items to infrastructure, housing and small businesses. this will be our 11th remote hearing. i'm requesting everyone's patience in advance. platforms are not perfect at all. if you are speaking, please mute -- if you're not speaking, please mute your microphone and turn off your video camera. do not hit any controls that may affect other participants. public participation, sfgovtv.org is forecasting is streaming the hearing live and we'll receive public comments on today's agenda. sfgov tv will broadcast and stream the toll-free phone-in number across the bottom of the screen. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone, by calling (888)273-3658. entering access 310745-23107452. -- entering code 3107452. when you are connected and we begin accepting public comment that will be the time to enter one and zero to be queued to speak. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. and when you have 30 seconds remain, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will direct my staff for the next person to speak. speak clearly and slowly and please mute your volume on your television or computer. at this time i would like to take roll. commission president koppel? >> here. >> commission vice president moore. >> here. >> commissioner chan. >> here. >> commissioner time. >> here. >> commissioner fung. >> here. >> commissioner imperial. >> here. >> commissioner johnson. >> first on the agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance, items 1 aan. [reading from agenda] item 4, case number 2019-00390 to drp. discretionary review as proposed indefinite continuance. further on the regular calendar, we have received requests from the project sponsors for items 13a and b, case numbers 2019 and var 553 through 554 hill street, conditional use and variance. a continuance to july 9th, due to a health emergency. item 15, case number 2018, conditional use authorization. we've received a request from the sponsor, so that they may continue working with the neighboring communities. the propose for continuance to july 23rd, 2020. and just received word that under your discretionary review calendar, commissioners, i'm pleased to announce 18 a and bfor the case numbers, at 4:40 and 446 through 448 waller street, the discretionary review has been withdrawn. the variance portion needs to be continued to the next variance hearing. i have no other items proposed for continuance. we should take public comment on this matter. so let's go to the q&a. >> operator: your question is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question, please one then zero. >> members of the public, this is your opportunity to enter one then zero to enter the queue. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hello, commissioners. this is ryan patterson, attorney for the project sponsor in item 13 a and b. as was mentioned, we received word from his family a couple of hours ago, he's been taken to the emergency room with a serious medical issue. so we're requesting a continuance to the next available hearing date. i have not been able to speak with him, i do know it was extremely important for him to get testimony in the application hearing. and, in fact, he was delivering about half of the presentation. so we certainly appreciate your consideration and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> is the caller prepared to submit your public comment? hello, caller, you may need to unmute your microphone or phone. okay. let's go to the next caller. >> hello. are you there? >> yes, we're here. >> okay. thank you. apologize. i am speaking to address -- address the legacy on planning. and i came a little bit late. i'm not sure if this is the right time. -- >> sir, sorry to interrupt you. this is not general public comment. we're receiving public comment related to the items proposed for continuance. >> caller: my apologies. >> press one, then zero when we call general public comment. >> thank you so much. apologize. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> very good, commissioners. the matter is now before you. >> as specified -- >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue items as proposed, commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. commissioners, passes unanimously 7-0. administrator, if you would be so kind and apply it on the continuances for the advances. >> sure. before i do that, can i get some clarification. the continuance date set for hill street? >> no. for hill street, yes, july 9th. >> okay. i was wanting to clarify what that date was. thank you. then i will move to continue item 1b for 5500 mission street to june 25th. item 13b for 552-554 hill street to july 9th. and item 18b, the variance for 440 to 448 waller street is for the next variance hearing, on june 24th. >> very good. thank you. commissioners, that will place us under item 5, consideration of adoption draft minutes for may 28th, 2020. we should go to public comment. >> operator: your question is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question, press one then zero. >> members of the public, this is the opportunity to submit your comment and get into the queue by pressing one, then zero for the draft minutes. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> is the caller requesting to speak to the minutes? hello, caller. are you on the line? >> caller: sorry. i'm just testing it, sorry. >> thank you for testing. >> operator: there are no questions remaining. >> commissioners, do i hear a motion? >> move to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minuteminutes from may 28, 2020, commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> and commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. commissioners, passes unanimously 7-0. item 6, commission comments and questions. commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i was not present last week and i am grateful to my fellow commissioners and the director for all of your comments last week. as a person of color, a black person, we're often called to do the work, while experiencing trauma. and i feel grateful that i was both able to do some work, that is before you as the next item and also take good care. i wanted to take this opportunity to use this platform to talk a little bit about the experience, the experience of black people and the role and opportunity of planning in addressing the issues that every city in america right now. i want to start by telling a personal story. a couple of years ago, i was walking home at night. i live in the inner richmond and i was walking through park heights. and i noticed i was being followed by a man and he followed me for several blocks. i felt fear for my life, both as a woman and as a black person, recalling the murder of trayvon martin. i got the courage to turn around and ask him "are you following me." and his words to me were "what are you doing here, why are you in my neighborhood"? i'm going to pause to let -- hit mute and also to continue. that was not an isolated incident. i've had interactions like that my entire life, as have my parents, as have my friends, of being told where we do and don't belong. and the reason why that person felt so bold to tell that to me, is because he knows the rules of living in cities. he knows the unspoken rules, that even in culturally liberal or progressive cities, our cities are deeply segregated. and that we have hard-coded systems in place that have oppressed and dispossessed people of opportunity, of intergenerational wealth, of the ability to feel safe and live with determination and freedom in our lives. and san francisco is no exception to that. he felt that boldness because he knew that he had the backing of generations of laws and of government to be able to make a statement like that. i tell you that because the only reason i escaped with my life, is because he didn't have -- he didn't call the police or have a gun. and also because i think it is at the intersection of where planning and policy and government and racism and our lived experience meets. so i want to say that the uprising and civil unrest that we are experiencing in cities across america are, yes, in a response to both police brutality and misconduct. but they are also about generations of trauma inflicted through systems of white supremacy. it is a call not only to address police brutality and misconduct -- to its history, to the way in which it is still inflicting harm and to black lives and communities of color, not just through words, but through our actions. as we spell out in the resolution today, this is documented data of generations of oppression that were intentional, that moved from explicit to implicit and complicit. and that the tolls have segregated this place and dispossess. government entity, this is part of the platform that we have inherited and are standing on. unless all of us are gathered -- gathered to plan for this city, all of us tuning into the call, all of us in the ecosystem of planning, as project sponsors, as neighborhood organizations and community organizations, unless we do the work, one, to understand name, apologize, claim our role in and address that history, unless we're able to name the harm that is currently being inflicted, and unless we're committed to doing our own work on our internalized antiblack racism, unless we're committed to working on turning the tool into tools of antiracist liberation, and then we're not answering the call of our time. antiracist work starts with -- it is deeply uncomfortable. it is deep and lifelong work. it's for white people and people of color. i hear a lot -- people use the word "equity" a lot. it takes the work doing what it really means. i encourage anyone listening on the call or might listen to the recording later to read the books "white fragility, how to be antiracist and white supremacy in me. it moves into our spirits of influence, looking at how you're hiring, who you're contracting with, what your neighborhoods look like. how are you supporting the leadership of black and indigenous people and communities of color. how are -- what are we demanding power and how are we holding ourselves accountable. evergreen post written by an author we fresh named julie lee. he writes a lot of non-profits. he wrote a post in 2014 that called "equity the new coconut water." it's hilarious and important read, but it's also deeply trouble and sad that three, four years later, what he wrote, is still true. that it sounds good and everybody wants to use it, and everybody -- it's refreshing to say, but true equity requires us not just to throw around the word, but to reevaluate our beliefs, our practices, and our definitions. it requires us to do the self-work of how not to be racist. it requires us to look at our boards, our staff, our organization composition and leadership, our hiring practices, where we're putting our funding and our funding allocation. looking at who is at the table and who set the table to begin with. it requires us to fundamentally change our way of doing things. as planning, in this moment we have the profound responsibility and i'm so grateful that we have the opportunity right now to make change in a meaningful way. so many of the sentiments of these words here are encapsulated in the resolution that we will all discuss a little bit later. so i'll save more comments for that. but i appreciate all of your consideration, those of you who have, you know, added inputs to it. and your thoughts and comments going forward about how we can move, as a body, as an entity, and as a community in a meaningful way to make change. i just want to end by thanking some folks and i'll thank some other folks later. i want to thank some planning staff, claudia, miriam, andy, wade, all of the facilitators who brought the planning staff together last wednesday to have internal conversations about how we move -- how we set up structures and resources to make meaningful change. i just want to end by saying black lives matter. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner johnson, thank you for what you just said so eloquently and with so much depth. it will make it so much easier to agree on the resolution and perhaps add and enhance. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> i as well am thrilled to support the resolution. super proud of you. super proud of us. this is a huge moment for the commission, the department and our city. so we wanted to give a mention to one of my bosses, our first african-american mayor london breed and thank her personally from the commission, from our department for all of her leadership through all of these very, very tough times. >> commissioners, seeing no further commission comments, we can move on. but before we do, i wanted to remind all members, of staff, who are part of this live hearing, as presenters, please do not hit any controls that may affect others. we just had the unfortunate circumstance -- situation where someone thought they were helping us by hitting mute all. and that kills our at&t conference bridge for the audio that is public-facing. so i'm going to ask everyone to please only hit controls that affect you, your microphone and your video, please. do not hit mute all. my operations team in the background will take care of that, as appropriate, please. thank you. commissioners that will place us on item 7, 2016-003351cwp. for the resolution centering the planning department's work program and resource allocation on racial and social equity. this is for your consideration to adopt. >> good afternoon, commissioners. president koppel, vice president moore, my name is miriam chion with the san francisco planning department. it is an honor to be following commissioner johnson's remarks. i will provide you a short overview of the resolution, drafting response to commissioner's johnson, chan and the request to address racial and social equity planning today. this is a resolution at a time when we, as a city an as a country, are experiencing a major social, political, economic and health crisis. in the u.s., we have lost more than 115,000 lives to covid-19. this is three times more than any other country around the world. on may 25th, a police officer put his knee on george floyd's neck for more than eight minutes, while three other officers watched without stopping this murder. this tragic event triggered major protests across many cities. this tragic event hurts. it hurts us -- commissioner johnson already mentioned, not because it was so unique, isolated event, but because it has happened too many times to too many people, in too many corners of our cities and for too many years. our american indian people, our black people and our people of color have confronted our country's pervasive racism for too long. we're confronting today our government and economic structures that lead to the disproportionate police brutality and the impacts of covid-19 on american indian communities, black communities, and community of color. we planners have here a responsibility at this time in our history. we planners are also struggling with this reality. we're struggling with our history that is responsible for pushing our american indian people, our black people, and people of color through poverty, isolation, eviction and even death. from the genocide exploitation, this resources of the american indian people, to the laundry ordinance, japanese internment, urban renewal, predatory lending practices and exclusionary zoning, it has created very difficult conditions for this population. we have triggered persistent migration and displacement. other representation in homelessness, incarceration, and covid-19-positive cases and death for this population. this population has limited access to wealth, home ownership, health care, or jobs. today we only have 0.1% of the san francisco population as american indians. our black population in the last few years is -- has declined more than half to 5%. and when we look at the percent of inmates in the san francisco county jail, 53% are black. in the mission district, 95% of the people that tested positive were latin x. we have work to do to address these inequalities and we're currently doing substantial work, we're well positioned to carry out this effort. we have the racial and social equity initiatives that you adopted in 2019. we're working on phase two, that will bring to you as a draft later this year. and we're looking for an adoption in early 2021. in the general fund, we're making a special effort to address racial and social equity, environmental justice, and climate resilience across all elements and we're starting with those elements. our housing and community efforts are strong. there are many efforts, among them the community stabilization initiative, the housing affordability strategies, the cultural heritage districts that recognize the historically marginalized communities. and the action plan 2020, again many others. we're carrying substantial work. however, this has not been enough. it is not enough when we see that less than 5% of our american indian population is left in the city, when the black population declines to 5% in a few years. and when the latinx population continues to be displaced. so our time will change and this resolution brings this a possibility to reallocate resource and revise work programs, centering around the needs of black communities, american indian communities, and communities of color through our collaborative process. we are flagging the importance of very specific tasks. this is an acknowledgment and an apology to this community, but this is also an effort to identify specific action. building on the racial and social equity plan, flagging the important steps, expanding our funding and implementing this plan. using the equity tool to assess our budget, and to address the hiring and promotion practices. as well as emphasizing the importance of accountability through metrics and reporting. facing our recovery from the covid-19 pandemic, there is an -- it is very important to target policies and programs from health, economic and housing recovery for these communities. to address and specifically prioritize racial and social equity in the general plan, starting with the housing element. and expanding and funding community engagement and community planning, in ways that this communities have representation and participation in the plans and policies to come. changing our plans and policies to respond to the needs of our communities will take substantial work and commitment. this resolution can be the beginning of a process, where we truly partner with our american indian communities, black communities, and people of color communities. this is a time of change and it's in our hands to choose the path of change. we can carry the planning work, in ways that we honor the families who lost their loved ones or the people who are walking on the streets. we can invest in our communities, creating plans and policies with them. and allowing planners of color across all levels of the department to participate. i want to thank you, commissioners, for your leadership. i want to thank our planning staff for the hard work and commitment. and i want to close with a reference from john powell, a very important mentor for our housing and equity work. he says, we need to acknowledge the pain, but we also need to welcome all who stand for equity. this is how we build belonging and social change. thank you, planning commissioners. >> commissioners, if there are no immediate questions, we should go to public comment. >> operator: your question is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question, press one then zero. >> members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your public comment. press one, then zero to enter the queue. >> operator: you have 13 questions remaining. >> caller: thank you very much for this opportunity. 30 years ago or so, my mother and i came from central america to san francisco, seeking refuge from an oppressive dictatorship back home. having been this long in country, i consider san francisco my real home. and as a mother of a young biracial child, born in san francisco, i wanted my child to live in the city without the fear of being evicted or killed by the police. i want my child and thousands of others, especially those from other communities of color, to grow up thinking that san francisco is their permanent home and place they can thrive in. so i do -- i do want to acknowledge and i want to say that i'm in support of race and social equity in the city of san francisco resolution. and any other future resolutions that are framed within equity-first lens, because if there's one thing we know about our current health and political crisis, and i think many of you have already mentioned it, it is that we can no longer pretend anything will be normal, when the biggest decision harming us all, that's racism, inequality and injustice have now been eradicated. so i do believe that this resolution, well not completely perfect, is the first right -- it is the right first step. and i want to thank you again for this opportunity. thank you. >> operator: you have 23 questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. fully in support. and send our appreciation to the commission and staff and everybody that is making this such a priority. i believe that we all understand how the decisions that we've made locally, statewid statewids situation and being intentional about working our way out of it and being thoughtful about the solutions is not easy. it is not something that will be smooth at all times. but again we have a lot of fantastic, thoughtful people working on it. and wanting to be intentional and crucial about solutions. and we certainly want to be part of that conversation. one piece of that that i think about, a challenging aspect, is our lack of regional coordination. racial equity and how we can proactively change laws to create more equitable society. and so the immense work that you all have in front of us to figure out trying to -- while thinking about everyday situations. and understand that, you know, the region, as a state it's really complicated. and so as much as you can talk about regional and big-scale efforts to fix some of these problems, utilizing our -- to try to fix some of these problems. that it equitable for the current situation today. again thank you for everybody that has put in tremendous thought and work to this resolution. we look forward to continuing the project. thank you. >> operator: you have 26 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, are you ready to submit your comment? >> caller: thank you. i'm the executive director of the new community leadership foundation. i'm calling here in support of the resolution. i want to thank the commission for bringing this resolution forward and the opportunity to speak on behalf of it. as many know, the black community came here from jim crow south and built nothing and built an -- the fillmore was a thriving community known around the world. but because of redlining, transportation, and another racists policies, the black community was stripped of its equity. every young person in the city, living in public housing now. living in poverty, should have a trust fund, should have wealth. but while the country was building the wealth of white people in the suburbs, in the great depression, the planning that had taking place for black people was to disinvest and undermine our efforts. and so i'm really happy that this initial first step of the planning commission to help undo the damage that planning has caused to the black community and the wealth that was stripped from our community. and i'm definitely going to stay tuned and stay informed and stay involved and what are the next steps following this resolution. thank you. >> operator: you have 27 questions remaining. >> caller: good morning, commissioners. this is steven bus with community action. as i said for the past couple of years, the planning commission hearings, the learning process, the planning process is inherently racist. and i'm glad that we're finally reckoning with this reality. given the history of it, the ordinance in the late 1800 he'd, was massed to criminalize san francisco as a colored person. motivating fork in introducing the nation's first -- in perkily just across the bay. now racial zoning, declared unconstitutional in 1917, but it was quickly replaced by -- [inaudible] so as was typical in america,ing this new form of racism was much more subtle than the ones it replaced. in san francisco, -- and even today the average wealth of a black family is barely 1/10 of a white family. over 75% of san francisco excludes black people. over 75%. sop this resolution is a good first step. but then there will be no equity without abolishing our racism. it's time to remake our police force to address systemic racism. and it's time now to redo our planning process. i understand this commission can't unilaterally change the zoning code. but you can stop to ignore. start ignoring concerns about aesthetics, which just serves to increase the cost of development. start -- stop ignoring safety codes. [phone ringing] this commission is not responsible for the people that came before you. you're responsible for fixing those mistakes. again this is a good first step and very happy to see it. continue to fix the mistake of the past, this resolution is not enough. you must rezoo zoning to stop excluding people. thank you. >> operator: you have 27 questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. knew i'm a displaced filipino in the east bay, but still do my community work in s.f. i want to recognize the struggles the black community and their sacrifice of blood, sweat, tears and life, po ex-- for exposing the racial inequality. i want to -- maybe you heard the statement, and for the working class in s.f. and the people of color in particular, this idea has never been actualized. the reality of the -- gentrified, removed and could -- on a personal note, i did -- i used to do youth work in the excelsior district. the other neighborhood with the highest population of filipinos in the city. i ran a program that had about 20 youth from the neighborhood. out of that batch, there were only ten that are still living in s.f. 18 of them have been displaced to other parts of the bay area. 90% reduction. maybe this is due to the fact that there's only one affordable housing development in excelsior and dozen market-rate developments being built. these are just some examples of how the city's planning and affordable housing plan has denied land and life to the people that make this city an amazing place. the planning commission and the city is serious about addressing racial inequality and housing, this resolution has any legitimacy, truth and i hope this body will start to change its practices of disproportionately prioritizing market-rate development and further exacerbating displacement of communities of color. the city needs to take bold steps to examine and throw out every single practice, policy and ideology that has brought us to this point. in a nutshell, stop being the rubber stamp that's responsible for opening the floodgates of displacement. be the public servants that house our communities. thank you. >> operator: you have 29 questions remaining. >> caller: hi. this is sonia child. like other speakers, i couldn't be more proud and thrilled to see the planning commission passing this resolution, taking this on. so i have three proposals or actualizing this resolution. one of them is a debate change, one is very small change. the first one is that there's really no reason to have different residential zonings around the city. exposure requirements, you know, are good for someone in whitby or the tenderloin. there's reason that somebody living in district 7 or district 4 is entitled to more light and air. we should make decisions about what healthy and safe housing is like. and then have those rules apply everywhere. that's what equity is. everybody is equal. so, you know, some places that people shouldn't live. if people can live somewhere, then which would we have different residential zoning for them. the medium-size change is group housing should be allowed as a principle use anywhere. right. currently have group housing -- [inaudible]. when i says group housing, what i mean is anything people are renting a room and sharing a kitchen. it could be a dorm, an s.r.o., a nursing home, again this is specific example. this is housing. there's really no reason to say that people shouldn't be able to live in that style in any particular neighborhood. and, finally, this is the easiest one. this is the one that you can start doing today and forever. stop calling some areas residential and other neighborhoods are not. it is startling that the least dense neighborhoods get to be called residential. has anybody on here had residential neighborhoods and then the tenderloin or district 6. what do you think it means when you say district 4 is residential and there are literally twice as many people living in district 6, that district 6 would never be called residential. are we not residences or apartments, apartments not residences? it is something that probably -- it's very common still in the form on the planning commission and the board of supervisors. and very insulting. thank you, bye. >> operator: you have 28 questions remaining. >> caller: hi, this is laura from community action. this is exciting. i think that we're finally seeing what we have needed for so long, which is to look at the racial implications of our zoning processes. and a resolution is a great first step. the next first step is to say how can we use the entire process of planning and zoning to right the wrongs and to do as much good as possible to inflate black wealth in this city again. how can we force every community to do its part and to have apartments in every neighborhood, so there's opportunity everywhere. how can we un-segregate our city? how can we create more opportunity for low and middle income people in our city. we need to take the entire process and turn it on its head and say throw out everything we have done as far as zoning in the city. because it is rooted in racism. and it is wrong. we can just start over and say how can we use the tools, the housing policy to create as much good as possible. and to do as much equity for as many people as possible. i think that this is a great resolution. but it's definitely going to ring hollow if we don't entirely rethink how we do planning in this city. thank you. >> operator: you have 27 questions remaining. >> caller: hi. good afternoon, commissioners. this is the chair of the san francisco unity. i thank you for publishing this report. it's important to examine the racist history and the way we built our city. it's not enough to know the history, we have to do something about the present. and even the decisions we're going to make the rest of today and the decisions made last week. one sentence shocked me from the report. where it calls out redlining urban renewal, exclusionary zoning and freeway construction. racial inequity. we continue those same things today. we called out redlining in the report. and consistently use the excuse of projects like potrero power plant and the 100-point project as excuses not to build a five-story apartment building on the west side, because we're cleaning up down on potrero. we call out urban renewal in this report. yet we use the fear of shadows to ban apartments, to ban people who don't have wealth from living near parks. last week someone who owned a $2.6 million home spoke up against new housing and a hospital in his neighborhood, because he didn't want to upset his views. think baltimore racial impact of that. think about the equity behind that statement. we call out racial covenants, we give undue weight to homeowners, who if you're a homeowner in san francisco, you probably have millions of dollars of wealth. much of it is inherited from times before black people were able to buy those homes. and yet we allowed them to have an outside say in what happens in their neighborhood and allow them to say no renters to and no to people without wealth. we know that freeway construction projects were bad. we know the impact of those on our community. and one of the problems with -- one of the many problems with construction projects, is that it prioritizes cars over people. and yet two weeks ago we were talking about the resident project, we shrunk it, shrunk it to allow more and more parking and care more about living spaces for cars than we care about living spaces for people. there could have been thousands and thousands and thousands of more units on balboa as well. those market rate and subsidized affordable. we didn't because we were too afraid to say no to the interest of car owners. we called out the zoning in this report. and yet we allow the west side to say that apartments are out of scale and not part of the neighborhood character. when they say that, they mean apartments are not rich and they're not white. yet this commission just last week rejected new housing on -- on the west side for these very reasons. commissioner moore suggested replace with a smaller building more with neighborhood character. what does that mean? what did missioner moore mean by saying a bigger apartment building, one extra story was out of scale with the neighborhood? was that view from an equity standpoint. we need to stand up and plan for more equitable city. we need to reject every d.r. that seeks to reduce housing in exclusionary neighborhoods and we need to refocus our definition of neighborhood character to focus on character, being able to live in our neighborhoods instead of rich people not having to see a tall building around them. thank you. >> operator: you have 27 questions remaining. >> caller: hello. proud member of the central city coalition, developed and led by people of color. commissioners, thank you so much for stepping forward at this terrible time to address so many of the structures that have created and maintained racism and poverty inequality. we need to do more than provide equal access to housing, transportation, justice and education, parks, good food and health care. we need to do more. in particular, we need expendable housing, targeted to those with incomes below 80% of a.m.i. and particularly those with zero to 40% annual income. this is about half of our city. buildings and non-affordable housing, otherwise known as any kind of housing, luxury housing, will not solve the needs of our current residents, all of our hardworking, lower-income people, all of the people of color who happen to be in that category. so much to remedy. we have to do more than provide equal access. we have to make up for the past. i hope that you will encourage other city departments to follow your example with respect and love. thank you. >> operator: you have 26 questions remaining. >> caller: hi, martin munoz, lower haight d5. thank you to the commission for formally acknowledging the role of planning in historically establishing and presently upholding systemic racism in san francisco. this is just the first step in making things right. i considered passing this resolution, hopefully unanimously. planning has chosen to shift the burden of development on black on black communities like the mission and bayview and low diversity neighborhoods like forest hill and see quet virtually intact. i urge you to start looking at west side plans today, that lists the affordable housing ban in high-income areas, but keeping out marginalized communities from san francisco. when looking at the upcoming arena allocations, please consider shifting the burden from communities impacted by gentrification to high transit, low-density zones like portals. in a city that allows 40-foot single-family mega mansions, but doesn't allow modest apartment buildings, there is something wrong. black and brown communities have severely declined in san francisco and this is not an accident. this is by design. please fix this by making the aforementioned changes and stop capitulating to dog whistles, that are so pervasive in public comment. thank you. >> operator: you have 25 questions remaining. >> caller: hello, commissioners. thank you. my name is karina. i'm the district 3. i'm an architect and community activist. and i'm calling today in support of the resolution. i especially want to thank you, commissioner milicent johnson for the very inspiring message and motion. i think the resolution is a good start. i read through the different phases of the plan. and currently it reads like many other plans in many other cities. with events that we currently see happening in our nation and our city, i urge to not only implement the plan, but listen to your community and act to their response. we need to make neighborhoods safe. we need to de-segregate our communities. as an architect, i witnessed the way money and power has continuously led to development decisions, prioritizing the capitalist system and the white supremacy. we need to see the demographics and history of the city reflected in the ways that we plan for the future. we not only need to do better, but change the pipeline and process of how we zone the city and who has input. the indigenous community was displaced, the black community was pushed around our city. the japanese community was pushed out during world war ii and the latinx community and black community are continuing to be pushed out by planning decisions and gentrification. all of this communities are still here and you can still make change for the present and future. planning is a tool and acts of segregation. we have the ability to change that for our city. we need our planning to become anti-racist. we know the planners have good intentions from the start. and essentially uphold white supremacy. i urge you to awaken every day, every day your actions and decisions affect populations that have been hurting for decades. every day you can choose to be antiracist and you can be the change. please open up your doors and meetings to let the group groups come and tell you the change they need. tell us how you will partner, how you will listen and how you will implement their needs to be responded to. houses and sections of the wealthy are irrelevant when people are on the streets. no scenic victorians will take our attention from the wealth and health disparities of our city. we need to reinflate black wealth, we reparations in the form of land, we need to abolish racist zoning, we need to restart. exploit the natural resources of our world and lay claim to things that cannot be claimed. we lay claim to things that cannot be owned. it, the earth itself, does not and cannot recognize the i were ownership of living wages. it simply exists with them. thank you and black lives matter. >> operator: you have 24 questions remaining. >> hello, commissioners. i was born and raised in san francisco, where i still live. i live in the south of market. i'm in support of the resolution, including the amendments provided by community organizations. must be incorporated and including an oversight committee, incorporating formiate metrics to measure plans and projects, adopting an equity-first lens. incorporating relevant math and studies, remote public comment, refining racial definitions, funding to community-based planning and promotion practices. planning must be re-centered around community needs and take an equity-first approach. this must be done by shifting towards a community-based planning process, whereby communities themselves are able to determine the planning and development futures of their own neighborhoods. this must be supported by city and planning, but take the lead from communities on the ground themselves. one concrete example of this is the need to expand and strengthen the youth and family special-use district in the south of market. as the process must be led by the community in south of market and supported by the planning department and commission. the planning department must shift to a review of plans and projects from eviction, negative impacts or working class communities, especially communities of color that are the most temporary data regarding market-rate development and upzoning on vulnerable communities. similarly, the planning commission must be informed by the same perspective and take actions that are reflected of an equity lens and informed by the reality of what a market-based approach to planning actually does to communities in terms of displacement and gentrification. simply opening up the market in san francisco is not addressing racism and economic inequality. it's promoting it. stop looking to the private market for solutions. the direction of planning in san francisco is captured in the 1966 document, prologue to action, authored by the san francisco planning and urban renewal association, that's stated, quote, san francisco decides to compete effectively with other cities for new clean industries and new corporate power, its population will move closer to standard white anglo saxon characteristics. as automation creates the need for unskilled labor, labor will decrease. economically and socially, the population will range from lower middle class to lower upper class. end quote. nothing has changed except the allowable rhetoric. we need real substantive changes, not empty words. thanks. >> operator: you have 22 questions remaining. , >> caller, are you prepared to submit your comment? >> yes. i'm a chinatown community development center. i wanted, first, to really applaud commissioner johnson and commissioner chan for putting this forward. and, you know, i want to recenter kind of the conversation in community. you know, i think too often in -- our discussions in land use, we emit existing communities, vulnerable communities. and that is something that the resolution calls out. and, you know, as somebody who works with organizations and issues of equity and the community-based response to zoning, i think that this is really amazing to see that the planning department is first in the city to address the issues of racial equity and the fact that white supremacy has had on planning processes in the last many, many years. so very excited to move this forward. very excited to see the development of equity metrics, very excited to really shift the paradigm of planning from a production and market-driven approach to an equity approach and equity-sourced lens. so thank you, commissioners, for bringing this forward. thank you, commissioner johnson, for your introduction. and really excited to work with a diverse group and with the planning department itself of community organizations to actually make this real and make these metrics and requirements a reality when we come to planning in our city. thank you. >> operator: you have 22 questions remaining. >> caller: hi, good afternoon. this is norman garcia. i'm a san francisco resident. i want to commend the commission for considering this very, very important resolution. i, too, agree that we need to move from a market-based approach to an equity-first approach. i think that one of the first lines of work to do would be to come phil ting and fully understand what equity means. doesn't necessarily mean the same thing for everybody. it means fair, apportionment of resources and decisions that help and not hurt a particular community, a vulnerable community. so i want to thank you. and just let you know that san francisco is a beautiful city, it's diverse. one that has different people living in neighborhoods, who bring vibrancy and culture to those neighborhoods. when we move to a mono culture, we know what happens, it does not survive. and so we need to be very intentional about our decisions to make sure that san francisco doesn't become a mono cultural city, that it remains vibrant and welcoming for people of all income levels and particularly intentional about preserving the city and its opportunities for those who are not wealthy. thank you. >> operator: you have 21 questions remaining. >> hello. can you hear me? >> we can hear you. >> this is april mcgill. i'm the executive director of the cultural center. i want to first and foremost, recognize the ancestors of whose land we are visitors to. whose village here in san francisco was desecrated, urbanized, gentrified. the people whose blood that was spilled on the lands that we all benefit from. i want to say thank you to everyone that has put this resolution forward. it is really important to understand that black lives matter. our black community has suffered so much, as well as american indian community. i want to acknowledge the history that the black panther party and the american indian movement have done in oakland, in the bay area. and how we've continued to fight for justice, fight for housing, fight for rights for everyone. this resolution is just the beginning of what needs to happen. we need to acknowledge that pioneers, settlers, those are invaders. this is a genocidal campaign that happened against black people, american indian people. genocide is violence, is a crime. lethal beatings and shootings, that's a crime. we need to recognize the police terrorism. we also need to recognize that covid is a disease that's wiping out a lot of our communities, who are at risk, our black and brown, native and indigenous. so please, we need to think about our youth and how we approach our youth in the future in 24 community, because we do not want to see more deaths happen to our youth. we thank everyone for recognizing american indian people and our struggles here and that we need to come together more. and make sure that the immigrant youth that are here, too, are considered and spoken for as well, and that we not leave anyone out. i appreciate our filipino brothers and sisters on here, too, and recognizing all of the genocide that has happened in this land, because it's really important. and that we need better leadership. and that we hope san francisco does better. and i think everyone that worked on the resolution and i just say thank you to everyone. oh, yeah, and black lives matter. >> operator: you have 20 questions remaining. >> caller: yes. hello. my name is robert townsend. and i have been living in san francisco for approximately 53 years. during that time, i have had extensive involvement with the planning commission and i have always been concerned that the commission has never had the relationship with the african-american community, yet they make decisions that affect the african-american community and 90% of the time adversely. the other problems with the planning commission is the planning commission seems to have always operated from an all lives matter perspective. federal reserve they have not been intentional or specific when it comes to issues that affect the black community. and when you go to an all lives matter approach, history says the african-american community will consistently be left out and tossed away. and so that's what we have the experience in this community. first of all, if you're going to have this discussion, this discussion needs to occur in all communities, inside the community, with the people who are affected by whatever decisions are being made. my experience is it's difficult for many of us to think that all of the ideas, all of the best ideas do not rest with the professionals, but frequently come directly from the communities affected and involved. so it is absolutely that you do this. you must also do it with people who reflect the experiences and the knowledges of the community. 23-year-olds and no respect to young folk, interns will not get the work done, unless they have the experience in that community, with that community and knowing the things that affect that community the most. finally, you must remember that when you are working with the african-american community in san francisco, you are working with the most lied to and a community in the city. [bell dings] made to the african-american community, every promise has been broken. we do not want another experience of brokenness. finally, put resources to whatever you're going to do. the people need more than a conversation. they need action that is backed up by the vast resources that the planning commission can provide. thank you so much. black lives do matter. >> operator: you have 19 questions remaining. >> caller: hi. my name is kerry. i'm a 3rd grade teacher here. i have the great good fortune of not understanding anything at all about city planning. but i do teach every year my 3rd graders, who spend the year as per the california standards studying the history and the presence of our city. and the pervasive theme of the history and the present of our city is white supremacy, stolen land and stolen wealth from so many people, including the japanese people, black people, latinx community, the filipino community and so many more. i listen to what's going on in the news. and i hear that maybe reparations are coming. would reparations be enough to purchase a home in our city? i think we know that the answer is probably not. as the previous caller said, land is life. as the city of san francisco and white supremacy in san francisco has -- the land and wealth of so many people of our community. incremental moves forward are not called for. land is life. so land needs to be given back. needs to be given back. i hope when i go on teaching history, you will not be the commission that put its weight behind incremental changes, but you'll be the commission that put its political force and each of you individually put the full weight of your personal relationships into getting land back. particularly i want to speak on behalf of my american indian students, who do not represent the majority of races here, yet they're the core of all of the wealth that has been built here through genocide. the amount of land that has been given to the community is basically nothing. and how do i look at my american indian students and say, yes, we've stolen your land. and we're just going to keep it. it really -- i really hope that we don't start to make things incrementally better, but make it right. land back, homes back. not the opportunity to get land back through affordable housing, but actual land back, actual homes back. thank you. >> operator: you have 17 questions remaining. >> hello, commissioners. i'm a member of the san francisco anti-displacement coalition. boy, has there been displacement in san francisco. people have -- travel to get to their jobs in san francisco from outside the city, because they can't afford to live here any more. housing is no longer affordable. and i hope that changes. i'm glad that this resolution has been put forward. i support the resolution, including the amendments that have been introduced by community groups. i think it's time to shift to community-based planning proce process. i am hearten the by commissioner johnson for sharing her experience and thoughts on race. and the problems we are facing. and i look towards the staff, like miriam chion and her co-workers in finding solutions to help our vulnerable neighbors. also i like the fact that they want to engage the community and fund the community in working on solutions. so i think the most important thing now is having affordable housing. thank you. >> operator: you have 16 questions remaining. >> caller: hello. my name isages. i'm a public health researcher, a teacher and an activist. most importantly a san francisco resident. firstly, i want to thank the commissioners for taking the time and energy to listen to callers today. i especially want to thank commissioner johnson for her moving recount of other lived experience a person of color and mainly a black woman in the city of san francisco. when we talk about -- addressing housen and city planning, redlining, should be at the forefront of our thoughts. south of market they've been subject to displacement created and exacerbated by city planning. redevelopment and the first and second technology booms have pavedded way for displacement. the central soma plan highlights how the plan is harmful to the communities. community-based planning processes must be funded and supported by the planning department and commission. this includes the strengthening and expanding of the existing youth and special-use district in the soma, under the direction of community organizations and residents. i asked the resolution be included to include formal metrics to look at projects, obviously as all of the our callers addressed. i hope that we can refine the definition and shift funding to community-based balancing. having said that as well, please choose to reevaluate mission street. a planning project that prioritizes luxury housing in light of this resolution. i'm in full support and ask for all amendments proposed by community organizations to be included in the resolution as well. it's crucial that on the ground railroad organizations representing these very communities of color have a hand in creating the resolution, if it is to be meaningful and effective. it's crucial that we give our people of color the land they deserve and in doing so tape the first steps to ensure black and brown communities of the intergenerational wealth. as another caller previously stated, so eloquently, land is life. thank you. and black lives matter. >> operator: you have 15 questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners, staff and members of the public. i am david with the san francisco housing development corporation. we are a non-profit, affordable housing and community development agency, created in 1988 by a group of black leaders from the bayview hunters point. and the fillmore western addition, who had in their hearts and minds the concept that everybody should be equal in the city and county of san francisco, by providing resources and opportunities for people. sadly, the plight of black people in san francisco continues to this day with maybe about 47,000 total black residents in the city of over 850,000 people, which is a despicable and shameful statistic. we hardly encourage and unequivocally support this item in front of you today. and the effort to starting the task of undoing discriminatory practices and policies of many decades in this country and in this city. we work with thousands of clients each year, 85% are black, indigenous or people of color. many of whom are still struggling to hold on to their lives in san francisco or wishing to return to the city that they were pushed out of years ago or last week. so we are very heartened by this conversation. it is extremely important one and today is a beginning and it's not by any means the end of the action that's necessary. we applaud this start. we applaud this resolution. we are thankful for commissioner johnson for sharing her personal story and experience in one small way. i'm sure that has manifested in many other ways. we're calling on every city department to address this issue in the same kind of manner. we are grateful that the city has implemented an office of racial equity to do that. we need to do more. we need to do it more quickly. everybody is aware of the health, wealth and housing connection. all of those things are inextricably linked. and, therefore, planning policy and planning practice matters. because black lives matter. thank you very much. >> operator: you have 15 questions remaining. >> caller: i'm with the community organizations. first off, i want to thank commissioner johnson for your personal story and your powerful, powerful words. for some who i think we've heard today, all housing matters. and i think for some of us that is like saying all lives matter. it's important to say over and over again black lives matter. in this city, some housing does matter more than others. housing for the wealthy, which means housing primarily for white folks, matters more than housing for the rest of us, who are not wealthy. it matters more than housing that matches the income levels of our communities of color. when the city every year exceeds its goals for market-rate housing, but rarely builds more than 30% of its affordable housing need, it becomes clear who it wants to live in this city. the call today across the country is to defund, disarm, demilitarize and abolish the police and shift that funding to housing, education, and healing for our black, indigenous and people of color communities. when the funding priorities for its planners and environmental review officers is to expedite approvals, with approvals at market-rate housing that are not getting built, but building obscene wealth for land owners and investors, we know who the city plans for. planning is to play a part for the new reconstruction, we have to trust our black people, our indigenous people and people of color. and that means shifting the resources of this department to community-based planning, led by the community-based organizations, rooted in those communities, to shape the futures of their own communities. putting planners to work under the leadership of those communities, putting resources and consultant time in their hands, and ensuring that they have final say on any citywide policy that has any impact on their own communities. i want to close with a slogan from the disability movement that i heard in post-katrina new orleans. nothing about us without us is really for us. thank you. >> operator: you have 14 questioning remaining. >> i'm an architect, historian and a small business owner here in san francisco for 27 years. and we believe in reinvesting in communities. i'm a resident of d9. i want to thank commissioners for this resolution and i support it. since 2012, i have been involved in providing historical information in establishing the latino cultural district. latinos and indigenous communities in the city have 150 years of displacement from the lands on the eastern part of the city to barons, to lands in the beach, where the latin quarter was established. the transitional government, which was portssmith square. the ship scalers from the hill in the mid-1930s to build the bay bridge. latino businesses and residents from the latin corridors for the building of the broadway tunnel. and now the mission district with the speculation and soon to follow the bayview, where our microconstruction businesses are here. this is 150 years of displacement. the equity issues that need to be addressed, to follow this, is that you really need to look at the local rules for seqa. the ceqa must measure social, economic impacts to a community, specifically in the low-income areas. and specifically where most of the blue collared jobs are in the eastern side of the city. planning really needs to protect these jobs. definition of a cultural asset needs to be -- needs to limit the restrictive criteria that follows -- that doesn't really address low-income communities. the projection of industrial land use in d9 and d20, where most of the minority and women-owned subcontractors, prime minister services are locate -- professional services are located. and my last comment. planning staff in a community outreach needs to start with concept for the proposed change, rather than presenting a completed proposed change for approval. because the community is in the mission. thank you. >> operator: you have 13 questions remaining. >> hello, caller, are you prepared to submit your comment? let's go to the next caller. >> operator: you have 12 questions remain. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is carlos. thank you, commissioners chan and johnson, for your courage in bringing forward this resolution today. this resolution is a historic moment in san francisco. by system designed to advantage and empower white males in our society. a system per petition waited by the actions of city government. today we can take a major step to transform this system and help our brothers and sisters begin to reclaim the power that's rightfully theirs. many today will raise many fine points that the commission and the department can take to begin to rectify current and past injustices. [ please stand by ] not just in the conversation, but are the ones leading the development of equity frameworks and planning the future of san francisco, and with that i urge you to please adopt equity metrics, to please adopt a map and a study that is grounded in equity, to please adopt real community-based planning, and i urge you to adopt the definition of equity, not grounded in equality but one that acknowledges the power that exists within a society. thank you. >> operator: you have 14 questions remaining. >> hello, commissioners. thank you very much for all that you are doing to forward the ideas that, as i believe the chair had mentioned in something in writing going forward, and everyone here is talking about going forward. however, i think right now this minute in this moment we have to halt the planning processes of some of these monsters that are coming up in considering what is affordable. oh, 25% affordable. no, the people who are being displaced are the ones that need to be in there. and plus, how many displaced people have called in so far? those are the people we have displaced. we had one caller, a student, and those are the people i am most terrified for, because yes there's that view of things coming up, oh, let's get rid of that, but how are they going to get to school and complete their fabulous education at city college? oh, yes, public transit, how do you get to the public transit? if you're so flung out in the ex-surbs? i think we have to now smooth it out and not take anything at all. i think we should postpone all of these high-rise developments, and those people who want to move into the penthouse, let them think about the elevators post-covid where only one person can ride at a time. i grew up in new york city. looking at those people, i just get hysterical. but anyhow, we need to stop now moving with what's on the agenda today. whoa. thank you very much for listening. >> operator: you have 13 questions remaining. >> hello, commissioners. i'm at the filipino cultural heritage district, resident of district 4 and occupier of unceded land. i want to thank commissioners chan and johnson for their work in creating this resolution and pushing it forward. i'm in support of the racial and social equity resolution, and especially supportive of the full inclusion of community-based amendments that will help greatly strengthen the intent and effectiveness of this document. a recent social equity community oversight community must be included, ensuring that the goals and objectives of this resolution live on for generations to come. we must prevent this resolution from just sitting on the shelf and instead make it accountable to the very communities that it hopes to strengthen and support. while statements of support and words of good intention are necessary, there must be an actual mechanism written in to hold the planning department, the planning commission and the city accountable and track the progress and implementation of the resolution on day-to-day plans, projects and general functioning. the community oversight committee must be made up of black, indigenous and people of color community organizations that are on the ground every day engaging in racial and socio-economic justice work. it must serve as a check on the functions of city planning to ensure that working class and new communities of color do not continue to be negatively impacted by planning decisions. plans, projects and proposals must be vetted by an oversight committee for this resolution to hold weight. this will tie city planning directly back to the communities of color, creating a direct link between planning and the community where the community base has oversight on the functions of the planning department commission. perhaps then we wouldn't have to mobilize our communities to commission hearings, opposing projects that displace us, that make it difficult for us to afford to live in san francisco, and that take away from our natural resources, like the sunlight at victoria -- park. hire us. work with us. listen to our ideas and implement them from the drawing board so that where we live reflects who we are. item 12 later on your agenda, 1145 mission street is a prime example of inequitable planning that must be evaluated within the context of this resolution. we urge you to vote down this project as it offensively provides 12% bmr, a standard from decades ago. let's further the impact of this resolution with actionable steps coming from the community it's meant to support by including these community-based amendments. let's put the ideas of this resolution into practice with your decision centering on the beautiful, cultural and racial diversity of our city. [speaking foreign language] black lives matter, black lives matter, black lives matter. >> operator: you have 13 questions remaining. >> hello, my name is mike chan. i'm a san francisco resident. i live in the area called the western edition, and i'm calling to say i support the resolution, and i think that we will know and the requests to action and that we will know that this resolution is bearing fruit when we see neighborhoods that are segregated by race and class like pack heights and the marina become more integrated. you know, like, the current process, like [indiscernible] very much against the communities of color. people in my neighborhood are very successful [indiscernible] into the process and using all the money it has at its disposal, and so we've seen much of the money for housing go to treasure island, the mission. our neighborhoods, we should look at equalizing where our housing goes and making it so that our neighborhoods are integrated by race and class and provide opportunities for everyone. we really need to think about equalizing apartments and subsidized low-income housing everywhere in the city, and make that not just in word but also in deed. you know, if we -- and you know, the market rate homes are some part of the solution. if we build market rate homes in the marinas, that reduces pressures elsewhere. if we build market rate homes in places that are really wealthy, where there's not much of displacement, that can fund low-income housing all over the city. the neighborhoods should be inclusive and diverse and embody the spirit of the system and we should think about how to make profits in building match our intent. thank you very much. >> operator: you have 12 questions remaining. >> hello, commissioners. my name is kenneth russell. i live in san francisco in district 7 in triangle and i'm a member of indy action. i commend the planning commission for taking this up and looking to address this. in reading the draft planning commission resolution [indiscernible] and equity, i was struck by a particular section. i see that it admits the planning commission's part on page 2 and later condemns and apologizes on page 6 for five specific discriminatory planning policies. redlining, urban renewal, racial covenants, exclusionary zoning, and freeway construction projects. four of these five as originally put in place have been recognized as discriminatory and shameful that the person behind them has had to find less obvious ways to continue this. at least one of these five basically unchanged, exclusionary zoning. that is our current zoning map -- how does our current zoning map resemble the old redlining map? why? what is the possible justification for perpetuating implicit racism in our zoning? apologizing for these things is a start, but what is our planning commission going to do about it? apologies aren't enough. we need definitive actions laid out in this resolution. thank you. black lives matter. >> operator: you've 12 questions remaining. >> good afternoon commissioners. first off i'd like to thank commissioner johnson for her eloquence and frank words on race relations in this country and her vision for what is needed to achieve racial and social equity. i applaud this resolution and i sincerely hope that our planning policies become more equitable to people of colour and to people of substandard means. listening to some of the carles, i must admit, i am appalled by the privileged white folks on this call who are monopolizing this opportunity to get on their usual soap box of upzoning and building luxury housing. this is insulting to black people and people of colour who have been displaced from san francisco for the second time. this is the second time, yes, indeed, in recent history. [indiscernible] and his urban renewal that pushed out the black folks from their vibrant communities in western edition. now for the second time, [indiscernible] specific program or politician that was basically responsible for driving african americans out of this city. this happened in the past 20 years. now there are new policies or zoning designed to force black people out of san francisco did not drive them out in the past few years, particularly from their own neighborhoods. it was predatory lending during the dot com boom. it was and still is the poverty for a black neighborhood like bayview hunter's point to have anl only 28% of its population as african americans is a testimony to how we have failed this community in san francisco. 63% of all dwellings in bayview hunters point are single family homes. how will upzoning this area help its african american population? where does the 38% renters in this neighborhood go? commissioners, [indiscernible] equity i encourage you to think of two majority-minority neighborhoods in san francisco that are in the cross-hairs of justification. bayview and hunters point and excelsior. there is a majority neighborhood with the highest number of single family homes in the city and -- [bell ringing]. >> i encourage you to devise a policy to stop displacement of african americans and [indiscernible] if we are going to keep talking about up zoning single family [indiscernible] this is not going to [indiscernible] minorities and gentrification problems that they have been facing because of the money that was dropped in this city a few years ago. so please be sensitive to the plight of working men and women in these neighborhoods. thank you. [bell ringing]. >> operator: you have 11 questions remaining. >> hello, this is jonathan rednal. i'm listening to last week's hearing on 4326 irving street and i was disappointed by the deliberations especially considering commissioner johnson's call for racial and social equity. katherine moore suggested it should be replaced with [indiscernible] only eight units. and tens of thousands of units. there's chinatown, no, sir [indiscernible] is not an unusual condition at all in san francisco. there are tens of thousands of units just like it. there aren't a lot of high loft coverage apartment buildings that in the sunset, the hills and the south. speaking of equity, why is it that we can't upzone the westside so that we can build the building there? basically it's because the neighbors aren't used to the height and bulk of the buildings. the neighbors are used to the height and bulk, so non-conforming buildings are an opportunity rather than a problem. when you're deliberating, please think about whether you're perpetuating the inequality in the zoning code or working to see opportunities for people who live in more neighborhoods so your actions match your words. secondly, i think we can work to create more income but also more diverse markets, and both will bring in people who will not be able to afford to live in san francisco because the status quo is older units that have become unaffordable due to their scarcity. [please stand by] we should think more about how san francisco hits into the bay area and where most of the poor people ended up because of our policies. thank you. >> operator: you have nine questions remaining. >> hello, i am a resident of excelsior, and i support this resolution, but one thing that's missing from the report and resolution is that san francisco is part of a region, and the decisions we make here have effects on other communities around san francisco. we know that the eviction and displacement are being driven by the extreme housing shortage, including in the excelsior with the vast majority of the unaffordable homes are not new housing. i've heard often how we in san francisco are not the bad guys, we built our fair share of luxury housing in the current cycle. the process was flawed by concentrating commercial development in san francisco and residential development elsewhere our fair share increased displacement in san francisco, and the effective of increasing the displacement in san francisco has spread it beyond san francisco to drive the african american community of oakland to put stress on the communities of richmond and beyond. if we are going to challenge the racist basis of capitalism and vulnerable communities, i think a valid concern, but we new housing of [indiscernible] accelerate gentrification in oakland and accelerates gentrification among organizations and lets pao alto off the hook. the housing shortage in the bay area and california in general has discouraged minorities from moving into san francisco in the first place. and this has turned into a leading cause of distress among vulnerable people across the country on par with the crisis in some economic models. so this resolution is good, and we need to consider the larger impact, along with our model of community planning has allowed rich communities to enhance the gentrification of san francisco. so black lives matter including black lives outside san francisco. thank you. >> operator: you have 10 questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners, and general public. i am a south asian resident of district eight. i am calling to support this resolution. to start this process from structural and institutional racism, we must first acknowledge the harm done. through this resolution, the planning department is emphatic on this. i think four things need to happen in order for this to be more than a wish list. number one, police should be defunded, and those funds should go directly to addressing the effects of the past racist policies outlined in the resolution. that includes funding to create the appropriate planning policies and the implementation of those policies to address the needs of black, native americans and other communities of color. number two, building solutions with the community that are culturally appropriate. there are a lot of [indiscernible] among the communities and it's time to give them a voice. number three, making sure that the core of the planning department matches in magnitude to the proportion the harm done to the [indiscernible] and number four, finally, clearly identify the policies [indiscernible] indigenous and other communities of color and purposefully create policies that reverse their harms. this proportionate harm should be met with relief. we will be paying attention. black lives matter. thank you. >> operator: you have 10 questions remaining. >> hi, commissioners. my name is claire wary. this is my first meeting i've ever attended like this, and hopefully -- and actually, no, i'll make sure it is not my last, and i'll make sure that i let people know to keep an eye on what's going on here and how it directly affects them. i have heard many voices that i recognize in support of the racial social equity resolution, and i will do my research to find out why. i just want to say our community is beautiful, and from living here, i know that we're experts, and to echo what the reverend was saying, like, this needs to be -- this whole process must, it must be a collaboration of the communities that you guys serve, and i'm excited to see what commissioner chan and johnson has came up with, from what i'm hearing, and to know who the rest of the commissioners are and let the community know who you guys are, because i see that there's a disconnect. and from living here for the past 28 years, i'm tired of hearing my friends having to choose between bus fare or getting food for fried rice, and i'm tired of hearing older generation filipinos skipping out on skiieeing their doctors. i'm tired of seeing my friends having to work two or more jobs on top of school, risking their sanity. i totally want to serve the community here in san francisco. i really want to look to your leadership to lead with the anti-racist framework. thank you. >> operator: you have nine questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sarah ogilvie. i am latina and i live in district nine. i have experienced homelessness, and i am a member of san francisco [indiscernible]. i believe that [indiscernible] is an exclusionary policy that exacerbates racial and economic inequality. [indiscernible] segregated by design explore how it's racist redlining -- zoning to keep neighborhoods segregated. where we build the housing and where we ban it has major impacts on economic and racial diversity of our neighborhood. i believe that every neighborhood should welcome all kinds of people and that diverse community requires diversity of building types. i believe multi-family housing, banning it harms everyone. and i look to cities like minneapolis that are already leading the way, changing their zoning to allow to four-plexes in every district. i think that a lot of the problems that the community and the mission have with building housing is that it is inequitable because the zoning laws make it hard for anything else but housing to be built here, and it doesn't always result in the right project for the community. it creates the displacement. it creates problems. i believe that multi-family housing needs to be built in other districts, like pack heights, like the richmonds. my concern with community proper is a concern that communities in those districts are going to work actively to oppose and to reject projects in wealthy neighborhoods, and i think that that's going to come up over and over again. we're going to hear that it doesn't work with the neighborhood character. we're going to hear that that type of housing is not allowed here, and it's just going to create a problem where community process actually backfires, and so i'm really concerned. you know, i mean, i believe that, like, if the zoning laws were different and multi-family housing were to be normalized and upheld in other districts, that districts like the mission, it would be much easier for them to accept housing because, first of all, the market rate homes that would probably be built in those wealthy neighborhoods could actually subsidize the affordable housing. and looking at our economic prospects down the line, i think we should really start working aggressively toward re-zoning wealthy neighborhoods to accept all types of housing, including market rate housing, and to definitely prioritize affordable subsidized housing in communities where that type of housing would be welcome and would be -- and is desperately needed. so thank you so much for listening, and i'm really grateful for this conversation and for remote comment. thank you. [bell ringing]. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> hi, i'm born and raised in the tl. i'm with mission housing and the extreme coalition. i want to thank commissioner johnson for speaking on this and putting this issue forward. i support the resolution as well as the amendment put forth by front-line community groups. [indiscernible] transformation for decades, and most recently it's taken the form of gentrification. sadly supported by planning department and the big [indiscernible] in the city. if you want urban planning to be anti-racist, you have to stop supporting market rate housing in gentfied neighborhoods. you have to give real decision making power to vulnerable communities. if you want urban planning to be anti-racist, you really have to stop listening to white urbanists push their market agenda. this isn't the time for an all-housing matters approach, and we have to stop taking equity advice from groups who gentrifiers turned urbanists. if you want urban planning to be less racist, you have to decommodify housing. lastly, you must fund and build affordable housing and allow disparate people of color to come back. give land and power to black and brown communities. thank you. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is oscar grande. on behalf of mission housing and the coalition of equity champions, we're in full support of the resolution. i'm a father, son, husband who has lived, worked, played and prayed in san francisco. excelsior is my home, southeast and eastern neighborhoods are my cultural shed where i've learned to fight, organize, love and co-create community. i'm fortunate to have my elsalve doran family. my family immigrated and settled during the late '60s when a janitor and garment worker were able to plant roots and become homeowners. i'm part of the small population of latinos that own a home in san francisco. my kids and their kids will benefit from this. it would be remiss of me to not point out that this groundbreaking justice-filled and heart-felt resolution is being led by our women of color planning commissioners, johnson and chan. representations matter, black lives matter. our racial equity coalition has submitted a list of action-based strategies with the goals of bringing this resolution to life. we are not honoring the moment, we are not honoring the movement, our ancestors or future generations if this document sits on the shelf in the planning department's broom closet. some of the amendments, some of the highlights i want to list off are establish a community oversight committee made up of tlc front-line community works. along with the mayor's office, planning staff and in collaboration with the city's office of racial equity. establish an equity search framework, do no harm, instead of the current planning process where plc communities have to provide the burden of proof. create and resource intentional and equitable community planning partnership with plc-led community work. change the planning department hiring and promotion practices. planners, directors must represent and reflect our communities. and lastly, expand the resource to housing community equity division. out here on these streets, we are saying defund the police, and in this planning we say reallocate and double the size of the leadership on the equity work. thank you. [bell ringing]. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> caller, are you prepared to submit your comment? hello, caller? let's go to the next person in queue. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. firstly, thank you, commissioner johnson, for your leadership and voice on this overdue discussion. i am a sf native who grew up in the mission in the public housing system and a current resident of district six. i am in full support of this racial and social equity resolution. as a current resident of district 6, i have witnessed the communities of displacement created by white millionaires and privileged people of color who uphold white supremacy by their positions of power. black communities and communities that have been historically oppressed [indiscernible] at this table for the meaningful and [indiscernible] implementation of this resolution. it's also important that these organizations are a reflection of these communities not only through their constituency but also in their leadership. i agree with previous callers that the community base planning process must be funded and supported by the planning department and commission under the direction of community organizations, but i still emphasize that these organizations must be led by black, brown and people of color whose work is informed by san francisco's political history that impact black, brown communities and our seniors and people with disabilities to this day. thank you. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> hi, this is sheraa with the american indian cultural district. i wanted to call in today because i had a few comments on the resolution. first of all, you know, thank you for putting this forward, you know, just a couple thoughts. the first thing is the names on there was the first thing that came up to me, is just kind of, like, where did those come from. are those all folks from san francisco? and i know that they are not, and one thing is that i hope it doesn't further pit our communities against each other, american indian, latinos, blacks. that was kind of just figuring out or trying to think about where those names came from. the second thing that i got from reading it was it was pretty clear to me that either data was either missing or appeared to be inaccurate for the american indian community. and so one of the things that i want to ask the planning commission is to do better, to work with our community to get this data before publishing this, because you know, like someone had mentioned earlier, this document impacts planners, impacts people's perspective in the community, and if you're going to publish a document that doesn't have full or accurate data, that leaves our community out once more. it silences our people, and i think that we don't even recognize this document, that we are on -- before i stepped in as executive director, i worked for the american heritage commission, and had to re-pate-rate three different individuals -- we're here and on native ground, and i want to see our people represented, not only to acknowledge, you know, the state of california is acknowledging the people when they start their meetings, and i've heard a lot of people have been called in acknowledged that we're on the loane lands. and also work better with the community to get the data correct. my final recommendation would be to publish -- there's a lot of this data that you don't have the information for so it doesn't disproportionately represent our community. stick to a smaller document with intent and action items that you hope to achieve with this document. thank you. that's my comment. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm calling in support of the resolution and to urge the commission to re-think as expansively as possible what it must do to facilitate the operations of the resolution. in previous comments criticized [indiscernible] in san francisco. for 50 plus years, including the zoning of the 1970s, the housing policy has been protection for the wealthiest and [indiscernible] other communities of color. the truth is that this should be reversed. communities of color are in need of protection and support but wealthy white homers are not. why then does our zoning app in 20 2020. why does the black community [indiscernible] in the '70s to 25% today? the answer is this is exactly the plan all along. single family zoning was and remains a segregation tool, a workaround to the unconstitutionality of racial covenants and [indiscernible]. the sf coalition reports from the 1970s on the major downzonings from that time, [indiscernible] and skyrocketing home prices. this started in the 1970s, not the dot com boom. [indiscernible] done by its own policies. i submit that one part of repairing the damage should be literally undoing this policy. i believe it should make room for newcomers but it shouldn't have to come to the expense of displacement of the black communities. [indiscernible] black lives matter. thank you. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this pains me to know that it took these extra judicial killings for us to recognize the inequalities and the disparities happening in this country and in this city. however, i do acknowledge, do appreciate and i do support these resolutions. now if we are really adamant about really making the right to reverse these inequitable policies, we should really look towards the people who are closest to the pain, because those who are closest to the pain are those who are closest to the solution. and we need community-based solutions, more participation from those in the front lines, those who are hurt. and secondly, if we really want to make this happen, i urge the planning commission to really halt market rate development amid the covid crisis, because a lot of us are struggling. we don't have the opportunity to really voice our concerns. for you that are sitting at city hall, for us to truly express our pain. so with that being said, black lives matter and thank you for your time. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> caller, are you prepared to submit your comments? >> hello? >> yes. >> hi, i'm community action network. i am also a district 10 tenant. we support the resolution and the amendments that have been provided to you. the community amendments are essential to include as they were provided by organizations working directly in the communities that this resolution is talking about and speak directly to the needs of these communities. [indiscernible] community in the market has been subject to several waves of displacement created and exacerbated by city planning, redevelopment and the first and second technology boom have paved the way for displacement. some [indiscernible] highlighted have city planning continues to be done in a way that is harmful to the filipino community. community-based planning process must be funded and supported by the planning department and commission which includes strengthening and expanding the existing [indiscernible] district in the [indiscernible] under the direction of community organization and residents. i am also [indiscernible] previous callers who are now [indiscernible] black people and people of colour and immigrants and using our pain and frustration to benefit their cause. racial and social equity means not belittling the efforts of immigrants and people of color leaders when we are saying sunshine in our parks is not important, then housing that will shadow it like [indiscernible]. when we are saying that affordable housing that is below 90% ami is not important than having luxury housing in our neighborhoods, when we are saying that we need more parks in our communities and that we need to have amenities that will help our children and families live and thrive in our neighborhoods. one way the planning commission can start with race and equity is by ensuring that 1145 mission street is a great -- [bell ringing]. [indiscernible] this project based on true community needs i urge you to vote down this project as we do not need any more luxury housing on this important corridor for the filipino cultural district. thank you. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. hi name is jesse hernandez. i live and work in district 11 as a program manager for an alliance of community-based organizations called communities united for health and justice. i want to share my cautious optimism for this resolution and the badly needed redress on the part of the planning commissioner. equity requires that we are addressing undeserved burden and unearned privilege, and this work is fundamentally incompatible with market oriented development. in my work in and around the excelsior, i've had the privilege of engaging in a rich tradition of community-based planning initiatives that center the diverse voices of low-income, immigrant, communities of color, and this work is flourishing, has flourished, but often times despite institutional road blocks from the planning department. i know that people in the neighborhood, the communities that we're engaging with are experts in planning. through their lived experiences, wading through the multitude of challenges, housing crisis and now the ramifications of rampant unemployment and food and security, nevertheless, folks are ready to roll their sleeves up and ready to walk that road and ready to be a partner in that work. thank you. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name gabe's medina. i'm with mission neighborhood centers. i'm a native of san francisco who has grown up in district 11. i want to thank the commissioners for sharing her personal story and for both commissioner chan for taking on and introducing this resolution and all three of our core commissioners taking this on to make it as equitable and inclusive as possible. i favor this resolution. it is the basis of a past planning policies, urban renewal, redlining that are responsible for taking our black lives, but i implore you to please include the community amendments submitted to you today. now more than ever we need community-based planning. when we talk about justice and defunding the police, defunding practices that, you know, for the cause and perpetuate the same legacy of urban renewal and deadlining, like luxury market rate housing, it's now more than ever that we need to fund community-based planning. [indiscernible] housing and market development will be in the same spot if we don't control it. also i want to add for years i've heard from staff of color in the planning department about managers who manipulate and recognize the test the new hiring system in favor of white applicants. of all the directors, directors in [indiscernible] team leaders, 17, 15 of them are white. we need deliberate effort to identify those individuals who repeatedly show bias in the testing systems and hiring systems to get [indiscernible] in any future testing systems and hiring systems in the future. [please stand by] >> more affordable housing for families. it would be a blessing to live in a beautiful setting. thank you for sharing. i love and enjoy this beautiful diversity. thank you so much. black lives do matter. thank you and god bless. >> you have four questions remaining. >> hi, i am on the board of the community action network and district one resident and member of richmond district rising. my support for the resolution and community amendment. i worked for a long time on policy and public housing organizing and tenants rights organizing and counseling in communities all over the city. i see the impacts of racism and inequality and the role of planning and the potential for leading solutions as expressed by commissioners today, and i want to appreciate commissioner johnson for leading this resolution. we need to take bold action to hold all of our development proposals, plans policies accountable by making them prove they are providing true benefits to black, indigenous, people of color and low income communities. if they cannot prove measurable benefits to the communities they should not move forward. i express my strong support for the resolution today and thank you for the discussion. >> you have two questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is the director of the cultural heritage district. the tens of thousands who came out on the streets for the black communities to demand justice for george floyd and those who lost lives today. racist police to protect the corporations and the capitalists. in san francisco so many working class people have been pushed out. it is inspiring to see tens of thousands come out to denounce racism and racial inequality. i want to thank you for heeding the call. we strongly support the resolution and ask that you will include the provisions in the resolution that the goals be implemented with the direct partner ship of the working group or over site committing. this cannot be led from within the planning department but in partnership with the communities that are impacted. yesterday filipino students led the march in support of the black lives movement, and to remind our community of solidarity. that hotel is one example in the community experience of being pushed out of homes with the use of force. since then filipinos have experienced displacement in the south of market. most currently in the latest census data we last half of the population from 10,000 to 5,000. the decline in the population for low income and working class must be understand within the context of city planning where the statement of the population from soma to the planning decisions to cleanse the area of working class populations. that came from the rapid expansion of financial district. as well as demolition of single family homes in soma. the gardens was built for tourists. city hall can make san francisco the headquarters of west, communities of color were displaced. we saw this also with the second -- the first.com boom. the former zoning administrator i called every day when the city turned a blind eye when they pushed away filipino businesses. we have not been able to recover. that is one of the struggles to be able to have affordable places for small businesses and for our families. i am urging you to reject item 12, 1135 mission street. thank you. >> you have one question remaining. >> >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am john jacob and i serve as vice president and i am from the san francisco mission district. i thank the commissioners for putting this resolution forward. i fully support it. i want to be clear our city structures and departments are all founded as is this country on white supremacy. it is embedded in all that is power. we suffer the remnants of that legacy. it is not apparent throughout the nation, we the people and in particular black and indigenous and people of color have done and over in all forms. therefore, i it is incouple bounteous - another was -- it is up to us to ask what we are doing to stop discriminatory policies. [indiscernable] what many of us have had to live through. we have lived through the racism that exists in the form of city planning and witnessed the unequal results in the lives that we lead today. this all begins to end enough. the resolution cannot be an empty body of words, it must manifest through amendments with the city-wide coalition of equity champions by this department. not doing so making those in power no different than the white men who created the environment we are fighting to get out of. black lives matter. thank you all. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> >> commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> i just want to start off by thanking all of the community organizations and the people who called in for their very spirited testimony. i am speechless of the turnout today. that says that is the tip of the iceberg for the people who couldn't call in or speak their voices today. i would like to hear what the other commissioners think. i am proud we were able to introduce something this important here today. >> thank you, commissioner koppel. the turnouts of the people for the resolution. it is telling of the past actions that the planning commission and planning department and also the city have done specifically to the black and people of color communities. i actually do find it quite emotional. while i am hearing the comments of the people and again i don't want to say commissioner johnson and commissioner chan in introducing this and commissioner johnson in telling your personal story. it does impact you personally. i believe and also for me, you know, on the commission we have the public responsibility at the same time we also have the private lives. sometimes those private lives coincide with our public responsibility. there are many comments that i agreed on. the proposals brought on by the public in terms of adopting the equity first framework. i believe that should be something explicitly said in our resolution. i don't see it quite yet, but i think there should be some sort of language where equity first framework will be the center of when we are assessing our plans, policies and developments. another thing that speaks to me, also, is the racial equity definition. it sounds like to me the racial equity means different things for a lot of us, however, our experiences in what we see as our own in our private lives and what we see as commissioners has impacts especially to the black and people of color communities. with that i would like to see the definition of racial equity where we address the power imbalance. another thing that speaks to me is reverend town send's comment when it comes to hiring in the planning department where when it comes to staff and when it comes to planners, we need to ensure that the hiring has met trick systems that shows the community or has history of working in the community. the thing is that we are planning for how many years to come. it is important that the planners will have that experience. especially what river end town send mentioned having interns that actually would work with the planning department so they can be planners for our community. i think that is very commendable. another thing, too, shifting the resources. i agree on that. that we should shift resources to strengthen racial and social equity plan works and also i think in the resolution and i think it should be explicits in our resolution is to have a working group committee that will be in partnership with the racial and social equity work that will work on the timeline and processes with the planning department. i think that is a very strong component for this resolution. i see this resolution as a guiding principal mission and vision how the planning commission should vote and how should the planning department work. we acknowledge all of the wrongs of the urban renewal and a.that and we need to make it right. those are my comments. >> commissioner moore. >> thank you, commissioner imperial. i agree with everything you said. i emphasize that everything you said is an important point to consider adding. based on comments which are greatly appreciated there were several other points i would like to state for the record things we may consider adding. one is emphasis on community-based planning as we are shifting planning more into a dialogue between planning department and community. another point is looking at socioeconomic impacts. something that we discussed last week and we may pick up today as we look at the resolution. data collection for the american indian community which was identified as not being accurate. i cannot comment on the accuracy, but i would like planning to put an additional emphasis on looking at that particular comment. further, i would like to ask the commission to see the suggestions i made in amending the document which you have today. it is highlighted in yellow. that is a further elaboration of planning work done in the african-american black community, and if ms. chan would take us through that that would make it easier rather than me reading it off. would you do that? >> she will share her screen to show the three areas of the resolution that have comments. the first area of the context. i will walk you through the general points. the context provides more detail on the planning work in the bayview-hunters point area. planning abredevelopment work. african-american historic context and our work with youth. i think we need to enlarge the text, if you could, please. in terms of general plan, we have added one line about supporting the role of african-american firms in distribution and transportation industries within our general plan. the most important component, two at the end. in terms of the resolution clauses. if you could enlarge the font a little bit more, lisa, would be helpful. first calls for inclusion. this is improvement of areas of the city where black communities, american indian and people of color have settled, and the second one highlights the need to enrich the city's cultural fabric. >> the reason why i wanted to add the comments not to man fast that work has been sufficiently done but the seeds are there but under this particular resolution today it will be our obligation to focus on bringing it further to let it mature and further develop in direct collaboration with the community affected. i want to add -- i ask the commission to consider adding and adopting the suggestions. i would like to add one additional comment. that is that i ask us to rededicate ourselves to our work as commissioners of principal and conscience. this calls on me to give that a strong thought and i ask that you commit to doing the same. i also ask that we commit ourselves to doing the hard work of transformation of planning to broaden and to go beyond the limits of how we have traditionally defined planning. all of the challenges to do so are spelled out. i will be looking forward to seeing in detail the community amendments which have not been so far shared with the commission. thank you. >> commissioner diamond. >> in looking at the resolution, it has several parts to it. i would say i find it extremely important the opening part of the resolution which acknowledges and apologizes for past planning practices that have led to so many inequities. it is really important to say those things and to recognize and identify past practices that are so problematic. equally important it is not enough to talk about stuff, we have to do stuff. i appreciate the second part of the resolution. the result clauses that are call for action. they begin to accomplish what commissioner johnson talked about, which was in her very im passed and heartfelt comments laying her personal story. it was a call to action. we need to take that seriously. i believe the result clauses in the resolution begin to get us there. it identifies the series of steps that are important. it is just the beginning of our work. equally important is the need to make sure we are allocating the resources to do so and when we get to the budget part of our discussion later in this agenda, it will be really important, i think, to address the issue of whether or not we are allocating sufficient budget to move forward on our clauses. i am very supportive of this resolution and proud to be on the commission at a time where we are undertaking this work. commissioner chan. >> i want to start by thanking the commissioners and the planning department staff for your hard work to draft this resolution for your comments and your commitment moving forward to do this work. that is where we should focus our energy. also i want to thank members of the public for delivering the clear message that this matters. hearing this resolution is in the right direction and more work needs to be done to define tangible next steps. the road map that we as the commission with the indians black come together for the resolution. i want to second commissioner moore's suggestion that we work with the american indian cultural district to ensure the data is correct in the final version. i am in support of the amendment the commission should direct the department to fund partnerships with american indian, black and community of color. i want to make clear that there are multiple forms of expertise, planners have undergone training but i also recognize expertise from those with direct experiences of displacement and who have a lot of strong assets and ideas and visions for the community that we should work in tandem. i think this should become lementary. you can recognize that there are planners from the communities not just clear as black and white framework. i agree we need to have a clear definition of what racial and social equity means and this would be done in partnership with black and indian and those of color. as a researcher i support equity metrics to ensure accountability and to know how we are moving forward. with the passing of this resolution i will expect we will monitor the progress of the work and i expect the commission to hear about this frequently through the racial and social equity plan. >> commissioner fung. >> i fully support the adoption of this resolution. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i, too, am very overwhelmed. i have been sitting here with just a wave of grief and excitement and hope and gratitude for this conversation we are having and the actions we are taking and the truth that we are codifying through this resolution. i want to thank -- i will start by making some additional comments. there is a quote that says not everything that is changed nothing can be changed until it is faith. hearing begins first with naming. first i want to acknowledge the speakers that we are on unseated territory. i want to start by acknowledging and thank you for bringing it to our attention the issues with the data and we will work to get it right. second, i want to just name that this came from a place of wanting to be intentional and specific and naming that not being intentional and specific about the time we are in. the government's roll in advancing inequality. the harm is in the past. we are living the past while trying to shape the future has to be acknowledged. it is crucial given the history and legacy of government relations with communities of color that it is not just words but action. that we do things differently. we recognize as folks spoke to that promises have been broken and that we need to build new relationships. and put our money, resources, hiring, culture on the line to be the department and the planning commission and the community of planners because it is not just planners and not just departments. it is people who show up every week to talk about planning that are all part of shaping and those who don't show up but care about the self-determination of their community that we have to center the voices and live the experiences of those most impacted and to facilitate the work in relationship with the communities themselves. i am grateful that rapparations were brought up by many of the commentters. it irked me that we speak about the statistical experience of those of color but don't name the realities we are living were with intentional and intergenerational. we can't be passive. we need to bring back black and indigenous people. also, there have been efforts i really appreciate the calling out of the bayview and fillmore and the exce excelsior without comprehensive planning and that needs to happen. i want to name that i am grateful for the wealth of not only hope but really beautiful sentiments that people given the past and history and the trauma want to it is around a table and work together to figure out away forward and to partner. i am so grateful and the truth is this has to be a collaborative process. i want to say that in this resolution we not only, you know, talked about and named the past and present but we were explicit about putting actual actions that we were going to take including expanding funding and implementing racial and social equity action plan and staffing given the staff and hiring and promotion practices to address diversity at all level, build equity and accountable through metrics and reporting that needs to be implements through community partnerships and that needs funds and community organizations need funds to help us and to collaborate with us. we are going to develop targeted policies and programs on recovery from the covid-19 pandemic which disproportionately affects low income and black populations and indigenous and native communities. i love we are talking about amending the general plan. for too long there are too few tools for communities to raise hands to say this has an impact on our culture, on our experience, on our ability to live to breathe to work and play and live in this place we have contributed to for generations and prioritizing racial justice and equity with housing. having moving in that direction and expanding the funds for community engagement and community planning. that including staffing, funding to engage community organizations, and to work together. they are all things that i will say that in addition we have amended to codify some of the asks specifically to make sure that we are taking a community-centered approach and working in collaboration and funding community planning. the great thing about this is that beyond this resolution we have a phase two of available and social equity plan that is coming back to the commission which is a road map to operationalize, formalize relationships and develop metrics with communities to resource to talk about the inner and outer work, and i just feel really grateful that we not only have this resolution but work coming down the pipeline to operationalize it and again i have stated that needs to be done in relationship upfront and not at the end. i will continue to make sure that happens. the last thing i will say is that we can't do this work alone. we need to engage our departments of the city family to work with comprehensive solutions. i think things like the coupling market rate with affordable housing. we will never catch up if those are linked. we need one for the other. i want to see policies and programs to address that that provide rapparations to come back. we need to work with cities experiencing the same issues and same solutions. that we need to show that we are building affordable housing with the same urgency as market rate housing. we need to put into place practices stabilizing communities and centering the voices of people who are most deeply impacted. the last thing i will say is that this call really helps me to be in awe of the brilliance of our community. we have amazing planning staff, we have amazing groundbreaking community organization, we have a width of experience with people who have the answers to the greatest challenges ahead of us. i know that this is just a first step. i know we have so much work to do. i am grateful for in advance for your partnership so we can all get there together. lastly, i want to thank all of my fellow commissioners, especially commissioner chan and last week trying to move so much of this, and i want to thank lisa and and claudia ann marie,e for your tire less dedication and hard work in helping craft and director hillis for your leadership in support of these efforts. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner johnson thank you for the summary. with community centered approach i would like to ask again is this resolution to be amended to reflect on the community-based amendments mentioned many times today. that is a question for ms. rogers. the other question involves other commissions closest to us historic preservation and park and recand ongoing discussion with them on their rules and responsibilities overlap in many areas of our own would be something i would like to see and encourage us to do. ms. rogers could you answer my question regarding the community amendments or perhaps director hillis could answer that, also. >> commissioner, i think those are for you to consider. >> we have not seen them yet. we have heard them but not seen them in a written form. >> maybe ms. chan can summarize. >> she will share the language on the screen. there are two paragraphs, two clauses. first focuses on expanding and adding the necessary resources for phase two of the racial and social equity plan. three major components that will address available and social equity first plan, policies and programs. second equity metrics, and third new community strategies. then the second statement about centering community engagement, centering the voices of the black, american indian and people of color. there is a pargraph that is calling for partnership with centering through voices to define racial and social equity. two, engagement from community planning priorities, and four resources for participation building in those communities. i think that addresses the comments that we just heard on community center. i should mention there are minor revisions in some of the numbers and edits and language the staff have added since monday. that is the document in your hands. those included in the resolution that you have. >> that is based on the tremendous work done by so many people. the majority of them, i am in full support. is there further amendments that we can pick up the same discussion next week should there be rewritesness. otherwise, i am prepared to fully and wholeheartedly suppo support. >> >> commissioner moore. was that a motion? >> yes. >> commissioner johnson. >> second. >> the number of versions and amendments being made. could we specify. is it the last version distributed with the amendments read into the record by staff? >> yes. >> very good. >> i just want to thank the >> commissioner: nethe --to thad today. it was inspiring to hear their comments. i want to thank our staff who have worked over the last week to pull this together. with the meeting last wednesday and thank you for the commissioners who attended that. it was a reflection on our work and we had an honest open dialogue recognizing planning and land use decisions that contributed to inequities resolving our entire staff. it was tremendous commitment and transforming how we work, transforming who we serve, which i think was evident in the public comment today. how we allocate resources, partner with communities, especially the black and american indian communities and communities of color. ultimately how we hold ourselves accountable for this work. we look forward to that tremendous work that we need to do and take transformative action. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further, there is a motion seconded to adopt the resolution with the most recent amendments submitted to the commission and part of our correspondence folder as well as those amendments red into the record by staff. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> diamond. >> aye. >> funk. >> aye. >> imperial. >> aye. >> johnson. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved, that passes unanimously 7-0. >> that takes us to department matters. doctor 8. director's announcements. >> thank you. i just want to note one thing. we have a couple questions about how long we are going to continue with our remote hearings. obviously, thank you to those who put these together. we don't have a specific direction on when these will run to when we can get back to city hall for public hearings. i imagine for the next couple months perhaps longer. we know the format can at times be clunky and inefficient and we will continue to make changes to that so it does evolve to become more user friendly especially to the public calling in. we will update you on that. no date on when we can resume hearings back amount city hall. thanks. >> item 9. no report from the board of appeals and no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday. >> this week at the land use committee they considered the designation for the royal baking company building at 4767 mission street. they recommended designation on may 6 of this year. located in the excelsior. it was significant for the association with the history of the italian-american community of san francisco and that 20th century expansion to excelsior district. it is important to the 20th century bread making industries and unique façade, mix of story book style. the land use and transportation community there were no comments or questions. supervisor safai see provided history of the building. they recommended the landmark designation to the full board. at the full board the mappal peel for 3,000 larkin street or 898 north point street was withdrawn. the supervisor mar's ordinance to expand the legalization of unauthorized dwelling units passed the first reading. that concludes my report. >> seeing no questions, commissioners, we will move to general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items within the subject matter of the jurisdiction except agenda items. the opportunity will be afforded when the item is reached. each member of the public may address for three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed 15 minutes it may be moved to the end of the agenda. this is your opportunity to call into the 800 number and access code and enter 1 then 0 to be entered to speak. we should go to public comment. >> your question is in question and answer mode. [please stand by] majority white homeowners on the west side. the environmental impact report which was written at the time explicitly mentioned that zoning would make the neighborhoods more expensive and would raise land values and cause lower income people to leave the city. and lo and behold, 40 years later, that is what has happened. so if you want to look at one major reason that we have such disproportionate impacts on the people of color or building wealth and having a home, you can look no further than the policies advocated by people like calvin welsh. and so i urge you to reconsider these options when talking about equity zoning. it also has its roots of course, in racist and classist policy. so i ask you to really consider this when making decisions in the future. thank you. >> you have three questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is georgia. i sent you an e-mail this morning. when you have time, i hope you have a chance to read it. i apologize there is a typo in the first paragraph. i hope you read it. in the e-mail i tried to say why the demo calks should be adjusted. it's a peace of the puzzle with speculation. primarily speculation pressures put on preserving and protecting house and relative affordability. so please consider adjusts the demo calculations for the reasons i put out in my e-mail. it would be done with a snap of the fingers based on the planning code. take good care. be safe, be well. thank you. >> you have two questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. neighborhood council and san francisco coalition. i'm calling to draw your attention to an ongoing problem that my fellow activists and i have brought up in the past. that is the classification of existing structures that are replaced by proposed projects. as you know, it's not uncommon for lots zoned for single-family homes to have two or more legal units. that's why the planning department has such nomenclatures as conforming buildings. they are not allowed to get rid of the units. they may not be able to expand these units, but they won't get away with demolishing them. technically, a duplex should not be demolished to make room for a single-family home. particularly if the duplex is under rent control and previously occupied by tenants who are disgraced. not only is this an affront to housing and affordability crisis, it's a slap in the face of tenants who bear the brunt of the crisis. one such case will be before you next week. the property was sold in noe valley. there are two meters on the property, nevertheless, the staff maintains this is a single-family home and it's perfectly okay if it gets demolished to make room for a luxury single-family home. when myself and others objected to this, the staff acknowledged the standing unit but refused to change their stance because they say the d.b.i. has no record of the two units on the property. if the planning policy is to encourage densification, then demolishing three units to make room for one single-family home is not congruent. i urge you to ask these tough questions. why is it okay to demolish two rent-controlled units only to replace them with a single-family home and au pair unit only available to a few? we are looking to you to question these policies at the department. [bell ringing] -- policies like this are having no standard operating procedure encourages developers to game the system. we shouldn't allow there to happen. you do not demolish two units to make one single-family home. thank you. >> you have two questions remaining. >> george wooding, san francisco land use commission. the puc is selling the 17.2 acre balboa public site for $11.2 million to private developers. an incredible and dubious bargain price. based on other property sales, balboa reservoir should have cost developers at least $200 million to $400 million to purchase. the potential purchase price of 1850 bryant street and 170 street will bear this out. sf residents are being robbed of hundreds of millions to build this project. ccff should have purchased this land and leased it for the balboa reservoir project. public lands should remain public. additionally, bart are going broke. are there contingency plans if bart fails? higher cost margins for the 50% of market rate housing dictates that market rate housing will be built first at this site before affordable housing. sf will spend much more than the planned $70 million prop a bond to subsidize affordable housing at the balboa reservoir. i'm sorry. this plan for privatization the balboa reservoir land represents a willful contradiction and undermining of the public interest and ceqa. california real estate law and corresponding lease agreements require that the puc should have obeyed state surplus plan status 5422. this would have allowed city college of san francisco the right of first refusal to purchase the reservoir property. to wit, the right of first refusal addendum is legally binding and give city college the right to purchase the balboa property if it goes on the market. ccff would have received steady income from this balboa reservoir project -- [bell ringing] -- for years. please do not certify this illegal land grab for private developer profit. sell the balboa reservoir to community college of san francisco. thank you. >> you have one question remaining. good afternoon, commissioners. thank you so much for all of your incredible work this afternoon. i'm the coalition lead. i just want to clarify with san francisco response to tenant protection. we absolutely believe that all new housing must not displace existing residents. and that achieving development without displacement requires strong tenant protection. such as the right to just cause eviction prevention. i want to make that clear. at no time have we ever supported a tenant displacement. i, myself, am a tenant and would never want to be in that position. we also believe there are many bad incentives that lead cities to block housing. we need structural reform at the local, regional, state and federal levels. also make it hard for local government to see the long-term benefits of new residents. additionally with poor regional coordination, become much harder to achieve. in the projects that are going to be moving forward at today's hearings, i ask you to continue considering the needs of the neighborhood and also the need of housing throughout the city. again, i want to affirm the comments made that we need to take a really piercing look at the historically racialized and class zoning maps in san francisco and that zoning needs to come at the forefront of what is really going on with housing displacement, housing justice. thank you. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> very good, commissioners. that will conclude the general public comment portion of our hearing. we can move on to the regular calendar. for item 10. case number 2019-023608crv, for the fiscal year 2020-22 proposed budget update. this is an informational presentation. is staff prepared to present? >> yes. >> you want to make a few comments first? >> yes, just before getting into the details, i did want to put this budget item into context. especially given the discussion we just had. so this item is fairly narrowly focused. this is about our general fund budget in responding to the mayor's office direction to reduce our general fund spending for next fiscal year and the following fiscal year. we'll discuss the general fund makes up a fairly small portion of our overall budget. most of the budget comes from fee rent. so we would like to come back to you next month in july to follow up on the discussion. we just had a racial and social inequity resolution that both looks at our program priorities and all lease allocations within our budget to respond to that resolution. so we're currently looking at our position, especially vacant position, in the budget as well as professional services, kind of discretionary contracting fund we have available in the budget. we've developed equity criteria which are here as part of that item as well, that we'll use to analyze those positions in our contracting and bring those back to you next month. so, again, this is fairly limited to our general fund allocation. thanks. i'm the deputy director of administration and our director of administration is with us as well. between the two of us and if you have questions, we'll be happy to go over them. this is an update because this is not a typical year. usually we have a calendar that ma of has the mayor's office taking a budget june 1st to the board of supervisors. that has been pushed out, so we wanted to bring the new calendar. the mayor's office does -- the budget at this point. the department has given over our submission to them which is what we did with your approval back in february. and since the mayor's office is now looking at reductions, they've come to the department to say, okay, we need general fund reduction, how do you think you can make those happen? so we're very grateful for that opportunity for input. and so i'll go over the instructions and what they shared with us. review of the february submission. i know we have new commissioners and i know that sometimes remembering the numbers may not be the top priority for the planning commission. and then the proposed reductions for the general fund support. and then our new -- what it would look like if the reductions do go into effect, what i'm calling here, the june budget. so if you recall, in january and february, we went to historic preservation and planning. then on february 21, as is mandated, all the departments -- most of the departments, the general fund departments that missed their budget to the mayor's -- submit their budget to the mayor's office. all of the departments submit their budgets to the mayor's office. at that point, they're locked out of the system. and then published is a budget on june 1st. this year, it is definitely more than tinkering, so we did want to come back to you to let you know what was going on. usually the june 1st budget has come august 1st. then when the board of supervisors used to hear the budget in june and then finally approve it in july, they're now going to hear it in august. so we pushed out basically by two months. this means that we're going to have an interim budget for several months. we'll have -- i think it's october 1st. september 30, october 1st, one of those dates there where we have the fiscal year 20-21 budget finally approved of the interim budget means we can do most things, but new programs and equipment will not be loaded. but we'll still be able to pay our bills and paycheck. so what we got from the mayor's office that will be following is that the mayor has asked us to prioritize meetings general fund support reduction. so it's a reduction of 10% in fiscal year 2021. and additional 5% in 21-22. there is the possibility that the 5% might move up and that would be contingency in the first year. we do have the plan for how we can get to that. again, the general fund has historically been 10% or less of our budget. it's a little over because of the new building cost in the coming year. but, still, a very low percentage overall of where we get our revenue. we've been asked to prioritize core services that provide critical government functions to evaluate our current operations to realign with the covid measures and guidelines and to evaluate what operations can and should be performed remotely. and as you all know, we've been operating remotely now for several weeks. so back in february, we had a $62.2 million budget. mostly funded here by fee revenue. we have our grants. for the new commissioners, you'll see the grant number drops, that's only because we don't know what granting opportunities will be in the out year. the first year is always much larger than the out year. we'll change the outyear once it becomes the first year and once we know what the opportunities look like. the impact fee money that comes to us is passed through to other agencies that are not city agencies. so, for example bart, because the planning department administers the interagency plan -- i'm blanking on the second i. the ipic group. we are the ones who take the money and pass it through to them. and we have impact fees that pay for our administrative costs to run that program. expenditure recovery is when we perform work for other city departments and they pay us for it. and the general fund support is the last number there, which we've been asked to reduce by 10%. so there were some changes that rolled through since the budget went from the department to the mayor's office. basically, because there are negotiated union contract language, some salary increases have been pushed out. so the general fund support number went down just a little bit. our 10% is not 780,000. it's $750,000 basically. but this is what we were looking at in february. and then 62 in the out year as well. on the expenditure side, as always, the staff are the largest expense of the department. the overhead number is something that is assigned by the controllers office. that number does change every year, but we don't know what it will be, so we just keep the budget steady and that will be centrally changed by the controllers office once they have that ready. nonpersonal services are contracts to paying for the copy machine leases, so anything that is a service that is not performed by one of our staff. and then materials and supplies you can see went up in the 20-21 budget and then is going down in the out year and that is related to moving into a new building. we put in money because we thought we'd be seeing extra expenses with getting into the building. the capital and equipment line, you can see. but because of the value of the machine, it ends up being in capital rather than materials and supplies. project is where we budget any anticipated grant funding or any of the ipic impact fees that come to us or through us. once we have the grant award and know how the money will be spent, then we allocate it to each of the lines above where it's appropriate. given that we don't even have the guidelines for some of the grants that we know are coming, we put it into the general bucket until we have those details. then services of other departments is what we pay other departments for their services. so really the big jump you see there from the current year to the next fiscal year, our rent is going up. so our rent and city attorneys office and department of technology are the three bigger ones in the services of other departments. and, again, the fiscal year and the out year, the budgets are both roughly around $62 million. so we are proposing to do to get to this $749,000 general fund support reduction is first we have the $272,000 so we'd already reduced back in february. that is already assumed in the budget that they're working with. then we have a vacant position in administration. and we have some proposed reclassifications in the february budget that we're going to offer to the mayor's office that we do not make those reclassifications. and then we're also proposing that they increase attrition to have some salaries and savings in next year's budget. in the non-personnel services we have two projects we're going to pull back on a little bit. the digitization project we've made huge progress. we are going to reduce that budget from $325,000 to $225,000, because we think it is important to put things online, especially when people are distanced and people are working remotely. the training budget we're going to take from 160 down to 100. and we don't anticipate that any of these reductions that we're offering to the mayor's office to make, that they will have any significant impact on our department and operations. then in the out year, again, we had that required reduction to submit to them, so that's already in there. and then the change between salaries and fringe is additional attrition. and then the 160 in the non-personnel services is the continuation of the current year. given that, what we're looking at here is the general fund support is on the bottom line there, the bottom grey line. that is 6.7 million and outyear is 8.3. we think we're going to be able to make the reductions on the general fund support and not the operational impact. and then the numbers salary and fringe line is going to be down by the 317 and non-personnel services by the 160. and so that is the presentation. again, i just want to remind the commission that the department is not actually making these changes. the mayor's office has listed our input, so we're making these suggestions to them, but really it is their decision, their budget and we do appreciate that they asked for our input. so with that, i would be happy to take any questions. >> commissioners, if there are no immediate questions, maybe we should go public comment? >> president koppel: yeah. >> okay, looks like commissioner moore will hold her questions. why don't we go to public comment. >> announcer: your conference is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question, press 1 and then 0. >> members of the public, i will remind you this is your opportunity to enter the queue to submit your testimony by entering 1 and then 0. >> announcer: you have one question remaining. >> good afternoon, again. i have a question about the budget. i know that in the past we have asked for someone who is going to be particularly looking into whether or not a property is tenant occupied and i believe that the planning did have this position staff. now i don't know with the new budget whether or not this is going to happen, so i just wanted to bring that up to your attention and hope that the commission could ask those questions. and also another point that we had pressed in the -- in previous years is, again, having to do with allotting the budget for documenting the practices and procedures that the planning department. this is in particularly important these days when we're going to have a lot of new planners. we need to have a way to have everybody singing from the same music sheet. i'm just throwing that as questions to the director hillis and hopefully, this could be covered in this session during this hearing, whether or not there is going to be any money for documenting the planning procedures and processes, as well as whether or not there is going to be the head count for the person who is going to be looking into the tenancy status of the building as my general public comment stated about this particular property that we're concerned with. often times, there are tenants who live in these duplexes or even single-family homes. so we do want to know about them and we don't want any kind of remodel or demolition to impact their lives and cause a displacement, because that's going to be two steps forward and one step back. i hope that you can cover these -- the budget as it relates to these head counts and ftes. thank you. >> announcer: you have one question remaining. >> hello. this is anna, a member of san francisco tenants union. i echo the concerns of the previous speaker regarding having staffing allocated to deal with tenants. this has come up on a couple of cycles where we were promised a person to be devoted to that by director ram and now it's coming up again and especially since we're talking about displacement, minorities and people. we need to have somebody there to look at, is there somebody on staff who is going to look at is the building tenant-occupied or not? also they need to have training on rent board issues. no, no, this is part of the rent board and has nothing to do with us. no, it has everything to do with you. you need to have a basic knowledge of what the rent board rules and regulations are. so, please, have somebody trained to do that. also, director hillis, keep your word and make sure that there is funding for surveys to be completed on historic -- potentially historic properties because this is really important, especially when you're looking at legislation coming down from the state. they need to be protected. these historical resources in our city. thank you. >> announcer: you have zero questions remaining. >> jonas: commissioners, the matter is now before you. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i believe i was ahead -- is that okay if i go first? go ahead. >> commissioner moore: i had my microphone off, that's why you didn't hear me, but go ahead and perhaps you can call on me second. >> thank you, commissioner moore. my question to director hillis, i know there are vacant positions that are right now in thing department. in part of the comment earlier about the property tenant occupied staff that was previously approved by director rain, is that one of the positions that was -- that is still not tired? >> i don't believe so. and maybe debra can correct me if i'm wrong. but i believe we added that position in the prior budget and it didn't make it through. it was cut. our process then has been to basically train and educate all of our planners on the rules of the red board so they could look for, you know, occupied units and the impacts the decisions you may have. so that is the route we've gone, which has been relatively successful. the rules are complicated and often we need to consult with the rent board, but i think we've done a good job in looking for those issues and make sure we flagged them and getting additional information from the rep. >> is that correct? >> the commission put forward a budget to the mayor's office and then the mayor's office to the board of supervisors and it didn't make it through the process and end up being funded. >> the general fund that is going to be reduced, is the planning department thinking of trying to get that kind of resource from a different source of funding? >> i mean right now their exact funding -- there is no additional funding available unless our fee revenue is increased and we actually think the opposite is going to happen. that our fee revenue is going to be reduced. i think the way we're going to perhaps prioritize programs over others would be to reallocate funds within the department. and currently the good news is, we have over 20 positions that are vacant that are currently funded even beyond this cut. so there is the ability to do that and to reallocate resources. so i'm not -- additional funding. there is a possibility. there could be through grants, but i think we need to look to reallocating resources to fund the programs. >> thank you. >> jonas: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: you were asked to do more for less and i'm concerned that us putting current personnel too thin with the type of excellence you need in newer areas like equity matters may be difficult to do at a level of fluency than what is really needed. i know there will be a training curve for all, but i hope there will be room for interested people within the department to specialize and become the new experts in these matters. that's what i hope for you. the second point is -- i've asked you that before -- in the real estate industry, there are many people who have taken on new office space but because of covid cannot occupy the space because of restrictions on how the space is used or equipped for office matters. these particular companies are extending rent breaks and deferred payments to their prospective tenants. i'm asking whether the planning department will be getting a break from san francisco real estate to help to make the impact of these additional cost reductions less impactful, because you're taking on a lot of new challenges from tenant matters to equity matters to historic preservation challenges that i hope are not falling short, because of these extra financial obligations you have to meet. do you have any kind of comment on that, directors? you're moving into a new space and you cannot even occupy. >> well, i just want to say, we're not really paying rent. technically, it's rent, but we're paying our share of the cost of that building. i think to the extent you know we don't need all the space, which is a question we don't have answers for that. we know we perhaps can go back to the department of real estate and see if there is a tenant that can occupy that space and we can get a reduction on our obligation to that, but i don't see that happening at least in the next year. >> commissioner moore: so you're basically saying you have to do more for less. that is basically my observation in the way that you are cutting numbers here. >> sure, ultimately, when we're asked to take a reduction and further reduction because of revenues not being what they were, yes. i think that is absolutely right. we're going to have to do more with less. that's why we want to come back and talk to you about reallocating resources within our budget so we can prioritize some of the things you want to do also. >> commissioner moore: with the resolution we passed today, i think the work of the planning department and the work of the planning commission will be very much under the microscope for people wanting to see tangible results and put particular stress on those people on the front lines, those being the planners, and all areas of planning affected by this, we kind of need to try to support you to protect the basic services, plus -- emphasis on plus -- that you're being asked to perform in these times of drastic further reduction. >> agreed. i appreciate that. >> commissioner moore: that is all i have to say. >> jonas: commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: the deferment of reclassification, where is that occurring at? >> commissioner fung, there were a variety of different positions that classifications were proposed to change. it was really across the department in different divisions. and now we're just proposing to keep them as they exist right now. >> commissioner fung: was there any overweight of that among the lower paid staff? or the clerical staff versus professional staff? >> we had a mix. there were -- this year actually, i don't think there was specifically clerical staff that was in there. we did have our accountant position, a position that we looked at reclassifying. we are hopefully still going to be able to make that happen, the duties of that position have really expanded in the last few years. the ones that we're not moving forward with are really the higher classifications that were proposed to be extended. at this time, we thought it would be better if we didn't try to reclassify those at this time. >> commissioner fung, if i can add, those are generally the requests that don't make it through the mayor's office and board during difficult times like these. so we kind of anticipated that and recommended that cut on our own. >> commissioner fung: okay. with the issues that have occurred given covid-19, are there additional expenses coming to us related to our future office? either in redesign or reconstruction? >> at this time we are not seeing any additional expenses relating to the new office. >> commissioner fung: you may see it next year? >> we'll let you know if we do see them, how's that? >> commissioner fung: okay, thank you. >> commissioner imperial: another question or comment perhaps to director hill again is, as we are reallocating budget -- reallocating forces within our budget, i'm wondering if there has been dialogue or will there be dialogue as you heard from the mayor office as well the intention to reallocate the funding from the police to the black community. i'm wondering there is also dialogue for us in the planning department to have that portion of that funding so that in terms of the revenues that is coming from the fees that will probably be shortened. wondering if that is something that has opened the dialogue already and we're trying to open the racial equity and trying to expand that. wondering if there is that dialogue going on? >> there hasn't been to date, because we don't have details how much that may be or where the priorities are for that spending. but certainly we can have that discussion. and to the extent some of the things we talked about in our work can, you know, use some of those resources, that is definitely a source of funding we should look to. as well as is there additional grant opportunities? often times, these grant opportunities come up that we can supplement our work. so we'll definitely open up that dialogue with the mayor's office to see if there are opportunities for additional funding. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. >> commissioner chan: hi. i think as a relatively new commissioner, this is helpful for me to just understand philosophically the planning department operates as a fee-for-service model and that determines the workload of the commission and the department. i'm curious for institutional context and wanted to know if in the past the general fund contribution has been higher to the planning department. and what that looked like? has it always been at these levels, higher, lower? >> it's a good question. deborah, you may be better equipped to answer that. >> it was, many years ago, higher. and then the general fund support was higher. and then in the mid 2000s, the model shifted to be much more fee-for-service. it's been over a decade since it was significantly higher. >> commissioner chan: and have we noticed shifts in work plans or priorities as a result of that? >> i think that the work plans aren't based on whether something is coming in from frees or from the general fund. i think the work plans are based on the entire budget. so wherever the money is coming in from looking at the budget holistically. obviously, there are constraints where fees can't supplement other work, but we do have an overhead model that we do incorporate. so you know, we have general fund for some specific thing, but when we're planning the work program, it really is a holistic, here is what -- here's our pot of money. and what do we want to do with it? >> thank you. >> jonas: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: you've intimated several times there is more bad news coming. that you are anxious about potential impacts of fee reduction or the revenue from fees being significantly reduced. can you give us -- flesh that out for us, which is what is the timing of that? and are you starting to do scenario planning around that? is it part of next year's budget or only the following year budget? give us a sense of what is coming. >> because we're -- most of our activities are funded through fees, you know, we're going to have to make changes as early as next year as we see what is happening with fees. so for the current year that we're in that is ending june 30th, we're seeing something like a $6 million reduction in fees. which is significant given that it's 40+ at this point. hard to predict how deep that reduction is going to continue and how deep that reduction is going to be. but i think we all kind of expect fee revenues to be reduced from where they are, where we've got them pegged in the budget. how much that is, how quickly we recover, you know, we were closed for a while and not accepting applications, so applications are starting to come back, but how vigorously they come back is the big question and what we're trying to figure out. so this may have to be an iterative process over the next year where we make some assumptions early on along with looking at kind of reallocating resources within our budget and then maybe again in six months we take another look at it. the good news is we have these 20+ vacant positions which we can use to fund reduction or to help with the reduction in fees in balancing that. but it's going to be an iterative process as we go through the year and get a better handle on what the fee reduction is going to be. >> could you keep us posted throughout the year, rather than a big surprise in next year's budget cycle. i think having us understand, as you roll through this on a monthly basis, what you're saying would be helpful? >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> commissioner johnson: thank you to my fellow commissioners for your thoughtful comments. and director hillis, and staff, it's never easy to talk about budgets. and it's especially hard as we are sitting in the face of the unknown. i appreciate your transparency and openness about what we are facing. and what we can do. to adjust those issues. i just have a little bit to add in saying that i think this conversation illuminates two things. first, yes it is true that the general fund used to be a larger percentage of the department's budget. and now given the structure that we are in, often times, you know, again, market rate housing is coupled with fees for affordable housing, for fees for the general fund and the mayor's office of housing. and also that -- and also that -- what was i going to say? sorry, i got distracted. and that we need to decouple those things. our priorities are the priorities that we can kind of affirm and put forward. and we're part of a process that includes the board of supervisors and the mayor's office. so this would be an ask that for those who have names of prioritization of our racial and social equity work, that we affirmed that -- we are affirming that to the board of supervisors and mayor's office for a resolution. and we need support and backing of everybody who cares about those issues to be heard in those places as well, that in this time where we're going to be asked to do more with less, as vice president moore said, we need to press conference the funding of the -- protect the funding of the department so that we can move forward on the work. >> commissioner moore: thank you for supporting the message, because i believe we need to try to appeal to somebody about what planning has to do. there are rumors out in the community that there may be certain departments who will be realigned including shifted how they're funded. there are rumors out there and it will be interesting to see if some of the community-serving functions that planning really has to step up on, can indeed rely on some of those budget shifts to stay with the department or come back to the department. i appreciate director hillis carrying that message forward. >> absolutely. commissioners, if there is nothing further, we can move on to item 11. case number 2010, 0515cwp father the potrero home development. >> good evening, before you this afternoon amendments to the design standards guidelines and documents. this is specifically referring to lot b which would enable the heights to be increased to allow additional affordable housing to be delivered at this early stage of the development. for today's presentation i'm going to describe the overall project, the original approvals. we'll give you progress to date. we'll talk specifically about lot b to provide a context of what height increases are being proposed and then describe the amendments. the hope sf project site is located on the southern and eastern slopes of potrero hill, south and east of the recreation center. the site itself is 39 acres. prior to the beginning of demolition, it had featured 619 housing authority units, all in poor condition as you can see, configured in a way on four blocks that have no relationship to the rest of potrero hill. like all hope sf projects, the proposal is to completely rebuild the site, demolish all of the existing units in poor condition, provide brand new replacement units for the residents, add affordable housing and provide market rate housing as well, largely to cross subsidize the overall development. potrero help sf was approved. it's what a development agreement does, it provides the project sponsor, bridge housing, with the certainty of being able to develop in exchange for the requirement that they deliver the infrastructure and the community benefits. here bridge housing has the ability to build up to 1700 units, the replacement units, affordable housing units and market rate units as well. they of course are required to rebuild a site as i just described, but on top of that and unlike other general agreements, they're also required to be in the community and engaging with the potrero community on an ongoing basis through several community building initiatives. in terms of the zoning, and the master approval, like other development agreements we created a special use district specifically for this site. and as an extension of that special use district we created a design standards and guidelines and sometimes we refer to these as dfd, design for development. the standards and guidelines in turn provide standards for the streets, for the infrastructure, for the rope space, but also the buildings. and the buildings have really -- it acts as the planning code. also as part of the original approvals, we rezoned the height district from 40-x to 45, 65x. that means the maximum height across the site is 65 feet. however the provisions in the planning code then refer back to the dsg for further height limits on a block by block basis. currently block b has a height limit of 40 feet. just before i describe block b and the actual amendments, we'll give you a little bit of a progress to date. since the original approvals in 2017, bridge housing has been working diligently to implement the project. they completed the first phase this past year at 1101 connecticut street, referred to as block x. it included 1772 affordable housing projects and the improvements to connecticut street and 25th street, the two bordering streets. bridge housing has also been approved for the phase 2 as a part of development agreements prior to a project sponsor pursuing detailed designs on infrastructure and submitting permits to the planning department. they're required to receive approval. phase 2 here includes the two blocks just west of block x. block a and block b. block b is the subject of today's hearings. phase 2 includes improvements to the surrounding streets, 25, 26, wisconsin and connecticut street. and then a new street segment, arkansas street, that doesn't exist right now and will bisect the site. a new child care will also be a part of block b. i should mention that since the phase approval that bridge house has also been working with public works, the task force and the puc on street improvement permits and infrastructure improvement and they've completed the demolition of the eight buildings that have been a part of phase 2. so about a year ago, most staff and bridge housing approached planning staff on the prospects of building higher above the 40 feet that is currently limited on block b. there were a couple of reasons they wanted to pursue this. one important aspect of the hope sf project is to provide the new units so that as the existing units are being demolished, so the residents of the existing units have a new place to move into prior to those demolitions. that means wanting to deliver as much as affordable housing in the early stages. the other thing is that -- i think as you probably know -- potrero hill is very steep. it is featuring serpentine rock. they wanted to make sure they deliver enough units to justify the high costs of preparing the site. i will say also, of course, developing more affordable housing early on is an advantage and something we support. so into -- to implement the project or to enable the project as the map before you shows, block b is currently zoned in the dsg at 40 feet. we're looking to change that to 50 feet. so across the board, anywhere on the site you can develop 10 more feet. but then also we provided additional provisions in the language that enables them to go above 50 feet but no more than 65 feet on the limited portion of the site. it's what they're looking to do with the floor plates and tuck in the additional development on the lower elevation where it might not be as readily experienced on the higher elevation. then also we're allowing additional height above 50 feet where they're tucking it in. that is setting it back from the front wall. i should note that even though we're increasing the development capacity of the site, we are not proposing to change any other provisions of the dsg. there are a lot of requirements in terms of modulation making sure a building regardless of its actual size is broken down in scale to large increments, but then also -- and then also requiring to make sure that there is active frontages throughout the development on all sides, through stoops, through lobbies, through entries into court yards and the like. and then also, we have other requirements in there to make sure that the design is residential character and quality. commissioners, this concludes my presentation. again, staff is recommending that the approval of the amendments that are before you. ocd are also on the line if you have questions of them as well. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> commissioners, if there are no immediate questions to staff, we should take public comment. >> no. >> yes, the project sponsor is also available. >> i'm sorry, let's go to the project sponsor's presentation. >> just a minute. project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation? you may need to hit star 6, unmute your cell phone. >> yes, i hi, can you hear me. >> yes. your slides are here so you can start. >> thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity before you here today. i'm a vice president of the development to bridge housing, the master developer and co-presenting today with ya studios, one of the two architects for the project. the second architect is hkip. bridge housing is a non-profit developer, in business for 35 years and as a core value, we're inclusion, equity and diversity. as an organization we work to increase justice and fairness. as part of that, we're in the process of forming an inclusion committee under the plan to further integrate diversity and equity and all aspects. over 25,000 homes completed and in the pipeline. we are very committed to the city of san francisco and are providing affordable housing for san francisco, and currently have over 600 units completed and 3700 units in the pipeline in the city. as part of the city's hope sf program, the potrero development can form existing public housing into mixed income use neighborhood. the potrero hope sf site will ultimately 1600 new units of affordable housing. it will include three-and-a-half acres of open space and community amenities to meet san francisco's housing needs. the community benefits from the project includes the redevelopment and replacement of the existing public housing units as well as the site's public infrastructure improvement. community improvements include pedestrian plazas and pathways as well as bicycle improvements, plazas and parks. the open space will include mini parks, parks, a community garden, as well as 6,000 square foot facility and lastly, a 25,000-35,000 square foot community rec center. we're here before the planning commission today regarding the changes to the height for block b. we encountered cost issues with our original -- and potrero hill is a difficult site to develop due to the naturally existing s as asos, the changes. the design includes cost saving measures. it allows us to move more residents into new housing units sooner. and the increased density makes the project competitive and keeps it competitive for financing. i'm going to hand it over to our architect for the design portion of the presentation. thank you. >> we work together on the completed certified phase 1, which we wanted to show is comparable ini density and quality. if we go to slide 4, the slight plan. we can see the proposed block b which consist of two l-shaped buildings. there is the mini park along connecticut street open to the entire community. it's interesting to note there is 80-foot grade difference which is a major challenge. slide 5 shows the area that is proposed to exceed the 50-foot height limit. limited to the courtyard edges in the north l and the south corner

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Mission District , California , Georgia , Japan , Philippines , Oakland , Richmond District , Italy , Wisconsin , Bayview , Victoria Park , San Francisco , Italian , Americans , Filipino , America , Filipinos , Japanese , American , Martin Munoz , Jesse Hernandez , Kenneth Russell , Julie Lee , George Floyd , Sarah Ogilvie , Calvin Welsh , Cory Smith , John Powell , Claudia Ann Marie , Katherine Moore , Robert Townsend , Ryan Patterson ,