multifamily housing. the balboa site is a an ideal location. it is in the half of the city that needs to do its fair share. the proposed project comes close to realizing the potential of the site. the two changes will allow it to achieve full potential. we should eliminate the proposed 450 space parking garage and replace with more housing as described in the additional housing option in the e.i.r. the only rational for the parking garage is to perpetuate the high rate of automobile commuting to city college. the e.i.r. acknowledges more parking will encourage more driving and undermine any

program. some city college constituents need to drive. there will be plenty of parking at city college if this project moves forward. consistent with the city charters and the first mandate the climate and affordable housing goals, please replace public parking garage with more housing. if not at least shrink the size of the garage and apply the same prohibitions to the parking passes that apply in downtown and mixed use areas. thank you very much. >> you have 17 questions remai remaining. >> hello, commissioners. i have to tell you i am simultaneously in the queue for board of trustees. the north street extension is

given also treatment. there were no public comments on variants 4 in the s e.i.r. because finding variance four was like looking for the easter bunny at christmastime. it was given a low profile until the project design standards and guid guidelines ce out with 11 diagrams. this would result in temporary or permanent road through city college parking on the east side of the reservoir and take an intersection that ends in a t and change to an intersection where not just one but two roads join to enter on the west side. when it became clear the board facilities meeting which got zoom bombed. this was disturbing enough to prompt the academic senate to

issue a resolution. there is a high amount of pedestrian traffic. the master plan addresses the west side of the potential intersection noting the pedestrian and vehicle conflicts are present at some drivers and pedestrians do not anticipate traffic at the intersection with cloud circle that would add a green light. the e.i.r. you are asked to certify claims this is no change. flag this for further study before approving the e.i.r. and the special use district. otherwise it could go forward without proper analysis. thank you for hanging in there with this meeting. it has been very strange and very stressful to be in two simultaneous cues at once. >> you have 17 questions remai remaining.

>> i am steve marzo. i live across the street from the proposed project on ocean avenue. i walk my dog through the parking lot. since i moved here it blew my mind something this large in such a prime location next to a grocery store and community college and every available mode of mass transit is undeveloped. we need this project and 10 more just like it. we have people hurting in the city. we need to undo years of complacency to dig out of the neighborhood's lack of affordable housing. i have attended advisory committee meetings. this has considered the many needs of the neighborhood. it would be a wonderful addition to the community. i strongly support this project. >> you have 17 questions

remaining. >> this is jonathan randall. i have been attending the meetings for the last five years. i urge the planning commission to approve the e.i.r. and forward the development agreement to the board of supervisors. this is an ideal place for housing near the bart. it is next to a neighborhood that is so sparse. as far as natural environment this is probably one of the least impact full. there is no parks to be

shadowed. the only impact would be basically the impact on the transit delays. the development agreement i am disappointed that the p.u.c. is only getting the $7 million according to the study. and that the project will be entering $43.8 million and giving $17.8 million in transit fees. i think this is too bad that the development costs are so high that instead of breaking even it is going to need so much stuff to be built. the development agreement brings benefits. it brings badly needed housing, 50% for low and moderate income

households, a bicycle network. two acres of park and other amenities and other sidewalks. i wish the heights were higher. [ inaudible ] the design standards are only two stories tall. approve the project and move it forward. thank you. >> you have 16 questions remai remaining. >> hi, george wilson. the ssp is selling the 17.2-acre balboa public site for $11.2 million to profit developers, incredible under priced bargain.

pcsf should have purchased this land and leased for the project. public land should remain public. today's chronicle discussed that bart is going broke reducing transportation options. transportation issues surround this project. higher profit margins for the 50% market rate housing dictate the market rate housing will be built first at this site. they will spend much more than the planned mo ph.d. and $17 million bonds to subsidize affordable housing. the plans for private tieing the -- privitiesing the land is under mining the public interest. the real estate law and lease

agreements require the p.u.c. [ inaudible ] 5.22 to allow city college right of first purchase. therefore please do not certify this legal land grab of private developers. sell the balboa reservoir. thank you. >> you have 15 questions remai remaining. >> good evening. i am michael aarons president of westwood park association, the neighborhood of 700 units adjoining the proposed development. as we set forth in the written

memo that i sent to the commissioners, there is extreme danger to city college if the development proceeds as set forth. ththe administrative assistant just told us that the development agreement you have before you is not the one that will be finalize. she told us that president yee is in continued negotiations to develop a partnershi a a partne. this should be used for public purposes. we can get the objective, 550 units by selling the property to city college and having them lease the land. it is a low purchase price $11.2 million. i can't believe that is the end purchase price. that is what they say it is. they can buy the land and lease it to the developer for 100%

affordable housing. that eliminating all of the enrichment of the private developers for their profitable market rate housing. then at the end of the day, the other half of the property could be used by city college to solve these problems, the problems talked about. my last issue. i developed three or four or five issues. my last issue is height. we sent a member to the community advisory committee. we spent time looking at the parameters. this development exceeds in height the parameters that were so toughly negotiated and the height limits and the parameters should be abided by. thank you for your time and consideration. >> you have 15 questions remai remaining. >> good evening.

i am mark tang to support this project. i am on the board of the cac. they have held robust meetings over the past five years to increase transparency and buy in. the project and trust transportation with the measures and collaboration with city hall. this project will provide much needed housing on under utilized land in a transit neighborhood with child care facilities and open park space. it is important to reiterate 550 units will be affordable. we should be building more housing units for hall. i encourage this commission to certify and adopt the items before you today. thank you. >> you have 15 questions

remaining. >> good evening. this is neal gordon, a renter. i support this project. i am a member of the action and there are a number of supporters not able to dial in. while we are able to do online comments it is ridiculous we have to wait six hours to have our voices heard. i have comments from may son jones. he has lived in san francisco 30 years. watching the city over time it is obvious more housing is needed. many have left because the cost of rents is out of reach and scarcity. we can fix this problem and this is a great opportunity to make this project. we need more affordable homes for families and teachers. these are all people living in the neighborhood. patrick said this is in my

neighborhood and would help to make it more vibrant as the apartments on ocean have. i welcome new friends but make room for others and share this great city. >> adam said i understand that our city cannot work without housing for all. keep a barely used parking lot during a serious housing crisis is absurd. george, my spouse and i live a few blocks away and come here to eat and shop. we support this project. it makes it more imperative. elizabeth blackburn we need housing. my time is out. there are a lot more. other people will read those. a lot of voices in support of this housing. this is not to say anything of the 9,000 people that could be

living on this lot if we built as much housing as it could take. please approve this project. we should be building a lot more housing. thank you. >> you have 15 questions remai remaining. >> my earlier testimonial was intended for this project. 98 franklin is great and we need housing of all level of affordability. re-purposing the parking lot for much needed housing, the council did endorse this project. we are excited to see it help san francisco meet the need of low income and educatetor housing. we just want t to applaud the

project sponsors for their extensive outreach in the community. again, i urge you to please support this project. >> you have 14 questions remai remaining. >> my name is alvin jones. e.i.r. is not objective because of the fundamental conflict of interest. environmental plans is a division of the project sponsor, highest reaches of the planning department and mayor's office. like the iraq war the facts are fixed around the policy and accuracy goes out the window. the rtc consists of ways to dismiss unfavorable comments, comments were not evaluated on the merits. examples not accurate.

for city college. city college falls in the checklist of public services. the e.i.r. dismisses impacts by saying they are social and economic affects not covered by ceqa. it is a public service that is covered. regarding the findings that say the estimated value is $11.2 million. in contrast the 3-acre lost is selling for $10 million. how accurate can the ceqa findings be? regarding transit delay. the e.i.r. is revised to replace trans it is delay data used to demonstrate significant delays.

more favorable data was collected during finals week before christmas. that is not representative of a normal school day. the e.i.r. is not objective. it is not accurate. don't certify it. thank you. >> you have 13 questions remai remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am annie o'hare representing the sunny side neighborhood on the balboa advisory committee. in 2016 they voted to approve the principals and parameters. that lays out guidance for developing housing on his site. surveys of our members indicate the community elements and the affordable housing of the project are widely appreciated.

however, there is widely shared concern for the chosen density for the site. the planned number of units has driven the developers to exceed the 65-foot height limit that was agreed upon by an additional 13 feet. in addition, we don't believe the transportation and traffic problems that the development will create have been adequately addressed. for a housing project that is described as transit oriented. lastly, the parking issues generated by city college have yet to be resolved. thank you, commissioners. >> you have 12 questions remai remaining. >> this is ray coupe. a resident of sunny side.

i want to make a couple comments. since mid-march city employees have been conducting official city business off premises due to the covid-19 pandemic. they have not all used personal devices. it is important that they observe all records retention requirements so that messages about government functions are subject to review just as on premises correspondence still is. what assurances can you provide all communications have been on april proved channels that allow for archiving and review. electronic communication and information sharing being transacted to official government e-mail and only government issued communication devices. there must be a public successful record of any and all

discussions by city employees related to this projector entire approval will be flawed. the planning commission should not take action on this project without assurance that all required public records requirements are adhered to and the pandemic is not used to ignore the legal safeguards. in conjunction with the timing of this being in this pandemic in light of what we experience during the current pandemic we must incorporate pandemic considerations. of key important is all traffic studies. transit riders are uncertain and all street, sidewalk and open space design should conform to may 21, 2020. the national association of city transportation officials in streets for pandemic response and recovery.

thank you. ga h. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. corp re-- corey smith for the san francisco housing coalition. i want to add one additional voice to the conversation. adam wrote in through the petition. i live in the westwood park neighborhood. the vocal opposition does not speak for me. you have direct neighbors that support this project today. couple points. there have been a number of speakers that mentioned the low price of $11 million the city could acquire the land. the problem with that proposal is that would include $500 million plus to build the subsidized affordable housing and 35 to $50 million worth of

infrastructure. i will brusoff $11 million as not much money. $500 million the city does not have that right now. it would be irresponsible for the city to put forward a 100% proposal with a mixed income project and we can deliver these transportation improvements utilizing the market rate housing and getting a ton of below market rate housing for low and middle income citizens. we are talking about educator housing. new homes with first priority given to city college educatessors. that is a fantastic benefit. i want be to extend my appreciation to norman yee to leading the effort through the community process to bring the

stakeholders together to get a consensus plan that everybody hopefully wants to move forward today. to supervisor yee to this leadership on this project, i thank you. >> you have 10 questions remaining. >> this is laura foot from nb action. i support this project. i have given numerous comments in support of it. i will focus on those living in the area. eric johnson says this is massive under-utilized parking lot while the low-income people and people of color are being pushed out of san francisco by impossible rent. this is affordable. this is families who can stay in

their city. what more can we ask for? sign him up. we have eric collier. i live in the neighborhood and would lover to see a more vibrant space. this looks well thought out. i would love to be able to afford to buy a place in san francisco with my wife and toddler and can't because housing prices are out of whack. this won't solve the supply problem but it is a step in the right direction. i will go to the map with any neighbor who complains. with the meetings are not representative of the regular people like me. >> she just says we need a lot more housing. another nearby resident we need to take climate change seriously and let more people live in our

transit rich city and not the sprawling suburbing. it means more affordable housing. lisa anderson says please approve and help provide much needed housing. this should be 5,000 units. it is down to about 1100. every district has to build housing. she is a monterey heights homeowner. elizabeth blackburn. we need equitable housing to solve the climate crisis. >> puff 11 questions remaining. i am michael piko. i live a few blocks down from the proposed project. i am so excited and so enthusiastically providing my support here.

50% of these homes are earmarked as affordable is wonderful. that is going to help maintain the character and diversity that makes the neighborhood great. i am excited about the community park. you don't have much park in this part of the city. i am excited to add land for that. this proximity to transit is the reason my husband and i bought here. easy access to bart. easy to get anywhere they need to go without a car. i am hopeful the contribution they make with the transportation sustainability fees will improve ocean avenue further with the k line here. looking forward to improved reliability and reduced delays. finally, the businesses in the neighborhood on ocean avenue would benefit from additional density, filling in some of the

storefronts that are empty and with the current pandemic it is going to give them more support and the customers they need to make this neighborhood thrive. thanks for the opportunity to share my views and enthusiastic support of this project. >> you have 11 questions remai remaining. >> i am jennifer hickey, resident of sunny side and chair of sunny side committee. i wish i could ask you to support this project. i cannot. despite claims to the contrary rethe level of mitigation is clearly not acceptable. it creates unacceptable risks for learning and health of residents and institutions that house students under the age of

16. the draft states construction noise will have adverse impacts and transportation will be adversely impacts during construction as well as after the balboa reservoir is okay you paid. the facial e.i.r. does not contain alternatives brought up multiple times. balboa committee meetings for 800 unit development. this option has not been in concluded in the e.i.r. in addition, if this is approved there needs additional assurances the public parking soacespaces are available for pc use as long as there is a public education institute next to the balboa development. unless that indicates it is no

longer needed. this means a period of development of agreement of 25 years or the period for affordable housing of 55 years. support our public institutions. thank you for your consideration. >> you have 10 questions remaining. >> my name is keith. i have a feeling the planning commission will have a hard time planning ahead for at least 30 to 50 years. you bid 1100 units right opposite to the 280 freeway. the people will drive down to silicone valley. you have not solved the problem. the problem is our students of

city college got free tuition but they are working people and they need to update their skills. at times they have to commute between work and schooling and they need a car to do that. i look out on to the parking l lot. the 17-acres. it is full by 9:00 on a school day and it is still full by 9:00 in the evening. this is the student body of people who cannot afford to go to stanford. make it possible for them to attend their classes in san francisco. besides if you put 3,000 additional people into the

housing development, you will have not supplied an emergency waterline in case of earthquakes and city college sits right on city college earthquake fault. i have asked for that for a long time, and nobody can tell me when the emergency waterline is being installed. i thank you for your attention. >> you have 10 questions remai remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am urging you not to approve this project. i hope that before you sign off on this project you will consider the consequences of your action. despite what you heard today i hope you will consider your decision will destroy enrollment by making access to the school difficult if not impossible. consider it will private ties

valuable public land to enrich a corporate developer. i hope you will consider that the selling price of $11 million you are providing a give away to for profit interest. special concern is loss of access to city college. to all in san francisco that will impact thousands of people. students who need a class, students who need certification for vocational training, seniors in classes provide support to stay healthy and engaged. people of all ages to learn new skills such as english as second analysis. in 2013 they estimated the value to the city of $300 million. it is not just economic. it is about improving quality of life by providing well educated

and well trained san franciscans from healthcare to engineers to artists and musicians. this project is a give away to a private developer that doesn't benefit city college or the neighborhood or the city of san francisco enough to justify it. ceqa certification and project approval should not be granted and the related agreements should not be approved. thank you for considering these issues. >> you have 10 questions remai remaining. >> hello. i am theodore randolph, resident of el sel excelsior. i rent a bedroom in a single family house. that is the way i can afford to

live in the city. the main short coming of the ceqa process. there is no impact. the lack of significant home construction in my neighborhood has proven t to be the oppositef preserving afford built. our homes are overcrowded and looking to the future i can't stay in my current place forever. hyland lord forbids pro habitation i need to move somewhere affordable. i urge you to approve what you need for this to move forward as quickly as possible. thank you. >> you have nine questions remaining. >> i live just up the hill south

of ocean avenue with my husband. i live in this neighborhood because i have a generous family who helped me buy a house near them in san francisco. most of my peers don't have that advantage because of the under supply of housing. i am the lead organizer for urban environmentalist. there is nothing more aligned than replacing a giant parking cloth near a transit hub with homes for 1100 people. i am looking forward to more people on the street. i would like to ask to move this project forward and would support more homes and less parking in the final project. thanks. >> you have eight questions remaining. >> good evening, commissioners.

i am a san francisco resident. i am calling in support of this project. i am going to read a few quotes from neighbors who support this project. kathleen said i support housing because young people and families deserve to live in san francisco just as we seniors who bought homes when it was affordable. we want to live in a real city. project neighbor said we need more housing and this looks great. tony said i support this to bring more affordable housing to san francisco. this is a great opportunity to address the critical housing shortage. i will state i support this project to help address the city-wide housing shortage. this is housing to be proud of.

i submit this must be housing that can house generations to come. we need more multi-family housing to prevent urban sprawl. i ask you to support this project. thank you. >> you have seven questions remaining. >> i am robert huffman. i am calling in support of the project. i have a couple comments from other people. robin and pam says as neighbor i support moving this project forward quickly. david evans states this is such an opportunity. build as much housing as possible on this property. there are a few other opportunities to increase housing stock in a smart way.

i am passing on the comments. i wanted to leave you with something i read in the sf examiner recently. it says quote the biggest single roadblock to housing in california is the reluctance and refusal of local communities to house this type of housing within their boundaries. each community wants the houses. what do we do with the rest? the reason i bring this up is because it was written about in "san francisco examiner" in 1969. we have done nothing to build middle income housing in san francisco for the last 50 years. i urge you to approve the project and to solve the 50 yearlong project. thank you. >> you have seven questions

remaining. >> i am laurie fry. i wasn't going to talk because i sept an e-mail to the commissioners yesterday. when i heard the price tag, i had to say something. i did the math. that ends up with you sub tracking four acres for the public space that is $45,000 per lot in san francisco, which is just insane. when you compare to the price of the little park next to the library. that was half a million dollars. this is only 22 times the price of developing the park. i really hope for no other reason you have to hold this up than the price tag itself.

i am on the line i will repeat what i put in the e-mail. these main concerns have been brought up. the parking, m.o.u. that the city stated should be done before any plan is approved has not been done. the big concern is that this affordable housing will not stay affordable. i hear stuff in the meetings. it is not legally binding this will stay affordable housing. it will be grandfathered in at some point and become private. i want to reiterate what one caller said about this is a deshousing project downtown housing with firefighting capability of dense housing, residential area. it does not have that firefighting capability. thank you very much for your

time. >> you have six questions rema remaining. >> hello, commissioners, sarah, san francisco resident. i support this project. i was taking a look at news articles over the past faff four or five years about how much the urban housing crunch is costing the u.s. economy. i found one from 2015 when this project started. it didn't start but i have come to understand this project is 30 years with three attempts. this is the latest attempt over the course of decades of arguing over this site. i found this quote. the affordable options in superstar cities costs the u.s.

economy $1.6 trillions each year in lost wages and productivity. that was a city lab article. it is very disappointing that so many people, many times the same people have been expressing the same discontent and same desires for disinvestment in housing for many, many years. it is simply costing the economy too much. with the pandemic it costs more. i wish people would think about families that want to live here, thousands could be served and contribute to san francisco by occupying these housing units. i wish the project were bigger. it is important to move forward. it is time to stop saying no. we need to say yes for humanity, for the human condition, the

correct condition and the future of the city. thank you so much. >> you have five questions remaining. >> i am a resident of sunny side about five or six blocks away from the project. when i moved to san francisco in 1990 i lived at the civic center hotel and used to attend city college. i did not have a car. i took bart and was able to walk from the bart just fine to go to school there. i often wondered why that parking lot was vacant and unused. i am supportive of this project. i have two young boys. i hope they will be able to afford to live in the city. for many people it is difficult dealing with change. cities are full of change, and it is difficult when it is not how it used to be. we are going to have to get used

to a lot of change and what we need more than anything is housing. that is for the environment and housing prices. i support this project. thank you to everybody speaking in favor of it. >> you have four questions remaining. >> caller are you prepared to submit your comment? hello, caller. next caller. >> hello. i am paul. i am a member with the mb action in support of the new homes proposed at the balboa reservoir

resreservoir. the housing shortage is a generational crisis affecting all aspects of the city operation and must be addressed. there is no problem facing the city that remotely compares to the housing shortage. please certify this e.i.r. and help us house our neighbors. thank you. >> tough three questions remai remaining. >> i am martin calling in. i want to share a small anecdote. i hoped on this call from a neighborhood meeting regarding a safe sleeping site. people are very supportive of it. there is also some folks against it. their main life is that we should house folks permanently.

they say we shouldn't have safe sleeping sites. i agree i think we should. it is crazy when i hear all of the opposition to housing in san francisco. 50% of which will be affordable housing. hundreds of families will have an affordable place to sleep in the city limits. now it is crazy for me to hear someone's opposition to housing our unhoused population in the most bear minimum -- bare minimum way. then when we have that proposal with hundreds of affordable homes and that is opposed. are we opposing people living in san francisco? they have no solutions for housing vulnerable folks in the city? it is crazy where it is people sleeping in tents in parking

lots when we can house people permanently. i don't think this one project for our homeless problems in the city but certainly there is opposition to housing that is rampant in the city. the reason we debate the people living in parking lots. there is not affordable housing. we desperately need this which is evidenced by what is happening in the haight. i support this project. thank you. >> you have two questions rema remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am calling in support. this project will have city-wide effects including where i live in district 5. neighbors are supporters. i will share quotes.

>> i understand the city cannot work for some without housing for all. keeping the giant unused parking lot i is absurd. >> bruce wants kids to afford to live here. we need more housing, please. [please stand by] nimb

. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller: hi. my name is vic sanshung, and i

am a student at city college san francisco, and i'm born and raised in san francisco. i'm calling because, you know, this project is not really -- it's not truly 50% affordable. when you look at what it costs, what is affordable, what is considered affordable in this city, you need to make around $130,000 in order to afford one of these units, and that's on a yearly basis. and this is only for 57 years, which afterwards, it's privatized luxury condos.

i think it's important for us to recognize is avalon bay, the developer that we've chosen is the ninth largest real estate investment trust, and i quote them. they say we focus on leading metro areas characterized by high growing and low housing affordable. that's nothing short on capitalizing on opportunities in gentrification of the city. this isn't using public housing to fund public affordable housing because if you look at the details of it, we are paying for most of the public housing itself. the company is simply privatizing the land and capitalizing on this opportunity. and it would remove capitoppory

for me to access the school. there would be no way for me to access it if i was not driving there. it's just impossible for me because i have to work two jobs. >> clerk: thank you. your time is up. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hi. this is john winston, and i am the chair of the c.a.c. this is the rare opportunity of a lifetime. 17 acres in the middle of san francisco. we need to get it right, and i think we will. this project is something that's going to evolve even more as time goes on. we still need to work on transportation. that's why the c.a.c. is in business until entitlement, and a little bit beyond hopefully. the project is mostly in compliant with the principles

and parameters we set forth. it exceeds the height limit by 12 feet. that was our measure of -- of conflict earlier in the evening. however, it's only 12 feet, and it was something that was brought to the selection committee. i want to say in order to get to the other parts of the -- in order to get to the principle parts of it come through, we need that extra 12 feet. it will allow us to have a varied skyline, it allows us to have step-downs, carveouts, and meaningful architecture as we go through the area. i really appreciate your opportunity to listen to me, and i will be back with you

soon. bye-bye. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: commissioners, that concludes the public comment portion of the hearing. the matter is before you. and before you begin your deliberations, i will remind you that in these situations, you should take up the certification of the e.i.r. separately before you take up the entitlements. >> president koppel: well while we're waiting for other commissioners to chime in, i will say i think the e.i.r. is adequate and thorough and would accept a motion to approve. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i'm generally supportive -- all

right. i hear an echo. i'm generally supportive of this development. i'm also hearing the comments of other individuals and students and the city college board of trustees and everyone who's been a big part of this discussion or has been doing this committee -- these committee meetings. and one thing, when i look into this plan -- and i'm pretty well versed in that area, as well -- in what other people have brought up is the expectation in transit. i believe that this development will have about an estimated 2500 residents. on top of that, there are students, and in that -- the ocean avenue is the

neighborhood corridor area, as well, so it would -- it is going to be, obviously, a busy area so i understand that the transportation sustainability fee is $10 million, and part of that will go to the light changes or transit boarding, tunnel service, you know. but i'm wondering whether we -- as looking into this plan of the park and the neighborhood, as well, i'm wondering if the $10 million is enough to make improvements, in terms of widening the sidewalks, the improvements to the k.c. lines and the care of the k.c. lines. so i'm hoping when this goes to the m.t.a., that the m.t.a.

will really consider in terms of this business area and allocate more funding if it's needed to have. this city college, it's pretty close to balboa. b.a.r.t., i think it's, like, about a 15-minute walk, and from what people are saying, it's not pedestrian friendly. and i know there will be some improvements that will be happening on that, but the investments when it comes to the transportation and pedestrian safety and bicycle, i think that really should be looked into by the m.t.a. and also considered by the board of supervisors, as well, as to how much this will really cost. another thing that i'm also, you know, got a lot of comments

on is -- [inaudible] >> commissioner imperial: and i hope as this goes onto the board of supervisors, i'm curious what this development will be. will it be more home ownership or how many homes will it be for extremely low-income? you know, i hope that there will be more dialogue in terms of the details of affordability. and at the same time, i understand that and other comments were brought up about the permanent affordability. in my experience, there are b.m.r.s and redevelopment times that only last for 55 years,

and the city ended up trying to save them. i hope in this development agreement, the avalon -- whoever is -- the avalon will include or the city will negotiate in terms of that the city will be able to have permanently affordable housing because we don't want to have it at the very last minute, like a year or two years before, and everyone's scrambling -- you know, everyone's scrambling, that this might end up privately owned, and you ended up with people at risk of displacement. so that's the things that are on top of my head right now, but yes. >> president koppel: commissioner fung?

>> commissioner fung: i would agree with the president of the commission, that i'm prepared to separate the discussion between the adequacy of the e.i.r. and the project itself, and i would so move that the e.i.r. was adequately prepared. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: seeing no other comments, there is a motion that has been seconded to certify the environmental impact report. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0.

>> president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thanks. so thank you to all the commissioners for certifying th that -- the e.i.r. i read it over, and i felt at that time that the e.i.r. adequately addressed the issues. i have a lot of comments, but bear with me because i think this is a project that is worthy of them. you know, first, i think i want to thank supervisor yee, as well, and staff for really

having a vision of a community-led process, informing the c.a.c. i really want to thank our multicity agencies. it's been a collaboration between our staff, city college trustees, and president, the sfmta, and the community. if you go back and look at the c.a.c.s guiding principles for this project, i think they really laid out a vision for an integrated city that was integrated as far as incomes and life experiences, and it knits together neighborhoods in our community. that provides massive community benefits as far as affordable housing and community child care and open space. and this project isn't just for city college, a housing development, it's really thinking about the future of our city and how all of us get

to come along in that future. so community benefits that have been stated, 50% affordable housing, thoughtful design guidelines, i really appreciate that as the city changes -- and not only supporting family friendly housing in this new development but also codifying what that means, working with city college in collaboration in transportation based on students' needs, having city college do their study on the ways in which students get to city college, where they're focusing on transit first while at the same time providing spaces for those who do commute. educating housing i think is crucial to the future of city college. we know that many of our community college faculty and

staff are housing insecure, and i think it's great that we'll house students and teachers in this project. i'm heartened to hear the ongoing c.a.c. throughout this process. i know that anyone who has taken public transit nearby city college has experienced some of those issues, and we've heard from stakeholders and the community that we can't wait for development and then after kind of fold in transit and streetscape improvements. we need to do it at the same time so that people who are living there and people who go there and people who are going to city college all benefit from it.

and so i -- in addition, i know there's a height concern from folks. as commissioners, we see the entire city, and we see what's going on in different neighborhoods and the context of balancing delicate neighborhoods' respective character, but at the same time, designicreating ways we design integrated new housing. i think the height variance to 65 from 58 feet was appropriate, and the four stories from three was appropriate giving the massing and the size of the project.

yeah, that's all i will say on that now, but i am supportive and am in favor of moving forward this project. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i am very, very appreciative of the efforts that supervisor yee and his staff and the city planning department and the mayor's office have put forth to make sure that there's sincere collaboration and engagement and balancing competing interests. and this project, while it doesn't please everybody, it does a good job of moving a

major policy of the city forward and addressing the neighbors on all side. as i said, it doesn't perfectly match everything everybody wanted, but i'm really persuaded by kind of the unique opportunity of this site. it is rare to have this size of piece of land on the west side of the city that allows for the amount of master planning that has gone into creating an entire neighborhood, and there's features of this project that i think really are worthy of mention here. when we say family friendly housing, it means more than just the increase in the number of two and three-bedroom units. that's important, but equally important are other features that have been incorporated into this design, like locating the larger units near each other, and locating them in a place where they've got easy

access to open space and having easy access to child care and bike and pedestrian improvements. when you take the package together, that allows one to characterize this as family friendly housing. i am also appreciative of the fact that the staff and the developer were responsive or have been responsive to two of the comments i made when we initiated the general plan amendment a month ago, and that is that they had doubled the number of e.v. charging stations. it went from 10% to 20%. i was very pleased to see that, and have included language -- have revised the language to emphasize differentiation between the buildings so that we allow for more creativity in the various architects that might be involved in designing the buildings. so i -- and one other thing i wanted to say here is that anything we can do to increase

the amount of affordable educator housing, we should do. i'm pleased -- very pleased to see we are doing that in this project, and i just wish we could find more opportunities to do this in the city. so for all of those reasons, i am very supportive of this project, and i don't know if commissioner johnson was proposing a motion, but i would also support that motion to move these approvals forward. >> commissioner johnson: that was a motion. thank you. >> clerk: and so that will be a second, then, commissioner? >> commissioner diamond: yes, that was a second. >> clerk: very good. >> president koppel: go ahead, commissioner chan. >> commissioner chan: can you all hear me? i just want to thank the public for your comments, and president yee's office and

their staff for their many years of work on this project, and to the c.a.c. for continuing to give input in shaping this opportunity. i think there are many merits to this project. please bear with me as i will slowly go through them. i think i'm excited as an educator to see educator friendly housing. i think that's something that the city definitely needs. i think there's been a lot of thinking to design a really great neighborhood. i'm really glad to see that the community facility will be accessible to the public. so that said, we are adding 1100 units here, and i think a lot of what we heard today was with regard to the transportation impacts, and i'm glad to hear that the safety will be continuing to pay

further attention to this as we move forward with the entitlement process. so my comments here are mostly with regards to the development agreement and going back to one of the staff's slides for the second term, which is a focus on studenting and maintaining access -- students and maintaining access with parking to transportation solutions. i recognize that many students might have child care responsibilities, might work multiple jobs. some might have accessibility concerns, carrying a lot of materials. but i think this is a case where i'm also excited, where transportation management solutions could address both a range of driving and biking and transportation options. so i just want to, you know, be clear that there are other academic institutions that have tried p.d.m. plans. they've been able to, for example, provide free transit

passes, looking to have a localized shuttle, even financial incentives to encourage employees and students not to drive and just make -- [no audio] >> commissioner chan: -- to make, you know, these range of options attractive beyond driving, but at the same time, recognizing that there would be people that would need to drive for various reasons and to provide that option when possible. so, you know, i think my point to get here, as part of the development agreement, we are supporting students' access to education and their transportation needs. i just want to put out there that i would encourage the project sponsor to think about supporting and paying into city college t.d.m. program.

i think this would contribute to the development agreement, in particular to support education, but it could also potentially benefit the residents of the project, just improve the overall, you know, circulation. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial -- no, i'm sorry. commissioner fung. you had it first, please, frank. >> commissioner fung: okay. the competing interest here and reasons against the project are so diverse, they cover almost everyone issue of the project. you look at issues related to city college parking. the project is providing some. it may not be the amount that

some of the people are referencing, but it is providing the shortfall from this particular site in terms of the usage from both sites, except for that period of time when school first starts. other issues relate to the height of the building, and this portion of the site is that portion of -- that can more easily handle greater heights, and it goes to the institutional uses of the college. you look at the issues related

to transit and ocean avenue, you know, it looks like it was designed from the city college to the freeway, to be more of a ramp -- an on ramp than it was a city road. we're hopeful that the things that were going to be done by the m.t.a., city college, and this project, will enhance things for the pedestrians. i guess where i'm going, the list goes on and on and on, but i'm prepared to look at this in terms of it does satisfy the original r.p., and i'm prepared

to support this project. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i have a question to, i guess, the developer or avalon or bridge. when it comes to access -- [inaudibl [inaudibl [inaudible] >> commissioner imperial: -- that is -- it's just -- affordable housing does not really equate or does not really qualify a student. can you clarify something about those kind of qualifications because i -- if we're talking

about access -- students having access to city college -- and, you know, hopefully they also live in this area -- what's -- what's the qualification when it comes to -- for students to apply for affordable housing? >> thank you for the question. this is kirsten from bridge, and i'm going to introduce brad who's going to talk about the interface with students and our product. >> hello? can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you.

looks lime you've muted yourself. you may want to try hitting star-six to unmute yourself. >> hi. this is brad. sorry about that. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> commissioner imperial, i think your question was about the city college student and whether or not they could apply for and be successful in entering tax credit financed housing, and you're right. the tax credit program does specifically disallow the traditional college student if you're 17 and on your parents tax return as a dependent, you can't apply and live on your own. but my understanding about the city college student body is it's generally a little bit older. there may be people reentering

the workforce maybe with their children and they're a part-time student and full-time employed. those people absolutely are in a tax credit project, so it is a very fine-grained assessment. and then, of course, the city has a series of their own priority. did i answer your question? >> commissioner imperial: yes. thank you for that explanation just because someone is -- i'm aware that some of the students may have families or may have some income that being a student will not disqualify them from applying for affordable housing because in my field, i have those previous

experiences, and just want to make sure that's clarified in public, as well. thank you. >> president koppel: director hillis? >> director hillis: i just want to say thank you for all of your thoughtful comments but also thank you for recognizing staff. it's been a long road, as you know, to get here. not just the five years that we've talked about this project, but even the past 20 years before this -- talking about the balboa park better neighborhoods plan. obviously, it was done in collaboration with other city departments like oewd, supervisor yee's office, and supervisor yee had provided tremendous leadership. city college has also participated, and truly, the c.a.c. and the community have helped shape this project. and i think, commissioner diamond, you summed it up.

the project does not have unanimous support, but it does have tremendous support, so we look forward to continuing that effort and look forward to working with them to build this project. >> clerk: commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project, and commissioner johnson, i would think that you are including the motion submitted by sta submitted -- project submitted by staff in your motion? >> commissioner johnson: yes. >> clerk: and commissioner diamond, you second that? >> commissioner diamond: yes. >> clerk: very good. on that motion [roll call] >> clerk: very good,

commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. congratulations. we're almost there. two more items. we will be on item 19 now for case number 2019-016230 cwp for the housing element 2022 update. this is an informational presentation. is staff prepared to present? >> good afternoon, commissioners, president koppel, vice president moore. we are providing you now an update of the housing element, which, as you know, is one of our most important components

intrinsically of our plan. i'm going to give you an overview of the project, and the project manager will walk you through the approach of the housing element in the schedule. this is the beginning of our project. next, please. also, we're seeing that the housing element is one of the most important efforts for the city. within the housing equity program, it's strongly supported by community engagement, by a specific strategy, and knowledge gathering, and this effort can only be successful through a careful collaboration and possible collaboration with our city parks as well as local and regional state agencies. next, please. we want to frame this in our

current context when we are experiencing a major pandemic, and there has been a strong response from the city, an immediate response. now director hillis is working with city directors on a housing strategy to address the most severe challenges. we've been working on long-term strategies and solutions through two major projects. the community civilization and housing affordability strategies. and across all this, we have a community engagement and outreach to support and inform all these efforts. it is through all of these strategies and engagement that we're approaching the housing element, and we're forming the housing element 2022. next, please. oh, and just to give you perspective on the housing recovery, there are four major areas that we're considering.

the first one, avoiding evictions and foreclosures, and second, increasing the capacity for homeless population. the third one, ensure that we continue to build new housing, especially the affordable housing pipeline, and the fourth one, increasing our public investment in purchasing buildings and sites to ensure affordability for the future. so these are short-term responses that are in response to this crisis but are going to inform how we approach the housing element and address some of our long-term solutions, so let's switch now to our housing element. >> good evening, president koppel, vice president moore, and commissioner. my name is kirya hadadan,

planning department staff. i'm excited to talk to you about the housing project element 2022. the housing project is a major part of the general plan. it's the only element that's required to be frequently updated, every eight years. it has mandated components, and the most important of those are a series of policy. these policies respond to list of housing needs from various groups, and another major role of the housing element is to show that the city has enough development capacity to address the housing targets that the state housing agencies address to local agencies in san francisco. this is called the local housing need allocation. since the last update to the

element in 2014, there's been major changes to state law that how we're going to have to do the next update. the first is an increase to rena. this is based on things sure as overcrowding. it used to be that rena only reflected a need coming from projected population growth. in addition, there's significant increases to fines if we don't comply on times. there's limitations on what size can be used when supporting significant targets, and lastly --

[inaudible] >> -- first, the changes to our policies. the housing policies were now updated in 2014, but the concept and the direction remain mostly intact since 2004. so -- and throughout a variety of initiatives that the city has done in the past few years, san francisco communities have shared their values for future housing, and these values are not reflected in the current policies of the existing housing element. those include first and foremost racial and social equity, to acknowledge and address the errors of structural and racial discrimination, and we've been -- we'll be working closely with the new office of racial equity in this way, such as working on minimum displacement from gentrification which has been

taking place in the city. third, more housing for all in all neighborhoods. there has been increasing demand for housing in san francisco, and we've heard constantly and consistently that the development addressing these goals should happen equitably throughout the city. and lastly, the city has made significant commitments to climate change adaptation goals, and housing strategies are among one of the more important ones. we'll also be preparing an environmental impact report to comply with ceqa. most other jurisdictions don't prepare a full e.i.r., but we want to analyze the comments holistically. here's an overview of our

two-year process. we started with gathering everything we already heard from various community efforts in the past few years and summarized them. we wanted to avoid outreach fatigue in our communities and reflect what people already heard. the process will consist of three phases. phase one is where we are now. we started and we'll be summarizing what we heard from the community. we've wanted to hold outreach events for the community, but because of the covid-19, we've shifted our outreach to on-line and have been doing by phone and mail. we have another outreach in the spring where we will be updating the actual policy

language and we'll engage the public and have virtual open houses where we'll discuss the circumstances then. and then, the last will be focusing on the policy process and the boards of state and the policyholders and the commission. we also want to put this in the current context of the pandemic. as we all now, this -- it has been hitting the communities of color, which are hispanic and black communities the hardest. this housing element is a long-term opportunity to address the long-term impacts of the current pandemic and center those in racial and

social equity. to ensure equitable outreach and engagement process, we have several participant group -- groups. we'll rely on a variety of tools, including media, phone, mail, and our participation platform to get feedback from the general public. our material will be translated in spanish and chinese, and our website's translated already. in response, particularly to the challenges of the current pandemic, we will be forming a resident ambassador group. it will be a group of ten people selected through an open application process. these will be people who in the past have not engaged as much in housing policy discussions with the city, but they have wide connections on the ground with the hardest-to-reach populations and can get their perspective to present it.

we'll also have a group of housing policy advocates and affordable housing developers and developers to form the housing policy process. we'll also be working with different agencies as well as elected officials and the planning commission. today, we released the summary of the key ideas that we've gathered from various initiatives. these are groups in the categories that you see on the screen, and they're compiled on an inentteractive digital participation platform. we are excited for this tool. this is the first time that the city is using or the department is using a platform like this. here are some of our major milestones planned for the next

two years, the first of which is going to be the coming fall. we'll be releasing the first draft of our policies based on the current outreach that we are studying. here are the policy teams as well as the environmental review team as well as the consultants that help us through this process. now i want to show you the one-minute video promotion that we have released yesterday to the public, and it's a call to action for people to participate in this process. [♪]

>> housing in san francisco continues to be one of our greatest challenges. it's rooted in troubled policies that contribute to the inequities of our society. while san franciscans have come up with a number of solutions in the past few years, we need a cohesive plan to address this complex challenge. the city is watching the housing element update, a series of policies that collectively address the housing needs of all, especially seniors, communities of color, and low and middle-income families. it will shape the future of housing in san francisco by prioritizing values we've heard. visit our website to help create equitable housing policies for our city. [♪]

>> thank you for all your input on what we have discussed today, and i believe that director hillis has some closing points to share. >> director hillis: thank you, kimmy, and thank you, miriam. i wanted to thank miriam and kimmy and their team. we spent a lot of time talking about how we do this during the crisis, but recognizing that, you know, these times kind of magnify our housing issues and affordability issues and inequities. i think we've pivoted significantly to make sure that the process is transparent, that the process is inclusive, and kimmy touched on some of those elements because this is a significant document. this is part of our general

plan. it's not just about producing housing, but it's about addressing our affordability issues, addressing inequities, and protecting it fiscally, so we're looking forward to this process and look forward to your feedback. >> clerk: commissioners, if there are no direct questions to staff at this time, we should probably open this up for public comment. let's go to q&a. >> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question, press one and then zero. >> clerk: i will remind members of the public to hit one and zero to enter the queue. >> operator: you have three questions remaining.

[inaudible] >> clerk: sir, you are submitting public testimony. are you prepared? >> yes, i am. >> clerk: okay. the floor is yours. >> caller: my name's gilbert medina. i would like to -- [inaudibl [inaudible] >> clerk: sir, i'm sorry. we're taking public comment on the housing element. let's go to the next caller. >> caller: oh, okay. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> caller: this is sue hester. thank you very much. this is so needed. i have a couple of issues that i want to be explored in the next housing element update. one, group housing. traditionally, group housing

has been a resource for very low-income people and families. this is something that is in a check -- change right now because group housing seems to be used for basically upper income techies, and there needs to be a real evaluation on what was happening on group housing. there needs to be a definition. usually, there's no kitchen and no bathroom. current construction. what is the b.m.r. standard for current construction? who are they aimed at? are we shifting market for group housing unintentionally without paying attention? one of the exact b.m.r. requirements or for-profit new units, and the additional question that is really hot

right now is there's been an explosion of infections in old housing, group housing, social housing, s.r.o.s. this needs to be a focus of discussion, as well. what are the standards to be used for ongoing construction of group housing? secondly, we really need a list of projects that are approved at the planning commission level, basically, a use it or lose it. they have a two-year period to start construction. two of those projects have been before the planning commission very recently. one of those is one oak, which is right next to 98 franklin,

which you heard an hour or two hours ago. if they engaged in not constructing things, we need to know because you have it on your books as an approved couple hundred units. the second project looked to approve last week was 67 folsom street, which is at folsom and hawthorne. they've sat on their hands for three years, and they've asked for another three years. we need a real list of entitlements that planning commission pays attention to, and the public needs to find out what are the projects? it doesn't make a difference if you approve projects that never

get built. thank you. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> commissioners, this is lorraine petty. i'm a resident of d-5, the fillmore. member of senior and disability action. i have some questions for the planning staff, and a couple of comments. the first question has to do with the outreach process i. i'm particularly focused on the 20 to 25% of san franciscans that are not on-line. i'd like to ask what specific details can the planning staff give us for this "phone and mail outreach"? because the noncomputer group, it's not an area that the planning staff has excelled at the in the past. also, can the planning staff say what are the exact

qualifications for the resident ambassador groups, and what are their duties? so in the comment area, it has to do with affordable housing. the figures across all the reports don't match up with prop k levels voted by the public at 33%. i note in particular that the affordable level recommended in the housing affordability strategies report, which is still awaiting a public hearing, as is the 2020 housing balance report, that strategies report offered only 29% availability, and that includes appositions along with the new construction. this is not really adequate in a post covid-19 recession world. i'm also very concerned with

something i've noticed. the process of allowing developers to see out. this has resulted in an increasing trend of projects not including on-site affordable units. so those units become purely market rate, only for wealthier individuals and investors while the affordable units and, thus, the low, very low, and middle-income folks are being, to me, segregated. this, long with rising prices for affordable units and the insatiable demands for housing. i hope this board along with the board of supervisors will address these in the future.

thank you very much. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> good evening, commissioners. this is anastasia iannopoulos. i listened to this, and it promotes housing for all. you want to promote low-income housing and equity in your 2022 general plan, but if you say more housing for all, that's all levels. and as miss petty was saying, the rhna levels, we have demonstrated that there has been more of the upper income market rate housing produced, an overabundance. so the lower level of housing

has not been produced. second, global warming is not taken into consideration. this is 2022. you've got to take global warming and that into account. third, simplifying the ceqa process, i don't get it. people have been coming up to you and saying their particular needs in a project need to be addressed, and simplifying the ceqa process does not cut it. and more income from community, i feel that especially low-income and communities of color need to be engaged in creating the policies, not to give feedback after the policy's been created. thank you.

>> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> hello. i'm theodore randles, and i notice that the housing thing says more housing for all, in all neighborhoods, so i think we need to look at the procedures how we produce housing and policy so that we actually do get housing in all neighborhoods. so the processes that we have, they have been proven -- academic studies have shown that they privilege mostly white, mostly rich, mostly retired people who can go to random meetings and also don't need child care. so i'm a bit worried that the public process for this new element would privilege this same people, and, like -- so -- and i heard process, we have a

legacy of bulldozers and highway results, so that's why we do so many of these meetings involving in the communities because we don't want bulldozers. but our current processes also have not produced equity. all these random meetings, they promote gentrification, so we need to find some way to balance neighborhood input with the -- with policies and procedures that have been proven to be benefits to the people that we want to protect. right. thank you. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> good afternoon. this is theresa flanders is

seniors and disability action. the presentation looks amazing, and a lot more detail would be very helpful at this time. i have been through community forums in the past that also have been part of policy issues that we have identified, such as housing rentals, and a portion of housing being available to seniors. so i would hope that there would be th, this time around, community forums. also, looking at what housing we truly actually have right now. we have no idea -- again, there was -- you know, the last housing balance report that i

recall seeing was the april 2019, and at that time, miss ojeda has said it's hard to look at what's behind the gate, trying to gather all the information that exists in order to find a balance. we keep losing a lot of affordable housing, and with that is -- with buyouts that are not actually filed or different kinds of conversions that took place outside of planning or building inspection? and so to really step up, one, we have to have a current housing balance report. we need to be tracking which buildings actually are becoming tenancy in common units. immediately following a sale is

when that oftentimes happen, and that's when they get tenants house. buyouts are not being filed? as well as, then, there are -- you know, we don't know when these t.i.c.s, where they actually exist and when they are sold as individual units, and then, it's not until there's a condo version application that you see that, and that's much too late? we need to be tracking those so that we have a real honest view of what we have right now. thank you. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> hi. my name is robert buckman. i live in lower haight. i want to say that in response to the last caller, san francisco planning department issues housing balance reports every six months.

i believe the last one was in march of this year. in fact, that report actually has cumulative housing balances for all the districts. and specifically, i want to point out that districts 1, 4, and 7 are in the negative, and these are all on the evidenwes. so i think that to achieve equity, to achieve firmly equitable housing, we need to up zone the west side, which has successfully avoided upzone ever since the rezoning of 1978. the residential rezoning e.i.r. specifically said if we down zone these neighborhoods to residential, we will increase prices, and we will potentially displace poorer people from san francisco, and that is what has happened 40 years later.

so if we want to solve these problems, if we want to reverse course, it's time to upzone st. francis woods, it is time to up zone saint davidson manor. i'm sorry? all right. that concludes my comment. thank you. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> hi. i wanted to make a couple of comments. i came to talk about racial and social equity as being a

primary driver for all of this, and i think it's really important when you all are talking about on-line participation. you know, calling in on this phone line was a bit of a challenge -- how you're going to be doing outreach to exactly those folks that are on your video informational to those who have been evicted to those who have been displaced to seniors to people who now because of the pandemic are faci facing foreclosure, eviction due to job loss. zoom is not going to get you to where you need to meet those racial and equity policy goals. second, can you talk about how the new arena will have an effect of basically tripling the amount of housing required or might? that is what has happened in los angeles. in san francisco, that would mean perhaps 80,000 units calculated to be built over the

next eight years, so 10,000 units a year. a big question for you all is how you're going to be able to accomplish that, and how are you going to divide that between market rate and low-income? and it seems to me one of the things as you start to go out to the public is to look at your previous record or the city's previous record or the developer's previous record at meeting their rhna. we can see that the city has met 123% of its market rate housing goals, so far exceeding its market rate housing goals for the current rhna, and only met 40% of its low-income. so how are we going to accomplish those in the new cycle and how will the housing element help to get us there? so data is really important. you have a jobs report that was

due in april. i don't think that's been published yet. i know some of these things may take a lot of time. i did ones at home that took me eight hours to do, so i know it's not an impossible thing to do. it's important information for you to be taking to the public, particularly as rent burden and overcrowding are going to be new sources of information. who, what income levels are going to be facing those facing overcrowding, and how are we going to help those folks? thank you very much. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is sarah ogilby, and i'm a resident of district 9. i just wanted to share with you my gratitude and appreciation for the weapon site for the housing element and how excited i am about this project?

i think this is, like, so important and so pivotal at this point in time that we begin talking about more housing for all and in all neighborhoods? you're -- it's just a wonderful -- it's a wonderful process. you know, after hearing about all the taxes that people have been using to oppose new housing -- you know, people have lived in a community for a long time. they express troubling preferences, but, you know, i just think that this is -- it's a real opportunity to open up the discussion, and i know you guys are going to do a great job of, you know, making that effort as -- you know, as proactive as possible. i truly believe that there are ways and means for the housing element to get, you know, on -- on -- on -- on its feet and moving. i think there's a lot of, like,

nonprofits and places that will be able to help you and find the right people to represent all communities, and i just -- i have every faith that, like, we're actually going to make a huge difference this time around. i think we're going to make a big difference, and we're going to start hearing from new voices; you know, people who will take the time and who will make the effort and who truly are passionate about getting this housing element right. and i appreciate the comments of the previous caller, robert. i think that along with doing the upzoning, i think we need to make sure that we create housing in those neighborhoods, including shelters, including low-income, including market rate. and i think by creating all housing, i think people are going to see that the housing

crisis in and of itself is what's reading problems with -- creating problems with the affordability and the accessibility, and i truly believe that creating housing in all neighborhoods is going to minimize displacement and reduce burdens on all portions of the city and revive the economy and give us the happy future that our children deserve. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> oh, good evening. this is georgia shiutish. thank you to the presentation and a very good start. i have a question about the staff report talking about the arena. i'm interested to know how the low vacancy rates, measuring factors such as low vacancy rates, how will you get those

numbers? that's my question. how will you find out what the low vacancy rate is? other than that, i'd like to just go back and talk about the current housing element from 2014, issues two and objected to that, and policy three, and the issue two, whole headline is improve housing and existing housing stock. i think there are a lot of good policies and objectives in there that need to be either amplified or maintained and expanded as you go with this newton-john housing element two years from now. so i'll just leave it at that. i'll just say one more thing, that i think that those

objectives and policies in the 2014 element can be used to meet some of your policy idea categories, particularly to preserve and enhance affordability and enhance the resi resiliency of existing housing, particularly if you're going to go ahead and make changes to section 317. so thank you very much. everyone take care and stay safe, and thank you to the staff. bye now. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> hello. this is jonathan randolph. i'd like to make the point that housing balance is not an excuse to prevent market rate housing. the rate of market rate housing is determined by how much of it there is, how much quantity there is. [inaudible]

>> i think that it's clear. what we don't produce enough housing that individuals want, which is studios and one bedroom units, they go to live multiple families in one unit. all housing in san francisco is expensive because it's scarce, so we need more of all kinds of housing so it's not so scarce. that's also a response of georgia shiutish's point. we have to build more affordable housing. let's build more housing so the middle class families don't have to set up with other middle class families. the 2014 reports are based on figures that are way too low because of the great recession.

thank god for senator scott wiener's sb 828, we will hit the target and make every effort to achieve the moderate and low-income targets, as well. [inaudible] >> thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm peter cohen, and i'm actually thinking about the previous speaker's final point about how the market works. i would argue that public policy isn't just simply reinforcing how the public market works, but it's shaping

public policy goals, and i think that's the tricky thing that you're left with in developing the housing element. two things about setting up your housing element process, and the first is to have up front and very clear in your document about a performance of how the city is currently doing on the housing element that we have in front of us and the current cycle. it's important to establish a baseline of where san francisco is while thinking about how to move forward in the next round, and that's easily done. the city already produced by mandate the housing tire domel report is done annually, t.

every year, the city's required to make an annual progress report to the state of california, which, again, is all available and can easily be reported back to the general public so we understand how we're doing as a city. the other thing is somebody mentioned the housing balance report and what it represents, and negative numbers. i would point out that the reason why it's negative is because of the evictions of households and those units being taken out of the rental market and not being replaced with affordable. so the negative housing balance is because of a lack of sufficient affordable housing production and a loss of existing rental housing. it's not an overall housing production measure. it's important to understand what that housing balance report is telling us. my second major point is the

new rhna projections that have been related, doubling and tripling in size, it's important that they still be proportional to the income level to counterbalance what we have in san francisco, which is a tremendous imbalance in production of market rate housing, and this is not an indictment of market rate housing, but needing 120 or 130% of our -- meeting 120 or 130% of our housing element goal, compared to low-income housing gmelement goal, meetin about 35% of that goal. even if we double or triple the rhna, we should be thinking about how to balance that yk balanc balan -- that imbalance.

>> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hi. i'm laura, and i've lived in san francisco for about 50 years. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we did. >> i don't know if this directly involves the housing element, but it involves housing, so i think it ought to be a point. i rented for many, many years, and i talked to landlords who gave up on being landlords. they had so many problems with tenants, and they just decided, you know, it's not worth it. i just spent $75,000 to get out a tenant that was living, you know, in my extra unit and was so abusive, and i just will never rent again. and that that's one thing that maybe needs to be looked at if some of the laws are protecting -- [inaudible] >> -- landlords have an easier time with a bad tenant and an easier time getting rid of a

very bad tenant. thank you. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that concludes the public comment portion of this hearing. the matter is now before you. , and i will remind you this is just an informational item. >> president koppel: yeah. first of all, just thanks to all the staff involved. i know this has been in the works for a while, but thanks again for all your hard work. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: yes, thank you for the staff and the team. i mean, i am a -- looking forward in this -- in the -- in the study, and also in this analysis, just like others have z

have-you knohave -- you know, have in the public commented as we are going through the public outreach, and i think that's going to be another question is how we really are -- in terms of community outreach, how are we -- it's not just getting your feedback, but having yourself experience as part of a policy-making process, and i think it was mentioned earlier -- by an earlier person in the public, which i think we should take into consideration and not just trying to get feedback. and really look into the trends, you know, that has been happening through the recession, coming through the recession, and up until this point. there's a lot of things that, you know, that i think that the racial and social equity analysis will look into as we look into the different kinds of tenants, the different kinds of precedents, and, you know,

the different situations of housing situations of over crowding, of rent burden, like, who are these people? what are their income levels? and what kind of income levels that we really need to emphasize, i think that's the kind of -- i am looking forward into that kind of analysis because it does protect us in a way that what kind of housing growth do we really need to emphasize more. and not just housing sprawl. everyone needs housing, but in terms of the racial and social equity framework, that there is that emphasis on that vulnerable community. i am curious as to, you know, when it comes to community outreach, you know, how many -- i mean, what's the staff time allocation in terms of getting

into committee outreach, and what kind of data you're looking into in the community outreach? again, i just think i want to make sure that we're just not taking their feedback but really getting into their experience because most of the time, people will say well, we need more affordable housing, we need more, you know, preserved housing, but what kind of data points are we looking into? so that would be interesting, especially in this time, too, you know, in terms of gathering information, i think -- i'm pretty sure the team will work harder in terms of, like, trying to accumulate this, but -- but yeah, this will be a challenge, but at the same time, i'm looking forward to

this. >> president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you for your comments. i'm excited, too, for the kickoff of these efforts and some of the new things that we'll be considering. i'm really excited that, one, rhna will be taking into account existing trends and it could not be more timely. i also just wanted to say that i think the sfrtrength of this effort is rooted in how we are engaged from the get-go. i like this idea of outreach and housing policy advocates, but we need to expand the circle, so to speak. i think this is a perfect time to expand the circle to engage

a multitude of organizations that deal with all sorts of issues that people, especially low-income people and people of color have lived in their experiences, and that has to do with income issues, and educational issues. so i think that people that work on those things can be on land polishes and those types of things can be at the table with us when we work on true, meaningful solutions. also, how we engage people and making sure it's a place in which people feel safe and they can, like, share their lived experience, and that lived experience will be honored, it's incredibly important. so often with advisory

committees, those who are on them or those who can afford to be on them or whose work supports them in doing so, and so i know that this is a time of massive budget cuts, but i think if we are engaging folks as community ambassadors, we should find a way to compensate them in some way for thanking them to be partners with us and engaging our communities. i really appreciate the narrative around minimizing displacement. i understand where minimizing displacement comes from, but i think if we're thinking of a city of the future, we've got to figure out a way to repatriate citizens upon return, like portland has implemented. i think we need to understand what's actually here.

it has been the conversation of many commissioners, many members of the public. i know there's also a potential state bill moving through around the rental registry. we need to think about incentivizing nonprofits when they purchase land, land banking, and land trust, which the commission has moved on multiple occasions to get briefed on, and i think it's a crucial strategy forward. and i think also closing the gaps between the rent board and planning so we can catch violations that's happening and placements that's happening without relying on neighbors and community groups. i appreciates the comments of miss shiutish. and finally, i'd just say that i encourage us as we do this

effort to be bold, to think boldly. we need to think about what bold initiatives we can put into place to actually fund housing and stabilization efforts and funded on ways that don't depend on development, including tax reform. i will say that i am extremely excited for this work to go forward. have full confidence in the team that has already done great work in just bringing this to us, and look forward to continuing to engage you as you move through this process. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: thank you to the team, thank you to planni planning department. i want to talk about the housing challenge.

i know that our previous housi housing -- [inaudible] >> vice president moore: thank you to our fellow commissioners. i do support every aspect that you raised in your comments, and i want to actually also commend the public for bringing forward issues that very much resonate with me. i want to particularly look forward to comment made by mr. marti and mr. cohen with the challenge of balancing the imbalance in our housing production. i do think that we need to look at more than just new building and approving new buildings, but we need to look very critically at what we are losing and who we are losing that particular loss for? in particular, the people that are being affected by the losing idea is incredibly important for us to fully grasp

what is ahead of us. i do believe in housing for all, but i do believe in housing for our most vulnerable population, which is essentially, at least for me, through the pandemic, and i hope the department taking on such a clear focus on that issue will bring more clarity of how we prioritize housing when it comes to the next step of rebuilding and reassigning housing for whom and in what time. social equity -- racial social equity as a new focus will help us in creating this new lens. i agree with that, and i will be interested to see perhaps a future discussion with mr. cohen and mr. marti, what the effects of social distancing

require us to look at new housing types, new types of housing spaces, and new housing in general. we may see an influx from housing because of required social distancing, but i would like us to continue focused on relevant housing for the types of urban problems we are encountering from now and into the future. in general, i'm very excited about where the team is, and i'm very excited about the agenda that you have outlined for us moving forward, and thank you so much to everybody. . >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? so i want to enforce all of the comments of my fellow commissioners. i just want to add one other group here. maybe it's a question for

staff. i thought i heard you talking about seniors when you were talking about vulnerable groups. will that be an area in your studies? >> yes. >> commissioner diamond: was that a yes? i'm having trouble hearing you. >> yes. >> commissioner diamond: okay. i'm glad to hear that. i feel we have an increasing aging population in the city. their housing needs are quite different. we have a housing stock that, in general, doesn't work very well for seniors who want to age in place, and that we need to be quite focused on this as is underscored by the current pandemic, so thank you. >> clerk: seeing no further comment, commissioners, i will pause here -- oh, commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: yes, i do want to acknowledge

commissioner diamond for her comment. in the rush, i forgot to mention her, particularly her pointing out that the housing stock is relatively deficient, particularly given the high loss of people during the pandemic. thank you so much, commissioner diamond. >> director hillis: and i just want to thank you for the comments. i appreciate, commissioner johnson, your direction to be bold. i think that was the comment that we heard from many of the commissioners and the public, to be bold, so we'll take that as a directive. thank you. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, commissioners, i will simply commend you on your patience and perseverance in today's hearing in getting to your final item on today's agenda, item number 7, case

20190041100 cua, a conditional use authorization, and i do see staff is prepared to present. mr. may? >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. chris may of planning department staff. you have before you a request for conditional use authorization to permit a formula retail use within the nc-3 zoning district, a -- the city center's special fine district, and 40-x and 80-d improvement districts. [inaudible] >> -- and a 1,190 square foot coffee bar. the project is considered a formula retail use as there are

approximately 496 whole foods market locations worldwide, including seven in san francisco. aside from permitted business signage, and a storefront being presented to the proposed coffee front, there will be no changes to the exterior of the building. it would increase the formula retail uses within a quarter-mile vicinity from 18 to 19%. a transportation analysis conducted by planning staff concluded that the project would not interfere with the accessibility from people working or biking to the project site or result in inadequate emergency access. during the evening peak, the project is anticipated to generate an additional -- or sorry, an estimated 265 trips

by personal vehicle and 16 trips by taxi or t.n.c., which is below the screening criteria for a detailed transportation analysis. the analysis also found that there is adequate space within the existing building and parking lot for freight and passenger loading actions to occur. the department has received nine letters in support and one letter in opposition to the project. the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with state objectives and policies of the general plan. the project would add a grocery store, restaurant, and a coffee shop in an area that is historically bounded by a number of large property locations. it will not displace any tenants as whole foods will be the first retailer to occupy the space formerly occupied by best buy, by closed more than

two -- which closed more than two years ago. this concludes my presentation, and i will now turn it over to mark loper, representing the project sponsor. afterwards, i'll be available for further questions. thank you. >> clerk: is the project sponsor prepared to present? >> i believe so. i'll be walking through a powerpoint. >> clerk: okay. you will have five minutes, and through the chair, public comment will be limited to one minute. >> great. i first want to thank chris and planning staff for all their hard work getting this project ready for hearing, and doing a lot of that work remotely. good evening, commissioners. this is mark loper on behalf of reuben, junius, and rose on behalf of whole foods market. i just want to start with some background on the city center

mall. >> clerk: mark, i'm going to pause you for a moment. i apologize for interrupting. i'm just going to give chris an opportunity to get your slides up. >> okay. >> clerk: great. go ahead, chris -- i mean, ai' sorry. go ahead, mark. >> great. starting with some background on the city center mall, it occupies a full city block, and it is bordered by two of the busier thoroughfares in the city, and it has a history of retailers dating back -- national retailers dating back to the 1960s. whole food proposes to move into a space which was last

occupied by best buy which moved out in 2017. the space is approximately 64,000 square feet in size. this large size is only attr t attractive to a certain band of retailers, which are most likely national retailers. the entire mall has over 600 parking spaces. chris, you can go to slide 4. the project has three components, as chris mentioned: a grocery store, a restaurant accessible from the inside of the grocery store, and a coffee bar. the coffee bar will also be independently accessible from the parking lot. the restaurant is proposed for the space above geary street, and the coffee shop shaded in green projects out from the rest of the tenant space. moving onto slide 6, whole

foods has a long-standing commitment to union trade labor in san francisco. from 2004, it has used between 84 to 94% union trade. these are union jobs in soma, po -- potrero, noe valley, and haight. moving onto the next slide, whole foods hires a diverse range of san franciscans. it plies 1,420 people in the -- employs 1,420 people in the city, 76% of whom are residents. 76% of whole foods employee are full-time. the project is anticipated to have around 200 store jobs. at a time when san francisco's

unemployment rate is 12.6%, those jobs are much needed. chris, you can move onto the next slide. we've taken extended measures to address team safety health and wellness during the pandemic, including face masks and shields, mandatory daily health screenings, crowd control, and soercial distanci. whole foods has also allowed unlimited paid time off for team members until they feel well enough or comfortable enough to go to work. moving onto the next slide, whole foods has a demonstrated track report of charitiable giving to local nonprofits and community groups.

in 2019, they raised or donated the equivalent of over $20,000 to local groups. its whole kids foundation gave edibility garden grants to san francisco schools. moving onto the next slide, and i promise, i'm wrapping up here, finally, the project has a wide range of support. that includes over 100 signatures from san francisco, two local merchants groups, in the fillmore and greater geary merchants association, the san francisco chamber of commerce. so just briefly concluding, the project would include a whole foods at a site that has historically been used by national retailers.

is that -- do i have 30 more seconds? >> clerk: you have 30 more seconds. >> whole foods has a demonstrated track record of union trades and local hiring, has taken extended measures during the pandemic to address team members' safety and wellness. it will create nearly 300 jobs at a time when san francisco's unemployment rate is higher than it ever got during the great recession. it is supported by neighbors, neighborhood organizations, local and citywide merchant organizations and two union g.c.s. we ask you to approve. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. thank you. if there are no immediate questions for the project sponsor or staff, we should move to public comment. if we can go to q&a, and as previously mentioned -- [inaudible] >> clerk: members of the

public. now is your opportunity to dial into -- excuse me -- call into the 800 number and then hit one and zero to enter the queue. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> hi. my name is gabriel medina. i'm the vice president of -- [inaudible] >> and i'm here to oppose this project unless this project has labor piece, not just with the building trades but also with the retail workers. during this time of covid, we're talking about hiring 300 employees. these are employees that are feeding our families and putting themselves at risk every day. we need protections every day. this is a huge project. i've shopped there for many years, so please give community time, to allow, just like we did for the costco, time to

negotiate and have more outreach with our union workers and our shared workers. thank you. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> good evening. this is tony vargas, representing local 1025. gue we are opposed to this project. we know that whole foods in the past, and amazon in general has been labor unfriendly, and as far as covid-19 sick pay, that's been mandated by the state, as well. thank you very much for your time. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> kim cavaloni, san francisco

labor council. whole foods-amazon is not a great company for san francisco. they have not stepped out to protect their employee -- stepped up to protect their employees. they only did so because they were forced to. their po i don't think the city should allow this to happen. they're just a bad partner and you should not allow them here. thank you. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> hi. this is ryan mcgilly, an organizer with ufcw local 5 and 2k and d-7 resident.

gue we are opposed to the project with whole foods. without organized labor, this project should not go through, and in terms of the covid-19 situation, whole foods has consistently had workers there that have working with the disease and found out, and having their whole company to be quarantined after the fact, so i think their whole statement is misleading. gue we are opposed to the project. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> this is julie fisher, a member of ufcw 5 for over 30 years. having worked in retail in san francisco for all those many years, and also a resident of district 1, i know that these jobs need to be union. we need safety, we need union conditions, and then, we can welcome whole foods and not

before. please take this into consideration. thank you. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> hi. my name's richard rossman, a richmond district resident. whole foods does not need another store in the city. i'm a retired city worker. i can't afford to go to whole foods. whole foods is whole check. that's another thing is the parking, and people leaving, going out, they're going to dump onto anza street, which is a one way, and how are they going to get out? they have to go down through the neighborhood or down through kaiser. please reject this. thank you. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> this is allison jennie.

since we've been aware of the possibility of whole foods becoming a tenant in the city center mall, i have not heard one negative comment. everyone who's voiced a comment is in favor of having them. we have many seniors in our area who are no longer able to drive but are still ambulatory. their problem is they can't make it across geary to go to trader joe's, and lucky's is out of the question. shortage of groceries and long lines are creating high levels of anxiety. whole foods would literally be a life saver for them. they are definitely an ideal fit for our neighborhood. thank you. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> my name is jim grossman.

i'm a property owner and resident in the immediate neighborhood. city center shopping mall. i'm very much in favor of the whole foods moving in, taking the place of a vacant 50,000 square foot best buy formerly office space. we don't need vacant spaces in our neighborhood. we need the shopping badly as well as the new jobs. thank you. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> clerk: is the caller prepared to submit their testimony? caller, you have the floor. let's go to the next caller. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> hi.

my name is robert bruckman. i live in lower haight. i've done shopping catty corner to the proposed site. i just want to say that amazon has a terrible record on treating its workers humanely. i'm sure you've all heard about the stories of amazon's bathroom policies for its warehouse workers, so i am opposed to amazon and whole foods having a location there until they can have enough good things to outstrip the negative things that they have done. thank you. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> good evening. it's anastasia iannopoulos.

i know the workers, they're not paid well, there's constant turnover. it's just bad to reward whole foods and give them this opportunity for conditional use. that space is vacant, go ahead. build a nice housing project there. don't reward them. trader joe's across the street. people can shop there. somehow or other, somebody will help the old people across the street or make a better pathway for them, but don't give this pathway to whole foods to continue this reckless disregard of their workers. thank you. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> yeah. [inaudible] >> -- and he does not by not paying his workers enough.

going to try to keep the union out. build housing there, something sensible. thank you. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> this is alyssa jones garner representing a. representing seiu 1021. i stand in opposition to this project. all aspects -- >> clerk: ma'am, you've cut out.

>> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> hello. my name is nicky. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> oh, hi. i'm a san francisco native, and i'm a former advisor for san francisco state and a member of san francisco locla, my neighbor organization, and i could always support amazon coming onto this property if they do a local hire when it comes to building this state, and that means hiring local union workers. i want to support this organization coming in, that they would hire union employees within this project, especially students, debt ridden students from nearby ucsf and san

francisco state where they can work with the students' schedules, and health benefits. otherwise, i say good-bye amazon. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> this is rudy gonzalez of san francisco labor council. i just want to note that seven stores, not one of them meets area standards for working class people in this city. amazon has a record of charitiable giving, and they want to inoculate you against that. we've seen in the year that amazon has owned whole foods. they've brought that model of distribution and they want to stick that right in our neighborhoods. the implications for traffic and t.n.c. and deliveries would be far greater than the studies show. the comments about labor

agreements are deceptive. if we're going to do that for the eighth time, and the eighth time is a charm, let's do it for working class people and make it a value add for our community. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> hello. i'm a resident of -- [inaudible] >> -- neighborhood. i'm supportive of the whole foods project for several reasons. first, i think in this time, economically, we have a lot of people out of work right now, and if we turn this down, it would be turning jobs down for hundreds of people that need money right now, despite the testimony that is totally fair and in opposition to that. additionally, for the neighborhood, it would be a really nice thing in terms of

the comments regarding the aging population ain the neighborhood who need them. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> my name is frank martinez. we stand in opposition to the project. we cannot rely or even consider the fair works advanced by the corporate representatives when we don't see unionization in the stores that currently exist, and when we see employee firings firings for engaging in organizing in the warehouses. we don't need them, we can't trust them, and if we need a

store, let's build it by unions and make their working conditions for san franciscans. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> hi. my name is jenna snow, and i'm a resident of the neighborhood for over 40 years. i've seen stores come and go. i think that whole foods would be a very welcome addition, especially for those of us who don't drive or don't have a car. i understand there's some opposition to the whole foods proposal by unions that only want union workers in the store. perhaps well meaning for its union members, i do not believe it would be well meaning for any of us if it were a requirement for whole foods to only have union employees. it's certainly not a reason to delay whole foods, and all the other issues about safety could

be negotiated. thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hello. i'm bernie soden, and thank you for your support, but the intervention of the monopolistic businesses in competition with small store owners and operators is not needed in san francisco. this provides amazon whole saling for its commercial needs. thank you very much. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: commissioners, that will conclude our public comment portion of this hearing, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: okay.

well, before other commissioners chime in, let me just remind everybody that before this time, we have heard two other whole foods projects. one on polk street, after a lot of hearings, we disapproved. one down on market street, we approved that one, and it comes down to the land use and the location that's proposed. this site is almost exclusively made for formula retail. it's a shopping center, which is something that we don't typically see in the city, but it allows for some different circumstances down there. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: appreciate your opening comment, president koppel. we have, indeed, looked at

whole foods in a number of situations. this is a good location, there's no doubt about it. however, the concerns about whole foods' performance are something that i definitely have an ear for. i believe the comments made by the public are something we should be looking at, particularly because i can witness to the decline of whole food performance prior to amazon, and that is clear to me. whole foods was a very good store. despite its higher price point, it had an attitude of labor liking to work there. staffers were just a delight to see. many of them are still there, but i can clearly see that the overall atmosphere in the

store, plus the fact that workers are not treated well, is contributing to this. one of the hardest things is not being an amazon member out of myself by conviction, you pay through the nose while everybody else who was an amazon member pays a lot less. i'm, at this moment, prepared to encourage the applicant to have a discussion with labor. what the results of that are is not for me to express any ti particular desires are but for it to get better. i believe this project is nthe

right project in this location, however, i am not prepared to support it today. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i'd like to echo commissioner moore's comment. yes, it does look like that it is a good location for a formula retail. however, as planning commission and as the planning department looks into the community stabilization strategies, we also need to look into the situations of the upper workers, and if there are issues between these, you know -- between the applicant and with the labor, i think we need to give them time to reach into an agreement. for me, i would like to continue this until there is a labor agreement being placed within the unions and the

building trades. i would like to make that as a motion. >> clerk: do i hear a second? >> vice president moore: my mic was off. i seconded the motion. >> clerk: if there's no further deliberation or request to speak, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter. commissioner imperial, did you have a suggestion for a period of time? >> commissioner imperial: usually, i mean, we have -- i would say enough time is 30 days, since we are in covid-19 area. >> clerk: may 28 would put us into june 25. that amenable to the seconder?

>> commissioner imperial: yes. >> vice president moore: yes. >> clerk: and if i could switch screens, making sure no one else is requesting to speak. there is a motion that has been seconded in this matter to move it until june 25 in order to resolve any issues. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: that motion passes, 4-3, with commissioners diamond, fung, and koppel voting against. commissioners, that concludes today's agenda. not a short one. you've been at this for a solid seven hours. i congratulate you. welcome to the commission,

commissioner chan. it's not our normal remote hearing, however, this is actually pretty close to normal in cases called, so welcome. >> commissioner chan: good night, everyone.

[gavel] >> good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am the chair of the committee, supervisor aaron peskin joined by vice chair supervisor safai and committee member supervisor dean preston. our clerk is ms. erica major. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members, city employees and the public t board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed. supervisors will be participating in the virtual meeting to the same extent as if they are physically present. channel 26 and sfgov tv are streaming the number across the scree