born in this town, and i've watched it changed over the years. hopefully, it's getting better. slowly but surely, but my main concern is to get this passed. politics and money, heck with it. the main thing here is saving lives, and that's what we need to do. thank you. >> thank you. if there's anymore speakers who would like to comment on this item, if you could lineup. >> good afternoon, all the supervisors. you guys are doing wonderful job. thank you. my name is gunmun shah. i urge the committee, this land

use and transport, for 550 and pass it -- i'm sorry. 12-26-2006, we had a fire in the building that started in elevator room. went all the way to the fifth floor. it was right the day after the christmas, and we have no elevator service from 2006 to 2010, and the fire department shows up, and -- i'm sorry. i'm getting nervous. and the manager is not on duty to let the fire department in. so since i could not sleep, i rundo run down stairs when i hear the fire, and open it, and let the fire department in. thi thing manager on duty is not

where he's supposed to be to let the fire department in, and i had to do it. now this last friday, there was a power fuse in my building, went off. i was just making little tea, and the whole electricity went down all the way from the first floor to the fifth floor. as of this date, he has not responded to my text message. a week before that, he shut off the fire entrance -- to -- the entrance to the building where there was no way in for one week, and i urge -- [inaudible] >> thank you so much.

is there any other member of the public wouho would like to spea? seeing none, we can close public comment? >> all right. public comment's closed. >> fantastic. i wanted to thank everyone for coming out and giving your really thoughtful, impactful comments, thank you so much. thank you for all your work developing this legislation and for your bravery of coming out and telling your stories today. with that, is there any questions or comments? >> i had just -- was asking, supervisor ronen, i know this issue came up, whether installation of sprinkler systems would qualify as a something that would be a capital improvement that would qualify for a pass through, and i was wondering if you could explain that, and the thought process behind that. >> supervisor ronen: sure. if we had required this of all

landlords of more than three unit older buildings, then, we would have allowed that pass through. but because we wanted to spare that expense for good acting landlords that are not creating fire safety in their building, this is legislation to landlords that are not acting in good faith. we'd like this to be a deterrent. while sprinklers are the safest possible condition, if all fire safety exits, if alarm systems are up to date, and if all the fire safety codes are overwhelmingly maintained, then, the likelihood of a fire is much less. so we'd like to see people following the law and maintaining their buildings in safe conditions, so it didn't make sense to us to allow this pass through, given that we're targeting particularly bad actors. >> thank you for that.

and i do want to agree with some of the comments made earlier. from what i read, it sounds that -- i mean, it's not mandated that you install new fire sprinkler systems. that is one of the potential solutions that might be issued from, i guess whether it's d.b.i. or san francisco fire department. so fire sprinklers, improving existing sprinkler system or upgrading installation of fire alarm or fire detection system, so i do feel that it is very fair, and especially since you're only asking for this after the issuance of the two. n.o.v.'s, so i just want to say i agree with your legislation and will be happy to support it today. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. >> supervisor tang: colleagues, any other questions or comments on item 8?

>> supervisor safai: i had a question. >> supervisor tang: supervisor satisfy si safai? >> supervisor safai: so you said how many notices of violation? >> supervisor ronen: two. they're different violations, and then, in addition to that -- >> supervisor safai: two separate violations of the building code? >> supervisor ronen: yes. and in addition to that, a letter to the owner that they're in the risk of having this fire safety life notice issued. >> supervisor safai: so there's two notices on two separate issues and a letter notifying them that you're about to have this shall so it's almost like three warnings, right? >> supervisor ronen: absolutely. >> supervisor safai: okay. i just wanted to clarify. and then, a team comes out -- so -- i'm more concerned -- i think this is great. i'm just concerned about the implementation. i'd like to hear about that. >> supervisor ronen: sure. so assuming there's two notice

of violations, then, either a d.b.i. inspector -- >> supervisor safai: i was going to say, are those complaint driven so someone would call -- call in the complaint? >> supervisor ronen: yes. yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> supervisor ronen: so then, what either the d.b.i. inspector or the fire safety inspector would do is come and post a fire and life safety order on the building, and also send, by certified mail, this notice to the building owner. it would clearly outline what the landlord needs to do in order to abate the notices of violation, and by when. and then, if that -- that owner wanted to appeal the order, they could appeal it. if they lose the appeal, then, they must comply. if they don't comply, the department will then refer the case to the city attorney, and

it is recorded as a lien on the property, and that's where the enforcement measure comes in, and what is different from what is possible now. >> supervisor safai: because right now, you can't record it as a lien. >> supervisor ronen: i don't believe so. and if the landlord continues to be negligent or ignores the order, the city attorney's office can not only sue them, but they could force them to install the sprinkler system or alarm system. it creates safety in a building that's unsafe. >> supervisor safai: so currently, they can keep issuing n.o.v.s without consequences, just to over summarize. >> supervisor ronen: that's right. >> supervisor safai: thank you for that. i think that's important for everyone to understand, and i just wanted to hear it myself,

that there's two separate notices for two separate violations. then, there's a posting -- and certified mail. we've gotten into this conversation in this body, certified -- >> supervisor ronen: yes. >> supervisor safai: -- mail to the registered own. and then, there's a process for appeal so due process is dealt with. >> supervisor ronen: correct. and the other thing to note is if there's buildings with two or more communities, sprinklers are required. there's much more onerous requirements on buildings, but we going backwards on buildings that have already been built were just asking for these additional safety measures if the building owner is not maintaining the building in safe conditions. >> supervisor safai: right. thank you. >> supervisor tang: so colleagues -- >> supervisor safai: can i make a motion -- >> supervisor tang: we have to refer this item, just so you know, to rules committee. >> supervisor ronen: since you're already hearing it, you

want to waive that requirement, mr. chair. >> supervisor safai: we can do that. we can do that through a letter. i think we've had sufficient hearing today, so since i'm here, we'll send a letter -- do i need to send a letter or can i just say it on the record? >> supervisor tang: deputy city attorney. >> mr. givner: i would suggest you refer it to rules today and then confer it to the clerk about the appropriate steps. >> supervisor safai: all right. thank you. >> supervisor tang: all right. so we have a motion to refer it to rules committee. >> supervisor safai: yes. >> supervisor tang: all right. thank you, supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. >> supervisor tang: madam clerk, call item number nine. [agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: thank you. and i believe we have a representative from public works here. >> hi. yes, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is deanna colleros,

representing san francisco public works. i'm here to authorize san francisco entering into an agreement with the state of california for routing state highway 80 to state highway 801 and adopting environmental findings under the seek with a act and authorizing official acts. recently, reconstructed y.v.i. -- >> supervisor tang: sorry. hold on one second. if everyone could just exit a little bit more quietly, that would be great so we could hear the presentation. >> -- existing 1951 gri agreement which was limited to the portion of then designated state highway route 68 from state highway route 101 to a

point near fifth street. the california transportation commission in its h.r.a. 15-01 adopted the portion of route 80 from 0.1 miles east of 5th street in san francisco to 1.7 miles west of west grand avenue in oakland. subsequently, caltrans has prepared the 2018 gri agreement to supersede the 1951 agreement in its entirety and to adopt the full state highway route 80 in the city and county of san francisco. the friday agreement is necessary due to the project's closure of the old westbound on and off ramps and new configuration of web on and off ramps. this agreement will be used as a basis for establishing a maintenance agreement,.

the resolution also requests the board adopt environmental findings under seek with a. the san francisco county transportation agencieser dated december 13, 2011, of the seir-eis is provided. our recommendation that the board of supervisors adopt this legislation and the environmental findings and authorize the director of public works to sign the agreement on behalf of the city. thank you. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you for your presentation. so -- and that was very thorough. i think -- so it's midunderstanding that basically because -- it's my understanding that basically because of the reconstruction, you had to look back through the records and find out there wasn't any sort of agreement or adoption for

that portion of route 80, so we have to do this. >> yet. >> supervisor tang: okay. supervisor cohen, you had a question for item nine? all right. colleagues, any other comments or questions on item nine then? if not, we'll go to public comment on this item. okay. seeing no public comment, item nine public comment is closed [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: okay. colleagues, is there a motion? >> move to send the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: okay. and we'll do that without objection. madam clerk, call the next item. [ gavel ] [agenda item read] [agenda item read]

[agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: thank you. and supervisor cohen has joined us for these items. >> president cohen: thank you. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemens. thank you, colleagues for hearing this item. i appreciate the time, and before we go any further, i just want to refer my predecessor, sophia maxwell is in the chamber to share her thoughts. thank you, madam chair for allowing me a few minutes. i've got a few amendments that i want to make in the definition section which i will read into the record for public comment. last week i was here and listened to this item. supervisor kim raised a couple of thoughtful questions that i want to just support back on.

we've made some progress. first, i appreciate the question raised during the committee last week -- >> supervisor safai: go ahead. >> president cohen: i appreciate the questions raised during committee last week as there were issue areas that i had been in conversation with with staff in discussion with on this particular project. first, the planning department aways most recent housing balance report shares data on housing production between the third quarter in 2008 and the second quarter of 2018, so that is a ten-year span of data. this ten-year period resulted in a net addition of approximately 6,500 affordable units to the city's overall housing stock, and i think this is an important point that i will come back to later on in the hearing. of the new housing stock, approximately 1,500 affordable units are inside district ten,

and just to orient you, if you have the documents in front of you, you can see planning table document three, which is in tab one. this same report shows that district ten is carrying over 40%, over 40% of new -- of net new -- that means new -- affordable units in the city's entire pipeline. most of which are, quite frankly, under construction. bayview-hunters point alone has 1,136 affordable units in the pipeline that are at 55% a.m. i. or below. the current structure, and this is what i'm concerned about and want to have a discussion on today. the current structure is creating a circumstance of concentrated poverty inside district ten, and we have done this, and we have made this mistake before. when you concentrate poverty, it makes it difficult, it almost

chokes check prosperity for the -- checks prosperity for the entire district. we're struggling to maintain a grocery store. and we've pivoted from keeping public housing all in one section, and the reasons why is we're breaking it up. you see now we're building public housing -- just as a side note, the city's four largest public housing are in district ten. we are breaking up the housing. you have missed income housing units being built as we are in the process of rebuilding public housing. one thing that i've heard over and over again from many residents in the community, particularly in the bayview and in the india basin communities is what is obvious is that you drive around the neighborhood, and the neighborhood is struggling to sustain retail businesses. in order for the community to

continue to grow and thrive in the current market, we need to be generating affordable housing opportunities, yes, that goes without saying, we we need to be building housing opportunities for multiearner as well as miding income households. in my mind, when i think of that, i'm thinking of two teachers and two children, a household of four. the community needs a grocery store, the food desert. we talk about it all the time in our talking points, but yet and still, i'm the one that's on the ground that's trying to make this happen. we've been able to bring two grocery stores in the bayview community, but both have been unis yo unsusta unsustainable. the community also needs retail spots, local retail. right now, the concentration of low-income and poverty means that people cannot spend money on local businesses, so that

means that the new cafe envy that we opened up who is the brain child of april spears chicken and waffles, is the income. the third street corridor in the bayview community is at an exciting point. we are attracting businesses. no longer are we plagued with the over proliveration of vacant storefronts. we are starting to turn the corner and get businesses on this local corridor, and that is quite honestly through a concerted effort and recruitment by many of the merchants already on the ground and looking to expand. in order to achieve the balance that will allow our existing community to grow and to thrive in place, of course, paying careful attention not to exacerbate the pressures of displacement as well as gentrification, there are a proposal that i'd like you to

consider for your -- for your vote. what i'm doing is i'm proposing the following mix of affordable housing levels. first of all, i'm proposing a 55% a.m. i. that's 5% b.m.r., which translates into 64 units. there's a -- the second band is between 80 and 1:20 a.m.i. that is -- 120 a.m.i. so in total, 28% of b.m.r. units will be dedicated to this particular project. i'm happy to discuss the in lieu

fee. right now, specifically it's at 26%. i heard from supervisor kim who expressed a desire to see that number increased. i'm hopefully with discuss that on the record, but overall, this project will yield 3 # 4 below market rate units to -- 394 below market rate units to the india basin bayview community. this project will provide first source job opportunities. supervisor safai, i'm sure that perks your ears up, for both construction and permanent on-site jobs. i also want to clarify that i remain enthusiastic about the opportunity presented about this project to bring an array of units and an array of opportunity to the neighborhood that will continue to revitalize an already beautiful neighborhood. so colleagues, i want to talk a little bit about some amendments, and then, we can go

to questions and/or public comment. first, at the recommendation of the planning department, i'm proposing to amend the language that defines final requirements and maximum individual a.m. i. so this change can be found highlighted on page 2, 3, and 4 in the draft that's before you, this draft right here on pages 2, 3, and 4 of the draft legislation that has been provided for you. i'm asking for your support. i also want to clearly state on the record i have a signed letter of intent for the india basin project. this is a signed agreement between the project sponsor, lou vasquez and tim paulson, who's the secretary treasurer of the san francisco building and construction and trades. it's dated today, so the record will also reflect this.

and that all of the opening remarks that i have at this time, supervisor tang, thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor cohen. and just to clarify, so the amendments or the revisions to the average drk-the maximum average a.m. i. levels is contained in exhibit h to the development agreement. is that something that -- to the deputy city attorney, is that something that we actually amend here or is it just part of the supporting documents that will be incorporated later? sorry. just wanted to clarify. >> president cohen: i believe i should be reading the definitions into the record, if i'm not mistaken. i believe that's what the attorne attorneys advised me. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. the board would be -- the committee would be taking a motion to accept the amended document into the file, and

then, in your discretion, passing the ordinance onto the board without recommendation because the seek with a appeal is pending. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that clarification. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i just want to acknowledge president cohen and thank you for working on greater specificity around the a.m. i. levels that are provided around the 25%. and i had stated last week that while the percentage of affordable housing is very important, the a.m. i. levels that the developer-project sponsor commit to are equally important as well because it is what reflects the developer's contribution to the public and to our neighborhood. i had -- and i'm so sorry if i missed this. i see the amendment for the rental units, and i'm wondering what the a.m. i. commitments are for the home ownership units are, as well? >> president cohen: thank you. they're the same, but i'll --

>> supervisor kim: so regardless of home ownership or b.m.i., it will be 55% of a.m. i.? >> president cohen: i'm going to invite ann topai. >> regardless if they are rental or market ownership units, they will do no less than 55 is of a.m. i. they will do 15% at 85 to 120% of a.m. i. >> supervisor kim: and you had said -- and that changes a little bit. you said 15% at the 80 to 120% of a.m. i., so 5, 15, and 5.

>> supervisor kim: okay. of what is built on-site, 5% will be at 55, 15% will be at 80 to 120, and 5% will be at 140. >> correct. >> supervisor kim: i'm sorry. i'm going to have to reflect because i didn't realize you said rental or home ownership. there's kind of no -- >> we have not capped the amount of rental or home ownership that we can do. >> supervisor kim: okay. i'm going to try to wrap my brain around that. the second question i had, and i talked to the city attorney, and so i know that sections of the m.o.u. that don't -- that are not, i guess, articulated in the development agreement but do not conflict with section 415, generally means that section 415

stands. so one really important section of our affordable housing or inclusionary housing negotiations last year was while we agreed to allowing for higher a.m. i. units at rentals or home ownership to be considered affordable housing, it was very important that studios or units for a single individual, not be eligible for rental units at 110 or above or home ownership at 130 or above. this is because at that price point, you're starting to hit market rate, and it's not much of a subsidy. so i just want to make sure that that portion of 115 will prevail in this development agreement. >> so that is a policy call for you. and if you want to make that amendment, we would, i think, recommend that we make that

clear in the document. >> supervisor kim: okay. so you would recommend that it be clear in the development agreement, even though it's in section 415? >> yeah, because we have specifically negotiated a.m. i. levels, and we've got a lot of language in here about that. you're proposing something additional, which is to say that certainly a.m. i. levels will not be permitted for studios or one bedrooms. >> supervisor kim: so just to clarify, that was a negotiating point. originally, we said that studios would be concluded, but at the end of the day, because sometimes two individuals will live in a studio, once you start hitting the household levels of 115 or 140 or two individuals -- i'll just read the language. for any affordable units with a purchase price that at 130% of area median income and/or above, although the inclusionary policy does not allow for above, the

units shall have an occupancy of a minimum of two persons. if that's okay with the project sponsor, i'd like to add that in. and then, finally, i know we had this conversation at land use. sorry. just had to refresh my memory on 415. it is true that the maximum affordable rents or sale price shall be no less than 20% below medium or rent for sail projects in the neighborhood in which the project is located. in 415, we don't define it by district, and so i was curious if there was some openness to just aligning with the language in 415 -- in section 415.6. and you don't have to respond to that at this very moment, but i just wanted to -- >> right. so probably redirect to that after public comment.

>> supervisor kim: no. that would be great. i just wanted to put my issues up front. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang: did you want to go to public comment at this point? >> president cohen: unless supervisor safai had something to say. >> supervisor tang: okay. let's go to public comment. >> there is another example of your price fixing. first you claim that you need higher incomes in order to support your restaurants in the community that's in question. then, you turnaround and give a multitrillion, billion-dollar company, twitter, and five other high tech companies, tax breaks and have already demonstrated well over several times that you've given them a minimum of $215 billion of tax free money, and it's a great deal more than that now because a great deal of time has passed, and i don't

have the quarterly reported money tax free that you've given them. then you turnaround and say you're setting the a.p.i. at 55% of the median. sfgov, please. 55% is approximately $44,400 a year, okay? now, you're claiming that that's going to be the lowest income and below. that's a lot. you're not going below that. when you accept the applications, everybody has to make that much money in order to put in an application through the mayor's office on housing. if you're dealing in good faith and having every intention of reaching an agreement on this matter, you would make that 55% target that you're talking about, you would push that at 20. because when you're doing now, everybody's income that's below 55% is not included in the

inclusionary rule. if you're cliing the inclusionary rule to not include the most vulnerable people, the people who are targeted by the inclusionary rule is another indication of how scanless you are. the inclusionary income was not made for high bracket people, it was made for low-income people. even your past demonstrations -- [bell ringing]. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker is mr. paulson. i didn't realize you were here today. i would have recognized you. >> tim paulson, chairman of the terrific building and trades council. thank you, supervisor for putting what occurred over the course of the last weekend. we were in negotiations over the weekend to get a letter of intent. and just to let you know what a letter of intent is, this is

what biebnds us to sit down and negotiate an actual project labor agreement, which will be all talked about the same way you are talking about the exclusionary housing. we know we're not going to be breaking ground on this in the next six months or so. we're going to continue to negotiate in good faith. i want to thank building for becoming partners with us at two minutes to 1:30 today. >> president cohen: thank you for your diligences. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is michael ibanez. [inaudible] >> i'm strongly opposing the change of zoning which is happening in 700 innes avenue block, and i'm honestly surprised with the discussions which i hear, because today, we're here for what's called

land use and transportation committee. i don't think, you know, we discuss money or we discuss housing, or whatever. we need to discuss land use, and this land cannot be used for housing. and you're supposed to respect the zoning which happened before. this was light industrial which you want to convert to heavy residential, which some people supposed to think about this. what does it mean, light industrial? why? these people which created this landfill, they were sitting in your position, probably, and they believed in what they were doing. so it's contaminated landfill. i provided all the documents to the land committee. i provided documents, 35 documents to the supervisors. we have hearing tomorrow. i demonstrated here the pipe, which we took from the

foundation of our building, what happens with a copper pipe in -- in the contact with lead and salt water, which is inside. today, they didn't allow us to bring this pipe through their security system. so it is rotten company, within five years. we have a case where the police department of hunters point was using contaminated water. it was publicized everywhere. so you continue to ignore it? this is the wrong land, and this is the committee about using land. thank you very much. >> dear supervisors. my name is james fahey. i've lived in the bayview for 12 years now. i oppose the current plan. i would like to bring up three questions/points regarding the development. first, when you go down evans and around where it turns into

inez, and look up, what you will soon see is a monstrosity, an eye sore of nearly 20 floors that does not fit the neighborhood. has anyone considered this? second, the city should consider alternate tiff designs. there really instead should be a much shorter development. four stories, a gradation down to three stories, down to two, and then one. third, as you look down inez, all that public housing on the hill on the right will be blocked from its current views of the bay and the city. the value of the city's land comprising the public housing will be severely impacted. why is the city allowing the land to be devalued by the

developer? why isn't the developer being required to pay the city and the bnya. the bnya has these rights and uses them for business. the developer because compensate both for the usurpation of these rights. finally, i would like to finish by requesting who is the investor -- the name of the investor in this project? the individuals behind these india basin development l.l.c., and build, inc, please give us transparency. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> a while ago, i heard about, like, you know, growing

businesses around the neighborhood. hey, probably forget us. we've been there for about a good ten years. we have our own building. we started with five individuals, and we're about 90 of them. my question to you, if you're going to start a construction out there, what happens to my business and the 90 employees if you find something on the ground? think about the business that's already there. i understand you want new businesses and people to live around there, but it cannot be at the expense of the people that are already there. so yeah, i would really want you to consider the 90 employee that i have. >> president cohen: how long have you been the general manager? >> about five years now. >> president cohen: thank you. >> thank you. >> well, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is michelle pierce. i am with the bayview-hunters

point community advocates. i need to start by saying that we have much more community support for opposition against this project. they will be here tomorrow, but asking us to show up four days out of ten during business hours has been really difficult for families, for working people, for people with children. i want to get to the fact that my biggest issue with this project is that it seems like the planning is incomplete. we had some issues with the developers. the developers have put this problem back onto the planning department. it's a circular argument. we need some answers. i have specifically environmental issues. i will bring them up tomorrow, but thank you, again, supervisor kim for stressing the housing situation. we are talking about the neighborhood in this city that is the most diverse, it is the

most integrated ethnically and socioeconomically. this plan does not encourage that, and basically, the excuse for ruining the diversity of the neighborhood is that the planning department wanted to do that, any way, and it's already in the bayview-hunters point development -- redevelopment plan. please, can we have some responsibility, some skill in the planning department for doing these things responsibly? can we take this highly skilled position of planning, coordinating, engineering across all departments of the city to get something right on the eastern corridor of the city because all i'm seeing is failure right now. thank you guys very much. >> president cohen: just as a reminder, today we're hearing in this committee the general plan for india basin, and tomorrow,

we're hearing a seceqa appeal. >> -- because that's what we've got -- how would you like it even more if they didn't bother talking to you in the language that you speak? i'm not sure anybody would like it except for build, l.l.c. and the supervisors. it is illegal. it is a violation of civil rights. it's an insult to our sanctuary city to even move beyond city with a project where the planning department knowingly,

knowingly rejected our request for translation of the notice of preparation at the very start of this project. they didn't give a darn about the people in our community that don't speak english. that is illegal, and we will chlg the cif rights violation. secondly, we are all concerned -- we want real affordable housing, but real affordable housing because we need it for our people most in need, for people who need jobs to build those houses, absolutely. that's not what this is about. secondly, when build l.l.c. came to the task force, they put a picture of about 100 people who would live there. pretty much all white people. lastly, the city's e.i.r., the planning department's project that they supported, admitted, that this project would result in unhealthy, harmful,

unavoidable air quality problems that -- [inaudible] >> president cohen: thank you. thank you. again, you know, i want to be respectful of everyone's opportunity to speak, but i -- we're not dealing with the ceqa issues today, we're dealing with the plan -- i'm sure we will hear those same talking points tomorrow. mr. elberling. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this project is not proposed -- the housing part is an incredibly sweetheart deal for building and should not go forward. if they had started with 14% of the unit available to low and very low households, and another 4% to middle-income houses, and then added 7% to get to the 25%

number, that would be a great program, but that is not what they did. they include out the inclusionary ordinance. all the rest is going to be basically 100% of median and above. it's very clear that this is intentional class discrimination against the poor people of the southeast of san francisco and in particular, it's going to make any homeless housing in this project highly unlikely. even worse when you look at the few calculations that they have inserted into the language, the actual amounts that they pay when they fee out somehow would only be about two thirds if they were complying with the inclusionary housing ordinance. even though they could give the city three sites for inclusionary housing, they don't have to. you have a developer who's going to tell you who's going to live in this development in the

future. i'm a developer going back to the early days, and they never let the developer decide in the future that okay, we don't want homeless housing here, the city doesn't get these sites. how can you do that? this project is a real scam. you need to turn it down, go back, and fix it. >> president cohen: mr. elberling, i assure you, the tail ain't wagging the dog here. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. my name is david rossla, i live in the shipyard with my wife and two children, and we've been in the district ten for about ten years, and the shipyard about three years. i don't think this project is appropriate at all for the neighborhood. i don't think that this set aside for housing is appropriate for the neighborhood. it looks at 20% of the 25% that

will be set aside will require an income of $100,000 for more to qualify for that housing. i don't think that's appropriate for the neighborhood at all. i -- i think back to geary street, embarcadero freeway, that cutoff the city from the water, and geary street, which cut fillmore in half, and that is what this project reminds me of. this is going to substantively change the nature of hunters point-bayview. where does the steel-glass wave end? where do we stop it? because this is not for the community and this is not why i moved to hunters point. we're doing a good job overall i think in the shipyard of inclusion, and i don't think this is positive towards that. i urge you to reconsider and make this a project that really does serve the community and brings more affordable housing. i'm certainly not against housing, i'm prohousing,

proaffordable housing. thank you. >> president cohen: next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jackie flynn. i'm the executive director. a. philip randolph institute san francisco, and i'm accompanied by kurt grimes as well as oaf tupola who are also employees but also bayview residents. i'm here in support of the india basin mixed use project, the largely neglected in indian basin is desperately in need of restoration. it's important that we find opportunities to retain bayview-hunters point culture as our city inevitably grows. we are all aware of historic challenges in our community to provide broad outreach. i'm sure you've heard residents across the city express concern for not being able to be part of the project. for this project we were able to

engage community leaders and organizations approximate participate. not just for this project, but remember, the ongoing projects that impact residents were ones that became more aware of and were empowered to participate as a result. more of our neighborhood folks actually got a chance to see how the city works. so i just wanted to make a point that this is a very important project, it's a special one that i think that should happen, and ultimately, what we're looking for is the future of the young people that live in the community that participated in the workshops that care about climate change adaptations along that shoreline and that care about protecting their community. so i appreciate your efforts, supervisor cohen, and as well, you guys's efforts to make tain

great projects in the city, and we'd love to see this go forward. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is francisco benitez, and i am a member of local 22 in san francisco. i am speaking to you in favor of this project. this will give me an opportunity towards a good paying job and hands-on experience that is necessary for my profession. i am glad to hear that the construction of this project is estimated to provide more than 5,000 jobs just throughout the buildout period. also, in addition, 800 jobs will be permanent here in the community. when this project is complete, it will provide more than 1500 units of housing in this area and to meet this is a great opportunity for the city. please act today and move forward with the india basin project. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker.

>> hello. my name is dennis lumsey, and i am a resident, long time resident and carpenter. i'm here today to propose my support for the proposed india basin project. it is the workforce housing that interests me. this project is proposing over 2 million square feet of new construction. i'm excited that the project will provide local and future job opportunities in the area. personally, i am also excited about this local project because i will have the opportunity to work close to home, having to avoid traffic and spending less time on the road is always a plus. not only that this project will provide jobs, but also at the completion, it will provide 1500

units of housing opportunities for san francisco residents. with san francisco having a housing shortage, this project provides a solution in that department. please act today and move forward with this india basin project. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president cohen and fellow members of the land use committee. my name is timothy rife and i'm a field representative with carpenter's union local 22. we are here to support this and thrilled to be partners on such a project. with over 2 million gross square feet of new construction over the next 10 to 15 years, we are particularly excited about the future job opportunities for our members. the project will add 1,500 units of housing, including a substantial amount of workforce housing plus approximately 200,000 square feet of commercial space. the construction of the project will provide opportunities to

generate over 5,000 jobs through the build out and upon completion add about 800 permanent jobs to the community. the project sponsors have done a great job reaching out to the community and our union. we look forward to seeing this project move forward to the full board for approval. thank you for your time and have a great afternoon. >> president cohen: thank you for your presentation. next speaker, please. >> hello. good afternoon. chester meadows with green med owes janitorial service. i'm here to support this project for a lot of reasons, all the good reasons. i've been a small disadvantaged business in san francisco here for so many years, and i didn't witness so many developers get funded for projects, and i never got one contract, you know, growing up in hayes valley and bayview-hunters point. you know, building have done a tremendous job of reaching back to the disadvantaged businesses. you look back, and you see all

the people that today up, you know, looking to take advantage of opportunities working, and me myself, as a business owner, i'm looking to create opportunities for people to work with my company. so i just hope that -- you know, just do the right thing and support this project. thank you. >> news breaking, pow, pow. couple of things. i want to give hand to supervisor sophia maxwell who's in the audience tonight. also, there's somewhat of a coinciding situation where we have supervisor cohen. your auntie served on the co comigration, as well as yourself truly, ace on the case. [inaudible] >> i mean, i'm appalled, but i'm

glad i'm here. news breaking, ace on the case, back here at city hall, you all. i'm going to cover it like a blanket, like you never saw, you all. any way, news breaking, out there in the southeast, the toxic. you all looking at the city level, but it goes farther up to the federal, the navy, e.p.a., news breaking, ace on the case, dealing with over in the western addition, what they call fillmore, i call it the fill-no-more. we don't have this, we don't have that. ladies and gentlemen, your truly, ace washington will be back writing with the washington post. all the issues that i had to go through with the tears, here we are in 2018. what does this mean? we might have to wipe it clean. news breaking, right here in city hall, you all. i'm trying to tell you all. sometimes, i call it silly hall.

but i'm going to tell you why i call it silly hall. it's not because it's funny, it's because these issues is just like washington, d.c. this 2018, we've got to wipe it clean. my name is ace, and i'm on the case, and i'm working and hoping i can work with this administration; and i'm not naming no names. my name is ace. >> president cohen: good afternoon. next speaker. >> vice president, san francisco building trades. i stand here in support of the proposed general plan for india basin. for many reasons, i think that tim might have touched on early, but as we in the building trades, and ibew 6, as we move forward and continue to create opportunities for our members that work in the city, it's

projects just like this where we work with the developer on project labor agreements that provide local opportunities to local residents, both to residents and apprenticeships to journey level positions to those that live in the neighborhood. we've also had negotiates. we continue to have them related to an electrical facility related to this project. there's no deal signed yet, but they're very interested in having a training site, so on behalf of local six and as vice president of building trades, i strongly support approval of the general plan. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker. [please stand by]

>> works together to put together a plan that the city adopted and now it's not being moved. that's not fair. i am a full development. i come here every day. i want more housing. if you can equate 40% of the housing in that plant for affordable housing, i would support that. this plan does not support the goal for affordable housing. i want to make that clear. you need to go back to the drawing board. this is nothing. this is also going to change it. it's unfair. you need to send this for so we can look at all the points here. please, keep in mind, we are pro developing and we want more housing. that's the bottom