whole plan not just boundaries that overlap with the plan. these control ofs must be incorporated more bedroom units. restrictions on micro units. amend existing laws. a strong community opportunity. land bank soft sites four future developments such as caltrain. nexus study on did you jobs linkage fee, prop k. requiring predefinedefine popos designs that took you ideas in the workshops from betsy carmichael and residents and workers in the area. require living walls and roofs

in all new development regardless of height and use type. a study to understand the market rate to affordable housing. ce for all cannabis dispensaries. require child use facilities. require city agencies work to incorporate the designs into new projecteds. aggressively purchase rent controlled buildings. we need more funding to purchase the buildings. i hope this body can consider new strategies. there are threw new hotel projects not considered as ky sites. 399 fifth street and 300 fifth street. they are in the youth and family and since the purpose of the sud

including expanding the stock of affordable housing. we urge you to consider these sites to address the huge house position im ball lance in the plan. balance in the plan. >> next speaker, please. >> i am erica. regarding the proposed set of amendments to the central soma plan. the housing sustainabilities you have no additional requirement. there is a 33% affordability in the plan that should be reflected in the housing sustainability district we demand 33 purse of the units be required affordable under hsd. 25% of indoor popos with ceiling

rights of less than 20 feet and less than a cantilever. a reliance on the open space in the plan. issue is that they are and will continue to be unfriendly to children, youth and families. no controls to require they are designed to be community serving and function like true public open spaces. >> they are not public open spaces, the strategy for providing open space is inadequate. lastly, p.d. r requirements must be applied to all type the of development. p.d. r placement must include residential development. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. corey smith san francisco

housing action commission. it was a conversation at the tuesday board meeting and supervisor you kim reiterated. take job balance is off because all of the trains come here. we need to make up the difference. presently it is legal in 75 purse of the city. until we feel another super figure -- figure a way to create the jobs. i hope we can do both at once. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, an architectural historian to comment on one single aspect of the plan. that is the amount of public dollars through the plan for the

long anticipated rehabilitation oof the old mint. long-term vision is advanced in partner ship between california historical society and city as building owner. throughout the approval the staff recommended a $20 million commitment. sociated with the amendments before you today is implementation reduce you go it from 20 to $15 million. at every opportunity the public requested more funding for the mint, not less. many members of this commission expressed desire for greater. they voted unanimously in support of $50 million for the mints through the central soma plan. the building has tremendous potential to be an asset.

we must invest in the mint. we would ask you to restore the funding to the level you previously approved. the present opportunity toqua more funding. there might be flexibility in how funds for pdr are allocated, and i hope you will explore that. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. the first thing i would like to say is how lucky we are to live in this beautiful and unique place. i am grateful to live in san francisco for 40 years. some of the treasures are the historical buildings. one of the most impressive is the mint surviving the 1906

earthquake. tourism provides employment for a great variety of workers, restaurant and hotel workers to drivers and retailers. the old mint is a repository of the gold rush era history so many travelers come to observe as well as wonderful community resource for local events. the old minute is owned by the city which has the responsibility to maintain it. as a san francisco landmark and national landmark. benefits from the restoration and care will radioiate to the rest of the area and the city. please consider restoring the original funding request of $20 million to preserve this resource for the current and further generations in san francisco and its visitors. >> next speaker, please.

>> i am jim speaking on behalf of san francisco victorian alliance. at the land-use committee where they proposed reducing $5 million from the old minute funding. they spoke in the funding of the old mint. i have the summary of the talking points raised. i would like to go over them. first, this is a nationally recognized endangered landmark the only one in san francisco to twice be recognized. it is city owned and stewardship is a city obligation. >> the historical commission took on the restoration plan. $20 million is what the city should show. thethey have a $100 million

project. how do you go to funders if the city is not supporting? they advised $50 million commitment would be appropriate for this amazing resource. tourism is one you have did you largest sources of income. still our biggest income producer. this should be a tremendous asset for tourism. there are many free public events to educate our kids. to encourage neighborhood groups to get their historic efforts. our old mints is not just another old building. it is a very, very important part of the fabric of our community. i don't want enthusiasm being a thing of, you know, pdr is not

important, of course, it is. $20 million down to $15 million when we look for $10 million is heavy-handed given the magnitude of this. i would like you to think in terms of urbanism. we look at cities and the treasures. they are usually old buildings to revitalize and give heart to new communities especially when the community is changing so dramatically these give you a link to the past and they invite in the full public, residents. these are the places that need our support. please look heavily at maintains

the $20 million support we should have for this ammizzing asset. -- amazing asset. >> peter cohen with the committee housing organization. my colleague is here again. came to the commission a couple weeks ago at the continuance and submitted materials and we sent them to you electronically as well. this is a cheat sheet. the central soma plank. it is one of those things that started so many years ago. it is one you have did you critiques you have been hear from a wide political spectrum. we are where we are and it seems the staff has argued they have done as much affordable housing

they can squeeze out you have the turnip. we are trying to drive that overall affordability out. >> the feed analysis supports 50 to 55% affordable. you your housing sustain bracelet district you -- sustainabilities is a value conveyance for the development that will take advantage of it. our suggestion that you see this as an opportunity to have an affordable housing benefit built into that house you go sustainability as a value capture mechanism. we proposed in this handout looking at 5% inclusion bump. you can get moderate and middle income housing the part of your plan that is most lacking. the legislation that created the

house you go sustainability district concept is freshly minted last year. it is not used anywhere in the state. we arwewe have the opportunity r model legislation. there is a labor standard for developments that take advantage of this. with 120 day buy right automatic approving. you can have you the lake bore and affordable housing. if it is 5% or 10% bump, do analysis. leaving that alone and not having additional fordable housing for those building to stuff would be a lost opportunity. that is our pitch to get towards that jobs housing feet we would like to see. it is a small step but a step

forward. i think my colleague will add more. >> next speaker, please. >> again, i am the chair of the cultural arts. i am here to ask to restore the funding back to the old minute. an increase would be best it is a landmark in an unused community asset. it is not just but housing. it is important to restore is cultural hai heritage. this nes help, represent, it needs to be revitallised for the people here. thank you. >> thank you very much.

you thank you commissioners. i am with the community housing organizations. a couple points to what peter said earlier. i wonder how many times you have heard developers come before you and talk about how long it takes them to get projects entitled. you have staff that can tell you. sometimes two years it takes to go through an entitlement process. 160-foot building might take that long. what the hsd you are looking at today would guarantee those come in at 120 days. what you hear from developers is how much time is money and how much those two years cost the development project. we ask you recapture that and creeight dirt -- create

affordability. it is a choice they make. what we are suggesting is to have an additional 5% inclusion added affordability and labor in return for the millions developers can get back by guaranteeing 120 days ofen titlement. >> any other additional public comment? >> it has been a long day. you this project you has been going on for a long time as well. big planning studies take a long time. circumstances change. while the stud di study is goin.

i know it is different from when the eastern neighborhood was planned in 2002 and 2008, similar system. you western soma and central soma plan. things have happened about transportation and dumping the demand for housing from silicone valley to san francisco. while all of these studies were going on. uber and lyft swarmed the streets. the board of supervisors was really hearing on tuesday testimony about the needed changes to balance out the housing implications for residents that exist in you the south of market.

there is a hearing at the board of supervisors on monday. i would ask you to give the board of supervisors enough time, keep your hearing open, to let them speak on monday, and the amendment that you are doing today and the amendments thrown in by your staff today and the things -- pardon me. i get the planning commission and board of supervisors confuse youd. what the board of supervisors are struggling with housing issue us. they deserve an opportunity to be fold would into your delibemployer operations. i have been dealing with housing in this area for a lounge time.

the -- long time. it is not static at all. this area had very scattered housing development when i started dealing with it in the 1970s. it was the m zone. now it is no longer an m zone. i ask you to keep this hearing open. heat the board of supervisors go through on monday and we have to really address the additional housing. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. caroline chase. i am here on behalf of the project spansor for the one vassor project. we appreciate the proposed amendment that allow for future

flexibility on key development sites. that will, in-turn, allow four superior projects that will provide more community benefits. one comment as a result of the presentation today, one vassar would encourage the plans commission to maintain flexibility regarding projects that would increase the house us supply in the city. we heard two different proposals from staff. we ask the mechanism by chew includessionnary housing be provided not be pinned down at this time to allow flexibility. the concept of providing residential units on the hotel site is a relatively new consent and not something the project sponsor would like to continue

to discuss with the city. i would like to clarify the height exception is in the existing legislation specific to the hotel project. the only change recently is to allow that same height exception if a residential project is proposed in addition to that hotel projector instead of towards the goal of providing as much housing in the city as possible. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comments? seeing none, we close public comment. we open it to commissioners' questions and comments. commissioner richards. >> how do you want to handle the groups of things we talked about not recommended? we have the amendments supervisor kim made and other recommendations. there must be 70 thing us

swimming around probably important to talk about. how do you want to go through this? we have a staff recommendation. i would key off that and make changes and try to agree on potential changes beyond or different than what the staff is recommending. >> the one thing i would like to talk about. i am looking at the presentation is the old mint and public benefits package. the other one i would like to talk about is suggestion on value recapture on streamlining of approvals and the hfd. most of these i am okay with. i want to explore spilman street what that is about annual there

are a lot of items staff did not remember i would like to talk about as well. we should talk about those separately. >> now is the time if you want to add them. you you stan

>> commissioner richards: to see if we can add additional housing or requiring key projects to have some component of housing on them. i'm not stuck on one of those but i did watch the hearing on tuesday from home. call four and a half or five hours of it. it was clear that was where the board was entering on. especially supervisor kim and

other supervisors. i like the idea of land baking sites. i like the idea of the b.m.r. price for p.d.r. to be understood what that actually is. on the old mint, i wanted to talk about having the california circle society create a business plan for the old mint which includes self-sustaining model for an affordable nonprofit, patrol commons area and explore some possibilities that a p.d.r. space can be incorporated so he could have a real discussion around what the trade-offs are in obtaining additional money for the mint. i like the child care facilities and open up a high school. the list goes on and on. that is the top of my mind and that is a lot.

>> president hillis: i think at some point we have to fashion that into some of the things you're looking for -- we have to be more specific and fashion them into a recommendation. >> a couple of comments to follow up on what we would talk -- what we were talking about. we can try and reengineer the whole plan and figure out a lot of different ways to do things. i had an interesting conversation with supervisor kim months and months ago. she enlightened me to the fact that we are in such a huge homeless crisis because of the lack of support we are getting from the federal government. decades and decades ago, the government used to handle and subsidize a lot of housing projects to address the specific issue of homelessness. we all know that is not the case now. it is a tough burden for us to put on ourselves. we are always looking at below market rate housing and affordable housing and middle income housing. we are always trying to promote

affordable housing when we can. at all times. but what i don't want to do is hold up this plan any longer and insert things that will have to make us take steps backwards when we have heard this enough and there are so many substantive amendments already, that i think will handle a lot of the problems. i did want to acknowledge supervisor kim for her addressing us today and all the planning and environmental staff involved. it is a long process. we are still talking about steve , right? i also wanted to acknowledge david chiu for his leadership and crafting assembly bill 73. it is very fitting that this housing sustainability district and his assembly bill will be implemented for the first time, not only in california, but in san francisco and in his actual assembly district. that is something to not forget.

and thank him for leading the way and giving us the tools to give people what they want. extreme delight -- streamlined housing. how many years have we heard that people want streamlined housing? here it is. here it is. so hopefully, you can't come back afterwards after we give you streamlined housing and say we want more also. i do like the fact that supervisor kim, you even admitted that the central soma plan will not solve the entire city's problems. it really isn't. we just approved a 416 unit housing project just outside of central soma and there's way more to come in the hub with upwards of another 12,000 units. i don't have exact numbers, but that is still adjacent to the central soma plan and it will be addressing housing very specifically. again, this is one of the only remaining parts of the city that

is zoned for office and commercial development. i think it's extremely appropriate here. with the transbay terminal, central subway and caltrain having terminus is near central soma. this is the ideal spot for this area -- for this area plan. i very much so want to go with staff's recommendations for the most part and keep this plan moving forward, not needing any other environmental impact report work. i did hear some comments from the wholesalers that may be locating themselves in the future flower mart. and may be had a question or two for the project sponsor or anyone here representing the flower mart? >> hello, commissioners.

i'm here on behalf of kilroy. i know some people who work in the flower market and they were mentioning to me that there still some issues with the parking and transparency and said that they are looking for a few couple exceptions to what may be in the books or as of right now but will make this a better p.d.r. p.d.r. space. >> that's right. there are actual -- there are a couple of staff recommending changes in the package of in front of you that will allow for future exceptions to be made through the development agreement. as you no kak the flower market is a unique wholesale use that requires parking for its customers to come and load up. currently the zoning only allows for approximately 50 parking spaces for the flower market and we need about 150. so the zoning package in front of you would allow a site specific exception that would

allow additional accessory parking in the flower market basement that would be limited to the flower market customers. >> gotcha. was there an issue with transparency? i know many times p.d.r. can't or don't want transparent windows because of whatever process is going on inside. >> if you have been to the flower market, you will know it is an inward facing use where the customers come in and there are vendor stalls that line the outside perimeter of the wholesale space. then customers come in and circulate around to the different vendor spaces that face inward and pick up their goods. the flower market site, we have really had to strike a balance in the design between allowing the flower market to function and also providing for that

inward facing layout. so we will be coming back to you with an informational presentation later on the flower market. it is better to see these things visually, so you can understand. but what we have done in the design, is to create a lot of openness for the flower market vendors along the project's open space but there is necessarily a trade-off in doing that that requires us to put some refrigeration units and other things on an outward facing wall on fifth street. that is a very limited portion of the project's frontage, overall. it will be something that is carefully designed so it provides visual interest along the street. that is just an exception that is being built into the zoning so you have the ability to approve it in the future. it is not an approval of

anything at this time. >> commissioner koppel: thank you. also, i wanted to commend the addition of the green living walls as a recommendation and the requirement for the greenhouse gases in the upwards of decarbonization and being more environmentally friendly. that is it. >> president hillis: thank you commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i want to summarize to everyone who has participated pick the best thing is this is a reiterated plan, rather than a static plan pick something we had hoped for all along. something that can rise to the challenge of being questioned and shaped and in being creatively evolved. i see a lot of very strong things. thank you to staff who have really dug deep and listening and working with everybody. i am very much in support of the comments made by commissioners. i like to pick a few of the

original commitments to the meant, my position on that is that i would like to stay with the same $20 million which is a small amount for which has used to preserve the building is a very important piece anchoring the important -- historic heart of downtown with an emerging district going south and southeast. the last point you were picking up on, commissioner koppel is green living walls. it has always been in a very dense neighborhoods. we are seeing more green walls working well in the city. i think it has become more and more acceptable. it is not just the exception but it is becoming the norm. i love that idea because it will help us, in many, in many ways. there are voltaic -- vertical open spaces to associate nature in a different way when you are living in a dense environment. the one point i would like to add is i support the idea -- i would like to raise the issue for people to discuss whether or not there needs to be further

protection and expansion of proposition k. consideration. we are building more open spaces and we also need to protect them , particularly when we are trying to create a green district. we don't have any guarantees of the building next door will come up three or four years later that won't cast a shadow over what this open space was supposed to do. i would like to have that built in and the three-dimensional thinking of all spaces. it is extremely important to have sunlight in a dense environment. there are, interestingly, specific recommendations for key sides for where architectural issues have been discussed and problematic issues have been forming. somewhere pacific his -- specific projects. i don't have all of them in front of me. i have talked about a number of them and feel strongly that in the majority of cases we should support them. however, it has been difficult

early on in a major project to know if what we are discussing now will ultimately realize itself 10-15 years from now. how you support the idea of what is pacific is a big balance question. ultimately, the devil is in the detail and when the rubber hits the road, we would like to see what we are talking about today. however, we don't know how that will happen. then there is a general consideration. many of which are very important in finding a better handle to add more affordability. looking at keeping the balance of the existing approved e.i.r., potentially thinking about tall office buildings, also providing housing as a backup strategy to increase housing while decreasing office. it is something we have already talked about when we had the competition for the transbay towers. those were originally supposed to be a mixed use building. i would like to see that as a

benefit. i think it is a positive challenge, rather than creating an overabundance of tall offices , i would like to see a more balanced mix of office and housing, perhaps even in the same buildings, if that is a consideration we can inject. there are many, many green positive checkmarks on this document and everything i have read before. but i'm not quite sure if we would like to go down the list, i don't know. i will stop and let somebody else talk. >> president hillis: thank you commissioner melgar? >> vice-president melgar: thank you. this has been a long process. i would, for starters, like to thank staff for all the work they have put into it. i would also like to thank supervisor jane came for her leadership. this was a really heavy lift.

and in particular, i would like to think april for all of the years that she put into this and her great skill and expertise. even though she is not there anymore, she shaped a lot of lists. above all, i would like to thank -- it is a much better plan because of the advocacy and hardware again organizing that went into it. is it perfect? know it is not. but i think i am ready to move this forward today. there are two things that i do want to say that i would like to see and it. one is the value recapture on the expedited process. and and to commissioner -- commissioners, this is an elective process. we are not forcing anyone to do

it. either they are chilly -- choosing willingly and it is a plain business decision. they get this and they are willing to give up that. it is a really good idea. it is responsible, equitable and fair. and the second thing is that i also would really like to have the funding restored to the original $20 million for the meant. -- for the meant -- mint. i think it is our legacy for the city. it is the right thing to do and it is also economically smart strategy to preserve that and attract uses in that building that will be a mention of tourism for the area. with that, i'm ready to move it forward. >> president hillis: thank you can i just ask staff -- i agree

with commissioner melgar, especially on the meant -- mint, i would like to see the $10 million recommended to the p.d.r. go to the meant -- mint. i don't know how that fund woodworker who would be eligible it tends to be private businesses that would get it. i think the mint is a city's obligation so we would like to see funding restored back to that. on the recapture, has there been any analysis of what the value of that would be? because that is my trouble with that. it is hard to predict. i don't think we've done the rigourous analysis. is one of these were i think things should be approved

quicker anyway. it is almost like we have made the process longer and we are somehow saying it is a value to you because we will do a quicker we should be doing it quicker and that should be our general stance. especially when we have a plan like this that has been approved and vetted in a years long community process. we should commit to doing things quicker. have we done any analysis of what the value recapture would be if someone took advantage of ab 73? >> commissioners, the short answer to that is know we have not done it in the context -- context of ab 73. and we have not seen others produce such an analysis. there was some analysis done during the process because that also shortened entitlement time despite shortening the environmental review time by making transportation analysis.

they did to find some marginal bump to value but not to be able to fund much out of it. it was a minor bump. in that analysis looked at a 6- 12 month expedition of the process and this would be that or less. the most of the projects and central soma would be eligible for a community plan extension was c.p.e., which i understand is about a 6-9 month process, may be 12 months on the outside. so shortening it to three months would cut about six or nine months off that process, potentially. it would be around the same potential gain that tsf looked at. but that analysis was done several years ago not using current costs and all that. we do know that based on our updated analysis over the past year on construction costs and everything that feasibility is at the margins in the current

year, just based on the dramatic escalation of construction costs over the last few years since this plan has been underway. and i think it shows. in the current analysis, a lot of prototypes are at the margins of feasibility or just not feasible. we're looking at a lot of rental prototypes that are just not feasible under today's conditions. >> president hillis: ok. >> we have to do some analysis and we haven't seen any yet. when i think i should mention is we should have been enough -- we have been in a lot of conversations with the state with implementation of the h.s.t. they are excited that san francisco is implementing it. we have asked them a question about, you know, because this is on the table, what would you think if additional affordability requirements were put on projects that sought to use the h.s.t.? they said they would not look very kindly. that is the gut reaction on that they haven't ruled on anything. there is not a formal submittal by the city but they are

sceptical of sceptical that they will put additional burdens -- burdens on h.s.t. projects. that said, they have not issued their rules and regulations on the project. i think to some extent, they are busy and looking at san francisco to put the application in. we will see. we will take that under consideration. >> if i could add a little bit more to the staff response. as you think about these issues that would affect the feasibility of projects, it would be helpful for staff if you provided guidance if you like to add fees or other things that could help us maintain feasibility, and then the other point, in response to the question about public benefits and adding funding for the mint it is helpful to think of where the money would be coming from. the big difficulty is there a many community groups advocating for them to be around a range of options. unless you are adding more funding, it would be informative if more money was added to the meant and if you could recommend

way that would come from. >> president hillis: at my take would be that it would come out of that p.d.r. relocation fund instead of using it for that and use it instead for the mint. on the h.s.t., i am nervous. home s.f., we went through a lot of a lot of growing out numbers of it not working. we are still tweaking those, but these things sound good. but if we end up not getting housing or people don't take advantage of the program. without that analysis, i'd be nervous to do anything to bump up the affordability and anticipate there is an increase. we are not increasing height, we are not increasing density, we are just potentially doing it quicker. >> on that point, i want to emphasize that based on the executive directive and based on the fact that this plan will presumably be approved in the next couple of months, with a freshly minted e.i.r., if i can use that word, in the actual process of approving these plans

is not years long. it is likely much less than a year and under normal circumstances. so the actual time savings is not -- it is important to, but it is not as significant as it would be if this plan was not in place. >> president hillis: right. i think the mayor is pushing us and others to do things even quicker. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i want to say that i sat with supervisor kim on friday and she said she really values the input that the planning commission gives me because this is not her district. if you look at -- we are an advisory role. we are not stopping anything. we are saying cupcake, we thank you should look at this. and she runs with it. i really want to move -- we are saying, hey, we thank you should look at this. and she runs with it. she threw another went out to us

she said what do you think about the c.a.c.? i will make a motion to move this forward. with all the items that are up to -- the other considerations, which would be page 18, so these are staff recommended, supervisor recommended, let's get those out of here. what i like to do is also add these to it. i heard these on tuesday. have the department to explore an or supplemental e.i.r. >> could we talk about that, if you don't mind? it has come up a lot. i think we get that everyone wants to have a better job balance. everyone recognizes you can't have a balance within a small neighborhood. we get that. i realize you all understand that.

a supplemental e.i.r. or an addendum or whatever it is has to be done on something. and that something has to be defined. we would have to define how many housing units, where will they go, how will we achieve them, which means there needs to be a community process to get there . we can't just do in e.i.r. for nothing. we would have to go through a process to define where and how many and how tall and everything else, just like we were doing a new plan. so if the commission really wants us to do that, we can figure out how long it would take to do that. we can't just do an e.i.r. and nothing. >> commissioner richards: i completely understand. i heard commissioner kim say on tuesday that she wanted there to be a residential component. would that be something you could sink your teeth into? >> most of them do, but some of them don't. >> all of the key sites have a residential community except the flower market, at this point. on the notion of the plan as it

is, it is important to note the housing units that are estimated for the plan and what the e.i.r. analysers is a best guess estimate of the zoning that is in front of you that would be adopted. it is not in and of itself a up on the approval of certain number of units in the area. some projects -- some sites could go commercial and some could go residential. at the start of the best guess that anyone could do at the time so it is possible that we could get more than 8700 units in the area of some sites that we thought might go commercial. it is possible for individual sites to build more housing than we thought or one of the key sights to have more housing within the zoning that is being approved. but to go beyond what the zoning would allow today would require different planning. >> commissioner richards: i will let the supervisor deal

with that and i will drop it off my list. honestly, if it's that complicated. the old meant, there's $400,000 in transportation money. i would recommend we take 5 million out of the 400 million rather than 5 million out of the 10 million and set someone else's hair on fire because we cut their program 15%. i would luck that we would take it out of the biggest pool of money. >> i think to clarify, i think the transportation proposal is 500 million for transit. is that right? >> commissioner richards: it would be -- >> if he took 5 million out of that -- spee spee ats. >> that is correct. the amount for transportation is 500 million. of that, 150 million is coming from the c.f.d. that would be the components that you are chipping around. that was envisioned as funding for regional transportation, primarily. >> commissioner richards: . i would recommend we take the 5 million out of that.

i think we had a conversation around this that it is something that we might be able to sell. the living wall is, i think we had support for. the only thing on that issue, i think we can certainly explore options around living walls, but we don't know how much and where >> we already have a code requirement in place for the better roof ordinance. that is only for buildings below a certain size because the nature of the roofs are more accessible for a high-rises. anyway, if the action is simply to explore that, that is a concern. >> commissioner richards: the other one is explore the feasibility of legalization -- potential fees that we can recapture for buying small sites into rent-controlled buildings. it is an explorer, not do. >> president hillis: that would be broader than central soma. >> commissioner richards: right. it would be everywhere. it would be part of it. there could be more funding for

stabilization. can anybody else have any other ones they wanted to add? i make a motion with those three things. all those plus the three things. >> clerk: the supervisor recommendation, the staff recommendation, everything. up to page 20. restored the funding and have a come out of the transportation. 500 million. explore living walls, and for the feasibility of a legalization especially now that we are at rezoning the m.o.u. which could -- m. you are -- explore that and fund the community stabilization for those three items. >> president hillis: you are on the roster. commissioner fong?

>> commissioner fong: i understand everything you're proposing. sometimes i think our roles feel different here as commissioners and a step back for a second and i think there have been some brilliant minds was on the government side as well as on the private sector side to get to some place in the middle after 17 meetings and how many years. based on that, i don't want to mess with that. i don't want to tinker with it at meeting 17. and those detailed questions should come up at meeting seven. this is a big plan. i thank you made big strokes. i think this is a big enough plan that it's outlives two or three cycles of san francisco, just because we approve something, i am a strong believer in market forces. ever not everything will be built as soon as it gets approved. and probably over two or three cycles you will see this build out on the market will tell you. here we have projects that are titled and not being built right now. i am supportive of the mint in

particular. people will tell us where the money should come from and what is best. but overall support of the staff recommendations at this time. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: while -- well, i think a lot of great comments have been made here. i will try to limit repeating what other folks have said, both about the merits of this project and also what we are hoping for going forward. i also just want to thank all of the staff who have tirelessly tried to keep this plan altogether and work to really be as thoughtful as possible about the future of the city. as well as for supervisor campus just leadership. and also a deep gratitude to community -- supervisor came -- supervisor kim's leadership.

i watch the hearing in front of the board of supervisors, the appeal hearing. this is kind of a personal comments but i want to say that i think fear of displacement is significant. i think fear of impact is significant. i think when you look at the reports that we got about the financial future and feasibility of this project, i have real concerns when looking at the projected employment changed by industry and can see how community members who live in selma now don't see themselves reflected in some of the language in this report and some of the industries here. i just want to say that we are holding that concern and i know that the supervisor's office is too. we hope to continue to work with you in partnership in making sure that this is an inclusive future.

i think that what we have heard again and again and again as a reminder to be proactive about mitigating the impacts of this development. breaking protections, accessible green space and an environment in which the community has the opportunity to shape the development that happens. i think this plan is better for the community organizations that have really collaborated with all of our departments and their thoughtful thinking. and that said, i also agree that i don't want to hold up this plan. i think it is not perfect but we have gotten to a good place. and some of the issues that have been brought up by community members have been brought up by the supervisor. with her saying that we will continue to work on these things that being said, i am just echoing what a lot of folks as a dirge have already said. prioritizing affordable housing

everywhere we can. every time we have this conversation, it would be good to talk about making sure the narrative reflects all of the housing mess and the pipeline all over the city. that is something we have heard two hearings ago and it helped change people's perspective on this project and that should be part of the narrative going forward. i hear the call to look at the ecosystem of the affordable housing beyond this. a plan to get creative about protecting current tenants and affordable housing. i believe we have called for a hearing on things like land banking, s.r.o. protection, and things like that. i think it is time for us to take a deeper look at s.r.o. protections. oakland has a land bank that is pretty successful. maybe we should have them into tell us what they're doing. san francisco also has a community land trust and i know

there's other cities as well who have done that successfully. i absolutely support childcare on large sights. i echo the concern around making sure that the community is involved in the process of designing and that popo his are accessible to folks of different types of backgrounds. i actually share a concern on p.d.r., the displacement fund. i think that will be helpful, i'm not quite sure where the conversation landed on that or if we figured that out. i think we should have those. and then i also agree that the chc will be crucial in having some sort of governing body sooner rather than later. it would be great for this project. >> president hillis: thank you commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: thank you. thank you for adding that detail

that commissioner richards started. and spelling them out for the record is really important. there's also the provision for use it or lose it with the resting timelines by right entitlements. and then, as mr cohen reminded us, it is a possibility that which we did before in supporting the potential capture when it comes to inclusionary based on entitlements. it was important to us in may. i would like to mention that it remains important as a consideration as you move into the implementation of the plan in the long run. this is not a static title. as the dynamics as we move forward. >> president hillis: thank you >> commissioner richards: just a clarification, the motion goes up to and including page 19, not page 20. i was talking to the director

about that. we would recommend there be c.a.c. where you have different seats for different constituents >> excuse interruption. there will be follow-up legislation about that. you will have a further discussion on that. >> commissioner richards: and the potential legalization can include land banking and what other stabilization it needs. we had a couple of recommendations -- >> president hillis: can we just clarify? page 19 on the report says conditional issues for consideration that were not staff recommended. >> we are not necessarily recommending. we just want you to explore them you did want to explore the living wall concept. i understand. we are not -- we put those out there for consideration because they have been raised. we want to make sure you are aware and you discuss them and all