you, this is not an ideal situation, and i hear that, i'm not indifferent to your concerns. i'm not indifferent to your point of view, and we are asked to step up in the city of st. francis. every district in san francisco is being asked to step up and address this humanitarian. what you're not seeing is a 19-year-old lgbtq teen kicked out of their home. you're not seeing the woman who became homeless due to losing her job, being evicted and is more likely statistically to be a victim of crime on the streets than almost anyone in this room. as a court commissioner, we'll put safeguards in place with an

m.o.u. we will be receiving annual reports from the city, and we will hold all departments accountable. we view this as a temporary use. we all want to activate seawall lots 30-31 and the pier. that is our end goal. the ninth circuit court of appeals ruled you cannot criminalize a person sleeping on the streets unless you have a bed for them. until we can house all of our fellow san franciscans on the streets, we will have encampments, we will have people squatting, living on the streets, who will be victimized through no fault of their own.

vice president adams, i will support the motion to move this navigation center after three of my questions are answered. those are my remarks. can you explain to me what the safety zone means and the outreach zone means. can you clarify what those zones are, and thank you for expanding them. >> yes. thank you very much, commissioner. what that means is we're going to have police officers walking or most likely on bicycles that are patrolling these zones constantly throughout the day, and we'll work with the community to figure out the best times for deployment. but we'll be out there dealing with any possible loitering, issue that we come across. and to your other point, we want to -- if we encounter people that do need service ms. that zone, we want to be -- services in that zone, we want

to be able to refer them to services in that zone. >> i'm sorry. i'm cold, which is why i'm shivering a little bit. >> you have two zones -- the first zone is basically a zone where the police officer is assigned to this seven days a week, will be patrolling, and then, the department of homelessness can explain what the outreach zone is. >> we can put the slide back up and walk-through the details. thank you, randy.

sf >> so on the pink zone is the safety zone, and the blue zone is the primary outreach zone, and this is the zone that people will be inviting them into. in this blue zone is where we conducted -- hot conducted a count just this last month, and found 179 people experiencing unsheltered homelessness overnight in the blue zones, and this is the blue zone that's where we'll be doing the quarterly count to ensure we're reducing homelessness in the area. >> and another question i need

clarification. it might be better directed to the director. there has been a navigation center that was successful and closed. can you explain that because all navigation centers are temporary and this one seems to be in perpetuity. >> yes. there were two centers that have closed. 1915 mission and 1515 south vanness. both we had a 90-day ramp down period in which we eninsurinsu stopped accepting people in the navigation centers and they were transported to a new location. that was a little bit more complicated with 1950 mission as it did not happen right as another site was opening. it was a bit of an overlap with 1515. many of the residents were able to go to the site on division circle. >> thank you.

>> sure. >> wow. i have to say this is probably one of the hardest votes i'll ever have to do because i live in this area. i learned a lot up here just being up here, hearing what everyone had to say. when we think about this land, if we go back in our history, the original settlers came, the original landowners, the native american indians, they were here before we were all here. we talk about delancey street. jimmy harmon was the president of my union, and at this time, what him and mimi wanted to do to delancey street, they

started off in pacific heights, and the people in pacific heights said we don't want those kind of people there. they came down to where they're at today, and people feel comfortable with delancey street because they've been there a long time. i understand. living in the community, i think the people in the community, they have a lot of fears. they've got questions -- they're just human beings. they've got a lot of questions about safety, and the unknown makes people scared. we want to be safe. i can understand that. this is something that will probably be settled in the courts. this won't be settled here, it will be settled on the courts. i heard the attacks on my fellow commissioners, and we as commissioners, we're trying to do the best we can. another patron of california, ronald reagan, let's talk about

what happened with him. when he was the governor of california, he closed all the mental hospitals in california. a lot of people on the street have mental conditions, and this process to me is like a helicopter. it's got a lot of moving parts to this. this is the best debate that i have ever, ever heard as a commissioner pro and again. even though people made a lot of attacks against people, this brought out all kinds of feelings and emotions on people. and at some point, i wish we could have stayed on the topic instead of attacking each other personally, what about the navigation center and what about those in this community that we need to take care of? we have 60 billionaires within our region in california. we're one of the richest nations in the world, and before mayor lee died, he had a

conference with mayor garcetti in l.a., and mayor wheeler in portland. we used pier 80 as a navigation center. i think some of the commissioners felt uncomfortable with that. but sometimes we call ourselves good christian people, but we don't want to step up. and sometimes, we say well, it's okay, but in somebody else's community. i'm glad that the supervisor said that it needs to be in every community. sometimes we forget about our police officers. they're the first line of defense that have to deal with all these situations. and let's not forget those proud men and women that went and protected us at war, and they come home, and they have mental problems, legs are shot off, arms are shot off.

it's okay for them to go and fight, and yet, when they come home, we tell them we can't do nothing for you. they're the ones that had to sacrifice and have the courage to go fight for us and to defend the freedom that we enjoy every day. in saying that; i think that there's no perfect fit for this. i don't. i really don't. are we going to be able to ease the homelessness? i saw something today. i saw an average age in our city. the average age of our city is 27 years old. i have followed the change and the dynamics and the transition, and there are people in this city that can no longer live in the city of their birth. something is wrong. now, we have to address it. this is painful. this is awful hard. you can be mad at the politicians, you can be mad at

the mayor. and we had this conversation with the other commissioners before victor and gail got on, we wanted mayor lee to fix it by himself. each of us in this room are responsible. we've all got to put a little skin in the game. we can't stand on the outside and always be a spectator. you've got to get in the game and you've got to hurt a little bit sometimes. we've got to figure this out. and i'll tell you sometimes, what is happening here in this debate is going to spark conversations all over this city. this needs to happen. this painful conversation needs to happen. we've got to figure it out because you can blame the commissioners or whatever. we don't have all the solutions, but we're trying. we've got to try to do something, and you know what? at the end of the day, if something happens, you don't like it, you can vote all of those people out of office. if you don't feel they're doing the right thing, or you can do something boulder. you can step up and run for

office. you can get in the hot seat. it's easy to be critical and criticize. step in the frying pan. come up with something better because tonight, i listened to what everybody had to say. how many true solutions really came? there's a solution. don't build it here or do this or that, but did they come up with a true solution because it's easy to be critical. so my thoughts on this is that i am going to vote in favor of this. i'm going to be monitoring this, and i am going to be going down there. because i know one thing for sure. the people in this community, they deserve to be safe. commander lozar needs to be doing his job because the people in this community are going to be coming back to the port commission if they're not doing their job. i can only say thank you for coming out.

thank you for the debate. i'm hoping that we learning in from this conversation. and what i do after every port commission meeting, i hope that you'll do it yourself, i hope that you'll listen to everybody's comments and how everybody laid out their position on how important this is. and so at this time, i'm going to turn it over to commissioner woo ho. she wanted to go last. >> yes. i wanted to thank my fellow commissioners, and i want to thank everybody, the neighbors, everybody that's been here for the last several meetings and all of the e-mails and letters that you've sent. it's made us think that is probably one of the decisions that we have thought about most. if we had not engaged directly in conversation with you, we have heard you. i can assure you we have heard you, and there have been many discussions as far as trying to

understand what is the best way to approach this and worked with staff on that, and staff's worked with city hall many ways in various departments to craft what we think is the best solution. it's not perfect, but i'd like to ask some technical questions and then i'm going to give you my opinions -- i'd like to make some general comments, but i'm not going to read a prepared speech. number one, just because it's been raised by a few people, the ceqa process, because it's been placed on a fast track, i'd like the city attorney to opine that the stated m.o.u. is your opinion. >> yes. the ceqa stated in the m.o.u. as well as the resolution that's before you for consideration sets forth -- it complies with chapter 31 of the admin code, so we're really confident that planning, the

categorical exemption that planning has set forth complies with it. >> okay. secondly, this is an interim use, so is there any approval needed from the state land commission? >> not at this juncture. state land commission will come -- staff wanted to bring this to you prior to bringing this to state lands, but state lands has been in communication, but state lands approval is not required until the document is executed. >> okay. did i read the m.o.u. correctly as it relates to hazardous material, that that is the material of the operator and the city to take care of? >> actually, i'm going to ask the port staff on that. >> elaine, do you want to say something on the record? >> it is. it is the responsibility of the city and the operator for the m.o.u. >> okay. for hazardous material. okay. thank you. and i think that we mentioned that we expect some metrics of

stablization during the ramp-up period. i just want to make a comment because i think it's important that the actual staff is available to make sure that the occupancy does not get ahead of the staff of the center. if it does, hopefully, the schedule will slow down because we want this center to operate perfectly. we want it to operate as efficiently, effectively, and if you don't have the right staff in place -- i hope that is a commitment that the city will make. i know there's a schedule, you want to make the schedule, but i hope if there's an issue, that we do not proceed. i think the neighborhood's -- the neighbors' concerns are the center will not be operate within the promises being made and so therefore, it's very important that that is the case. i just want to say a couple things about -- because you know, a lot of people have

talked about the port. commissioner makras also mentioned, and i just want to reiterate. this decision today does not mean that the port has abandoned finding the highest and best use for this property. i think the navigation centers by definition are temporary, and secondly, the port has defined itself that this site is temporary because it is discussed in a waterfront plan, it was discussed in a port commission meeting that we do intend to pursue an r.f.p. the neighbors should realize we're planning to proceed with that simultaneously as commissioner makras mentioned. it's an integral part of fulfilling our mission for appropriate long-term use. when it refers to the public trust in the m.o.u., that's exactly what it means because this site will be developed for some long-term use. we have tried many times in the

past as you know, the arena being one of them, but there have been other attempts in the past that have not succeeded. the value that all of you talked about, in terms of the $100 million, we hope -- that is going to be a tremendous help to whoever wants to also save pier 3032. so there is an economics here, but it's mentioned use of the property versus the value of the property on appraised value are two separate things, and we want to make sure that everybody understands that. as mentioned, the time involved in doing an r.f.p. and getting ceqa and everything else for the site is going to take multiple years. that's why we do as a commission support the interim use for the mission. we're not going to suffer economically because we are going to get the same rent as if we would use this for parking, so the port is made whole. and we are not necessarily giving up in permanents of what

the -- in terms of what the economic value is. as you mentioned, and she mentioned, again, we've cross-referenced again that if for some reason we are successful in the r.f.p. process, we have the right to terminate with six months notice. not to say that we're going to do that, but if it happens that the r.f.p. works, the port does have the right to terminate. i just want to mention that again for the public to make sure that you understand, that people think this is going to be permanent forever. our intention is not for this to be permanent. our intention is for us to find the right use in the long-term, and i think all of you need to understand that. and we do therefore want to fulfill the mission of what the port is all about, which many of you have mentioned. recourse has been mentioned several times. i just want to say there is a proposal. we are going to ask the executive director of the port to locate a project, and she

will designate people from the neighborhood to meet on a regular basis, the business owners, the residents, to discuss the operations, to review the data, the homeless count, the crime statistics from the area, to review the services to see whether the police are meeting their commitments and provide any needed changes. i do think the good neighbor policy, that's my personal opinion, is right now -- probably needs more detail, and i think the neighbors should be inputting, but we do not need to stop what we're doing today to get that detail. that is something we can do as we're going through the process after today. what i see today is a beginning journey. i do not feel this is a victory for anybody today. i feel there is so much execution that is needed and the accountability of all the various groups, the third party operator from the h.s.h., the police department, the d.p.w.,

there is a lot of accountability, and execution is critical. if the execution does not work properly, then all of these fee fears that have been raised in these meetings, well then, the worse will be there. we are here to hopefully demonstrate that if this navigation center works in this kind of neighborhood in this kind of city then it will work everywhere in the city, and then, we will be able to have an example that will solve the issue for the rest of the city. i think you have to view it that way. we are here for all of san francisco, not just for the waterfront by itself, and i really want to emphasize, execution is so critical. all of you that are here, if it does not work properly, you should come back, and we invite you to come back to the commission and let us know that it's not working properly. that's our commission. i've worked on advisory groups since i've been on the

commission. we have our own sort of community good neighbor policy, and we intend to continue to fulfill that commitment. i don't think any of our commissioners here would disagree with that in the long run. i think that nobody here -- i don't any that anybody here is a nimby or a racist. i think there's been a lot of rhetoric. at the basic, we are all humans, we all have compassion. i believe, as i said, there's no victory for any side. this is just the beginning of a long journey, a hard journey to a destination. it's not going to be easy. but i would say for some people, somebody said it earlier, let's not have the fear of failure, let's have hope. i would say it's like the power of and. it's not the neighbors or homeless, it's the neighbors and homeless. let's work together for a solution. i've thought about this long and hard because i have taken the neighbors' considerations, and i do know that disrupting people's lives, disrupting

quality of life is important. i mean, you -- it's very important to you, it is important to us, and we want to help you to preserve that. i actually think that the more i hear about what we're going to do with this navigation center with the new protocols, that this is going to help cleanup the neighborhood more than actually make it worse, so i -- we will be on watch, we will be watching to see that that happens, but that is the hope that we have, and it's not just a hope that will be dissipated, it's a hope that we're going to watch. so i am in favor as a result of that of voting today for the navigation center. [inaudible] >> you need to actually change the motion for the m.o.u., and

for the citizens advisory group, i would like to set it up under my power. you're free to vote as proposed, and i will setup the citizens advisory group, and we will stay with the neighborhood and we will not turn away and continue to engage with our city partners. >> okay. we're ready to vote. all in favor of resolution 1916? opposed? passed unanimously. madam secretary, please -- [applause] >> i'd like to thank san francisco sheriff's department and san francisco police department for keeping law and

order. >> new business? you ready? oh, you didn't? there's no new business? no new business. >> i'll entertain a motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor, say aye? opposed? 8:25, we're adjourned.

>> my biggest take away is that you can always find a way. most people who go into public policies really want to make a difference and have a positive impact on the world, and that's what i love most about my job. i feel like every day at the sfpuc all of the policies that we're involved in have major impacts on people's lives both here in the city and across the state and the nation. in 2017, california senate bill 649 was released. it would have capped the fees that cities such as ourselves would be able to charge telecom companies for the right to use or poll for their cell equipments, and it also would have taken away city's

abilities to negotiate what the equipment looks like, where they could be placed, and potentially we could even be in a position where we would not be able to stop them putting equipment especially on our light poles. my name is emily lamb and i am director of policy affairs for the sfpuc. i really am involved with a team of people and building a strong coalition of a team of folks. we are working very closely to get this bill defeated and ultimately vetoed by governor brown. >> emily is one of those people who is a bright star with regards to her passion, her commitment, her tenacity and she's just a great, fun person. she's all of the things that you would want in an employee and an ambassador for our organization. >> my biggest take away is you can always find a way,

especially when something is important and worth fighting for, if you put your heads together with people, and you collaborate, that usually you can find some solution to get to your goal. in this case, it was a bill that most people considered politically difficult to complete, and we didn't have a chance of doing it, but with a lot of strattizing with a lot of different partners, we got it done. my name is emily lamb, and i am the director of policy and government affairs, and i've been with sfpuc for 2.5 years. welcome to the land use and transportation committee meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors or today, monday, april 22, 2019.

i'm the chair, aaron peskin, joined by matt haney and shortly by safai. our clerk, do you have announcements? >> be sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. any documents should be submitted to the clerk >> supervisor peskin: thank you. could you read the first item. >> item number 1 is ordinance ordering the summary street vacation of the 900 block of francisco street as part of the development of francisco --% approximate -- >> supervisor peskin: i think actually -- >> i apologize. ordinance amending the plumbing code to add a requirement for

the placement and minimum size of building traps and affirming the appropriate findings. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. who do we have here for this earth-shattering piece of legislation? >> steve, from dbi, chief plumbing inspector. this was a clerical error that was missed. it's always been in the code. it's something we're re-entering back into the code for the amendments. i have this section here. put up here, if you want. section 1008.0, building traps, it gives you everything required for a 4-inch vent and the requirement of a trap. the legislation that we're going for right now is above the 1001.155 that, the location of

the traps. >> supervisor peskin: any public comment on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion to send this item to the full board with recommendation? moved by supervisor safai. we'll take that without objection. next item, please. >> item 2 is ordering the street vacation of 900 block of francisco street as part of francisco park. >> supervisor peskin: before we hear from mr. banks, i wanted to put this into context and then i'll say more words about this tomorrow, but this is the long vacant piece of p.u.c. property that was the francisco reservoir that has not been used as a reservoir longer than any of us have been alive in this room. and it was subject of a jurisdictional transfer

treatment between the public utilities commission and the parks and rec department. i wanted to acknowledge and remember jan blum, one of the leading forces in that movement, who volunteered in my office from 2001 to 2009 and passed away last week. i just wanted to thank jan blum and her colleagues in their tireless effort to turn this into san francisco's newest francisco park in the middle of those properties which by the way have yet to be transferred by the p.u.c. to the rec and part. it's a paper street. it's never been built. but it only exists on paper this is summary vacation of that. and with that, on behalf of public works specifically the county surveyor, mr. stores who

is over there, mr. banks, the floor is yours. >> thank you. good afternoon, chairman peskin as well as distinguished members of the board. this legislation is to conditionally vacate francisco street. currently this portion of the street is underdeveloped dedicated public right of way tt that is bound by accesser block 0046 to the north, and accessory block 0047 to the south. the vacation is part of the process of creating, as you mentioned, a new francisco park which is located at the site of the reservoir. by vacationing the street, the rec and park department will be able to create a single parcel for the park by merging ab0046 and assessor block 0047 and the

vacated area that will allow rec and park to maintain the park. the vacation is conditioned on the successful transfer of the abudding parcels, 0046 and 0047 from the san francisco public utilities commission to the recreation and parks department. now, in the event that the abutting parcels are not transferred to rec and park, the vacation and the transfer of the street shall not occur. the jurisdictional transfer is expected to occur by 2026. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. banks. any questions or comments from committee members? any comments from staff or supervisor stefani, within whose district this falls? any public comment on item number 2? mr. banks, i think we're opening

it up for public comment. you're go to go for now. mr. wright? >> i agree with the improvements for the park. this is not the first time i've done this. i've done this before to remove a person's name by the name of feeling from two locations within the city. his name was on the street within san francisco and his name was in a park that is located in san francisco. as a result, a hearing took place that started off just like this and ended up going to the board of appeals and the appeals court ruled in favor of the petition. which was led by the president of the board of supervisors now. as a result, mr. feeling's name was taken off a park, because of his history of racism against asian people and making statements he wanted california to be all white. i spoke up to that.

my problem is, why do we have feeling statue on the inside of the front two doors of the building here at city hall? i made that point before and i'm stressing it again. there is no way his statue should be on the inside of the two front doors of city hall when we removed his name from the city street and the city park because of his history of racism. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, sir. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on item number 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there a motion for item number 2? moved, i will assume that is a motion to send this to the full board with recommendation made by supervisor hay. can you read items 3 through 5 together. >> item number 3 is ordinance approving the agreement between

the city and county of san francisco and syts investments. item 4 is establishing the cayuga special use district. one more. item number 5 is an ordinance amending the zoning map to change the zoning district and making it appropriate -- making appropriate findings. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. so these three instruments have been brought to us by supervisor safai. i've been briefed by the office of economic and workforce development. this is an exciting project. with that, supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. chair. i'm going to say some opening remarks.

i want to point out first we're going to make a slight legislative adjustment recommended by the planning commission. it was noticed later in the process, items 3-5, the first two ordinances talk about establishing the cayuga special use district and we amended the zoning map and the planning code, but there was erroneous reference to two lots, 039 and 011c. and there is only one, 011c. we've stricken it and it's recommended by the planning commission. wanted to point out that technical thing. that was a slight adjustment. >> supervisor peskin: i assume because we're deleting a numbered on not adding new numbers, no new notice is required? city attorney is nodding his head in the affirmative. >> and speaking in the

affirmative, yes, this does not require a continuance. >> supervisor safai: so it's now just one lot. i want to say this is a pretty momentous event. this project has proposed and will build 50% of its units below market rate. that is also one of the most aggressive bmr projects in the city's history. we are beating the ami levels in the project of the proposed home sf program. 10% will be at 65, 10% at 80, which is better than the home sf program. this family has done work in this neighborhood, but never a project of this scale. owned this parcel all the way back to 2009 and always talked about doing special for the residents of this neighborhood and the city as way to give

back. as an immigrant family that started with pretty much zero in the 80s and started out small-scale development is now doing projects all over san francisco. but this is a legacy project for the family and i wanted to take the time to recognize the family for what they're doing here. it's a major gift to the city of san francisco. and the citizens and the residents of district 11. we will fight for neighborhood preference, 40% of the -- set aside for neighborhood preference. there is no public money in this project. and it will be the first family affordable housing ever in the history of district 11. we do have some wonderful projects in the pipeline, that are 100% affordable with government funded, but this will be the first. in all the affordable housing in district 11 over the decade, it totals 48 units, we will get 58

units in this project. we just wanted to say we're super excited about this. we spent a lot of time and effort into negotiating this, planning department, dan, aaron and their team, and the lead planner, veronica, and sue for managing the project and back-and-forth. and listening to the family and ending with the development agreement i think the city can be very proud of. we're very excited today about this project. i know it's moving forward in a way will help to shape and set the ground for other projects in the city. so, thank you, mr. chair, i'll make additional comments, but

i'm sorry, veronica flores. >> good afternoon, supervisors. planning department staff. so again these three ordinances relate to the residential housing project at 915 cayuga avenue. 70% of units will be family-sized units. the first ordinance relates to a map amendment to rezone all of the project site. currently, the project site is dually zoned rh-1 and this ordinance would create uniform zoning for the project site. the second ordinance relates to planning code and map amendment to establish the cayuga special use district. the last ordinance relates to a

focused development agreement the city will enter into with the project sponsor due to its very high affordability level. the planning commission heard the items last week on april 11 and adopted a resolution to approve said ordinances with the modification to clarify the lot references as supervisor safai had mentioned. >> good afternoon, chair peskin, supervisors haney and safai. i took my husband's last name, moving over to the port. i'm a project manager at the office of economic and workforce development. our director ken rich is here with me as well. thank you for your time and consideration of the 915 cayuga project and the focused development agreement. 915 cayuga is before you today for two reasons. first and foremost, the project

is delivering 50% affordability through a privately financed development. the delivery of the deeper affordability is captured through this agreement. historically, development agreements have been for large multi-phased developments such as pier 70. 915 cayuga is a single phased single building development. as the planning department shared, 11 of the units will be ami, 35 of the units will be at 100ami. this is in more detail of exhibit c of the development agreement. additional benefit from the focused development agreement is affordable housing performance schedule, exhibit d, to the development agreement. this predetermines review and response periods between the city and the sponsor and requires the project sponsor to

increase -- i'd like this note that 915 cayuga alone will increase the number of bmr in the community from 34 units to 92 units. nearly tripling the number of units in the neighborhood. and to echo what supervisor safai shared, this will be privately funded and will allow for neighborhood preference. with respect to the three tenants that are located on the premises currently, we're working with them to review commercial opportunities on the mission street corridor, with the goal of acquiring space prior to the issuance. the team will now present on the details and design of the project. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

my name is sue, i'm one of the owners owners 915 cayuga. we're proud to offer 50% of the residential units at this project for san francisco's affordable housing market, thereby giving back to the city where my parents started their construction business 40 years ago. my father has been doing business here. our family business takes pride in our development projects which is why cayuga avenue will be kept in the family. we do not intend on selling it. my parents purchased the lot in 2000 9d. it was a few years ago they decided to offer 50% of the residential units, which is 58 units, for affordable housing in the below market rate inclusionary program. this project is not staffing an

offsite affordable housing requirement for another development. this is purely voluntary. this gift to the city of 50% of affordable housing units, the first of its kind in san francisco history, is twice as much as required by home sf. along the same lines, my mother is a passionate local advocate for homeless youth. during the past 20 years, she has been involved with many organizations that focus on giving a helping hand to vulnerable youth, including latino youths in need and mothers against poverty. erin weir marking five of the market rate units to foster a youth program. in summary, 915 will be a productive addition to the community. i will turn it over to my uncle

and rep of the design team. >> thank you. and bless your heart. >> supervisors, i'm also extremely proud to be part of the project and this family. and i'm going to make it quick for you. the biggest challenge in design, if i can -- if i may have the overhead, please, is the fact that on the north side, you know, we have a commercial district. we have put a shadow of a big building next to it. 65 ocean that is coming up. on the south side we're backed into rh-1 single-family zoning. so the challenge was to see how we can make this large building fit within this block and transition into the rh-1 zoning. this is what you see. we have the south side of the

building, we have set back t the -- so thinks the south side. we have set back 25 feet from the rear yards of the rh-1 zoned district homes. we have made sure that the way the units are designed, that they have their living room for most part open to the center court, so we can reduce the amount of issues with privacy and noise and all that. we feel this is a good project and we have worked with the neighborhood and especially the planning team, we have worked relentlessly for the last 2-3 years to get this through. i'm available for any questions you might have. >> thank you. i just wanted to underscore the point -- i appreciate you mentioning it -- that five of

the additional units market rate units will be dedicated to transitional aged youth. that is voluntary on behalf of the family and the work they've done with the john burton foundation. i know there is a few of the individuals that might speak here today. but that's a phenomenal gesture. on top of what is not even reflected in the development agreement here today. so other than that, if there are members of the public that wish to comment on the item, please come forward. you have two minutes to speak. >> you're on the right track, but i believe i can give information that will make the building more attractive and more housing opportunities. first of all, when you say below market rate and affordable housing, you're saying that it's below market rate at 55% of the median. 55% of the income scale is $45,600. that means everybody's income

that is below $45,600 is not included in the inclusionary ordinance that each and everybody voted for to put the inclusionary ordinance on the ballot and vote for in each and every one of your districts. what you're doing by not including these income brackets, which is the majority of the people in transit, are being discriminated against. if you claim you're equal opportunity housing organization, but then you turn around and discriminate and violate constitutional law whose citizens' income is below the income of $45,600. now, there is a 144 units being built for $56 million. and by the same response, it's for all incomes. okay, i move to have you use this example right here and with

$11 billion that you get in return in taxes -- [bell ringing] -- and also the $500 million that you're getting from newsom, you could build nine of these apartment complexeses. by the same response, you can build it on top of each other and make 27 story unit complex. that will not only put a dent in the homeless population, but veterans, amputees, people in wheelchairs and any other -- [bell ringing]. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is wesley. i'm with john burton advocates for youth, founded by former state senator john burton. we work to improve the lives of youth, those in foster care, the juvenile probation system. i'm here to speak in support of

the project. this will provide critical support for former foster youth in san francisco. as you know, children and youth are in the foster system. in addition to the trauma, they experience additional challenges such as multiple placements and school changes. together, these experiences place barriers for foster youth to earn long-term financial security. this will provide five units for youth to live and provide a safe foundation for them to pursue their future. organization works closely with sf city college and san francisco state university. we expect youth will be benefit. a nonprofit housing provider will provide supportive services to ensure that youth receive assistance and support. this model has been implemented

across california successfully. thank you for your consideration of the request. i urge your support for this proposal. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm here in the advocacy for the foster youth for this housing project specifically speaking on behalf of the foster children -- or the youth that will be transitioning out of foster home into adulthood. there was a survey done on may 26, 2017 that said over 20,000 children who age out of the foster care system will become homeless. i was one of those children in 2009, specifically for los angeles. and speaking on behalf of someone who comes from los angeles, i witnessed that a lot of youth in foster care are people of color, african-american, latino, and immigrant youth who face foster care. with this housing project and

this opportunity to provide housing to youth who are transitioning out, it will prevent them from following what i had to do. i became homeless at the age of 18, right after my time in foster care. i had to get back on my feet. i had to find a job. i became homeless with my immigrant mother for three months and then i made the decision to go back to school. now i'm at san francisco state university. i am one of those youth who need housing and who needs this kind of opportunity. and i'm totally for this housing project and -- yeah, that will be my time. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i live in the cayuga neighborhood behind the proposed development. i want to thank supervisor safai for championing this project. i think it's going to be a great addition to the neighborhood.

my issue for this particular board, i already spoke in front of the planning council, is transportation. right now, there are 66 proposed parking spaces and green trip suggested that the real number to satisfy their criteria is more like 114. i think that it is part of this, there ought to be some consideration full consideration of the impact on the neighborhood of the parking that is there now. i spoke to merchants on mission and they say that people have no place to park, so there is a lot of boarded up places that could benefit from parking. competition for the neighborhood is outside of the city of san francisco, where there is downtown parking spaces. so just request that you seriously consider putting in additional parking structures there. as far as the neighborhood is concerned, many of the families

have live at home adult children that take additional parking spaces and also, there is a lot of ride-share drivers, über and lyft in the neighborhood that help to supplement their income. so it is a matter of making that space more affordable. thank you. >> before the next speaker, i want to say for the record, we spent a considerable amount of time working with the planning department and the project sponsor. there is the ability in the project and the development agreement to expand on demand as more residents move in to the development, to go to one to one parking. that is already written into the agreement, which means you could get up to 118 spots in the development. i want to say that for the record. i understand the desire to push away from parking in our neighborhood there because it's more of a family -- larger extended family neighborhood. you have homes with multiple

cars. because this unit in this proposal is more family style. the data suggests that there will be less cars in this, depending upon the age and composition of it, but we still wrote into the agreement, that they have the ability to expand and the developer has agreed in the development agreement on demand to expand and invest additional money for parking lifts, which they're investing and they can expand to greater degree. i wanted to say that for the record and i appreciate you coming out and highlighting that point. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm emancipated foster youth. i'm 23 years old. i entered the system at the age of 16. i'm going to refrain going into my past because i'm still trying