>> thursday december 13, 2018. i would like to remind the members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any outbursts. silence mobile devices. and if you care to, state your name for the record. [roll call] we expect commissioners melgar and moore to be late and johnston to be absent today. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items for continuance.

2017-011216drp, 277 judson avenue. item 2, 2016-007303env, 5 third street. appeal of preliminary mitigated negative declaration. item 3, 2017-0168520cua, 828 arkansas street. conditional use authorization proposed for continuance to february 28, 2019. under your regular calendar, item 12, 2018-00621cua, 625 laurel street, conditional use. is proposed for continuance to january 17. i have no speaker cards, but i do have one speaker card in opposition of 145 laurel, but i assume it's because it was

supposed to be heard today. >> president hillis: would anyone like to speak on items proposed for continuance? >> good afternoon. tammy blackstone, at&t. i'm here for item 12, which will be continued. when we were here two weeks ago, we were instructed to come back to you with alternatives, which we have amazing alternatives, that i was looking forward to presenting. however, we found out about an hour ago that due to a stafferor in the report we're being continued until january 17. i want you to know, it wasn't us this time. >> president hillis: thank you. any other public comment on items proposed for continuance? seeing none, we'll close public comment.

>> commissioner moore: the material that i received from at&t was not downloadable. they submitted some form of new imagery last monday or tuesday but i was not able to access the information. >> president hillis: i was. did anyone else have the same problem? >> commissioner koppel: move to continue dates 1, 2, 3 and 12. >> president hillis: and i imagine that at&t information will be in our packet next time we hear it. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously, 5-0. places us under consent calendar. all matters listed here constitute consent calendar considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote at the commission. there will be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission or public or

staff so requests, in which event, it will be removed from the consent calendar. item 4, 2017-006327cua, 3225 lincoln way. i have no speaker cards. >> president hillis: would anyone like to pull this off consent calendar? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? >> move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: on that motion to approve. [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 4-0. placing us on commission matters. consideration of adoption draft minutes november 29, 2018. >> president hillis: any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, we'll close public

comment. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. [roll call vote] >> clerk: so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. item 6, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioner richards: i have been gone two weeks. i had a stack of things that i wanted to talk about, but there's been a lot of items that were newsworthy. this morning's "chronicle." delta plan approved, san francisco's water supply will be reduced. the p.u.c. said that if we have a dry spell we have to conserve 40% beyond what our assumption is, which is efficient already. they said we'll do salination.

and we keep adding population and if our water will be cut, i've asked this before. how will we manage this? are we planning for the water usage that we'll be requiring with the new units that we're adding, given that a plant will take probably 10 years to build. secondly, on the front page, second's, casa, committee to house the bay area, i believe. there was an article in "the examiner." i asked for information on it. it was incredibly complicated. it was a public plan, involving a new quasi private/public agency. it looks like all the pieces are in place to move this plan forward, but a lot of people i know don't even know about it, so i would like to have an informational here, so we understand what the impact of it is on the city. two other quick things.

2019 survey, recession coming in 2019 and for sure 2020. asked to have ted egan come and talk about the state of san francisco and its economy. will we be in sync with the nation or an outlier, like we were before. lastly, we have demo legislation that was proposed by supervisor peskin. i read all 64 pages of it. i can't wait to have it heard here and we give advice back to the board of supervisors. thank you. >> president hillis: on the state legislation in casa, we requested a hearing so, we can hopefully calendar that early next year. >> commissioner moore: in response to what you both said, i'm asking the director, city of san jose announced they have a 50-acre public site, owned by the city of san jose, in which they approved a google campus.

that sounds in contradiction if other communities are being asked not to provide as much space for workplace. it's not about campuses anymore. it's really about sharing and partaking in the demand for growing the bay area responsibly and equitably to provide housing. i would like to ask the director, who serves on the public body where these discussions are being had, to weigh in and voice his questions regarding this issue. >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: we can move on to -- >> commissioner moore: if you can, yeah. >> commissioners, i think we are looking at late january for a hearing on the state and legislation and casa. the casa proposal is a proposal by committee that was formed via

m.t.c. much of what they're proposing requires state or local legislation, so there's a long process before it could ever get impleme implemented. nonetheless, it's worth having a discussion about since it's been under way for two years now. with respect to the san jose site, it was -- i believe the agreement was to sell it to google. they don't have a design yet. it includes housing and office. one of the interesting things that's -- the issue that exists in san jose, which is perhaps different than any other city is that it's the only large city in the country that has a larger nighttime population than daytime population. more people leave the city during the day than come in the day. san francisco's population grows by hundreds of thousands of people every day. san jose is the opposite, which is highly unusual. and so in their case, their

job-housing balance is the opposite of ours. they have a disconnect on the other end of the spectrum. so it's one of the reasons that the mayor is looking at adding to the job base there, because they're trying to create a better balance in that direction. in any case, i think there's a strong believe in the casa process that large, j job-producing developments have to pay their share. i think there's a lot of discussion about when that should happen and what form that takes. so the board i sit on will be meeting next month to talk about the casa process next month and i are report back. >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, we can move on to department matters. item 7, director's announcements. >> that was my announcement. thanks, jonas. >> clerk: item 8, review of past events at board of supervisors,

appeals and historic preservation commission. >> the first item on this week's land use agenda was the proposed landmark designation of 2 henry adams. it's significant for its association with post-1906 reconstruction warehouse development in san francisco and for its association with significant architecture embodies by timber framed, brick, american-style archite architectu architecture. planning gave a brief presentation. three speakers were in favor. it was forwarded to the full board with positive recommendation as committee report. next the committee considered supervisor tang's item for home-sf. you heard this on december 6 and voted to recommend approval with modifications.

proposed modifications were to s consolidate parking requests overhaul. supervisor tang introduced the proposed amendments, which were unanimously added. no public comment on this item. because of the proposed amendments, it was continued to january 7 next year. the committee considered supervisor yee allowing dwelling units to be used as childcare facilities on the ground floor. planning heard this on november 9 and approved without modifications. at land use, there were a couple of public commenters, all in support. supervisor kim reccested one unit per building be removed, however supervisor yee asked the ordinance remain as proposed for the pilot period at least with future review to identify possible modifications. land use unanimously recommended the ordinance as a committee report. next, the committee heard supervisor safai and peskin's

ordinance that would prohibit employee cafeterias. you heard this on october 25 and voted to disapprove the proposed ordinance. and instead approved that the sponsoring supervisors explore alternatives to prohibition. you recommended several alternatives including geographic considerations and an enhanced entitlement process. land use hearing supervisor safai introduced a set of amendments. it required conditional use with a set of five findings. proposed ordinance requires rereferral to planning for a public hearing. discussion at land use was lively. supervisors kim and tang offered several considerations, some including a work force development consideration, assuring that permitting open a restaurant and employee cafeteria are reasonably similar in length, assuring equal access to all employees ir respective

of job class and look at reducing waste. one public speaker was in favor of the conditional use and reiterated the importance of restaurant sector. voted to accept the amendments and added to the call of the chair. finally, the committee heard the biannual housing balance report. we're not quite meeting our affordable housing goals and certain neighborhoods have lost a larger percentage than other neighborhoods. the few speakers that spoke were from housing advocacy groups. supervisor kim made general comments about the report's findings and the committee voted to approve the report and file the hearing. at the full board this week, supervisor mandelman's residential care facility ordinance, s.u.d. for 1515 evans street and exemption of 311-312

in districts 7 and 11 passed second read. also passing second read was supervisor kim's ordinance that would remove parking requirements citywide. i would like to acknowledge paul ch chazm, who provided dedicaadica to getting this past. as i've mentioned before, this will be the second largest city in north america to remove parking minimums and second or third city in the united states to do so. however, our thunder was slightly muted as minneapolis voted to adopt a plan to remove minimum parking requirements, but also to eliminate single-family zoning. minneapolis did this to help with affordability and to chip away as segregated neighborhoods. a fee appeal for the childcare

fee associated with the university of san francisco and 2500 turk street. continued to january 29. childcare ordinance by supervisor yee and 2 henry as amps passed first read. supervisor peskin announced a plan to amend demolition rules and c.u. requirement by anything increasing by 10%. we're in the process of analyzing the proposed changes. that's my report. >> president hillis: thank you. thanks for calling us bold. can we make a motion to eliminate single-family zoning here? [laughter] i would be supportive. >> commissioner richards: on the minneapolis 2040 plan, i've been reading up on it. there are 800 pages of public comment. they originally started with 4-plexes and then went down to 3-plexes. as opposed to the transit-oriented proposals that

we have where you can assembly parcels and build buildings at 150 linear feet on the street. there's a distinction between eliminating single-family homes light and what we have here is like a north hollywood version. demolish neighborhoods and put in big buildings. they're doing it more sensitively. if they want to rachet up in the future, might be a good idea, but it's not like throwing scalding oil on somebody. it's more like lukewarm water. >> president hillis: it would be good to have a hearing on that at some point and get into the details. >> commissioner richards: sure. >> clerk: no report for board of appeals or historic preservation commission, placing us under general public comment, not to e exceed a period of 15 minutes. members of the public can address the commission in the subject matter jurisdiction, outside of agenda items. each member of the public may address the commission for up to

3 minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute time limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. i had one speaker card. >> president hillis: and if anyone else would like to speak, you're welcome. please line up on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon, president hillis and members of the planning commission. kathleen courtney, russian hill community association. i'm here today to mention that it appears that the planning department has changed some of its protocol, some of which we're really pleased with and want to issue a thanks for winslow, who has encouraged project sponsors and d.r. requestors to come together and he's facilitated meetings in the hopes of cutting back on your schedule and eliminating d.r., in effect. one of the additional policies that we're going to explore a little and we'd like you to is

this whole idea of date certain. a date is set for a d.r. that cannot be changed. we have a homeowners association that is a d.r. requestor and the date certain is december 20. so four of you have to be here on december 20. and the d.r. requester is leaving for a long-planned family holiday on december 19. no opportunity has been made available to continue this. so i appreciate that having date certain is a way for you to manage your calendar and the planning department and the commission secretary to manage the calendar, but it appears to be planning protocol that is gaining a lot of popularity that will really adversely affect a lot of people.

thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we're all aware that there is not sufficient prop m office available for the 5 million development in central soma. that means that there will have to be choices made about which projects can be approved this coming year and which will have to wait to subsequent years. it is a known fact that just a year ago, the mayor's office looking at the same situation that they expected would occur in this year, 2018, adopted a list of who would go first based on political considerations. you cannot do that this year. to do that would not just be

unethical and unpopular, but flagrantly corrupt practice by this commission. you must adopt in a fair and open process criteria to set the priority, to set rules for how things should be prioritized and then apply the criteria. they need to be criteria based on objective elements, not on the subjective values or tastes of city planning staff. we say that that criteria should be based on the community benefits, these projects include, as part of their projects. they are varied. they're quite different one from another, but a way can be found and one is suggested here, to evaluate them based on those facts. and those facts alone would determine which project had first priority. it can be applied to phases as

easily as entire projects. you see in this handout, this approach was pulled about six months ago, to prioritize office development based on community benefit. 73% of voters supported that approach. that means if we put it on the ballot next november, we'll win. i hope you will do it because it's the right thing to do, not just because we are prepared to go that route, if necessary. i wait to hear how the staff responds in the near future. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional general public comment? seeing none, we'll close general public comment. >> clerk: regular calendar, item 9, 2016-013551cwp, excelsior and

outer mission neighborhood strategy, informational presentation. >> i want to introduce the team and supervisor safai, who i think is here to speak. there he is. >> supervisor safai: thank you, honorable president hillis and other commissioners. oh, good, i got smiles. usually i have dead pan looks on your faces. i even got commissioner moore to smile. all right. [laughter] i'm excited to be here. we have -- and thank you to director ram. one of the first things i did when i came into office is talk to mayor lee about putting together a process for looking at the revitalization of our commercial corridors. we sat with director ram

immediately. talked about putting money in the budget. we put that -- we were able to get that in the first few months. knowing that the money was going to be there, the process began. former staffer rachel tanner -- i don't know if she's here today -- but she was hired and focused on this almost exclusively for the entire time that she was there. she did a phenomenal job guiding the ship along with sue and jose rivas, and stephanie cojina. we put those folks in a room and put out a call for community members to participate in this process. we had, i think, almost 100 applicants, maybe 80 or 90. and we chose 30 to represent a broad spectrum of the district. and always like to tell people, and you know this as

commissioners, because you know the neighborhoods deeply, but district 11 is a microcosm of the city. you will see that in the presentation today. one thing that makes us sightly different, we have the highest rate of owner-occupied homes. so in that regard, there is more stability, although we've experienced significant displacement and early signs of gentrification. however, our commercial corridor has certainly been wanting for investment and stabilization at the same time. we tried to approach this process in bringing the disparate groups together, renters, homeowners, business owners, small business owners, property owners. the ones representing immigrant communities. we did everything we could to have a broad base and spectrum

of the community represented in this process. we did over 30 community meetings, maybe even more. we had hundreds and hundreds of residents participate in the process. i was inspired by the sunset blueprint, although this is so much more in the sense that it was staff's time, effort and involvement, along with community members really driving this process. is the ultimate document perfect? i would say nothing is perfect. it's a living document. there is always room for improvement. i'm sure people will speak today in favor and really excited. were we able to get consensus on every issue? absolutely not. i don't think it would be san francisco if we did. but we certainly were able to put things in motion that began what my ultimate goal was when i came into office after listening to thousands and thousands of residents was to get a focus investment and stabilization along our commercial corridors.

we've worked with your commission in implementing some legislation. we did the 312 notification. in that process, we were able to adjust arch use not being permitted at all. we were at a wonderful reception last night at a place that was vacant for 15 years, chuck's market. they turned a market -- an old meat market, into a youth art exchange and art span. two organizations, two nonprofits, have come together. they have artists in residence. they're training young artists. it was lit up. and it's an example of the things that has come out of this document already and this property. we're so happy. we're thankful for the time, effort, energy, staff putting heart and soul into this, along with the community members that participated. we were able to do the accessory

use restoration on limited restaurants to allow for catering. we're working on doing the flex retail. we did that with supervisor tang. we're thinking about activating the ground floor. the pressures of change pressure existing businesses. we've enhanced the facade program. we're working with lenders that can put together special packages to lend to existing businesses. those are technical. you have a phenomenal document and i think it's expressive of the neighborhood and i wanted to keep my remarks brief and hand it over to sue and jorge to do their powerful presentation, but i wanted to be here personally to say i'm behind this report. we'll use it as a roadmap. again, it's a living document. it's always able to change, but

i feel like it captures the rich tapestry of our district and the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish and lay the groundwork hopefully in the end for a potential community benefits district if that is so desired. thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions before the presentation, if you have any. if not, i will stick around for the presentation and happy to answer any questions. >> president hillis: great. any initial questions for supervisor safai? okay. >> thank you. jonas, can we get the power point? so i wanted to do a quick shoutout to the rest of the staff. as he mentioned, it's been a really collaborative effort and i wanted to mention planning staff that has really worked hard. aaron yen, james pappas, just

wave. thank you so much. patrick centaro, office of work force economic development. so it really was a team effort. jorge and i will present today as well. so we're going to go through a few things, quick overview of the neighborhood. what it looks like. the process -- we'll go in more depth than what the supervisor just mentioned. talk about the goals, strategies and action items and a summary of the feedback since we published this document. i think you have this massive document. i'm sure you read all 150 pages. it's a lot. we wanted to capture what we heard in this 1 1/2-year-long process here.

so this is the study area. it's made up of excelsior and outer mission. you can see mission street corridor running down the center. and supervisor mentioned it was a focus on the neighborhood commercial district. as planners, we often cannot divorce the corridor from the surrounding neighborhoods. i think that's why the community saw that asle with. so that's why you will see that overlap. the population of the area is unique in some ways to san francisco. 76% of the households identify as family households, compared

to 46% citywide. so it is very family oriented. you will see that as well. the supervisor mentioned the homeowners. 64% owners, 36% renters. over 50% of the residents in this neighborhood are foreign-born. 50% asian. 31% identify as latino. and, again, going along with this foreign-born, 20% of the population is linguistically isolated, meaning the adults in the household over 14 do not speak english fluently. the neighborhood has been seen as a more affordable

neighborhood. by any measure now, it's crossed that line. median price of a home in 2017 in this zip code, over $1 million. rent almost $4,000. and so you can see in the housing cost burden, households paying more than 30% of their income, you see that in renters and homeowners. i will turn it over to jorge. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the office of economic and work force development. thank you for being such a great partner and getting us to the finish line after rachel tenor was no longer with us to

complete the project. i'm here to talk about the commercial district and share more details about the actual process to develop this document. so with that, the commercial district has been a focal point. it has a variety of neighborhood-serving businesses. it has an authentic, lively and working class feel that is a strong asset to the neighborhood. however, it's very long. 2.2 miles beginning to the daly city border. 140 storefronts, 46 of them vacant. with many, many safety concerns that have been raised in the past. they've been documented, including enforcement concerns. the feedback through the process revealed that residents want to see greater diversity, in addition, they highlighted the need for local jobs to be connected to residents in the

neighborhood. we heard there can be improved lighting, greening and cleaning, to enlivin' the corridor and support small businesses. in addition to business retraction and help in the corridor. there has been development in certain legislation that allows for that, flex use, for example. planning and public works, for example. and there was outer mission neighborhoods in san francisco. cities are examples identified early on with clear support from the community to begin work before we reach this point. with more community engagement,

we can implement these strategies. so why a neighborhood strategy? the conversations early on related to the neighborhood process. it's where culture thrives and entrepeneurs can flourish. the purpose was to build upon the assets in the neighborhood. it addresses challenges and opportunities. as well as partnership with the a.g. and supervisor's office. it allows the partners and residents to come together, dig deep into the issues and opportunities and propose a vision, goals, and strategies with an implementation

framework. it's a creative product that aims to capture and articulate the opinions in the neighborhood and create a shared set of values that all of us can get behind. throughout the process, it's been critical to build and maintain trust meeting with members for this, the city attempts to reflect the conversations and this product. the process was kicked off in may, 2017. the initial meeting was framed around doing a scan of past efforts. after that, we had workshops with high school seniors and merchants to create awareness as well as aspirations and framework for what we want to

identify as priorities. in december, 2017, close to 1,000 surveys were conducted. in august, 2017, the working group came together. this was formed with a broad set of stake holders to provide feedback. working group members met around topics that needed further exploration such as public realm, service providers and land use and housing. sub groups developed a set of goals and strategies they would like to pursue and further with a larger working group. during the process, it was realized under the direction of the working group members that we needed to do further exploration with certain

populations that were not reflected in the process. so we set focused conversations soon after that. since the summer, we've been working on writing this document and vetting the pieces of the document. we've also shared the document with particular stake holders in the community already. we had an open house earlier late last month and shared the document with particular bodies that bring different nonprofits and stake holders together. in summary, planning, owd worked together for a strategy. it included workshops, surveys, focused conversations and working group meetings.

we have met frequently to discuss and reflect on what we've heard. thank you for your time and i will pass it over to sue. >> so the process that jorge described, one of the first goals was to come up with an aspiration for the neighborhood. this is what the working group and the community developed and i think it really captures the essence of the neighborhood. we support, sustain and enhance what makes our neighborhood special. our families, economic, ethnic diversity, small businesses and local gems. jorge mentioned that the working group divided up into sub groups. they are the themes of the sub group as well as the themes that you will see in the document. land use and housing, public realm, mobility and business

services. under the themes, we highlighted a start and we'll talk more about what came out in these conversations. housing affordability, a huge part of the conversation. making sure the neighborhood stays and retains its family friendly nature. clean and greening the corridor. we kept hearing that over and over again. there was a lot of talk about pedestrian and bicycle safety and even more recently focused on seniors, ensuring seniors have access. business services. jorge mentioned filling the vacant storefronts and keeping the businesses that we have, supporting the businesses we have. this is just a quick guide. i don't intend you to read this text on the screen. it's very small. but just to see that this is what your document looks like and this is the level.

so there were goals developed. i wanted to give one more in-depth explanation of what that looks like. in the colored font, there's a goal. it will look like this. underneath that, most of the groups at least developed strategies. public realm took it one level further and did action items. it's in a consensus-building process with the community and the goals, strategies and actions that you see here were developed through that process. we want it highlight what each sub group came up with as their aspiration. a well-designed public realm reinforces the multi cultural character, enhances safety, and creates lively neighborhoods. business and service provide groups, aspiration is that commercial district is a thriving one.

mobility. make it safer and more inviting for people to get around the neighborhood, commercial corridor and to community assets. and the land use and housing group. we envision a stable, healthy future without displacement, where current and future residents can thrive. as jorge mentioned, we had a community meeting at the end of november. we had about 80 attendees. we also had a couple of other events that we attended after. after we produced this document, we wanted to be sure with we got out to the broader community. it was open to the public and this was a chance for everybody to see the final product put together. what did we hear? we heard lots of themes that i mentioned. we heard similar things come out of the process. protection for displacement rose to the top. planning for housing. especially affordable housing.

something that i think came out this meeting that was new to us was not the preservation of the multicultural character, but maybe a multicultural character district, maybe that's an option as a tool to preserve that character. business services, activating storefronts. there's been a lot of talk about what to do with the vacant storefronts that are on the streets. mobility, the senior mobility, came out as they wanted to look at seniors and transit-riders. and, again, clean and green on the commercial corridor. so what are our next steps? we want to finish working through the community priorities as we hear them and how do we implement these things. we have a number of things that we are doing. jorge mentioned a few. there's a few more that is listed that the city is doing. this is what we're doing and

planning to do already, but we know that we want, you know, there's a heck of a lot more in here that we're supposed to be doing. so we want to figure out which ones rise to the top and work with our city agencies to do that. we said, again, this is a living document and we want to update this in a year from now and make sure that we're still on pace and this still makes sense. and the community process is key. so i think there was a lot of -- a question of, where does this go from here? how do we stay engaged? we hope to continue to engage in the community. we don't want to be seen as, this is the end of our engagement, but rather the end of this phase and beginning of the next steps in the next work efforts. thank you very much. let us know if you have any questions. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. we're going to take public comment first and i'm sure we'll have questions and comments.

any public comment on this item? >> afternoon, commissioners. corey smith, san francisco housing coalition. overall, a really cool community driven process. there are unique challenges here in the city and the proactive approach at the supervisors' office is something that we always look for. we're oftentimes a pull and tug between state control and local control and it's not magnified in a lot of situations. when communities themselves go, okay, we have similar problems we need to address, what are some comprehensive ways to address them. this is a living, breathing document. it will evolve as we go out and we're excited to continue the process going forward. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you

very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm jesse fernandez. i'm a district 11 resident. i'm a community organizer, member organization of communities united for health and justice, cuhj for short, district 11 alliance. from the outset, we've been critical of this and raised our concerns for the process not being representative and unaccountable to low income, nonlingual speakers. while they've been capturing the insights of communities with a formal seat at the table. overall, represent the action representing a chosen few that had that privilege. in a district, where 52% of residents are foreign-born and 20% face linguistic isolation,

exclusive and accessible participation cannot be an after-thought. as community members reflected on the strategy, sylvia corrales, 20-year resident of the neighborhood, made a striking reflection, speaking to the disconnect of the strategies presented on behalf of the city and the lived experiences and community priorities that people are facing in the street. she said, the city is talking about the table settings, napkins, cutlery and tableclo s tablecloths, but we need the table. it represents the security, stability to remain in the neighborhood. and too many vulnerable residents were able to raise those issues. commissioners, any future research and analysis under this process must center the expertise and the leadership of our multilingual,

intergenerational community. the implementation should adopt a do-no-harm approach to prioritizing and strengthening. this means serving working class residents. it means not increasing displacement. it means protecting residents and tenants. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm stephanie carjena. since the last meeting, there's been a part of the project team. as a member of the team, we were tasked really to lift up the community voices to guide the policies and i truly want to thank everybody involved in this

process and the supervisors office. i want to thank them for being nimble and flexible with community requests, to adopt the processes and be more inclusive and give the community more time to engage in the complex, vital projects for the community and topics that are interwoven with one another and hard to take a deep dive in. we appreciate this process was extended and allowed for the conversation to happen. i appreciate want to thank aaron yen for spearheading the conversations. as jesse mentioned, it was to engage hard-to-reach populations and meet them where they are. i also want to thank the working group members that went above and beyond to work with the project team on the focused conversation component, particularly marco munero, david

hooper. and i'm truly confident that this document lays a great foundation for more focused partnership between the community and the city to tackle the needs of our commercial corridor and neighborhood we look forward to working with the greater city family to implement the next phase of the project and are excited to hit the ground running. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm katie taylor. i'm a garden-variety resident of the excelsior. i have been for 50 years, as have my parents. i was thankful to participate in this process to develop a working strategy for our neighborhood, which has been not really noticed in san francisco much over many years. and so it gave us an opportunity

to express our views and to talk about our -- well to, have a little soapbox. and try to push for things that we see in our neighborhood every day, living there and walking and working in our neighborhood. so i want to thank the planning staff and also supervisor safai for giving us the opportunity to develop a working strategy, which i hope and expect will be, as has been said, a living document, and there will be continued input and refinement and more ideas coming forward in this process. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm charlesy sharmus, member of the working group and resident. i wanted to speak to two activities in the strategy

document, which can both have a significant impact on the health and well-being. if not done right, they risk causing harm. it includes developing a housing plan and assessing the gaps in the commercial corridor. both activities are designed to do research and analysis to create plans of action. they appear in the document as land use and housing 1.1 and business and service providers 2.1. the traditional approach that planning agencies often take are to hire outside experts and consultants to do the planning and analysis. we believe this approach is fundamentally flawed. it inevitably pushes top-down strategies and runs the risk of intensification. it undervalues the expertise in our neighborhoods among the everyday, working people, youth, family and elders, that confront the stations and have a better

undering of the problems and what could make a difference the right way to do this is to utilize community expertise first and do no harm. the housing plans and analyses would center the expertise of existing, working class, and build their leadership. we believe this should be done before market rate projects are allowed. if there's a housing plan for a range of incomes, we should be putting a pause on market rate development until this plan is completed. i've heard this planning commission express several times that in the excelsior there's an opportunity to change the script. many neighborhoods in our city and bay have been traumatized by hyper-gentrification, speculative development and displacement. for this to follow a different

path, private and public sector leaders, have an opportunity to take a different approach. i have a handout i wanted to share. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon, san francisco land use coalition. i'm not a resident of excelsior, but as i was printing the materials for the items i was going to speak to, i accidentally printed the stats from one of the reports that the planning department had put out under the neighborhood demographics reported a few months ago. the numbers are startling. the reason i would like to present the numbers is because we are at a crossroads at the

state level as well as the city to transform some neighborhoods, which could have a negative impact on residents. overhead, please. as you can see from the report that came from the planning department itself, 84% of excelsior dwellings are single-family homes. that should be noted by the action and people that keep calling the single-family homeowners racist, given the fact that excelsior has quite a number of minority residents.

52% of them being foreign-born and they were not born in scandinavia. this is something to note. another thing that i would like the planning department to pay attention to is whether or not the number we have here of the homeowners, 62% homeowners that we have, versus 38% renters. these homeowners from what i've gathered from other community activists, they usually have extended families that are renting from them. we can't quite say that, you know, yippee, we have 60% homeowners in this neighborhood and, therefore, displacement will not be impactful. it is. they're living with their extended families, and collecting rent, which will be helping them to pay the mortgage. so i would like to see the planning commission having a statistic that will reflect what percentage of the homeowners are

living with families and paying them rent and what the impact is on the family, after all, when the homeowner will be selling the place because of, you know, various legislation that will push the gentrification. what will happen to these people? thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. >> commissioner fong: i agree with the last speaker that this neighborhood is different than others with the single-family home use, multigenerations living in the same household, and with any luck, like san francisco used to be, people passing down property and real estate to kids and grandkids and taking over and assuming, rather than being forced to sell. it's a document, but i think it's a great investment in this community. i love that it's a living

document and hopefully checking back and using it as a gauge to find out if the g word, gentrification, is happening quickly. i think in many cases, we see plans where it's retroactive of something already happening. i'm glad you are out in front of this and hope that your predecessors keep on with the document. talking about seniors and this is a critical piece for aging in place, for providing senior care inside or outside of the home. that particular stage of life is a big determination if a family is selling a property or able to stay. so i like to focus, if you can, on that senior element. but thank you very much to the staff and to the community and i think it's another good example of neighborhoods taking a quick look, snapshot, of where we are

today. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner melgar. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i've been watching this process for quite a while. and i was honored to have been hosted on a tour of the excelsior and getting firsthand account from a lot of the members about their vision for the neighborhood. i have also worked for quite some time with freddie and charlie, stephanie, and supervisor safai and i have no doubt that everyone wants the best. we may not agree on every strategy, but i have been pleased at the amount of goodwill and good faith that there's been bringing people together. i think stephanie is one of the most competent people that i know. so i think