coming from the rent and the other is who can we rent to. i don't know if that answers the question. >> i'm not sure what the question is. >> restate it again because i've tried a couple times. the rent would be pegged at a particular number for all of that 5%. >> the lowest band would be 55% or below. the middle band would be -- >> i'm not talking about the people anymore. we're talking about the rent. >> the actual rent would be set at 55% a.m.i. >> what about at the 80 to 120? >> the went would be between 08 and 120, to an average of 110%. all three bands would be set so that when you put them all together, the average rent on the affordable would be 110% a.m.i. that's for sailor for rent or for any unit. >> that needs to be cleared out, spelled out specifically so we would know. supervisor kim, with we did the

middle band, the rent was pegged at 90. >> 110. >> it was pegged at 110? that was the upper band. >> i'm sorry, yes. the highest band. it was 80%. >> so it was 55, 80 and 110. those are where the rents were pegged, right. it didn't matter if yours was different because it's 80 to 120. >> that was an over all percent. it toggles the whole calculation. we're at 25%. >> so we would just -- that would probably make a little more comfort level to have that. >> we're happy to discuss how to do the math here. and it's our intent to build as much affordable housing as we can. i think someone from your team wants to say something. >> the chart that we laid out -- >> identify yourself. >> courtney pasch with build. it was for sale and rentals.

that's why the range is wider than in section 415. >> so maybe you guys can just think about clearing that up for the over all. >> when we finalize this in a final vote, it would be helpful to have it clearly spelled out. i hear supervisor kim -- through the chair? >> i do think it's helpful to include who is eligible at each rental price. i emphasize why i can't accept 140% as the highest band for the rental price. i would have take this stuff and i'm at 140% of average median income and i want to i'm a renter and i spend too much in rent. i would not want to spend $3,000 a month on a studio. that is what you are including

as your contribution to the city's affordable housing crisis. i just don't see how that's acceptable. >> this is courtney pasch, this is still in the housing plan that we are capped at 80% of the market rate and the bayview or district 10, i believe. so, if the market rent is less than 140, we would not be able to rent at 140% a.m.i. remember, 140% is also for sale. >> you didn't actually say that. i read the amendment that you put in. it says -- it does not specify it's for sale only. it's for rentals or sale. >> she didn't mean to say it was for sale only. it was for either. >> right. >> so that -- may i just ask perhaps to clarify for the

future. if president cohen, if you might want to entertain an amendment to exhibit h that might distinct wish between rental and ownership instead. >> yes, i would. >> in time for tomorrow. >> it would make a huge difference. >> if we're talking about ownership at 140% that's one thing. if we are allowing 140% at rental price, to be considered your obligation to our affordable housing crisis, i just can't support that. and again, i just have to emphasize, $3,000 for a studio unit, i would not pay that much for a studio. how can that be your afford able housing contribution. if you want to change that to home ownership, our inclusionary is pegged at 120. we allow households that make up to 1 50% eligible for those units. as much as possible i'd like to stick with our inclusionary housing ordinance. i think a wide band of folks should be eligible.

>> if i may too, supervisor, kim as well, i know that there were pieces, previous pieces of housing legislation that i worked on where we had different bands of income levels qualified for someone housing levels and we didn't spell it out in the legislation, it was through the mayor's office. housing where the policy lies and so, hence, i understand why it might be be spelled out here but i agree with maybe breaking it down between ownership and rental. but keeping the income bands held with whatever it is that mayor housing policy is in that regard. >> i wasn't done. i really appreciate the clarity. i would agree with that spelling it out. i just wanted to say a few comments. i appreciate all the folks that spoke from the community and from organized labor. one of the things that i think that is an important point that's missed often, is a lot of

the men and women that build this type of housing often can't live in that housing. i think that's one of the most insulting things about our housing market today. so anyone that's criticizing the folks coming out to build, this plan actually makes an attempt to create house to g housing tos that are building, folks in organized laboargued labor for n the housing. that was one of the strongest points i wanted to make when we started the inclusionary housing debate, a lot of folks in organized labor said if we can't live in it we're not going to build it anymore. and i think that's a good montra to have. i think what supervisor cohen had said and others have commented on, you know, we do not vem, it's not that we don't have the -- there's no subsidy for working and middle-class people anymore. there is no subsidy. there never has been.

other than the redevelopment agency for a small time. there was a certain amount of that. we always made an attempt in this city to over develop and many would argue that we still have not built enough low income housing. i know that that frustration is there. we are in a housing crisis. there is no financing mechanism for working and middle-class families. our housing market used to take care of those families. bay view hunters point has always been a neighborhood in district 10 for working and middle-class families. my district, outer mission, lake view, has always been a neighborhood for working and middle-class families. but now, homes are going for -- and i can't believe i'm saying this, but homes are almost going for $2 million in district 11. i know they're approaching that in district 10. there is no more private housing

market that is taking care of. one of my biggest criticisms of the housing and land use decisions that we have made in this chamber for the last 30 years plus, is that we have not included, we have attempted to and i know supervisor kim has been pushing on that and i know supervisor cohen has, this is an attempt to do that. this is an attempt in that direction. we do need to refine things a little bit more. i just want to say, there is no funding mechanism for working in middle-class families. this is an attempt, working with a private developer. that's why we pushed hard in the inclusionary housing debate to include and expand the definition of what is affordable. it might seem strange when we see these numbers. two janitors make about $70,000 a year. most of them are in couples, they have children. they do not qualify for tax credit units.

so two janitors are not even able to afford to live in what we're defining -- now they are in this new expanded version of inclusionary housing. that is very, very important. along with carpenters, teachers, nurses, firefighters. these are the folks that are being left out o i really appreciate this. i am in agreement with supervisor kim, supervisor cohen, we need to refine this a little bit. we need to push forward a little bit more. ultimately, if this housing is built on site it will have a significant, significant impact in the total numbers. i think it's a positive thing to diversify the income in that particular area. i want to make one other point and i said this on the record last week. i said this to supervisor cohen and the project sponsors, having something written that talks about a relationship with the housing authority, as it pertains to applications for and

job opportunities is to be codified. the most impacted are the residents living across the street in the public housing there and so allowing them the opportunity to be part of the and having it personalized is important to me. as someone who worked there for a considerable amount of time. i know supervisor cohen has expressed she cares about that as well. >> thank you, supervisor safai. >> we do have data to show the most rapidly declining population in san francisco are middle income families. i do see that this is an opportunity to be able to create those opportunities for them. in any case, supervisor cohen, do you have any further

comments? >> president cohen: i have no other comments. thank you for the spirited discussion. one thing i do want to make is that i would imagine tomorrow, i'd like to come out the committee and we can make some more amendments to it tomorrow in the full board. >> ok, great. we discussed breaking down rental versus ownership in exhibit h under the maximum average a.m.i. explanation and i'm sure we'll have further discussion there. because there's a pending appeal at the board of supervisors, then, if we can get a motion to send out items 10-12 to the full board without recommendation. >> as a committee report. >> deputy city attorney. >> before the action, is the committee accepting the amendment to attachment h proposed by supervisor cohen and oawd? >> let's get a motion on the amendment. as of now, with the understanding that we'll refine

it more tomorrow. can we do that without objection. >> and then on the items as amended, to the full board without recommendation. as a committee report. >> yes. >> we'll do that without objection. >> all right. thank you, very much. now if we can call items -- a i apologize. one second 13-17 together. >> item 1 ordinance of l by adding the central soma area plan making conforming elements and the urban design element and the land use index and the east soma and west soma area plans and making appropriate findings. item number 14 is an ordinance of zoning map of the planning code to create the south central market special use district and make other amendments and making appropriate findings. item number 15 is an ordinance

amending the business and tax regulations and planning codes to create the central south of market housing sustainability district. creating expedited board of appeals process and making appropriate findings. item number 16, is an ordinance a manning the planning codes to get us back to the central south market plan and making appropriate findings and item number 17 is an aor dinnance amending the administrative code special tax financing law for tax fining of facilities and services related to the central soma plan and make other necessary amendments. >> thank you. i'm going to turn this over to supervisor kim. >> i think i have spoken enough on the central soma plan item. and so today i will introduce a series of primarily technical non controversial amendments on 18. we are still working on a number of more sub ta tive amendments

for the october 15th land use committee. i just want to recognize our planning staff in particular, lisa and josh, who have almost moved into our office at city hall. they come to speak to us everyday. it's a heavy lift with a plan with such ambitious goals. i stated a lot of my comments at the full board of supervisors last tuesday during the appeal of the environmental document so i won't repeat those statements but instead, i will hand it over to the planning staff. i believe lisa has a presentation for us today and will make a series of amendments to the plan and continue to october 15th which we will make more substantive plans. thank you, lisa.

for the flower smart, cream reand park block sites. they cor tin enter on the review and approval and will ensure they have flexibility which will allow them to provide a high level of public benefits. if you recall, this amendment made in july proposes a height exception for the one vasser project and another of the key sites which would allow a segment of the site to be increased from 130 to 200 feet if the project build a residential use incentive or in addition to the hotel

>> for the park block, they recommended allowing the commission to grant a waiver for dedication of land for a public park that could be counted against various impact fees that they owe. including the t.s.f. and central soma fee. this concludes staff presentation and we're available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> supervisor kim. >> i just want to thank lisa chen for the presentation of the recommendations that the planning commission continues to recommend or new recommendations. a couple of things i just want to say, i just appreciate that very quickly, after listening to

the public comment from the appeal last tuesday, the planning department and the commission is recommending that we look at groner an green and g walls greater than 160 feet. also looking to establish a design process that will ensure that these popo sunshine also provide amenities that will support youth and families as well. so just recognizing that that was two of the community asks that came forward on the plan. it's great to see that that is already getting incorporated into the planning departments and planning commission's recommendation. i also really love the concept of us exploring a legalization pathway for live, work, loss. throughout the city but in particular in this district. we have many with live, work, lots built in the '90s and

early 2000s that were able to kind of escape paying impact fees or even meeting certain building codes because they were live work versus residential. so allowing them to have a pathway to become purely residential units, which many of them bakely operate as, they're not true low live work. and providing funds for affordable housing and infrastructure is important. so i just want to thank the commission and the staff for these recommendations. and so at this time, i don't have anymore questions or comments, so i'm happy to open up for public comment on the item. >> i wonder, before we go to public comment, because i just received the list of amendments, i apologize if this might be a little -- it we put on whether or not and speak to us or not

and the other. >> i'm happy to do that if. i can start on page two or page four. i'm not introducing an amendment. just so we can all follow. starting on notable planning department recommendations, which is slide 4. sfgovtv, if we can have the overhead. i only introduced the transparency. i think this reduces the transparency for facades under 50 feet in link if they're pdr. i did not introduce allowing hotel on residential lots. for the 17-foot height. that's just the technical question i had to ask staff and we werwe ran out of time.

i have included many key site exceptions and i don't believe all of them but a number of them today. including the special height exception for one vasser and the bulk requirements for stillman street. >> you do those? >> yes, those were all done. >> ok. >> on the next slide -- >> i'm sorry meaning yes she is proposing those amendments but only some you said? >> i just don't know if we -- there's so many. >> thank you.

>> >> i did see this revised. it looks like it was taken. i was just wondering about the public -- i'm sorry, the planning commission's recommendation which they said -- sorry, they recommended to take $5 million from the regional transit capacity enhancement fund reducing that to $155 million, which should be sufficient for them. i wondered your thoughts about

that? >> at this point, i have not accepted that amendment or that recommendation. actually, i guess at this point, some of this is on the planning code and some of this is in the c.f.d. document. currently, i believe we're at $15 million. the regional transit is at 155 and the p.d.r. assistance fund is 10 with the environmental sustainability at 65. >> i'm confused -- i wonder why we can't, at this point, change it then? >> deputy city attorney john gibner. in july there were amendments to the planning code that the committee considered. on the list that supervisor kim distributed was a change to the implementation program document,

regarding the ultimate. the planning commission last week considered all of the recommendation -- all of the amendments that the committee made to the ordinance. also considered an amended version of the program document, which reduced it from 20 million to 15 million. the planning commission approved that document and the ordinance but recommended modifications. so today, it is up to the committee. you can make this amendment today if you chose, to amend the ordinance to say we anticipate the c.f.d. funds will be spent in accordance with the implementation program document, including that ex number of dollars, $15 million, $20 million, will be spent on --

it's a call you can make and it would be an amendment to the ordinance. >> that is not on my list of amendments today. it's something that could you brought back to land use committee on october 15th. in my mind, i had separated to the c.f.d. conversation going before the government audit and oversight committee. that can be made in either committee. >> i'm not sure if it sits in the legislation in g.a.o. i can figure touch it can be made in this committee? >> i can actually clarify that point as well. at the g.a.o., what will be heard are the resolutions of intention so that establishes the array and method of charging the c.f.d. on new properties and it doesn't talk about the public benefits package? >> ok. >> and so i have not sub submitd

amendments on changing the public benefits program. as we move on to the remaining slides, i have not submitted amendments in regards to adding a key site, allowing land dedication or t.d.m. grandfathering. all are more controversial amendments where there's a discussion between project sponsors, our office and the community are pending and are awaiting discussion. including the public benefits program. >> ok. >> all right supervisor safai. we can resume public conversation after public comment. at this point, any members of the public who wish to comment on central soma, please, come on up. >> all of you, you demonstrations earlier, pertaining to the previous items bol sters my point and

demonstrates how that you have a ball of confusion on your hands and even yourself, you admit, that you would not pay the one, two or three thousands a month for a studio. you couldn't afford it. but yet, still in all, you set the income brackets for the requirements. you make reference to the income scale and claim that teachers make $57,000 a year and you got staff that works in your office that can't afford to live in the city. that is because you are price fixing. you claim that you claiming tax credits and the tax credits that you claiming, like you do it on that apartment building, you claim a federal low income tax credit, got the government thinking that you will house low

income bracket people. when you get past that process, you delivery price fix and provide the housing opportunities at 55% of $40,400 a year. that's not fair. and it's outrageous. in fact, you further bolster the point that you need rent control. the professors from uc berkley demonstrated all the details as follows. further, uc berkley for housing fair and inclusive society shows that rent control policies are the key to stabilizing the state's housing crisis. the research found that rent control, when a supplied with other housing policy, can prevent housing costs from spiraling out of control and forcing families to leave their communities. yet you don't follow this information.

>> good afternoon. my name is joe lopez. i am representing n.p.u. non plus ultra. we are the curators of the old mint. what i'd like to do today is to let you know our intentions and what we do at the mint. right now, one of our highest priorities is making the mint community activated. we creatively put together different types of events to open up two the youth, to families, to the elderly, to all communities. it is also our intention to connect with neighboring businesses and residents surrounding the mint. right now, as everyone has been

able to see what the mint has gone through, we do -- it is a challenge to keep the whole area as a community. community is extremely important. i've been listening to a lot of the conversations and i have to say i appreciate how everyone is listening to everyone's comments and where the city is going. right now i would like to let you know 100%, our intention is to open up the mint. a lot of times people will always interested on what is inside. what is happening with the mint. that is what we're working on in many, many ways of opening this up. we work with non profits, we work with chs tours, we have history days, we worked with san

francisco art institute, mast percenmastersprogram and one ofe ways is we have an event called -- >> thank you. that's your time. >> good afternoon. john torre, electrical workers. i'm here to speak on behalf of the mechanical electrical and plumbing unions in support of the central soma plan in general. i thank supervisors kim's office for having us in for very early conversations. we're very excited about the idea of a housing sustain ability district. we are supportive of one of the recommendations in particular that came out of the planning commission last week, in regards

to three hotels that are already in the pipeline. two of which both the meps trades and local two unite here have agreement with the owners. we worked long and hard on those agreements. local two is in a tough negotiation situation right now. they're doing a lot of prep work there. but they asked that i express their strong support for those two hotels that are currently in the pipeline as of january 1. it's a community benefit also to have good jobs in the south market area for citizens that can walk to work, et cetera. thank you for your time. we support those items. >> hello, supervisors, david woo with the south market community action network. the central soma plan is part of the larger neighborhood fabric of the south market. any development or rezoning of its area has a ripple effect on the city. especially in terms of

gentrification and displacement. planning needs to revise and those controls should be incorporated throughout the whole central soma plan, not just what over lapse with the s.u.d. and the plan. these controls must be included. incorporate four bedroom units into the plan. restrictions on micro units and s.r.o.s and amend existing laws so no s.r.o. buildings can be converted. a strong community opportunity to purchase act. aggressively land banking soft sites and future new 100% affordable housing developments sites such as the cal train rail yard and new next us study on the jobs housing linkage feet. a new study on prop k. require pre defined popos defined guidelines. living walls and living roofs and all new developments regardless of height and use type. a yearly housing balance study just for the south of market. require a c.u. for all cannabis dispensaries. require on site childcare

facilities in all large development projects. require that developers and or city agencies work directly with soma to incorporate design standards into new projects and aggressively purchase existing rent control buildings because with or without central soma, we need more funding to purchase these buildings. we have also learned that there are three new hotel projection in the street soma plan but not being considered as key sites. 816 and 305th street. they are in the youth and family s.u.d. and since the purpose of the s.u.d. is to expand the stock of affordable housing, who urge you to not support these projects and instead consider them a site for affordable housing to address the huge jobs housing and imbalance in the plan. thank you. >> hi name is erika.

we still have numerous urgent issues with the central soma plan. one of them is around transit. the transit objective of the central soma plan is to ensure that transit is a safe and convenient option for people moving within and through the plan area including improvements to the transit system. due to years of lack of infrastructure improvements, the central subway is addressing a past need not a present or future need. in addition, on august 20th, 2018, sfmta spokesperson erika said in a statement in the san francisco examiner that all transit red lanes are going to allow google buses, chariots, if it calls for reducing traffic lanes and on car parking to make improvements to transit, biking and walking we need to see this in the plan. legislation restricting private shuttles and vehicles other than taxis, which were previously permitted in these lanes, use

the red lanes in the plan area and include legislation permitting the red lanes to only public transportation vehicles and taxis so transit does movie efficiency in the area and all around the city. also, include legislation that restricts the operation of any electric foot scooters in the central soma plan area, especially since the area has a high concentrations of senior housing. please do not support the plan until these restrictions are included. thank you. >> before the next speaker, i see staff from smmta and we may be proposing the red lanes allow commuter shuttle buses is news to me. after public comment, i would love a response to that. >> good afternoon. i am born and raised in the south of market. we still have numerous urgent issues for the central soma plan and one is around displacement and gentrification. the scale of development and commercial development described in the plan are not conductive

to a healthy neighborhood. there are several ways the central soma plan encourages displacement and area already suffering from increased no faulty convictions and skyrocketing rent. it encourages luxury high and high-end housing in soma which in turn encourages the price of other housing to increase. the landlords of the properties change more rent or will be doing more evictions to cash in on the new populations in the nearby luxury condos or new high-end shops. my family and i already have faced an eviction once but we were able to find housing again in the same area. just within the few years, my current housing is again in a vulnerable state. my mom is in fear of getting evicted again. if the central soma plan passes, it will intensify. instead of looking to market base slides to address gentrification and displacements, the city needs to

start prioritizing and interventions and regulations that can actually keep people in place. they outline the emergency steps for the central soma plan in ordeplanaggressively soft sites% affordable housing developments such as cal train rail yard is one site where new affordable housing could be developed. allocate a higher percentage of housing linkage fee to purchasing rent-controlled buildings. incorporate four bedroom units as a requirement into the plan and not just two to three and more soma residents have a better chance of getting into these units. please do not support the plan until these are included. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is gina, i am with so many can. we still have numerous urgent issues with the central soma plan around preserving existing residents, displacement and gentrification. the plan states, as one of its

mean goals, accommodating housing demand and addressing such demands to alleviate housing prices. the plan, however, does not provide any studies or figures that support the claim that new development will drive down housing costs. with that out of controls and enforcement in place, they will not continue to be used as open and e new affordable housing. it will be high-end luxury or sitting vacant because they are owned by invest ar investors wht live in the units. new condos will be commercial short term rentals, corporate rentals or student housing instead of residential use. the city needs to counterbalance the displacement by protecting, assisting buildings by amending existing laws with no s.o. building can be converted into tech owe ups like what happened at park hotel on folsom street so there are staffing from the

city to monitor and regulate this. there needs to be a restriction on micro units and market rates developments and there needs to be a yearly housing balance study just for soma. please, do not support this plan until these are included. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. the housing sustainability effects allow the streamlining of housing production but there's no additional affordability required. there must be a much additional and requires and for the privately owned public space and the exemptions allowed 25% of indoor popos allowed to have ceiling heights of less than 20% and 10% of outdoor to be under. highlights a larger issue of the

reliance on this form of privatized open space and the plan. the issue is that they are and will continue to be an accessible and unfriendly to children, youth and families. there are no controls in place to require that popos are designed and programmed to be community-serving and actually function like true public open space. these exemption cement the reality that popo is not public open space and the strategy for providing public open space under this plan is extremely inadequate. the p.d.r. replacement requirement must be applied to all types of development regardless of use, for example, p.d.r. replacement requirements must inclues residential developments.

>> by sightin citing housing an, we have better and more sustainable choices for the residents and employers of our region. so it is true, that if we were starting to plan today we would want to see more housing in the plan. everyone agrees on that. but today, i think we need to move the housing and benefits forward now. that's why the houses sustainability component is key. i urge you not to add extra burden on that use the housing sustainability district, tools are needed to make these viable and provide housing and benefits we want. i want to emphasize the importance of greening and sustainability package.

the air quality of the neighborhood -- as well as making the right decisions pridely. lastly, i want to celebrate the unprecedented 2 billion-dollar package and it's aggressive. we will see huge benefits to the city over all and the quality of the neighborhood. and i understand the temptation to get more through the on going negotiations that happen. there's so many more needs for the neighborhood and the city. the feasibility is important and i would just remind you to keep that in mind. thank you for moving this plan forward. >> hello, supervisors. my name is leanne. i do grassroots community planning with youth, seniors, and families on street scape design art and history in soma in district 6.

i was here last wednesday to support an appeal questioning the com pen tennessee of the central soma i. e.r. a lot of people stated their case, one after the other and the planning department responded with insufficient data. the presentation of the planning department was not about the e.i. r. number three, that they did not include the impact of the uber and lift in their report. even if everyone was heard the e.i.r. was pushed forward. even if we stated our case that building more for the central soma billion dollar project is a danger to the health and pedestrian safety of our seniors. health and safety has not been addressed. can you please address the impact of pollution of cars and

traffic who are in the threat of eviction. the city has changed in significant ways with the additions of vehicle traffic and in the congestion of cars and uber and lyft. the impacts of the city's action on the health of its residents is a issue. the california environmental quality act. think about the health and pedestrian safety of youth, seniors and family first and foremost. this needs further research. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lordis. i'm here with so many ca somkan. soma is the most open spaced deficient neighborhood in san francisco along with the neighboring tenderloin.

instead of providing publicly accessible space and they have many impact on the community for many reasons. they aren't open to the public. activity is discouraged and hours are limited. they're not protected by the proposition shadow ordinance because they're not open spaces and rec and park department. these spaces do not represent the type of open space that is public and accessible for youth, families and seniors. like a public park. there is one rec center and two full parks in soma. the m.d. park and south park. we need more. if you are going to add more people in the neighborhood. with that, the city meets to create a new public work and by purchasing the land and they should be help that need community design, stands address

and an excess study on prop k that includes popos and all public spaces and so many. please do not support the plan. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is gina gomez and i'm a vender from the san francisco flower market. i'm here today to show my support for the central soma plan and i also just wanted to state that we're really excited about it being a flower market and retail above and just wanted to voice my concerns that there will be i don't think housing should be allowed on the site. thank you.

>> we hope that all development can include b.m.r. commercial for small businesses. b.m.r. nonprofit space to ensure that community space nonprofits continue to thrive and that all developments should include a public art component to recognize the filipino community and our contributions to the neighborhood. for central soma park, we have been in conversation with the developers to include family and

senior friendly amenities as well as economic opportunities and cultural and -- and space for culture development. we are also still looking for a location for a new arts and cull ent -- culture center for soma philippi filipinos, and we hope that the board of supervisors will be part of this. thank you. [inaudible] >> i recently circulated a petition to people in our neighborhood, and received over

50 supporting significances, and i wanted to just read a couple excerpts from that petition. we are becoming increasingly concerned with the state of the old mint, having watched its steady de-kay over the last decade and up close. the city isn't doing enough to preserve this landmark and it is in need of care. a building as large and as complex as the old mint requires significantly more attention. the current minimal care has left the building filthy, covered in waste graffiti, often used as a space for homeless and infested with rats, all of which are quality of life risks for hundreds of residents in the neighborhood. the only way it will thrive is through continuous use and care which necessitates its

restoration and funding. the restoration requires a herculesan effort by the city and all interested parties, and if the city is unwilling to do this, the mint should be torn down. letting it did ecay into a biohazardous ruin is irresponsible. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm the community organizer for soma pill so soma filipinas. whatever so called burdening that we are putting into

advancing this plan, i just want to let you know that our people are not a burden, but we want to announce our support for the arts plan specifically, and the central soma plan is one of the most important plans, and by that, i mean negatively that will have far reaching effects into the cities. our cultural institutions and community service institutions are also at risk. many of our small businesses and nonprofits are being priced out, and we ask that the b.o.s. help ensure that all major development can include b.m.r., nonprofit and commercial space. soma filipina is compromised of 20 organizations, some of which don't have our own