. >> caller: linda chapman. again, i wanted to thank you for this important initiative. i have a suggest: as i said before, i'm not the smartest kid in the room, but i work for five federal departments. i would suggest looking really at the federal regulations regarding, you know, ethics and controls and so forth. federal departments' heads and program managers like me and so on do not solicit payments for their favorite charities. and, in fact, when i worked for the navy, one civilian manager was soliciting people for a table for some kind of event. i don't know if pern -- with personnel regulations, i don't know what the outcome was, but he could have been fired for that. [inaudible] and also the group that call themselves the nobb hill coalition, even worse that they were just for one particular project. i'm going to tell you about that later. both these operations needed rico investigations. 540,000 dollars they are getting extracted. on top of all of the money they have extracted from other projects, including all those bar licenses, that caused the destruction of o

. >> linda chapman. i'm sorry. i was mistaken about the agenda order. so i missed the presentation today, but i was present for the planning commission's hearing. you have to terminate the practice of allowing the units to be provided on site in a mixed income development. in the and a woman wanted to confirm what i was saying. absolutely you must not do this. it is a disaster in waiting for the people who will buy the units and lose their homes. i have the experience of watching my other fellow homeowners lose their homes one after another and those are not in mixed and seven other buildings were undergoing the same situation and then after the bmr people lose their units, there's no way for the other owners to recover the money that they were supposed to pay for their special assessments. my dearest friends from my co-op, one game a renter in reno when she was forced from her home because she couldn't pay the special assessment. the other last her home and hat to live with the dearest friend living in palm springs where condos are cheaper. that is the

through the chair, you will have two minutes. >> linda chapman.iously in no position to comment on what is written in the eir until i can get a written copy, so i'll have to try to find out how to do that before october 5 when we also have appeal hearing on the other project, you know, which is going to go to court obviously. okay, in this case, let me just say, a neighborhood is being destroyed. this -- i mean, this is not nob -- this is nob hill, it is not downtown civic center, which i saw in the announcements about this project. people are trying to -- what would you say -- finesse it? >> jonas: -- >> supposed to be 65 feet, could not be more than 80. the north of market planning coalition had the area out of sutter rezoned 80 feet to avoid anything higher. nob hill neighbors originally had 80 feet along the south slope around sutter bush and pine. and then had that change to 65 pete. now you've been building -- staff have been allowing the high rises to be built, such as the austin and so on. the wind impacts are appalling. who is to say the

next speaker, please. >> linda chapman. if there ever was a proponent of stakeholder for short-term rentals, it's me. the first time that legislation's protect dwelling units was ever passed was actually at the same time as the residential hotel conversion ordinance. i worked on that and because knob hill was suffering from the short-term rental of dwelling units and because i was so persistent, they passed a law that prohibited the short-term rental under 30 days of any dwelling unit at all. it passed. it was signed by the mayor. it was not thrown out of court when the residential hotel law was drawn out of court. but what happened? it went to the city attorney's office and alice barkley was working there. and she simply eviscerated it. and i was so stupid that instead of going -- well, we lagged always on our office. art's office tried to deal with alice. couldn't do anything. didn't deal with the, you know, city attorney himself and i was too stupid to go back to harry brit and say hey we passed this law. the difference

. >> linda chapman. i'm sorry. i was mistaken about the agenda order. so i missed the presentation today, but i was present for the planning commission's hearing. you have to terminate the practice of allowing the units to be provided on site in a mixed income development. in the and a woman wanted to confirm what i was saying. absolutely you must not do this. it is a disaster in waiting for the people who will buy the units and lose their homes. i have the experience of watching my other fellow homeowners lose their homes one after another and those are not in mixed and seven other buildings were undergoing the same situation and then after the bmr people lose their units, there's no way for the other owners to recover the money that they were supposed to pay for their special assessments. my dearest friends from my co-op, one game a renter in reno when she was forced from her home because she couldn't pay the special assessment. the other last her home and hat to live with the dearest friend living in palm springs where condos are cheaper. that is the

. >> linda chapman. i'm sorry. i was mistaken about the agenda order. so i missed the presentation today, but i was present for the planning commission's hearing. you have to terminate the practice of allowing the units to be provided on site in a mixed income development. in the and a woman wanted to confirm what i was saying. absolutely you must not do this. it is a disaster in waiting for the people who will buy the units and lose their homes. i have the experience of watching my other fellow homeowners lose their homes one after another and those are not in mixed and seven other buildings were undergoing the same situation and then after the bmr people lose their units, there's no way for the other owners to recover the money that they were supposed to pay for their special assessments. my dearest friends from my co-op, one game a renter in reno when she was forced from her home because she couldn't pay the special assessment. the other last her home and hat to live with the dearest friend living in palm springs where condos are cheaper. that is the

. >> caller: linda chapman, i'm working with the coalition to stop the sip closures but i'm speakings a retired enteral civil servant who worked in the war on poverty and knows absolutely nobody went unhoused was receiving benefits whether it was afpc or any federal benefits . it was against the law. unfortunately now we have a huge establishment of people who are paid to manage homelessness, to keep people homeless and and manage it. the one happy note i'veheard is you hired an anthropologist so maybe things will be looked at differently and we can change that . look at the budget.$7000 it costs to keep a sip hotel room. counts are reported that vast numbersof rooms were empty and the ones that were rented rented for $62 a night . remember april 30 hearing. the hsa people came in and said they had to empty out all the staff who worked in the hotels who couldn't use the jobs, who knew what to do and had people from alltheirs. >> sorry to cut you off , linda chapman. currently we have just as an update we have 28 members of the public listening with 10 waiting to speak. if you have no

>> linda chapman. speaking for the people of nobhill as a former community organizer, i can't emphasize enough how important laundromats are. we have the same cuts allover because when i walk around i still see the ones i use the ones i didn't use . what we renters do?it's so important for a global city and if you want to live car free which most of us on nobhill are. only when i moved to a co-op did we have access within the building and even there it was a laundry room which is far preferable to having every condo or co-op unit have to have the washer and dryer taking up space in and you're not in use almost all the time, it's an opportunity for the laundromat for that matter that's something i think would be encouraging . a group laundry facilities as opposed to group kitchens in places like condos and co-ops and so on. if you want to have a walkable car free city you have to have things where people can walk in the sunset district where i grew up, you have to go all the way to the neighborhood comm

. >> caller: linda chapman. thanks for the eir.ll beable to on wednesday start getting on with that and thank you . in that case and inthese others that have come up recently i'm veryconcerned . it's like you're in a difficult position . if the staff keepsshoving things that you whether they're practical, whether they meet thebuilding code or the planning code and so on or not , then you see here and you have a limited amount of time . you havedevelopers making all kinds of promises that are ludicrous in many cases and th cities going to wind up in litigation which could be avoided if the planners were sticking to the planning code . i sent you the video i think . maybe i didn't. updated saying we the fact that we have all these state laws doesn't mean that the california building code doesn't apply obviously and the planning code on top . so you'veapproved a project on pine street that is going to lead to inhabitable units .if they get permits from the building departmentand no one with the building department as they may do what

. >> caller: linda chapman. i say good idea. lgbtq landmarks have been designated now in various parts of the city and i mentioned i just returned from a demonstration in front of the lgbtq business, the legacy business in our district in paul at 1520 nine. the demonstrators were out there todemolish this business . when i came to, even before i came to live on mount hill in the 1960s i use to take the polk bus up to galileo and i was floored by the gorgeous neighborhood commercial district, the most beautiful i ever saw. i didn't realize at the time it was a lgbtq district before polk street and when i did live here i thought you are so lucky and we would go to the state which was a lgbtq mecca but also the one where the other neighborhood peoplecould go like the ladies did not really go into the gay bar . now it's to be demolished. why? because the people who bought it, a development company decided they would

. >> caller: linda chapman, i'm working with the coalition to stop the sip closures but i'm speakings a retired enteral civil servant who worked in the war on poverty and knows absolutely nobody went unhoused was receiving benefits whether it was afpc or any federal benefits . it was against the law. unfortunately now we have a huge establishment of people who are paid to manage homelessness, to keep people homeless and and manage it. the one happy note i'veheard is you hired an anthropologist so maybe things will be looked at differently and we can change that . look at the budget.$7000 it costs to keep a sip hotel room. counts are reported that vast numbersof rooms were empty and the ones that were rented rented for $62 a night . remember april 30 hearing. the hsa people came in and said they had to empty out all the staff who worked in the hotels who couldn't use the jobs, who knew what to do and had people from alltheirs. >> sorry to cut you off , linda chapman. currently we have just as an update we have 28 members of the public listening with 10 waiting to speak. if you have no

. >> linda chapman. i must say, i must be cruel only to be kind.red at the complete lawlessness that has come over the planning process. it is so different from when i was involved all the time, like, practically every week back in the 1970s and 80s when dean makras and bob passmore and the wonderful staff that are there. i really considered them to be on a par with federal service, any department, where, you know, even when mistakes were made, things that we had to go to court about and sue high-rises, at least they were in areas that were zoned for high-rises from mistakes that we made in rezoning. it wasn't like the planning code was thrown out the window. it wasn't like everything was done anything, wouldn't you think i would have known there was an e.i.r. being prepared, considering i had called staff several times and talked to the people in charge? wouldn't you think i would have been able to get a copy at all, when the first time i knew was the public comments that i made. nobody could be more responsive than the secretary, but i still wasn

>> linda chapman. i've lived half a century in the next neighborhood over and opposing this for two reasons. one, i don't have to tell you the tenderloin has long had a big population of families, immigrant families and others with limited resources who need a decent form of family housing. the other thing is i'm a big proponent for sros they're not inferior housing but nevertheless, and by the way, when i was living in a co-op we had several units sros with a bathroom and kitchen for individuals to cook. when i worked for the coalition with san francisco neighborhoods on revitalizing the planning code to build non-traditional concept housing i supported it but not for this kind of purpose. what's has happened is the developers are trying to shoehorn as many projects as they can and imagine calling them family housing, for example, or doing it market rate and so on? they're not serving a need. they're taking advantage. it's unconscionable they allow the code change to be made to be misused by developer

. >> linda chapman. well, i'm waiting for the video of david chiu and me having a dialogue on the subject of the waivers at this project in which he said they were completely illegal. he said the state wouldn't allow such a thing, so when are we going to see that video? . last i heard, shawn from that building was trying to have the clerk's office arrange to show the video because this is all remote, you know, we felt like we could bring it in and was having trouble with that. i think that's very important. he was, at the time i was talking with him, chair of the housing and community development and going to be city attorney, and he thought i was insane when i said we were going to waive exposure and all those things in units that don't have windows over the street. so i hope that doesn't affect my time. what happened to the video? >> clerk: miss chapman, this is your opportunity to prevent public comment on the pine street project. >> well, that's what i was talking about. the only thing that happened

. >> caller: linda chapman. again, i wanted to thank you for this important initiative. i have a suggest: as i said before, i'm not the smartest kid in the room, but i work for five federal departments. i would suggest looking really at the federal regulations regarding, you know, ethics and controls and so forth. federal departments' heads and program managers like me and so on do not solicit payments for their favorite charities. and, in fact, when i worked for the navy, one civilian manager was soliciting people for a table for some kind of event. i don't know if pern -- with personnel regulations, i don't know what the outcome was, but he could have been fired for that. [inaudible] and also the group that call themselves the nobb hill coalition, even worse that they were just for one particular project. i'm going to tell you about that later. both these operations needed rico investigations. 540,000 dollars they are getting extracted. on top of all of the money they have extracted from other projects, including all those bar licenses, that caused the destruction of o

. >> linda chapman. if there ever was a proponent of stakeholder for short-term rentals, it's me. the first time that legislation's protect dwelling units was ever passed was actually at the same time as the residential hotel conversion ordinance. i worked on that and because knob hill was suffering from the short-term rental of dwelling units and because i was so persistent, they passed a law that prohibited the short-term rental under 30 days of any dwelling unit at all. it passed. it was signed by the mayor. it was not thrown out of court when the residential hotel law was drawn out of court. but what happened? it went to the city attorney's office and alice barkley was working there. and she simply eviscerated it. and i was so stupid that instead of going -- well, we lagged always on our office. art's office tried to deal with alice. couldn't do anything. didn't deal with the, you know, city attorney himself and i was too stupid to go back to harry brit and say hey we passed this law. the difference was withturned onto fact there was a dwelling unit and there was a room. rooms

. >> linda chapman, on the subject of inclusionary housing which was just in your committee although missed most of the much of the hearing before i came to testify to be absolutely certain that you do not put the low income bmr units in hla's with market rate housing. i got the impression that that is whatyou are proposing . when i was participating in the unitarian for him on housing one of which you may know david chu appeared and said that the project that you are promoting on-time street is obviously illegal and cannot be done. one of the things that the minister who was leading it was saying he was concerned that the chu you post putting inclusionary dmr units in the housing. in a market rate housing. well, what is and then i got the impression that the board wassaying that theyshould ignore that and the mayor's office of housing .what is it ? are you thinking that choo-choo represents allthose rapacious developments interests like cnbc and chinatown cdc in my neighborhood ? they don't know what they're talking about. the hearing, pardon me, the planning commission hearing when

. >> linda chapman, on the subject of inclusionary housing which was just in your committee although missed most of the much of the hearing before i came to testify to be absolutely certain that you do not put the low income bmr units in hla's with market rate housing. i got the impression that that is whatyou are proposing . when i was participating in the unitarian for him on housing one of which you may know david chu appeared and said that the project that you are promoting on-time street is obviously illegal and cannot be done. one of the things that the minister who was leading it was saying he was concerned that the chu you post putting inclusionary dmr units in the housing. in a market rate housing. well, what is and then i got the impression that the board wassaying that theyshould ignore that and the mayor's office of housing .what is it ? are you thinking that choo-choo represents allthose rapacious developments interests like cnbc and chinatown cdc in my neighborhood ? they don't know what they're talking about. the hearing, pardon me, the planning commission hearing when

. >> linda chapman. well, i'm waiting for the video of david chiu and me having a dialogue on the subject of the waivers at this project in which he said they were completely illegal. he said the state wouldn't allow such a thing, so when are we going to see that video? . last i heard, shawn from that building was trying to have the clerk's office arrange to show the video because this is all remote, you know, we felt like we could bring it in and was having trouble with that. i think that's very important. he was, at the time i was talking with him, chair of the housing and community development and going to be city attorney, and he thought i was insane when i said we were going to waive exposure and all those things in units that don't have windows over the street. so i hope that doesn't affect my time. what happened to the video? >> clerk: miss chapman, this is your opportunity to prevent public comment on the pine street project. >> well, that's what i was talking about. the only thing that happened

. >> linda chapman. i'm sorry. i was mistaken about the agenda order. presentation today, but i was present for the planning commission's hearing. you have to terminate the practice of allowing the units to be provided on site in a mixed income development. in the and a woman wanted to confirm what i was saying. absolutely you must not do this. it is a disaster in waiting for the people who will buy the units and lose their homes. i have the experience of watching my other fellow homeowners lose their homes one after another and those are not in mixed and seven other buildings were undergoing the same situation and then after the bmr people lose their units, there's no way for the other owners to recover the money that they were supposed to pay for their special assessments. my dearest friends from my co-op, one game a renter in reno when she was forced from her home because she couldn't pay the special assessment. the other last her home and hat to live with the dearest friend living in palm springs where condos are cheaper. that is the special assessm

. >> linda chapman, on the subject of inclusionary housing which was just in your committee although missed most of the much of the hearing before i came to testify to be absolutely certain that you do not put the low income bmr units in hla's with market rate housing. i got the impression that that is whatyou are proposing . when i was participating in the unitarian for him on housing one of which you may know david chu appeared and said that the project that you are promoting on-time street is obviously illegal and cannot be done. one of the things that the minister who was leading it was saying he was concerned that the chu you post putting inclusionary dmr units in the housing. in a market rate housing. well, what is and then i got the impression that the board wassaying that theyshould ignore that and the mayor's office of housing .what is it ? are you thinking that choo-choo represents allthose rapacious developments interests like cnbc and chinatown cdc in my neighborhood ? they don't know what they're talking about. the hearing, pardon me, the planning commission hearing when