me feel much more comfortable on this community discussion. so we had a few meetings tonight, and now i start to understand how community support and relation is really important. so when we had a talk a lit together is to support the mission communities where we have a lot of children, a lot of low-income communities. i understand san francisco have a lot of