april 13th. i'm the chair of the meeting. our clerk is miss erica major from before miss major gives any announcements, i want to thank all of the staff from the clerk of the board who are bringing this virtual meeting to everybody who is participating and watching. thank you to john c. and author thorougarthurcoo. >> the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are close. however, members will be participating remotely as if they were present. public comment will be available for each item on the agenda. channel 26 and sf gov tv are streaming the number across the

screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments are opportunities to speak via phone by calling (888)204-5984. the access code is 351-1558 and then press pound. you will be lined up in the system in the order you died, 1 and 0. while you're waiting, the system will be silent. >> thank you, madam clerk. could you please call the first item. >> sure. item number one is a resolution renaming the 200 block of stewart street to stewart lane to honour william m. executer. stewart. members should call in and

present 1 and the number provided. >> thank you, miss major. this item was brought to us by supervisor haney and his staff. anabigail, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin. good afternoon. thank you for considering this item. the designation of this 200 block of stewart to lane serves several purposes as residential use. the new residential building is replacing a seven-story garage whose entrance was at 75 howard and only address will be impacted as there are no other buildings on this block. this compliments the bike lane on howard, and drop-offs will

occur. there are other examples of town that -- >> sorry. >> there are several letters of support in the packet from the neighbors including the stewart street hospitality association. this went through the port process under jurisdiction and it passed unanimously at the port on december 10th of 2019. if you have further questions about this item, we are also joined today by justin zucker for any technical land use questions and thank you so much for your time this afternoon. >> my connection timed out and i'm back. >> supervisor, i just ended my remarks.

if there are any questions, we have others from justin zucker and miss rose to any technical land-use questions, as well as kristine mann. we're supported today by public works and jeremy spitz is on standby. >> thank you, abigail. i will note for the record with received a letter of support from the nearby boulevard restaurant which i forwarded to clerk major which will be a part of the record. are there any comments or questions from supervisor safaye or peskin? >> not at this time? >> public comment, any members of the public who would like to comment on this item? >> mr. chair, staff is checking to see if there are any calls in cue. >> there's one question.

>> hello, caller, you have two minutes. please begin now. >> this is peter dislow. the generai'm a member of the eo street. we in support of the remaining of stewart street where an association of members and harbour court, hotel griffin and ozomu restaurants and we have no problem with the renaming of that portion. stewart street would like to also add the cooperation of the developers of the project to this date and the distance concerns of everyone in the area, so we're in support of the renaming of that portion of the street.

>> thank you for your comments. are there any other members of the public who would like to comment? we have zero questions remaining and we'll close comment, and if there's no objection, there's a motion to forward this to the full board with positive recommendation and on that motion, a role call, please. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> preston aye. supervisor safaye. >> aye. >> supervisor pekin. >> aye. >> you have three ay session. >> could you please call the next item? >> yes, item number two is an ordinance amending the planning code to modify the district regarding minimum parking requirements for ceiling height and to allow payment of the inclusionary housing fee and

assert finds. members should call the number provided on the screen and press one and zero to line up. >> thank you, madam clerk and this item was reviewed by the planning commission back in january and was originally scheduled for a hearing in front of this committee earlier, but, obviously, it was delayed and needed to be renoticed. this was brought to us by supervisor stephanie and supervisor stephanie, the floor is yours. >> thank you for your scheduling this item. this is a special use district that would create 100 new homes in district 2. i'm doing everything i can to make sure my district does its fair share to provide homes for families and working people. i think a lot of people do understand the background of this special-use district and

this project. when the project sponsor approached me and asked me to make a change to the original use district and allowed them to say i was less than thrilled is an understatement. i say that because the value of having inclusionary housing on item is important to all of us. this was agreed to under the initial sud and shown with the original conversation, there was ncondition, there was nopath wi. so as it stands right now, the lucky penny or the copper penny project will not be built if i don't make this change. so i want to be clear that the process that brought this project here was not typical. in general, we should be following our city-wide inclusionary zoning rules when increasing density. however, the site as a special set of circumstances that make

it different. the underlying zone itself was a planning mistake. as initially zoned, the height limit would be 80 feet but 21 units allowed. the sud allowed for 100 units of housing, bringing the density in line. this is transit rich and has easy access to the 38 garry bus where our city is investing over $3 million. the project sponsor has also committed to using union labor for the project, ensuring that we will be creating jobs with fair wages and benefits and we all know now we need that more than ever. a long and thorough community process brought the surrounding neighborhoods together in support of this project and i have heard concerns that the funds raised through this special use district will not be used to build housing in the immediate vicinity and i'm

working to find locations for projects that are 100% affordable in my district and this would be a welcome addition to making sure that we create housing for people of all income levels in district two. so i wanted to let the committee know that i am working with supervisor fewer to write legislation to hold that 4.$5 million fee while we try to identify a site. i want to thank supervisor fewer and her staff. i would ask that you move this legislation forward to the full board with a positive recommendation as the committee report and, of course, remain available for questions and thank you again, chair peskin for scheduling this item today. >> colleagues, if we don't have questions for supervisor stephanie, i would like to ask

miss veronica florez from the department of city planning to make a presentation a. i think this went before the planning commission on january 23rd and recommended unanimously to the board of supervisors with one modification that supervisor stephanie has just addressed that, would be the subject of trailing legislation. with that said, miss florez, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin. >> thank you. you have shared my presentation, but to reiterate, this relates to the proposed change to the garry masonic district and chill alinwillallow a housing fee. this was heard by the planning commission and the planning commission recommended approval to earmark the impact fees to district 2.

supervisor stephanie was amenable to the changes and would look into this further and she's also working with the neighboring districts to identify potential sites. this concludes the staff presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, miss florez. are there any questions for veronica? >> just for the record, this particular change is specific just to this project, correct? this does not set precedent. i just wanted that on the correct. >> yes, correct. this is specific to this project. >> thank you. i just wanted to hear the planning department say that for the record and i know you know, and i know, as well, but i wanted to hear it from the planning department.

>> veronica florez, that the proposed amendment regarding the option for an includingary housing fee is specifiinclusion. >> done through the special-use district project, correct. >> yes, this would be to the living planning code, which we would review the planning projects against. >> ok, thank you. >> you're welcome. >> thank you, chair. >> chair, i have a couple of questions, if i may. >> supervisor preston. >> thank you. >> i'm trying to understand the history here and just my understanding is that the original rezoning or the creation of the special use district was premised on the purpose of that as stated in the ordinance, was to provide mixed-use development, with a

combination of income levels at this site. so i'm a bit concerned with a proposal that essentially removes the affordable housing from this site. i am right in my understanding that the special use district that quadrupled this was to allow mixed income on site there? >> so the original sud revised the zoning to allow much more housing on this site. i believe it's 65 or 67 units. so as supervisor stephanie mentioned, the special-use district increased that number dramatically. and part of the original sud was to include a different set of market rates and inclusionary housing requirements. however, during the planning

commission hearing after listening to the project sponsor, supervisor stephanie's presentation and comments from the general public, the planning commission did support the proposed ordinance with the caveat for the recommended modification regarding the collected fees to be designated towards district 2 or the surrounding vicinities. >> just for a follow-up question. looking act other sites of comparable sides here, we have others that lift the restrictions but the developers there agreed there may issues but they have agreed to all all of the inclusionary on site and i'm wondering if you could comment on other compraably

sized projects. >> i can speak to two very particular projects. there's one by the same developer and that was in home sf program and they are providing 25% on-site units and that is for on-item, as well. and i'v i'm still working on anr housing development project with around 1167 units and this is located next door, both of which are in supervisor safyay's district and they're voluntarily

providing the units on site. so these are just two projects of comparable or larger size that i worked on recently. (inaudible). >> the former lucky penny restaurant has been vacant under underutilized for a number of years and that's one reason why supervisor stephanie said we're trying to bring housing in and activate the site and this is one of the ways we would bring momentum back to the project.

>> thank you. my microphone was muted. my apologies. the one point was going to make is that the entire inclusionary housing regimen incentivized on-site inclusionary, which is why the percentage for on-site is 23% as compared to the in lieu, which is 33%. so there is a disincentive financially to go off-site and that is captured here.

>> the off-site was not an option and frankly, in looking through, at least on paper here, not seeing what makes this site any different to any of the other places where we either insisted on or have voluntarily obtained on site affordable housing at a time when we desperately need that, but that's more of a comment than a question. >> thank you, supervisor. shall we go to public comment? i believe cyrus, the project sponsor, is on the line but there may be others, as well. >> they are checking to see if there are any callers in cue.

mr. chair, no callers wishing to speak. >> so with that, public comment is closed. >> mr. chair, we have veronica, who would like to speak. >> miss florez. >> thank you, chair peskin. just one more comment i would like to add in response to supervisor preston's inquiry. after the special use district was set in place and after the recent years, the project sponsor came back to the planning department and to supervisor stephanie sharing that the cost estimates came in, about $10 million, above the original estimate. this is largely due to the voluntary measures to higher union labor. so this is based on information from the project sponsor. this is the primary reason why providing on-site affordable

housinaffordablehousing and whyd to make the option for an inclusionary housing pee. fee. >> just a quick follow-up on that, because i want to be careful here, because i think often, the cost of these are unfair of labor and i want to make sure that's not the case here. the ocean avenue site you mentioned, my understanding is that is able to do the 25% on-site and that is fully labor committed site, as well. so i'm not sure -- again, i upset the cost o the developer faces and i commend them on commitment but i think to use

union labor here, but i'm still looking for why this is different, again, than something like ocean where the 25% affordable is done on site but can't be done here. >> chair peskin, can i speak on that since it's in my district. >> sure. >> supervisor preston through the chair, the reason the 65 ocean still pencils and we hope it continues to pencil is because it's in one of the economic empowerment zones that the federal government created. we were able to get that project fully entitled prior to the end of 2019, when the tax ability for investors -- essentially, it offsets certain tax liabilities and that is not an option at the lucky penny site and so, the reasons that our project continues to pencil because of

that. they are also doing 100% union labor on the ocean avenue project and have committed to that, but it's a significant difference in terms of the amount of capital and the amount of off--se offset for the cost e project and changes the return for investment for those that are in investing in the overall project. so i think that's probably the most significant between the two. you have the project sponsor on the phone that's doing both projects and he could speak about that, as well. >> thank you, supervisor safaye for that piece of information. cyrus, if you would like to just clarify for the committee and madam clerk, if you can magically patch cyrus in.

>> good afternoon, and thank you so much for your time this afternoon and i hope you can hear me. >> yes, we can. >> i'd like to thank supervisor stephanie and her entire staff and the land use committee for hearing our project today. this process has been ongoing at the laurels since 2014 and i think time is a key element here that has been touched upon but not exclusively. it started off as a project and a parcel that permitted 21 housing units. so the density limit on site only allowed 21 units within the

existing mass restrictions that are still in place and have not been changed. from the extent of community outreach process over the years, over six years at this point, we were able to establish a coalition of support from the immediate neighbors, some of whom are loudly in opposition to another project that's nearby. but we're able to create a large consensus of neighbors that delivering housing within the site's current constraints made sense and were able to add housing without any of the underlying zoning constraints. and so that conversation had started well before the discussion of home sf, which when we were about a month or two prior to heading into our original planning commission on

the issue, was announced and at that time, we approached the neighborneighbors and sought toe home sf. but there was a significant amount of opposition and we were faced with a lawsuit that would never allow the lawsuit to move forward or working within the constraints of removing the density limits and so that's the reason why we could not pursue home sf at the laurel. the significance expect difference between the laurel and the ocean project is that we've been pursuing our approvals and trying to break

ground for six years now at the laurel. and through that time frame, we've experienced a pretty significant escalation in construction pricing. the building is a type one project, concrete construction is substantially more expensive than wood-frame construction than 65 ocean. 65 ocean, begin that we were able to pursue and with the support of supervisor safaye, we were able to pursue the approval in a much more timely manner which continues to be prioritized as a project through now the plan check and building process, as well. by way of comparison, we submitted a comprehensive building permit for the lucky

pepnpenny site that we would brk ground. april 15th was our scheduled date and we were informed that the building departments only picked up the permits for review. so the projects really are very different in nature and, unfortunately, there's a lot of variables at play with regards to the conditions at the lucky penny that have necessitated that change in this off sighting. we are committed to deliver housing and committed to deliver affordable housing on site. and we have tried to demonstrate that across all of the projects in the city, but this is a matter for the laurel of feasibility whether or not we get any housing and this is different than the ocean project. >> thank you for the comments,

cyrus. just out of an abundance of caution, i would like to reopen this up to public comment. if there are any members who would like to comment on item number 2, please do so now. >> checking to see if there are any callers in cue. >> thank you, miss major. >> mr. chair, m no callers wishing to speak. >> we'll close -- mr. chair, i just wanted to say forked recore record, the san francisco building trade called me and let us know that they were 100% in support of this project. >> i received a similar call, as well. >> supervisor preston?

>> yes, i don't know if this is better directed through the chair to the developer or supervisor stephanie. i'm curious if there's been any consideration of how this pencils out if it's not all or not. seems like the claim is being made that it cannot be developed as originally proposed with on-site, but then we have before us an amendment that would allow them to do zero on-site and do everything in lieu. has there been any consideration of something all or not requiring two-thirds, half, some portion of this affordable housing to be on site and the rest feed out? >> cyrus, would you like to take a shot at that? >> please give me a second, please. >> sure.

>> i apologize, there's a little bit of a lag. i'm assuming it's our phone call, but supervisor, preston, we've extensively looked at a number of achieve the returns that would make this project feasible to move forward. we've been as aggressive as we can be with regards to our revenue assumptions and trying to cut as much as we can on the cost side to hit those threshholds and the proposal in front of you came about after numerous iterations and back and forth with supervisor stephanie's office and the entire team at the planning

department, as well. so, unfortunately, i don't like to characterize this as an all-or-nothing, but we have exhausted over the last two and a half years now, since the original approvals, all of the different ands. avenues. frankly, the gap we needed to bridge if feasibility came down to cost and just between when we received the planning commission approval and when the site permit was ready for issuance originally, we saw this escalation which really resulted in the only choice which was to either abandon to bridge that gap which is 1.a millio 1.$5 mio come back and do this and now the gap has grown even further.

our original is three years old. >> supervisor preston? >> my apologies. i think i shared it earlier in my initial opening comments that the building permit process itself was also further exacerbating the issue and we're hoping with the current economic condition, at the very least, we won't experience further escalation. we're anticipatin(inaudible). >> supervisor preston. >> an additional comment but not a question. >> so thank you, cyrus, for those additional responses and

supervisor preston, your comments, please. >> thank you, chair peskin. so i remain troubled by this and also concerned with the potential precedent with respect to other developments not far away over on divizadaro that are in the pipeline and one is a little smaller than this and one a lig bigger than that, trying to hold developers to their promises, do on-site. i have to say that like just looking back at how we got here, we had an increase from 21 units under the original zoning to more like 100, which was a huge upzoning and it allowed a lot more units and one would assume a lot more profits and a lot more room to absorb some costs. so i don't understand how that

property, after that upzoning, with your valuable upzoning and i should say that that original special-use district in the upzoning, the only additional affordable added was 5% additional affordle and it was targeting folks at 140% ami, so, basically, six-figure earners. nothing wrong with that range, but, basically, a large increase in the development potential on that site with very little additional required. one of the things required was that the housing be on site and that's why it was upzoned. i want to read just a sentence from the original special-use district legislation which was for this project. the purpose of the legislation and i quote, in order to provide for a mixed-use development project with ground-floor retail and a combination of very low

income, low income, moderate income, middle income and market rate residential units at densities hire than what would be permitted in the density district in an area well-served by transit, there shall be a masonic district and so on. this is the fundamental premise on which the number of units was upzoned to allow gra qua quadrue number of units. i think this opens the door to other developers, potentially making the same decision to see out, when as chair peskin correctly notes, as a policy matter, we try to incentivize folks to build their affordable housing units on site. this is not just a general issue

of strong preference for inclusion on site, but it's two blocks from district five. so i appreciate the outreach to supervisor fewer and the plans around trailing legislation and let me just say two blocks from district five and it is a big loss, not that we don't have afforabilitaffordable units. we want it to go forward. as much as some loved the lucky penny, spent many late nights in that establishment, we lost the lucky penny and i think we would all like to get housing on that site. but as it stands, i am disappointed this goes from all-affordable to zero, to the affordable being on-site. i don't think that's ki consistt with the original use district and it's not something i can support.

and i should clarify, there are three parts of the amendment proposed. supervisor stephanie, i have no problem with the parking and ground-floor. (affordable). >> so are you saying that you would like to sever out the subsection of ge at the bottom of page 3, i believe it is. i don't have it. i can turn the other screen on. and we can vote for those two items or alternatively, if this goes to the full board, you could sever it out at the full board. >> right. i could do it by motion. i don't know the reference of

the sponsor to potentially treating that differently and moving the other two pieces of the boaofthe board. >> is there an opportunity for me to make any additional remarks? >> of course. supervisor stephanie, go ahead. >> i would like to follow up on some of the comments made by supervisor preston. and first of all, the premise of what we were doing, what we started to do back in 2004 was housing. in your remarks you say one would assume that they would be able to build it. i don't have the luxury of assuming things when i am drafting legislation and when i am working with developers to actually provide housing in my district. so in drafting this legislation, there were no just assumptions being made.

there was actually sitting down, going through the financials and realizing that there was nothing more left for this developer to give that we were on the bubble. and i just want to say, too, that this started in 2014. i was a legislative aid to supervisor farrell for two years and then i came back and i still have an empty vacant lot because i can't get this housing built. so when they came to me and said we need a change in the sud, as i stated in opening remarks, i was less than thrilled. so i didn't assume what they were telling me. we sat down, looked at the financials and realized this property is different and this property is unique and is something when i went to the planning commission in january, the planning commission agreed unanimously with that premise. the fact that this site was zoned for 21 units and eight

stories was absolutely reamed. iridiculous. i also want to say that this is district 5, that this borders district 5 and i first heard from you today about ten minutes before this meeting. so i'm opening to having conversations with you about legislation that you're concerned of. all i can say is that in this regard, i do not think the perfect should be the enemy of the good. we need housing in district 2. i am committed to building affordable housing as you've seen at 3333 with 100% affordable housing for seniors and i ask that you respect the fact i have been work on this legislation for over six years, both as an aid and a member of the community and now as supervisor. it is something i have not assumed. it is something i've worked hard

it and something that the planning commission has unanimously agreed with me on and like i said, i am not going to tolerate an empty lot without housing when in this housing crisis that we're in and what we're facing right now, the fact that it will provide jobs. we know that jobs are more necessary than ever. it is a piece of legislation i hope will stay intact and forwarded out to the full board will full recommendation. i ask for that today. thank you, chair peskin and supervisors. >> i want to weigh in a little bit and however, supervisor preston wants to proceed relative to how we vote this either piece by piece or as a whole. i was around for the creation of the sud and i shared initially the concerns that supervisor

preston has spoken to. but as supervisor stephanie knows, we went to some lengths with folks from chuchu and others, to number one, really determine what has been represented to the developer is true and two, to differentiate this project and other potentially similar-situation projects that it's not upheld as precedent. i think that has happened and i want to be very clear that other similar situated developers are going to have to have pretty incredible stories to tell if they think this will be the normal course of business. so i wanted to put those things out there. supervisor peskin, however you would like to proceed. i intend to vote for subsection

d. i think the first two issues set forth relative to parking minimums and the 12-foot floor height on the ground floor are without controversy. so how would you like to proceed, supervisor preston? >> let me just start and clarify, supervisor stephanie. thank you for your work on this. our office reached out over a month ago, my staff to your staff, to indicate our concerns. we did not hear back anything of substance. we followed up again last week to indicate our ongoing concerns and, frankly, we have not been presented with anything that would distinguish this from alternative otheanyother projeci reached out personally right before the hearing, as you indicated. i do not believe that the issue

before us is whether we are accomplishing density or not. that ship has sailed. that was done with the special-use rezoning. the issue before us is simply whether the affordable housing needs to be provided on site or not. and i believe it should be. so chair peskin, i would like to move to amend the legislation to restore on page 3, line 20 to 22, restore the sentence that begins in order to allow. >> supervisor peskin, can i just make a comment before you do that? >> sure. >> i just want to add a little color to the conversation. i think that certainly under both circumstances, i would be

in 100% agreement with the theory of doing everything on site, and i think at all costs, when we're dealing with adding density, but i think that this project has gone through many different renditions and i think because some of state of the std goals, one, keeping a commitment to the union labor and to increasing density and then being given the choice and i think it's on site, we would be left with an empty parking lot. because i don't think this would be a financeable project. and so, i'm in agreement with you. my first reaction, and i think supervisor peskin said this, as well, is to say this is not the number one objective, but at the

same time, if we create an opportunity to build housing, build more dense housing and then also -- i think i her supervisor stephanie make a commitment to work with chair fewer and she's said she's happy to work with you, to finding a project within a particular radius or site within a particular radius of the project, spend the next couple of years looking for that, i think taking that and putting it towards affordabl affordable hos left with zero on this site and going back to the drawing board and not having any housing in a housing crisis. while i appreciate what you're saying, it's unique to this particular site. so i am in support of this going forward and look forward to seeing supervisor stephanie work with both you and supervisor fewer to find the site or even

in her district within the area to build some affordable housing. thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few words. >> supervisor peskin, i can't hear you if you're speaking. are you muted? >> i apologize, thank you. so supervisor preston, i think you were in the middle of making a motion to restore the language from lines 20-22 and i assume in the same breath, would want to delete in your motion the language that starts on line 22 and goes to page 4 to line 6. is that correct. >> correct. >> ok. >> so that motion is made and i think has been sufficiently discussed on that motion. a role call, please. >> on motion as stated by

supervisor peskin, preston. >> aye. >> supervisor safaye? >> no. >> supervisor peskin. >> no. >> peskin, no, one aye and two nos with supervisor safaye and peskin on defense. >> so that motion fails and we have the item before us that is unamended and we have two choices, which is we can send that item to the full board as a committee report with or without recommendation. what is this committee's will. >> chair peskin, i would request that we move without recommendation and also would very much welcome the opportunity to talk with any of my colleagues, developer and others before the hearing on

this as to whether play be may e opportunities to expand on site, even if not to require all on site to make this, in my opinion, more positive for the community in the end. >> i certainly respect giving you that opportunity. so why don't we move this item without recommendation to the full board as a committee report and i will get you or the committee clerk will get you the contact information from the gentleman representing the developer, cyrus, and so, is that supervisor safaye? >> what i would say is -- and again, this is just respecting the process, the amount of time and energy put into this, i would say that the district supervisor has stated their

request to have this as a positive recommendation to go to the full board and i think there's opportunity between now and tomorrow and then a subsequent vote, requiring two votes, chair peskin? >> that is correct. >> so that gives ten days for the opportunity for a sit-down i would vote to -- this has no disrespect to supervisor preston, but just the fact that so much time, effort and energy has been put into this and i would say do it with a positive recommendation and give the two sides. that was my preference. >> committee report? what's the proposal? >> i think the request is for a committee report? >> that is correct. >> that would send it to the board tomorrow.

>> and that would give the project sponsor -- i would like to give them some time, namely the next 24 hours to have those conversations. supervisor, i would like to make a motion to send this item as is without recommendation to the full board as a committee report. >> ok. >> on that motion, madam clerk, a role call, please. >> on the motion to refer without recommendation as a committee report, supervisor

preston. >> aye. >> supervisor searc safaye. >> aye. >> peskin. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> can you read 3, 4 and 5 together. >> to revise the central waterfront plant and industry element and the recreation and open-space element and transportation element. the urban design element and land use index to reflect the mixed use district. item number 4 is the planning code to establish the power station special use district and the appropriate finding. item number 5 is approving the development between the city and county of san francisco and california farrell company, llc, for the power station mixed-use district with various benefits including 30% of affordable

housing and approximately 6.9 acres of publically accessible park and open space. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items should call the number provided on the screen and then press 1 and then 0 to speak. >> thank you, miss major. and before i acknowledge supervisor walton, i just want to say a little bit about the history of this site, the old murant power plant site which the board of supervisors and then under the leadership of supervisor sophie maxwell was the source of a tremendous amount of pollution in the southeast corner of san francisco. there were years of struggle to have this plant closed that required any number of infrastructure improvements back in the days of the california

independent system operator, the cal-iso, and it was really a great day for san francisco, along with the help of the city attorney's office, then under and still under dennis herrero, the incredible work of teresa mueller, that closed that power plant and gave priority for the development that has long been in the making. i want to acknowledge the project sponsor for the, i think, really superlative outreach they have done with the community and the level of outreach and cooperation over a host of different topics, including the preservation of historic resources and having an appropriate mixed-use development is, as i said, really been done very well and very carefully and i would like to acknowledge the project sponsor for that and then, it is

my pleasure to introduce the sponsor of these three pieces of legislation, supervisor walton and the floor is yours. >> thank you so much, chair pe peskin and thank you to my colleagues. i am not going to be very long in my statements. but i do just want to say that these items, 3, 4 and 5 comprise planning approvals for the power station development project which represents one of the last outstanding puzzle pieces to connecting the neighborhoods at the southeast san francisco to its waterfront. the project of over two years of community engagement is stakeholder input. this will provide jobs, economic development, affordable housing and elements more critical to sustainability of our city given the current public health crisis. this project will also provide

almost 800 below market-rate units for a bmr level of over 30%, no less than two-thirds of these affordable units will be provided on site. i might add and emphasize that we fought to make sure that we have affordable housing on site within the first phrase of the build-out. this includes the robust work for a development program, a range of new recreational and open spaces and tens of millions of dollars for transportation improvements, all in the area which are features of this project. and also, items shaped by community input over the course of the planning process. the community was heavily involved in all coverageses which is why we are in a place in position to hear this before you today. in short, this will be transformative in nature with a

destination caliber waterfront. and also before you today, a companion is a lease agreement with support that has already been forwarded by the budget committee with a positive recommendation that will provide much-needed and additional open space in an area in a community where this level of open space has been looking for quite some time but that's another exciting piece of items 3, 4 and 5. i want to say that we are here today to talk about the fact that this is something the district office supports. we fought hard to make sure certain commitments were made and, of course, we'll see it through to the continuation to make sure that everything we have fought for comes into fruition. with that said, i will leave it to the committee and just say thank you for this time, for these three items. you will hear from me for 6 and 7, as well.

>> on behalf of the office of the economic and workforce development, we have john lao, who has a power-point presentation to make and we have josh witskky from city planning. mr. lao, the floor is yours. >> i'll go through a few house thanksgivinhousekeeping items ay to load the presentation which is not showing up now. so it takes a second to load.

do you see the presentation? >> we do. apologies. so as youot