Coming next year whose spirit is stream lined, stop obstructing, delaying, build more housing, and this is absolutely the time. We need the housing. As much as folks would like, its not possible to build a wall around the mission. Somehow thats going to help whats going on there. This is a citywide crisis that affects every neighborhood. Approve this project without delay. Thank you. President hillis thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is richard hack. Ive heard these are a lot of good arguments. Just a couple of things, the architecture of this project and the one before are hideous. I mean, they look like shopping bags or boxes. Our Architectural Commission created a lot of create buildings. I wonder here what happened to the architecture. The demand to live in San Francisco is almost infinite. Its absolutely impossible to build enough units to drive the rents down. Now and then theres a little dip, because markets fluctuate, but thats not a valid argument and should be rejected by phonies. President hillis thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Laura bek. It breaks my heart to be out here for projects like this, because the people that are here are really defending their community as best they can, and while i disagree with the results of the policies that theyre advocating for, i have a lot of empathy for the reasons that bring them out here. I have a little less sympathy for the housing secure people in the mission who i think have dominated todays discussion while dominating gentrification, but i havent seen a lot of change in the types of buildings that weve built there, because we havent really built that much housing in the mission, and i think if we really want to stop building housing in the mission, we could do that. We could down zone the mission and really change the rules and unzone Francis Glenn and upgrade the park. We could down zone the mission and up zone the richmond. If you guys want to do that, we should be building in our rich communities, but the rules are the rules, and you have to decide are we going to continue to fight every time about the rules and continue to remake the decisions over and over and over again . I dont want to do that. Rob tillman is not an expert. He and thats the kind of person i think we want to see building housing. People who are going to do one project and thats kind of it. We want people on the west side to not necessarily totally know what theyre doing, but follow the rules because the rules should be written down and followable and be able to build housing everywhere. Thank you. President hillis thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My names lou demitase. Im a resident of the mission, and im an artist, and i teach at the Mission Campus of city college, and i live about three blocks away from the project. I go there often to shop, i go there going to work, so im in that area a lot. Now, this is a very big project. Personally. I think its too big for the location. Its going to cause more congestion and traffic in the area, but id be okay with that because i do think we need to make a trade off, but the prop i have with it is its not Affordable Housing, and thats what we need in the mission. For me, personally, id be fine putting up with the congestion and everything if it was a of more of an Affordable Housing component to it. You know, what i see is a millionaire from marin i think hes from marin, coming to our neighborhood, building luxury condos, and hes doing very little for our community, so were not getting anything back. I think ive went to one at least one meeting. I just felt that the that the developer and his people werent really listening to us when we were trying to give him community input, so i im opposed to the project. I think one possibility might be for the city weve been trying to get the city of San Francisco to buy properties in the mission where Affordable Housing could be built. That would be my first first thing id like to see, a. And secondly, if you decide to go ahead with this project. It should have a component of Affordable Housing, at least 33 . Weve got that from lennar from their project on 25th and south vanness, and i think you should do nothing less than that. Talk to the community and send it back to the developer. President hillis thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi name is is vincent chao. Im a retired prince and resident of the mission. You know, weve been dealing with so many homeless kids in this School District in the recent years, so when i hear that theyre building more housing in the mission, it was wonderful. Unfortunately, i just from what i just heard, its not going to be for those homeless kids, unfortunately. But in general, as an educator, and as a parent, i think its cruel and unusual punishment to subject little kids, two to five years old to a Major Construction right next to them for all these years. I mean, think of all the things they have to put up with. All the debris and all the other dust and all the other problems that comes along with big construction. I know because my school went to a 2. 5 Million SchoolBond Construction just rehab, and for three months, it was held, but we have to move as the classrooms away and everything, so think about it before you do anything about this this particular housing unit. President hillis thank yo mentioned, there were three or four buildings that rise above the normal three to four stories. Thats senior housing, Affordable Housing. We dont have that with this at all. So theres Major Concerns with the affordablity of this project. Were going to let this project go up, putting our children at risk, casting a shadow over the school, for a building in all likelihood that theyre never going to live in, especially our homeless been any development in the mission. Well, thats wrong information. There has been 17 developers that have developed luxury housing in the mission. We have in the mission, we are ground zero for evictions. We have lost 10,000 people, 8,000 of those being latinos. That is gentrification. Its that simple, and why are we here . Because we have of those you look at San Francisco, you have 3,000 children who are homeless. Ask your superintendent out of those 3,000, 1800 of them are from the mission. I speak to teachers all the time, and they say children fall asleep in class because you have a child that is sleeping in a car and not getting a good night rest, is not getting a nutritious, warm meal every day. So what do we need in the mission . We need Affordable Housing. The rest of the citys building Affordable Housing. There are currently 37 cranes correct me if i am wrong, director 37 cranes that are building luxury housing. Thats over 10,000 units, so dont be mistaken that theres not housing being president hillis gsh gsh apply not only to the base projects but to the affordable projects, and i think that works in San Francisco and other places. It doesnt necessarily work, so the state hasnt been able to pass that, but i think its an unfortunate quirk in the state law that were actually increasing density here and allowing for more units in the Affordable Housing percentage goes down. But its just an area we dont have any control. I mean, we can stand here and shake our fist at that one, but theres not much that we can do. I think this is a good location for housing. We should be building housing in the mission, we should be building housing in every corridor of the city. Im glad we just approved housing in geary, and i think we should be building housing in a district, especially adjacent to b. A. R. T. I agree with the i think the design has gone in a positive direction in kind of minimizing the impact on Mission Street. Unfortunately, that kind of pushes some of that mass to the back and may have an impact on the alleys and schools, but its just a choice we face, whether we want that mass on the front or in the back. I think we had that proposal with the mass in the front or in the back last week. I think its a tradeoff given the fact that weve been advised we cant trim much of the mass off this project. So im supportive of housing here, and i think i think were a bit our hands are a bit tied on some of the issues surrounding affordablity. Commissioner richards . Richar supervisor its been a long process. Its, at times, been contentious, but hopefully, it will be coming to an end here today. Im incredibly sympathetic to everybody in the neighborhood, and i think to commissioner hillis point, everybody makes sense. We have a housing crisis, and until somebody can tell me supply and demand doesnt work, increasing supply or reducing demand should allow us to help work our way out of the bind that we have. One of the issues we have is reading the ucla study that we have to increase our housing supply by 25 in order for 10 decline in prices, in other words, San Francisco has to have magically appear 76,000 units, when our target is 5,000 peryear. It looks like were setup for failure. We have what we have before us. We have a project before us that could not use sf home. I believe it was allowed to use sud, like the prior project, but the developer has chosen not to. We have a state bonus density project that would come in at 12. 5 12. 5 or 14. 5, im a little bit 14. 5, but with the Additional Units it takes that down. We have a project where we have a school close by. We have a project over on pot remember owe close by, and they worked with the project to make sure that mitigation measures were in place. We have a mitigation plan here, and i dont know what the impacts going to be. I think the project sponsor with the department of health needs to consult to make sure that having little kids so close to a construction site mitigate theres mitigations that really are that are meaningful, i see here. The project for construction noise the project sponsor has aagreed to use piles where feasible and shielding. I dont know what that means . If you have a twoyearold around, does that mean theyre going to be hurt in any way . Construction noise, implement a set of noise atenuation measures. Just one other thing. I noted mr. Smiths testimony about where we are in the city and the things that we need to do, as well as mr. Tim colon. Sorry. Youve been gone a little while, and i forget you already. Since 1990, we have 100,000 homes containing an additional 100,000 units, lo. [ inaudible ] i just want to i keep coming back to that. We have 65,000 units in the pipeline approved. That includes treasure island, parkmerced, hunters point, and a host of other projects that are either getting built, sold, waiting for capital to flow, and we have 141,000 capacity of units on all the parcels we have that we could still build housing on. So again, the fact that, you know, were constraining the ability to build housing is only half the story, and i have to come back and scratch my head and always say, well, where are we if we have 141,000 unit capacity, where are we constraining it . It i mean, seriously . Why isnt it getting built is the question i want to ask. Theres got to be a question somewhere. Development impacts communities, absolutely. Theres things to be said on both sides of that. I think theres economic and social impacts. Weve seen that from u. C. Berkeley. We also see on the flip side that if we dont build enough housing that, on the demand side chasing a smaller supply are bid be up and we see evictions, and to commissioner hillis point, we need to stablize communities on less evictions, rent control, etcetera. And for those who have a way with how the state density bonus law reads, i strongly suggest you contact congressman chiu and senator wiener or your other elects thoughts elected members in sacramento. Supervisor as other commissioners have said, i actually agree with all of the Public Comment that weve seen here today. This is a challenging project, and ill start with saying we often have these really broad conversations at the Planning Commission level, and we talk about a lot of things. We talk about the streets, we talk about affordablity, we talk about design, we talk about a broad range of things, and commissioner richards, he went into a lot of things in state law, and if you ought all those topics that we touch on in a pie chart, our Actual Authority is, like, that small supplies, and i think thats something that i want to start off by saying today, and well see where we end up on this project. We just had a project where there was sud, so we were able to argue for more percentage, but yet, we are constrained with this one. Thats a box weve been put in, which is really unfortunate. In a world where state law wasnt what it was, and our constraints werent where they were, i would be sitting here saying send it back unless theres more, but its challenging for us to be able to do that. I also people have mentioned commissioners have mentioned the state density bonus law which has some contradictory affordable requirements, but theres also an Affordable Housing act, that commissioner melgar didnt mention, we are in risk of a lawsuit if we disapprove projects where we havent made very specific findings that pertain to codes that are written down, not ones that weve just made up up here, so ill probably be asking and appropriating and, i think theres a couple other commissioner reprobing on what we can do there. I would like to push for more for this project, but i think i wanted to start it off by saying theres a lot that constrains us that we dont always actively talk about, so people come and they say see, see you, and they think theres other things we can do with the project other than the up or down vote, and theres very little. It seems like this project, its either this project, its up, or its down, and its back to square one. So i will then follow this up with a couple other thoughts. I did see in talking to both people in the Mayors Office of Public Housing and the comments in the letter that i had received that there had been an offer for the developer to sell this lot to the city for 100 Affordable Housing and then i hear from the Mayors Office on housing that they did consider that, but the stated price by the developer was just too high for their fund, so thats another constraint thats on us. Thats perfect, and thats what we would love to do, but if the people that control those Purse Strings say its too expensive, then its challenging for us. And the only other thought that i would offer at this moment, and again, well see where we land, because i dont know that im happy with either one of our options for today is if this project does get approved today, this is one of those definitely one of those projects where getting to commissioner richards questions is why are there tens of thousands of units in the pine line but havent been built, theres a true opportunity that this project would be added to that pile. I do think that if we decide to go forward with this project today, we need to schedule the revocation hearing, and that date needs to be in 18 months. Because theres the mayors executive order which requires that look at entitlements within six months, and then all other agencies look at their permits within 12 months after that, and i think that this project either needs to get built or go back to square one in terms of having to get entitlements and having to go through the full round, so that would be we have to all look at this ski facing our City Attorney in a moment and see if thats something we can do as part of the conditions of this project. But thats something that i would totally advocate for if there is support for approving this project today. So thats my thoughts, and maybe well end up going back around. President hillis any other commissioners . Supervisor okay. Ill ask the City Attorney while were sitting here, like, the ideal on the revocation hearing. Commissioner kate stacey in the City Attorneys office. I am not sure what it provides for in the conditional use. I thought it was three years, but im not sure what the code provides. The commission could certainly schedule an informal hearing on this project in 18 months. I i think we need to check with staff what the current requirements are for when permits need to be pulled or when construction has to occur. Supervisor i think you can add a special condition to this project for that, but at minimum, even if the period cant be 18 months, it has to be three years, entitlements dont expire after that period of time. You have to have an action by the commission, and so i would say that we set that action up for the commission in three years if we go forward with this project to have their say. Yeah, commissioners so typically, the conditional use permit is valid for three years, and within that time, the Property Owner has to vest the conditional use, and the way they do that is by pulling a Building Permit of some sort, so that would basically allow them to build, so that typically involves, like, some kind of foundation permit or some kind of super you know, super structure permit that basically allows them the ability to grant. So i think in this case in the motion you have before you, issued a permit or site permit to basically construct, so thats the time frame typically for the conditional use. And i believe that we this is standard language in most of your motions, so its not something actually in the code, but it is part of the motion, just to be clear. So and its its consider to be its on page 27 of your packet. Its valid for three years from the Effective Date of the motion, which would be today or when jonas signs the motion, an