i know everyone is so tired. i am jenny smith. i represent the construction employers comprised of 100 or so union building contractors in northern california. 25% of whom are san francisco based contractors. our members are the general contractors building the contracts enabled by the proposed central soma plan, multi family, affordable housing. among the members are the nippy brothers, clark construction. mccarthy, dome construction company, cahill contractors. planned construct company.

the list goes on. a sustained neighborhood by 2040. upholding the appeals in our view would jeopardize 8 million square feet of class a construction. 2 billion in you public benefits and hamper the production of affordable house upping units des -- housing units needed now in the future. many projects will create millions of work hours for union workers and local construction workers. these jobs will pay living wages and provide pension benefits and create numerous apprentice you opportunities and create you the housing. much needed space in the hub for

the growth in jobs that will be coming to the bay area. without it companies may expand outside of san francisco due to lack of availability space to accommodate their growth. >> i want to speak narrowly in opposition to the blue condo owners and jonathan berk's appeal. they have demonstrated the furthest extent in bad faith and abuse you have the process. they have demonstrated what they care about is maintaining views of the golden gate bridge.

he made it clear he works from home and didn't like daytime construction. we have seen a maximum amount of bad faith that condo owners concerned about view us and about what they might consider live ability can bring to a sequa process. i encourage you to reject all of their concerns. there have been valid concerns about displacement today. i really am worried. the blue condo owners intend to get whatever money and kickbacks they can to compensate for loss of use. i hope we also consider this process. >> next speaker. >> thank you. i am christy wong to support the plan and oppose the appeals. by accommodating the job and population growth we are

reducing our environmental impacts. greenhouse gas emissions and other impacts that would result should the jobs and housing units move to other parts of the region. this does appropriate place. i would echo the planning department perspective jobs and housing do not need to match up. there are places appropriate for much more housing. we urge you to not reduce height in the plan and not burden the plan with requirements. it has a vast pack age of community benefits. affordable housing, greening of the neighborhood, safer streets, cultural opportunities, you name it. it is not possible to implement the plan which ask a ris which .

they are you done a thorough job you have analyzing the impacts to move this forward so benefits can be enjoyed in san francisco sooner rather than later. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening, thank you for allowing me to speak to you tonight. i am here as carpenter to ask you t to deny the appeal and moe forward on the planning commission's and recommendations. this will allow a carpenter to continue to living in san francisco and continue my career moving towards retirementment and provide my family. i am in support of the plan and ask you to move forward within. >> next speaker, please. come on down, next speaker. >> good evening, members of the board. i am here to speak today.

i am jeff welch, a journey man pile driver from north beach. i urge you to deny the appeal of the plan and move forward with the recommendations. the plan, as you know, will help us to continue living and working in the city of san francisco. it will provide us with the necessary income and benefits to support our families. i am in complete support of this plan. i ask you and urge you to move forward with this plan today so that we can start building tomorrow. please deny the appeal. after all, san francisco is a progressive city, let's progress. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> good evening, i am timothy ripe. field representative for carpenters union. i represent 38,000 members throughout northern california, 1200 living in the city and county of san francisco. the opportunity to work on the project in the central soma plan. the carpenters units and members are here to express support for the plan and certification of the final e.i.r. this plan has been nine years in the making. staff developers and community groups invested an incredible amount of time for a well thought out plan to promote 8550 housing units 33% below market rates downtown to generate tax revenue and provide customers for allow businesses. these individuals could be

long-term from san francisco or newcomers. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. thank you for allowing me to speak. i am in opposition only to blue ncfn's appeal. we understand a few residents in the blue condo are concerned about unobstructed views too tall and too dense now have filed an appeal. we urge the board to not support the misguided appeal in interest of a select view. one development would transform with a mixed-use project 380 housing unit, 300 permanent

service jobs. it will provide immense public benefit improvements under the freeway child care center, 10% above and beyond the city wide requirements and 33,000 square feet of pdr space. this project was proposed seven years ago. one vassar is in a transit rich area two and-a-half blocks from the bays and two blocks east of the central corridor subway line. our future residents and workers will take advantage of the space facility when electrified caltrain arrives to improve did you environmental impacts. it will you abuse di reject -- e

appeal. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening. the san francisco housing action. misinformation is thrown around a lot in the hearings. there are concerns to address and talk about. i think it is slightly disingenuous for folks coming up here to talk about fears of cancer when planning explained ultimately unfounded when we look at the data and implementation of the plan. with that i encourage you to reject the appeal. bringing it back out i agree with supervisor kim. we look at jobs and housing at the regional and city level and have a conversation about it on the neighborhood level.

we know cars are the number one polluter in the state of california with the co2 emissions. we want to do what we can to insenty vice people to get jobs in housing and mass transit. it is talked about that 75% of the city is for single family homes. it is illegal to build affordable house you go in 75% of san francisco. that is bull. that happens in supervisor kim's district and supervisor rownen's district. i encourage the conversation we were in support of bill 27 to legalize apartments city wide. the reaction and the resolution saying we don't want the state to tell us what to do, do it on

our own. let's do it. we will buy on the -- be on the front line to explain how this can be good for san francisco. i urge you to deny thal peel. thank you. >> any other members to speak to oppose the appeal. seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to thank everyone four comments. any meshes who would like to -- any members to speak in support of the project? rebuttals now? in favor of the project? seeing none. this is for rebuttal. public comment is closed. >> i think there are two. >> i didn't see them. we will make a motion to open public comment. supervisor peskin. >> this is rebuttal to the

project sponsour. >> i need a motion to open up public comment. >> it is not public comment. >> i need a motion to open up rebuttal. thank you. angelica, two minutes. >> good evening. the central soma plan incorporates areas under the special use district and e.i.r. and planning staff points only a portion over the central soma. planning needs to revise and strengthen the controls. they should be incorporated through the whole plan not just boundaries of the overlap of the plan. with that following controls are what should be included incorporating four bedroom units

and sros. e.i.r. against the healthy development measure tool. the buildings can be converted to tech co-ops. a strong community opportunity to you purchase and aggressively south sides for further new 100% affordable housing such as caltrain rail yard. new study on the housing linkage fee, new study on the shadows and including new site us like ththe victoria park in did you living walls in all new developments regardless of use type. study the ride-sharing services like uber and lyft as well as

restrict scooters in the area because there is a lot of seniors there. we already heard there was a fatality or pedestrian you collision due to that. we need to make sure red zones are four transit only to ensure this plan is supporting transit. thank you. >> i want to make sure you understand this is your opportunity to rebut. i want you to make sure you are not coming up to. this is only open for the appellants, not for meshe mesh s of the public. >> we are not calling public comment. >> we closed public comment. this is rebuttal period for the

appellants. i don't believe you are a appellant. >> i am for a appeal. >> you would be giving public testimony. we are not taking public testimony. >> i am confused. i will owe up to your experience. >> for the record mr. gill berty did make public comment during the appropriate period. >> i thought we were opening up public comment for rebuttal from the appeal side. i apologize. >> this is just the appellants have an opportunity to rebut what they somewhere heard in the presentation. it looks like there are no other appellants to offer rebuttal. >> i want to clarify. i only see one remaining. this is your opportunity to rebut. if you would like to do that,

this is your opportunity otherwise we will close this period. >> we have no further comments. thank you. >> i don't have any further comments either. thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you. all right. thank you everyone. public hearing has been held and is now closed. supervisor kim, i want to give you an opportunity to guide the conversation a little bit further. >> thank you. i want to thank my colleagues. we haven't had one of these longer board meetings in quite awhile. it is good to appreciate your time in hearing all of our appellants today on the e.i.r. based on what i have heard. iowa to emphasize i listen to members of the public. i found the testimony

compelling. after listening, i do believe a lot of the compelling testimony is in regards to the plank itself which is coming before the board in the next four months. based on the presentation and the e.i.r. that my motion would be to move forward. moving forward with approving item 40 and tabling 41 and 42. before we take a vote on that motion, i will ask my colleague to make comment as well. i know these hearings are very tough because we often in every appeal walk the tightrope between discussing the plan or the project and environmental impact report. often the testimony we hear is concern abou about the project

itself. the way it is structured the members of the public can only comment on appeal of e.i.r. that makes it tough to speak about the project in and of itself. moving forward in the next couple weeks, this is just as notification to the planning department, project sponsor and members of the public there are a number of things i will look at before we commit to approving the plan. one is the valid comment how outdated the job you study was. it was 1997. we really need to relook at the jobs housing linkage fee. office looks different than it did 10, 20 years ago. workers take up much more square footage. the area of the large spacious office for worker has gone away. there is a different workspace

model where people share des de. we have more workers than 1997. as we move forward i want to reopen that nexus study and ensure that we are appropriating the appropriate fee for jobs housing linkage which really is for all of the office and jobs you build you were paying for affordable housing to ensure those workers have a place to live. i don't believe i am the only colleague looking for that. we have to update those fees so the offices we are building absolutely mitigates for the additional workers that we are bringing to the city. second, members of the community brought up the ad was city of

schools, child care facilities and rec centers with the increasing growth of workers and residents. we have to ensure was we grow we are providing the appropriate facilities for families to stay here. i hope during the worse of the next cup well weeks we can look at that including examining requiring child care facilities on the large key sites where we bring and attracts a lot of workers to the area. third the seismic area is worth a conversation to ensure as we build more and build heavily in this part of the district we make sure we are building safely. as climb at change you -- as the issue of climate change accelerates throughout the world through tsunamis and flooding and earthquakes we have to make sure we bring in residents and

workers to the neighborhood safely. i would like to further examine the issue. i know supervisor peskin is interested. i would like to hear more. fourth, i want to examine a supplemental e.i.r. i would like to approving this current e.i.r. as is and build significantly more housing with the individual projects before the board for approval. it won't be just myself. almost every single colleague have come up to me personally to express concerns about the jobs housing balance in this plan. while i think it is unfair for this plan to address the jobs housing for the entire city, i do think we can build more housing. i do agree with members of the public housing needs to be built in other parts of the city. this is the one area of san

francisco that can build for more jobs. think in avenges anticipation of more housing than what was studied under this e.i.r. as they come for approval we should begin and initiate the supplemental e.i.r. as they come before the planning commission we study the additional housing in the district. next, i think ensure a strong citizens advisory committee. we have a lot of community facilities funds to be generated. i think the concerns that i heard they want to know how this new revenue and benefit will be sent down and invested. what type of affordable housing and parks and pedestrian safety and bike lanes will be institute. what types of air quality around the freeway and residents to

fund through the plan. to earn sure a level of confidence from the community the funds will be spent to benefit the neighborhood. we need a strong citizens advisory committee to recommend and advice to the commission on how to spend down the impact fees. i think the soma fund is a model of ensuring the fees are spent in a way to try to impact the mitigation of the development in the neighborhood and the office will work with the planning department and city attorney's office to draft that process. finally, by the way there are so many more issues. i know supervisor peskin has introduced an ordinance around the allegations if it is true we need to pace the development to ensure we aren't increasing air

quality rick u ris you cans -- risks in the neighborhood we need to reexamine did you strategy to accelerate the development of office in the neighborhood. i will say this and i haven't said this before, i will expect all of the key sites to contribute to building housing. wheel they have a housing component not all of the key sites do. if you are listens or building 100% office i don't think this board will look kindly upon that project. i ask they re-examine how much office to include more affordable housing. i will consider family and child care facility on the plans as well. colleagues, i ask for your support on the motions as i articulated. i want to give my colleagues an opportunity to comment. is this is appropriate time to

provide comment? it will come before the board in a month. i want to make sure your feedback and comments will be addressed before it comes back. >> super vic supervisor fewer. >> before i started tonight my biggest concern about the plan it did not include a public school. this area is lacking with adequate public education facilities to serve the current population let alone the families that will move this. i firmly believe we are not only building housing, we are building communities and public schools. 100 -- 15000 new missions -- 1500 new units, 2700bmrs. these are units affordable. they will need a public school to attend.

not just e elementary but middle and high school. we have two new schools planned neither of which is part of the central soma plan. some of the other issues that are part of the plan and not part of this e.i.r. thank you to planning for being patient with my questions. i am concerned whether or not we have adequate staffing for short term rentals. are the public private spaces fully accessible to families there? i would like to see a community right to purchase for the nonprofits there, to land banks to stave off gentrification. these are economic impacts. as supervisor kim mentioned this vote will come before did entire plan. i thought i would voice it now. the idea of greens is excellent walls and roofs.

singapore you ca you can see wha great job. i am in favor of the up supplemental e.i.r. and the benefits to other neighborhoods to mitigate. we have to absorb some of the housing this plan will not actually adequately address. i will say that i feel strongly about having child care early education sites and schools. it wouldly hard for me -- it will be hard for me to approve this without sites for this purpose. quite frankly, when you build a new community as we are and we did in mission bay and we didn't build a school there yet and in central soma. when we are building a new community, then we have to build the infrastructure to make sure that families can stay and live

here. when we have the lowest population of families in any urban city in the united states i think we are missing the boat and not welcoming to families. they need a place to educate their children. thank you for explaining this to me. i was confused. what has come before us before is not a plan, it is a project which is easier to understand. now that i know that we are vote on the plan i want to say these things i would look for when i do vote in the plan. thank you very much. >> thank you. supervisor ronen. >> i will support supervisor kim's motion. i was moved by the public testimony, particularly i felt sympathetic to the community voices who are raising a red

flag about the impact on existing communities and in particular the low income immigrant community that called soma their home. i also have concern about, of course, how the addition of so many jobs and central soma ask going to impact the housing pressures in district nine? in the mission i very much am looking forward to seeing those plans for additional housing that supervisor kim would like to see in the plan itself and if an additional supplemental e.i.r. is necessary, then i am all four that. the other thing about this

e.i.r. and this is some feedback in general from the planning department. i am still not satisfied on the response around the impact of tncs on any of the decisions that come before us. i don't think that we have sufficient data and we can't discuss this issue, it is sufficient for me. it doesn't cut it. if we are looking for substantial evidence of impact on air quality, then probably a per population measure is not right to do that. clearly more people are going to result in more vehicle miles traveled. if that is the ratio that we are constantly looking at, there would never be a significant impact on air quality. that is not the case that is not what is happening in san

francisco. i serve on the air quality management district, and thi ths an area of concern for the district because of the air pollution in the neighborhood. you i think there is data out there. i think we can't hide behind should method that we used in the path to determine impact on air quality we need new methods that show what the impact on the air quality is. i am going to be pushing for that more in the future. i would like to see a different analysis out you have the planning department. having said that, i am okay and prepared to follow the lead of supervisor kim today and am looking forward to the work we

are going to do as a board in the future on the other issues we discussed. >> supervise our mandelman. >> like my colleagues i was moved by the testimony we heard this afternoon and evening, but looking at this e.i.r., i don't believe i it is inadequate, that it fails to identify significant environmental impact. eight afwas -- when i look at the plan plan it will increase n transit demand not accommodated by the taxes it is capacity and cause increase in delays resulting in adverse impacts on transit routes. that ask a concern. i think about the development in the city over the last 10 to 15 years.

we have grown a lot. i hear how they file quality in the city is getting worse. i see the work done to find additional funding for transit. i don't quite know from the public benefits in the transit section that transit in the area is going to be great and people getting around are going to feel like things are better. as i think about the plan and what we are doing to ourselves in the next 20 to 30 years, i will want to think about transit, schools, infrastructure to support development. without that life get gets worse. i want to thank our staff for the fine work. this is a good document and i am continuing to be impressed by the high-quality of our san francisco public employees.

thank you. you supervisor kim made a motion to approve item 40 and table 41 and 42. is there a second? second by supervisor fewer. it will take six vote to affirm. could we have a roll call vote please. (roll call). there are 10ayes. >> item 40 approves.

41 and 42 tabled. madam clerk. moving on. could we go to committee reports.

-- he was able to save five lives by donating his kidney and liver and heart, and his kidneys were successfully transplanted. one of the recipients is a 44-year-old woman from california and another is a 50-year-old man from alabama. and someone -- a woman from southern california was able to benefit from edward's pancreas and all of these recipients are looking forward to healthier and more active lives free of dialysis. and also the recipient of this look forward to the diminished effects of diabetes. the recipient of edward's liver is a 32-year-old female from southern california and his heart to a 70-year-old father from the bay area. and he impacted the lives of many through tissue donation. i would like to acknowledge as well jacob hergren, a

28-year-old male, who was able to save three lives by donating his kidney and liver and heart. kidneys successfully transplanted. and the recipient of his heart is a 66-year-old man from southern california. his lungs were also recovered for research and there are multiple studies underway in the bay area which jacob will impact. and he was also a tissue donor as well. and last we would like to acknowledge swan allen, a 65-year-old man who was able to donate skin and bones through tissue donation. so, again, we want to send our condolences to all of the families but thank them as well for their loved ones, for being able to help sustain the lives of many others through their donations. with that i submit. >> thank you, supervisor chang. supervisor brown. >> yes, thank you. i'll be introducing two items today or tonight. thank you, colleagues, together with the mayor and i'm introducing this straightforward resolution to renew our city's

ability to apply for and to administer cycle grants through the san francisco department of the environment. this resolution is not a new concept. the board of supervisors has passed many similar resolutions in the past. designating the department of the environment as applicable agency for a cycle grant. they've told the department that they need an updatdated resolutn which is why i'm bringing this before you today. additionally the department of environment is working with them on implementing new recycling initiatives, senator scott wiener's s.b.458 bill, which authorizes jurisdictions like san francisco to set up mobile pilot recycling centers. once we have this resolution approved by the board and signed by the mayor, the department will be able to apply for grant funding for a mobile recycling pilot. that will certainly be good news in san francisco.

we've seen -- we have seen and gone from 35 recycling centers in 1990 to about seven today. clearly this is an issue that affects the entire city. for district 5, i have one recycling center that has closed in my district and one nearby. and i really want to make it easy for constituents in the city to be able to recycle, so this resolution will help the city to begin to address some of these issues by working with cal recycle. and the second that i'm introducing is an ordinance to accept and expend $415,597 from the laura and john arnold foundation. it's to support the justice project as they develop a model of the local government-driven fines and fees reform. fines and fees are a fundment part of government, and it's a consequence for breaking rules and the fees help the government

to underwrite their own costs but for low-income people and particularly people of color, fines and fees can become predatory. they can push people into a financial hole they cannot climb out of. just this year san francisco became the first to limit all -- to eliminate all local criminal justice administrative fees. like a $50 monthly probation fee or the $35 a day ankle monitoring fees. fees that are high pain for people but low gain for government. the collection rate on these largest feeses ar fees are just. the mayor announced that we wrote off $32 million in debt for 31,000 people. the financial justice project is a finalist for the harvard innovation in government award and the cities and counties around the country are clamoring to learn from our experience. the government should be an equalizer of opportunity and not another driver of inequality. i look forward to continue the support in this effort here in

san francisco and as it spreads nationally. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor brown. and we'll move to supe supervisr fewer. >> thank you very much. today supervisor ronan and supervisor kim and i are introducing a $13 million supplemental appropriations to support a $1.25 hour increase over minimum wage for home health care and non-profit workers for fiscal year 2018-2019. this wage increase will affect over 22,000 workers. at $16.25 an hour, workers will only be making $33,800 a year, hardly a living wage in san francisco. with the current median rent for studio at $2,500 a month or $30,000 a year. they themselves are one step away from homelessness. who are these workers? they care for our grandmothers and our grandfathers, bathing, feeding and clothing them. they are janitorial staff at

supportive housing and non-profit organizations that ensure a clean and a livable building for residents. they are staff at our private homeless shelters and they are elderly and our seniors and disabled. the 20,000 -- no, i'm sorry -- they care for our seniors and our disabled. the 20,000 plus workers are 88% women and 77% people of color with an average age of 58 years old. so what is the plan? like the m.c.o. for the airport workers and employees and for-profit contractors for the city we want to raise the minimum compensation to $17 an hour. to do this we are proposing it to phased in beginning december 1, 2018, with a .75-cent raise. and in april 2019, with a .50-cent raise. and, finally in october 2019, with a .75-cent raise. the cost for fiscal year 2018-2019 is $13 million and for

fiscal year 2019 and 2020 we expect the costs to be included in the city budget process. currently we have the largest general fund reserve that we've had, $127 million. surely as a city that prides trs on inclusiveness we can use a small part of this to support those workers who care for our most vulnerable. in introducing this supplemental and, therefore, reviving the compensation ordinance for non-profit workers we are planning for the future, something that this city often doesn't do well. our shelter beds are occupied by a large number of seniors. 50% in shelters are over 50 years old and 20% over 60. and an increasing population that is expected to grow 69% between 2010 and 2030, coupled with the 20% decrease in residential care facilities for seniors and people with

disabilities makes in-home supportive care essential if we are to prevent a growing homeless population. not only is it the most humane and economical path to care for our elderly, but we presently only have 29 residential care beds for every one thousand seniors that mean we have to support elders staying in their homes. we have no other way to protect low-income elderly people from becoming homeless. we near a crisis situation. we cannot afford to lose these workers who provide critical services for our city. they are struggling to make ends meet and, truthfully, these are positions that we increasingly are not able to recruit or retain for the high cost of living in san francisco. i know that some is going to say it's not responsible to use money from our general fund reserves and i say that it's irresponsible to ignore the inequitable wages of our workers and not to proactively plan for our aging population. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor fewer.

supervisor kim. submit. thank you. supervisor mandelman. thank you. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam clerk. i would -- i will submit my legislation but i wanted to adjourn today's meeting in the memory of veronica sanchez who passed away all too soon last week. there's a lot that i could say about veronica. she was -- she worked at the port for many years. she was a friend. she was an incredible person. her loss is tragic. that's all i'll say. i'm sorry to her family. and then i'd like to also adjourn the board meeting in the memory of sydney goldstein, the founder of city arts and lectures who also died on tuesday.

and judge bri arear, our condols and the rest i submit. >> supervisor ronen. >> i have two resolutions that i'll speak about super briefly. in line with our very rocky transit week this week i'm introducing a resolution asking bart when they cut their hours back from 4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., in order to do seismic work on the tunnel, that they create a bus line which they're calling "bus nodes." not just to the transbay terminal but that they extend the shuttle to 24 park street station. there are many low-wage workers that depend on bart and they can no longer afford to live in san francisco, live across the bay, and they have to be at work by 5:00 a.m.. these are usually workers of color and the lowest wage

workers, and bart's own statistics say so. and hopefully they will work with us to make that happen. this second resolution, i'm introducing it with supervisor mandelman, in our role in the bay area air quality management district. we are signing on hopefully to the pledge to become this by 2030. and today i'm asking that we close the board meeting in memory of marlene erin who was tragically struck and killed near her home last week. marlene was a long-time san franciscoian and a resident of the community and a valued member of the local and international art world. during the weeks and the days preceding her death marlene was preparing for the opening of her exhibit at reflections, just the long as an artist and poet and

teacher and activist. sorry. her art has been shown in museums and galleries across the u.s. and europe. she was a recognized expert on the life of vincent van gogh and lectured on the artists of the 1800s recently. i'm so sorry. our streets are too dangerous, that much is clear and i'm working with my colleagues and members of our communities and the city staff to push for improvements to get us to our goal of vision zero. rest in peace, marlene and the rest i submit. >> thank you. supervisor ronen and supervisor safai. >> i have two introductions today. and the first one is regarding the much talked about maligned and rolled out scooter process here in san francisco. i'm asking for a hearing, the sfmta's process to create the scooting permitting, how it was

done, we believe that it was done in isolation without public input. we'd like to investigate if it was ultimately fair and the best outcome for san francisco sis ad our network. we'd like that to help at the land-use and trpg transportation committee and to have input from all much the affected parties and the applicants and the sfmta and hopefully the commissioners can come and attest to that. secondly, something that supervisor -- excuse me -- president cohen and i worked on together but this is something that's been vexing the residents of district 11 for some time, we're putting forward legislation today for a special use district and district 11 as it relates to single family homes. we had an incident on 278 monticello and that home was turned into a 15 bedroom, 13 bath, home. it was designed -- literally.

i'm not making a joke. this is not my misspeaking, supervisor kim, i'm actually speaking the right numbers this time. and, yes, 15 bedrooms and 13 baths. neighbors attested to it. essentially parts of district 11 are book ended by the city college and so speculators and people are buying these properties up and going for over-the-counter permits and taking those permits and converting them into these large mini dormitories in many regards. it's not safe. it's taking advantage of the people that are there. it's tremendously impacting the quality of life in the neighborhood. so we are introducing legislation to control that today. and the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor safai. president cohen. >> thank you very much,

colleagues, i'm pleased to introduce a simple zoning change for 1450 evan site, for a property, a large property, 5.3-acres on the corner of third and evans right near the light rail station. 1550 is currently zoned as a p.d.r.2 and as i mentioned it's a 5.3-acre of land owned by the public utilities commission and it's identified as a site for the new southeast community facility. which is actually really exciting. this is a community facility that will be the legacy of past promises that have been made to the community. i'm grateful for the general manager, mr. kelly for his leadership and his team's leadership on helping to move this project forward. just as a reminder the p.u.c. will begin to build out their new and improved waste water treatment plant which would update the technology. currently we have 1950s style technology and as a result of

this technology, oftentimes in the bay you can smell methane or smell the methane gases and an unpleasant owner. we are rebuilding these facilities that we have been dealing with for decades and as a result of having this facility in our neighborhood we are going to be getting the new updated facility. known as the new southeast community facility. it will have over 41,000 square feet and i'm looking forward to this. and the second item that i'd like to present is i'd like to present in memoriam and to read a few words about a giant of a man who has recently transitioned on. his name was dr. price cobbs. i want to highlight a few of the contributions that dr. cobbs has made through his life, particularly with discussions about mental health and within

the african american community. and as he was an author, a co-author of a book called "black rage." it's a book that challenged the african american community to reflect and identify with psychological impacts of racism. "black rage" which is a staple in colleges and universities today throughout the country is just as relevant today as it was in the 1960s when it was written and published. dr. cobbs was a pioneer in the clinical model that helped the clients to alter negative attitudes about cultural and racial identities to instead develop healthy self-images known as ethno-therapy. after six decades of practicing in san francisco, dr. cobbs founded the pacific management system which developed programs on diversity and inclusion for companies and organizations and social service agencies and government departments. and so many of the principles

that we see today manifest the discussions around diversity and inclusion and the discussions around inclusion and around positive self-images, they stem from his study and his book that was, again, written in the 1960s. so i cannot even begin to emphasize how important his contributions are, not only to the african american community, but i would venture to the entire country. his work, his research, has forceddous to have difficult conversations that help us to achieve healthier self-identity. dr. cobbs' legacy has equipped our community with the additional tools that we need in order to be proud of our diverse communities. i am sad to note that upon dr. cobb's transition that he has left behind his wife, hiss frederica maxwell cobbs, who is known as "freddy." and they -- dr. cobbs leaves four children and eight lovely

grandchildren. so, colleagues, i ask for your support. in closing out the entire board meeting in the memory of dr. cobbs. may i take this without objection? thank you. second, supervisor brown and we'll take that without objection. thank you. madam clerk, the rest i submit. >> thank you, madam president and supervisor peskin, you asked to be referred. >> thank you, madam clerk. i want to say one thing about miss sanchez on this particular day, which is that in her most recent incarnation she worked for the inland boatsman union or as i call it insofar as it's all run by women, the inland boat woman's union and the master mates and the pilots. she worked very hard on the labor harmony agreement that we passed today. i know that she'd be very proud of that. so i wanted to add that. and finally just relative to supervisor safai's request for a

hearing, the city attorney is gone but i pint out that the e-scooter permitting is the subject of an administrative appeals and i want to get the city attorney to opine that we not in any way prejudice that proceeding. >> still here. >> maybe we and ask him, through the chair. oh, okay. i'll -- i hearby on the record request that the city attorney opine on that matter and his mouth is full and that concludes my re-referral. >> thank you. madam clerk, anything else? >> that includes the roll call for introductions. >> all right. could you call the next item. >> yes, at this time the public may now address the entire board of supervisors for up to two minutes on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. first speaker, mr. gill berty. >> this is general public comment, folks.

>> the criteria, this is -- the overhead, please. this is the eighth and seventh on mission, new buildings. our criteria, how many people from san francisco are living in these buildings? how many seniors are living in these buildings? how many people on rent control have moved into these new buildings? again, this is density living. criteria. how many parking spaces are we going to allow in these new projects? as these plans become projects. how many seniors? how many veterans? how many sex 8 section 8s will e involved?

in this area seventh and 8th to these buildings, how many homeless did we displace and were we able to put some in here? can we relieve the pressure of the commercial office front, office market pressure? how about relieving the pressure in our own -- our own housing units. i fail to see that we're doing even at 120% of market rate downward. we're not going down far enough. we're not taking the seniors that we have a problem with and placing them in homes. and the next is how do you live when you can't open up a window, not because of the air -- the air will be there, but the noise. the continual noise, daytime and nighttime. 33% of affordable housing in this new plan to become a project, 120,000, can anybody that's in a rent-controlled unit

move into any of these new homes? thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors. i'm here today to talk about my struggle with homelessness. and i am embarrassed and ashamed to come before this body because i have tried as best i can to resolve this on my own and i have not been very successful. for the past few years i -- well, for 20 years i have lived in san francisco when i lost my housing. in the past two years i have been trying to access the various shelter services and the shelter operators. and i ran into a barrier that kept me from using the services, which was the smoking of other clients. and the refusal of the