. >> caller: corey smith. good morning.the san francisco housing action coalition in support of the project here today. as you know the 10 south vanness project and hub plan have been in the works for a better part of a decade now. i am happy to see this significant step forward. we are creating the homes and understanding the impact on parks is essential, and with all of this project we are proud to support and ask you to continue moving the project forward today. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> no further questions. commissioners, i turn it over to you. commissioner low. >> thank you. i have a question for andrew. patricia's green was created under the central freeway. is this extension of the hub to the market octavia plan an extension of that central freeway plan? >> in other words, in creating patristhe green which would shae development within the central freeway plan, would this project be included so that the new shadow created by this project would be permitted under that plan? >> commissioner, pe

corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition.his has been a topic when this has come up in previous discussions and hearings, and we just want to continue to reiterate our grandfathering for this piece of legislation. having the rules throughout the process is critical to creating certainty and more uncertainty in the development process to add to the overall cost of building housing in a significant way. specifically requesting a grandfathering clause for projects with this piece of legislation. thank you. >> is there another caller? >> you have two minutes to speak. >> good afternoon. representing the project sponsor for 200 harrison. -- 2300 harrison. we are asking for a grandfathering clause. we understand it is continued to allow revisions. we hope the grandfathering clause is one of them. we will hold comments today. we respectful lie ask for grandfathering so 2300 harrison can go through normal appeal processes. instead of the legislation introduced after the first approval. we look forward to the next time this comes up a

corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. this has been a topic when this has come up in previous discussions and hearings, and we just want to continue to reiterate our grandfathering for this piece of legislation. having the rules throughout the process is critical to creating certainty and more uncertainty in the development process to add to the overall cost of building housing in a significant way. specifically requesting a grandfathering clause for projects with this piece of legislation. thank you. >> is there another caller? >> you have two minutes to speak. >> good afternoon. representing the project sponsor for 200 harrison. -- 2300 harrison. we are asking for a grandfathering clause. we understand it is continued to allow revisions. we hope the grandfathering clause is one of them. we will hold comments today. we respectful lie ask for grandfathering so 2300 harrison can go through normal appeal processes. instead of the legislation introduced after the first approval. we look forward to the next time this comes up

. >> good afternoon, commissioners, corey smith on behalf of the coalition. are we doing comments on continuance right now or still waiting? >> clerk: we are taking comment on the matters proposed for continuance. >> fantastic, thank you, jonas. good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith on behalf of s.f., and speaking of the hub area plan, i understand that it is getting continued today but i just really wanted to emphasize after four years of conversations with the community that all of these things do have a clock. and we don't want to miss out upon all of the tremendous benefits associated with this plan, and so looking forward to continuing to move the process forward on may 14th. thank you. >> you have five questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. audrey rail, and the san francisco coalition. i'm calling in support of the item number 10 for 4211 26th street to be continued to june 18th. this item was not noticed properly because, a, it was in a notice, it referenced the item to be a single family home. and also they were missing plans on t

. >> good afternoon, commissioners, corey smith on behalf of the coalition. are we doing comments on continuance right now or still waiting? >> clerk: we are taking comment on the matters proposed for continuance. >> fantastic, thank you, jonas. good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith on behalf of s.f., and speaking of the hub area plan, i understand that it is getting continued today but i just really wanted to emphasize after four years of conversations with the community that all of these things do have a clock. and we don't want to miss out upon all of the tremendous benefits associated with this plan, and so looking forward to continuing to move the process forward on may 14th. thank you. >> you have five questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. audrey rail, and the san francisco coalition. i'm calling in support of the item number 10 for 4211 26th street to be continued to june 18th. this item was not noticed properly because, a, it was in a notice, it referenced the item to be a single family home. and also they were missing plans on t

. >> caller: corey smith. good morning. corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition in support of the project here today. as you know the 10 south vanness project and hub plan have been in the works for a better part of a decade now. i am happy to see this significant step forward. we are creating the homes and understanding the impact on parks is essential, and with all of this project we are proud to support and ask you to continue moving the project forward today. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> no further questions. commissioners, i turn it over to you. commissioner low. >> thank you. i have a question for andrew. patricia's green was created under the central freeway. is this extension of the hub to the market octavia plan an extension of that central freeway plan? >> in other words, in creating patristhe green which would shae development within the central freeway plan, would this project be included so that the new shadow created by this project would be permitted under that

. >> caller: corey smith. good morning.an francisco housing action coalition in support of the project here today. as you know the 10 south vanness project and hub plan have been in the works for a better part of a decade now. i am happy to see this significant step forward. we are creating the homes and understanding the impact on parks is essential, and with all of this project we are proud to support and ask you to continue moving the project forward today. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> no further questions. commissioners, i turn it over to you. commissioner low. >> thank you. i have a question for andrew. patricia's green was created under the central freeway. is this extension of the hub to the market octavia plan an extension of that central freeway plan? >> in other words, in creating patristhe green which would shae development within the central freeway plan, would this project be included so that the new shadow created by this project would be permitted under that plan? >> commissioner, perhaps

good afternoon, supervisors, corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action co coalition, here to support the legislation by supervisor fewer and supervisor mar and i thank them for their leadership on this. we feel this is a predictable outcome due to the underbuilding of housing in the city for the last 30 or 40 years. and this sort of emergency response. we absolutely think that it is appropriate given the circumstances. and i think that for people that have are both supporting and opposing this legislation, i think that doing so and understanding the status of the current situation and putting that in context versus what this proposal is, i think that it is an opportunity for us to improve what currently is happening on the streets. like many of my neighbors in district 5 we're seeing more tents on the sidewalk. so i see this as a positive alternative because, a, social distance is not practiced right now. but when you've got a city sanctioned facility that does have the services and does have all of those things that people were saying that are unavailable right now,

corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition.his has been a topic when this has come up in previous discussions and hearings, and we just want to continue to reiterate our grandfathering for this piece of legislation. having the rules throughout the process is critical to creating certainty and more uncertainty in the development process to add to the overall cost of building housing in a significant way. specifically requesting a grandfathering clause for projects with this piece of legislation. thank you. >> is there another caller? >> you have two minutes to speak. >> good afternoon. representing the project sponsor for 200 harrison. -- 2300 harrison. we are asking for a grandfathering clause. we understand it is continued to allow revisions. we hope the grandfathering clause is one of them. we will hold comments today. we respectful lie ask for grandfathering so 2300 harrison can go through normal appeal processes. instead of the legislation introduced after the first approval. we look forward to the next time this comes up a

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. t

corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. this has been a topic when this has come up in previous discussions and hearings, and we just want to continue to reiterate our grandfathering for this piece of legislation. having the rules throughout the process is critical to creating certainty and more uncertainty in the development process to add to the overall cost of building housing in a significant way. specifically requesting a grandfathering clause for projects with this piece of legislation. thank you. >> is there another caller? >> you have two minutes to speak. >> good afternoon. representing the project sponsor for 200 harrison. -- 2300 harrison. we are asking for a grandfathering clause. we understand it is continued to allow revisions. we hope the grandfathering clause is one of them. we will hold comments today. we respectful lie ask for grandfathering so 2300 harrison can go through normal appeal processes. instead of the legislation introduced after the first approval. we look forward to the next time this comes up

good afternoon, supervisors, corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action co coalition, here to support the legislation by supervisor fewer and supervisor mar and i thank them for their leadership on this. we feel this is a predictable outcome due to the underbuilding of housing in the city for the last 30 or 40 years. and this sort of emergency response. we absolutely think that it is appropriate given the circumstances. and i think that for people that have are both supporting and opposing this legislation, i think that doing so and understanding the status of the current situation and putting that in context versus what this proposal is, i think that it is an opportunity for us to improve what currently is happening on the streets. like many of my neighbors in district 5 we're seeing more tents on the sidewalk. so i see this as a positive alternative because, a, social distance is not practiced right now. but when you've got a city sanctioned facility that does have the services and does have all of those things that people were saying that are unavailable right now,

corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition in support. you know, i want to just echo comments of previous speakers, it's always nice to be 10th in line behind additional supporters. and the only thing that maybe i'd add is that we're talking a surface parking lot into housing in the middle of our city in a growing neighborhood. we're very, very excited to support this effort and ask that you continue to move the project forward. thank you. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, president koppel, and i'm with local 22 and i represent 40,000 members in northern california, 4,000 who live here in san francisco. i'm here today to ask for your support of the project, and the signatory with the contractor, and the individuals to have the opportunity to earn a good wage where they live, providing retirement benefits to our members. this project will also offer training and educational opportunities for those in the area, and it includes women, minorities, veterans. this project will bring much-needed housing to the area a

. >> corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. i'm looking at this market octavia project, and i see that the first public workshop took place five years ago, so after a five-year-long community engagement, that's going to result in 18 towers of low-income and affordable housing at no cost to taxpayers. we think that's fantastic, and we are in strong support. this is close to muni stations, close to b.a.r.t. stations. i'm looking at the slide from the presentation. it's literally thousands of units, and thousands of subsidized affordable units that we would get from upzoning the entire area, and that's the entire point of this long community process when we're looking at basically area plans at a whole. we don't generally think it's a good idea to then require projects come back to planning after that. that doesn't really make sense to us after going through this long community process, but we understand that compromise is needed with everything. and one last thing i really do just want to emphasize, we are getting a lot of additi