tv Government Access Programming SFGTV January 28, 2018 3:00am-4:01am PST
and kevin carroll. anyone else who wants to speak on this project, please line up on the left side. >> good afternoon, commissioners. good to see you again. so this is a project that we are happy to be able to support. we were able to work out a deal with the project sponsor that will guarantee that these jobs will be like any of the other jobs in the hotel industry and especially union square. the workers will have the right to join a union, which is life changing for them. we were able to work out a deal that covers the buildings trades as well. we're pleased to support this project. i will be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you, ms. gomez. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kevin carroll.
i'm the executive director of the hotel council of san francisco. it's my pleasure to be here today to represent an industry that delivers over 11.3 billion in economic input to the city of san francisco. hotels employ 24,000 people, but the jobs influenced by hotels are over 105,000 people in san francisco. 60% of our employees live and work in san francisco as well. i'm here to support the project at 72 ellis. our council and our board of directors believe this will bring a new brand into our market, a brand on union square that welcomes millions of people into our city. it's an exciting project. it steps away from the powell cable car turn around. i've mentioned this before and been here on this address before -- many of you may have seen me on this specific site. hotels generate for business on the outside than the inside.
every dollar that's spent inside a hotel, more dollars are spent outside, which is great. if you look at the potential benefits, the tot tax alone, a hotel of this size would contribute millions of dollars in tot every year that would be used for a lot of different things in the city. for us and for our industry, we would be thrilled to have another hotel and a hotel n is a new brand coming into our market. we ask that you support this project. thank you so much. >> thank you, mr. carroll. >> hello. good afternoon, commissioners. cassandra costello from san francisco travel. i'm here representing 1,300 business partners and serving as the voice of the 25 million visitors that come to san francisco annually. we're supportive of the hotel at 72 ellis. it's really a unique, great location for this hot hotel.
it's right in the heart of downtown. close to transit. it's an unique offering to offer to our diverse array of visitors and their needs. this is something different for them and will compliment our existing room catalog. additionally, we have our incredible mosconi renovation done. we're starting for 2019. we're really excited about this possibility. we hope to have your support today. thank you. >> thank you, ms. costello. >> good afternoon, planning commissioners. my name is karen flood. i'm the executive dreck of the union contrary improvement district. we're here to speak in approval of this project. it falls within the boundary of this project and the sponsors came to us in outreach and to
submit our plan. we're supportive. a hotel the wonderful in our tourist district here. it's a parking lot now. as cassandra mentioned, it will welcome a new type of traveller, maybe younger, tech savvy. there's smaller rooms, communal spaces. so the only issues we had were just more operational issues. we're very sensitive to construction down in union square. we've been living with the central subway since 2012. anything around delivery vehicles coming and going, dust, noise, we care about all that. the sponsors are well-aware of that. they've been working in good faith with immediate neighbors on ellis street. i believe they've reached some conclusions on that. we're feeling good about that. finally, just garbage issues. we feel about cleaning and safety issues in union square and making sure there's proper garbage management to keep that area safe and welcoming. we do support the district.
thank you for your time. >> thank you, ms. flood. >> good afternoon, commissioners. director tran. larry mizzola, junior, local plumbers union. i come here today to speak to you on this project on behalf of local 38 plumbers union and local 43 union and 144 sheet metal and all the other unions within the building trades that are represented on this job. we're here to tell you that we think this developer has really stepped up. we think this developer deserves to have this thing finally pushed through today. we had plenty of meetings with this developer, a lot of different discussions. my hat goes off to them. they really did their due diligence. they listened. they were able to see the big picture and change some things.
i'm happy to be here today to help get this project finally pushed through. the main issue to me -- and this was the early on stages of this project -- they may not want me to say this, but i'm going to say this. they wanted to de a modular piece. we talked to them about doing that. we do not want the job shipped offshore to other places, and they listened. they listened and they came back to us and we had multiple meetings about that. at the end of the day, they agreed that it's important to keep the jobs here, to keep the local codes intact, to keep local residents working on these projects, and that the true values of san francisco are being held in the highest respect with this project. so i'm glad they feel the same way we do. we really ask you to support this project today and get this thing going finally. thank you very much for your
time. >> thank you, mr. mizzola. is that it for public comment on this project? okay. so we'll go to commissioner moore. >> i assume the eagle has landed. this is the fifth time the commission is hearing this project. it's almost like 16 years back. i'm very happy to see that all the trade unions, et cetera, are all coming together to support the project. what is important is that there's no switch in architect. it has and was a solidly approved project that had support. i continue to support it, as i see it, for the third time. i think it is high time that this project is built. i regret that it can't just appear. i do understand that the entire citizens are tired of ongoing construction everywhere, but i think we'll take a deep breath,
and hopefully this will come out to completion very quickly. so i'm in full support and move to approve its conditions. >> second. >> okay. did you want to say anything further, commissioner? >> yeah. what strikes me most about this project is oftentimes we'll see something coming back to us that has deteriorated, if anything. so what happens is the longer a project doesn't go to construction phase, the materials degrade. certain agreements that were made the first time around aren't kept, and i frown upon that. it's nice to see this project come back after being in the queue so long that did nothing but improve. again, there's no displacement while building on this parking lot, not just the proximity to the central subway, but also the mosconian expansion.
and the letters we received prior to the hearing, compared to the lack of opposition, this is what we want to see. if anyone does have some heartache that the approval processes take too long and cost so much, i advise you to show up without opposition, and you will have a lot easier time. >> good for you. >> seeing nothing further, commissioners. there's a motion and it's been seconded to approve these matters, approve a two-year extension for performance periods. commissioner? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner richards? >> aye. >> it passes 4-0. close public hearing, grant the request for the exemption. >> commissioners, that will place us on item 14 for case
no. 2017. >> good afternoon. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization for a dwelling unit merger within the 248 residential building at 1177 california street between jones and taylor street. the project would merge approximately 1,400 square foot two bedroom two and a half unit with approximately 108 square foot one room, one bathroom unit. it would remove a wall to create a 3 bedroom unit. the unit would be occupied by the owners. in addition to the conditional use findings, the commission must also consider separate criteria outlined in section
317g2. although the merger would not remove a unit that's considered affordable as defined by the rent stabilization and arbitration ordinance because it is a condominium. the merge of two units would create a unit that's more unaffordable to a larger percentage of the population. the second unit was occupied by tenants between 2011 to 2016 when the owner completed a buyout agreement with the tenant. the agreement would go against our late mayor's directive that all housing should be preserved there. there northeast design deficiency. while it was entitled as a hotel, it was developed as a 254-unit condo building, meeting all code requirements when they were built. to, the department has received six letters in support of the project, and two letters in opposition, all of which have
been provided to you. after anal in addition -- after all analysis, it's recommended disapproval. it would result in net housing lost. it's unaffordable to the larger part of the population. once the units are merged, the there's little chance the city will recoup the lost. the project sponsor will be presenting. i'm available for any questions afterwards. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioner. i'm here on behalf of the project sponsor. he'll be speaking after me. [off mic] >> sorry. i just wanted to take a few minutes. i'm not going to take too much time. nobody likes to listen to attorneys. i've been around long enough to
know that, but there are a couple of points we see differently. mainly, they talk a lot about affordability when they're gong through the criteria, section 303, section 317. if you look at the language of both of those sections, affordability is actually not one of the criteria, yet that's the key factor they rely on. so we've walked you through all the legal arguments as to why we've felt that was not an appropriate criteria. they also talk a lot about there being no compelling need, which is also not a criteria under section 303 or 317. that set aside, contrary to what they may believe, our client does believe there's a compelling need. he'll share that a little bit after me. we feel from a criteria standpoint, when you walk through the criteria, when you walk through the findings, there's actually no findings that staff can point to in providing us a denial, but
there's support for our proposal. we request that you approve this. with that, i'm going to call the sponsor up. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is stan landfair. i'm the applicant and the owner. i have some visual aids here that would actually help me abbreviate this procedure and make it easier for everybody to understand. >> you can leave them right there, and we'll grab them. >> thank you. there's one for the commissioners, one for, you and one for the clerk. i can start while he's distributing. in 1968, i visited this city for the first time. i was 14 years old. my parents were on their way moving to the philippines. my dad was a naval officer. we spent three days here. at the end of three days here, i said to my parents, mom and dad, some day i want to come back
here. this is the greatest city. i want to live here. so in 1999, 21 years later, that dream came true. before you know, i would like to continue to stay true, i would like to adapt the two apartments i open to family needs so i can remain here, so i can retire here and so i may continue to be a good citizen of this city. if you will look at tab one, you will see two oak doors, 1015 and 1014. those are the two apartments that i would like to merge. they are literally that close apart. if you look at tab two, now, that's me and my lovely fiance. we intend to get married. we're co-occupying the units right now. we have difficulty taking use of the space. if you take a look at the picture. you will see me. that's my morning routine. i go from one apartment in my
bathrobe to the next one. look at the other one. that's the end of my day, i put on my bathrobe again, say good-night, and go to my apartment next door. why don't i sleep in the other apartment, you might ask? i hate to have to trouble you with my personal affairs, but i suffer from a sleep disorder called rem behavior disorder. i tend to get up and act out my dreams. it's hazardous to my spouse, to anyone who would sleep with me. we don't sleep in the same bedroom because of. that as i said, i'm sorry to trouble you because of that, but because of that, i sleep next door. this is how i get there every morning. eliminating that wall would give us some privacy. if you look at tab three, i hope you see the humor in this. that's me and elizabeth when i forget my keys. she comes and lets me in. if you go to tab four, you will
see this is the main apartment i live in, 1014. although it is a two bedroom, to be honest, it doesn't have much space. that's the living space period on that 8 by 12 rug. it was one thing to occupy that space alone, but now that we're a couple, it's cramped. it rules out room for family and guests. we're both professionals. we work at home. every inch of space is occupied. on the next tab, six, one very small bedroom with no room for any extra furniture. we're not complaining. knob hill is a nice lifestyle. we feel fortunate to live there. we have the space next door to live the life we want to live, grandchildren, it provides later
for a caretaker later in life, if that's necessary. we would have the space for that. if you look at tabs a through f, i've got some letters of recommendation from people in the community that i'm proud to know and proud to have backing me in this. the first, tab a, is from steven gomez. he's the president of our homeowners association. he's here today. he'll be happy to give you the histo history. tab b, there's a letter here i'm really proud of. reverend malcolm young. i'm not even a member of the church there, but he stepped forward to me to attest to my character, that he knows me, that he knows i can be taken for my word. he understands i would like to remain in this community as the good citizen that i am. he knows this on the basis of the work we've done together for various charity organizations
and in specifically i'm the acting president right now of the nob hill association. it's for the benefaction of huntington park. tab c, you will see a similar letter from the grand secretary of the masons who lives next door. and the remainder of the letters are from friends and people of influence in the neighborhood, including john challaci, the vice president of our board. a 30-year counsel to our board and a well-respected member of the association. both of these people will attest that if i say the purpose of moving here is not for a quick resale or profiteering but for my personal use because i want to live here and retire here, they believe me. they know that. last, you will see a letter from my closest neighbor on the tenth floor. i thought that might be relevant
to you since any construction, any bother -- there will be practically none, but he's here to testify it won't bother anybody in an unreasonable way. lastly, actually, there's one more letter from one more member of the board that would also favor this project. if we could go back briefly to the very first page, i addressed here what are the real issues. is there a loss of rental units? no. neither one of these units is available for rent. i own them. i've owned them for 15 years, and i would like to own them for another 15 years. it's the only place i live. i don't have a country home. this is where i live and work. is there a loss of affordable housing? not really because the lesser of these two is valued at $900,000. that's not the loss of an affordable unit. that's really not what the housing structure protects. there a loss of anything? no. both of these are my units.
is this desirable for the community? well, we can spend a lot of time talking about the value of three bedroom units, but i think family units are necessary, and i don't discount my family. my family would like to live and act as a family in that unit. i can see from your looks that i might be pressing time a little bit. >> just to wrap up because we're one minute. if it's possible, if there's public comment, if he can come back for a minute, but to point out, we did propose exhibits. he's willing to owner occupy the units once they're merged. that's his intent, he just said. his intent is to occupy and not turn this around for a quick sale. >> could you speak into the mic a little bit more. >> i know that's a sore subject, but this is not a merger to turn around and sale. if there's any questions, we would like to come back and address them in public comment.
>> this is the time. we may have questions, but this is the time to make your case. >> well, i learned only this afternoon that the former tenant is here and apparently wants to testify. i haven't seen any of the copies, but i want to let you know, as i said in the proposition, there was a lengthy buyout. i paid the tenant $21,000 for the privilege of having my home back, and she moved to the apartment next door. i think justice and equity has been achieved here and will continue to be achieved if i'm allowed to modify my units as i propose. >> great. thank you very much. we'll open this item up for public comment. >> in anybody would like to speak on this, you can line up on this side of the room.
>> good afternoon, everyone. my name is -- sorry. my name is wei. i'm the owner of the unit right next door to 1014 and 1015. so my unit is living room and a bedroom. the one bedroom is going to be removed, so when i bought the unit, i really wanted to make sure -- i work with my reel -- realtor to make sure it's next to the one bedroom apartment because this is an old building and it has poor insulation. i wanted to make sure i wasn't next to a large unit. with this current proposal, my unit would be right next to a three bedroom apartment that would host a lot of people and a lot more noises. given the current soundproof, it's not going to work for us and will affect my rental income. if i want to retire in that
unit, it's a beautiful building, it's going to affect me for the long term. and my tenant actually has complained in the past that she's been bothered by the noise right next door. so just imagine once the one bedroom apartment becomes a three bedroom apartment. my tenant will be suffering, as well as me later on. i want to present where i'm coming from, why i oppose this project. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, if there are any. go ahead. >> hello. i'm steven gomez. i'm acting president of the association homeowners at 1177 california street. i've also been an owner and involved with the towers since 1978. one thing, i've lived in the building.
there's virtually no issue of sound transference between walls of apartments adjacent to each other. we have had some issues with sound transferring from hard wood floors that were installed incorrectly above units, but not side to side. i have eve lived in the building -- i've lived in the building for that long, and i know that as a fact. second of all, there's been about six or seven of these mergers in the building, to my knowledge, and in all cases -- and i've served on the board many times -- we've been careful not to support mergers where people have been evicted or there's been some issue with a tenant. it's been for owner occupants who need more space, who are active members of our community, who we want to keep, you know, happy in the building, and for them to enjoy the space. i think this is an example of somebody who has contributed a lot to our homeowners association, and we would like to keep him in this building, and we think his request is very reasonable. >> thank you.
>> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i feel a little bit like marsha clark up against oj's dream team here. i live right directly next door to the unit that mr. landfair wants to combine. and we live in a 500 square foot very small unit, my husband and myself. it's enough. we don't need 2,000 square feet to be happy in. when i was a tenant of mr. landfair next door, he wanted us out of here, and he harassed us with legal documents and served us with papers and raised our rent exorbitantly until we finally couldn't take it anymore, and we did move next door. mr. gomez said that there's no noise transfer. the walls are about 4 inches thick. trust me, there is noise
transfer. mr. landfair fancies himself neil diamond, and he place an acoustic piano and sings regularly. when we lived next to that 4-inch wall, he had the piano right up against the wall. i have my own interior design business, and i work a lot at home. i can tell you that the noise from his singing and piano playing was more than annoying. so i'm worried that with this constructi construction, there's going to be more noise. when construction has happened in that unit, the building rules say that you can work from 8:00 to 5:00, and we've had to have the doorman come down at 7:00 at night to shut him down when he was installing carpet because they weren't done. so mr. landfair plays by his own rules, and i'm just really not looking forward to what we're in store for when he starts hacking away at that unit.
i believe that in the long run, he's not just going to take down the wall between the units. then he'll start remodeling the parts that are right behind the mutual wall. and for that reason, i oppose. thank you so much. >> thank you. any additional public comments on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment and open it up to commissioner questions and comments. >> so i see no reason to go against the staff recommendation, and i would support it. >> could i just ask planning staff a couple of questions on this. one, is this a condo? >> yeah, it's a condominium building. >> so what's the rent control? >> it's not subject to rent control because it's condominiums.
>> we had one similar to this a while ago. we implemented a condition that it would revert back after it was no longer owner occupied. i think we actually had this continued, and the city attorney put that language into the approval, which i don't see here. i know there was some discussion about it. i mean, that's -- i couldn't support this long-term, but i could support it if it was similar to that project we had before, the condition that it reverts back when the current occupant is no longer using it as their residence. >> if i could jump into the record here. deputy city attorney clifford jenson conditioned the approval, go with the land, not the individual occupant, so the condition would have to state that the ability to divide the unit, or the separation of the units, reverted once the unit
was no longer owner occupied. it couldn't be specific to this owner. >> i thought we did that before with a project up on nob hill. >> on sale or occupancy. >> either on sale or at the point where it was no longer owner occupied. >> but we could do it at sale. >> we could do it at sale? all right. thank you. if we have questions, thank you. commissioner moore? >> it's difficult to judge on this because we rarely have two units owned by one where the owner really wants to stay. if we could create a condition by which it would revert on sale, then there would be nothing lost. >> commissioner richards? >> i'm happy to facilitate the
need to need the space while you live there, but it would have to go back to two units. >> the only question i would ask is we obviously have the dual kitchen here that we would not incur the second unit as they merged for the time that it's not being sold, that the kitchen is remodeled and removed, et cetera, et cetera, i think we want to mention the certain amount of sameness, except for the two spaces being joined for this family to interact in a way that's more purposeful for them. is that a condition that we could impose? that we do not really encourage any major remodel, kitchen removal, et cetera. in the end, when it's sold, it needs to be basically -- >> occupiable. >> -- occupiable by two parties again. >> the condition could include
that the units retain the defining features that would define them as separate units. >> great. you have the verbiage. wonderful. >> commissioner richards? >> i see the project sponsor, the applicant nodding his head yes. could you just say it into the record. >> well, we would put it as a condition. >> well, you're fine with that? >> i confirm that we would accept those conditions. we don't want to remove the condition or change the doors. the only change would be the removal of the wall. >> right. perfect. thanks. >> yeah. >> i move to approve with the conditions that the kitchen in both units remain as well as upon sale of one or both of those units, the units become two separate dwelling units again. >> second. >> a comment we heard other issues about noise and whatnot. certainly that's something you all should address as neighbors, but not something necessarily we have jurisdiction over.
>> yes, this would have to be a motion of intent to approve with conditions to include that the units retain independent defining features and that the merged unit be reverted back to two units upon sale. and we would need to continue this matter for at least two weeks, to february 8th. >> on that motion, commissioner copal? >> aye. >> commissioner richards? >> aye. >> commissioner melgar? >> no. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> that motion fails -- excuse
me. that motion passes 4 to 1 with commissioner melgar voting no. >> item no. 15. this is a large project authorization. good afternoon, commissioners, planning staff. the request before you is a large project authorization for a six story building. this item was continued from november 30th. the project site is a core lot at the intersection of bryant and 19th within the zoning district. the project proposes demolition of a one-story industrial building and a six-story mixed use building containing 60
dwelling units. there would be approximately 7,471 score feet of space. 2,500 square feet would be a limited restaurant use, operated as a culinary business restaurant accelerator in partnership with a community-based organization. the project would include approximately 4,800 square feet of open space, 64 class one i can pianoal parking spaces. the project would satisfy the requirements of the affordable housing program. it's required to profit 17.5% of the proposed dwelling units as affordable and the project sponsor has elected to voluntary 25%. the project has made minor revisions to the facade to
better define is recess around the brick facade. as part of the large project authorization, they're will -- since the last hearing, the planning department has not received additional correspondence in support or opposition of the project and the project sponsor has provided an update to their efforts since the last hearing. in summary, the department supports the project because on balance, it meets the goals and objections of the general plan, missionary plan, and the intent of the urban mixed use district. the project would add 60 new dwelling units to the city's housing stock, including 12 on site affordable units, and the project exhibits overall design that's compatible with the diverse character of the surrounding neighborhood. it meets all applicable code
requirements, noting the exceptions requested as part of the large project authorization. this concludes staff report. i'm available for any questions. >> good afternoon, commissioners. names jesse stewart with the project sponsor. thank you for the opportunity to present updates on our proposed project. we appreciate your hearings from the last hearing about the design and facade as well as asking for more assurance that the community benefits package would be implemented. to respond, we have add an miu by monica wilson to add to the benefit communities program for the mission groups for the develop. we've offered voluntary reporting reporting reporting to show progress and voluntary reporting is outlined in the miu. to further show our commitment to adding to the art program,
separating the new design, we've increased to 2.5 feet as well as other revisions to the building design the architect will go over in a minute. due to complications with getting a signed miu, we propose to instead have the 2,500 square foot changed to pdr to address comments. we are sensitive to the issues in the mission, and we've worked really hard to create community benefits program to help address concerns in a mission action plan 2020. we have received neighborhood support totaling 115 supporters for the project. our goal with this development is to provide 60 mixed use homes to the neighborhood as well as extending opportunities to students and artists. i would like to welcome the architect to review design. >> my name is steve perry with perry architects.
i'm here to address the issues from the last hearing. keeping the existing brick facade, the building was built in 1880. since then, the brick has achieved a very strong urban quality. that's why the neighbors have an overwhelming desire to keep the facade. so the question for us was: could we work with the existing facade but create a design that wasn't a representation or a meaningless decal. we felt this was a worthwhile effort, and we've created a beautiful building successfully integrating the facade. to achieve this, we focused on three strategies. first, we kept a strong connection to the interior space, which is nearly identical to the existing building. behind the facade here on bryant street, we have the same interior volume as before.
second, we created a recess across the second floor, which provides depth and distinguishes the existing building from the new, as you can see in this rendering at the corner. the recess is currently 1 foot 4, but as we move forward, we intend to increase it to create a stronger separation. and, last, we selected our materials very carefully to pick up on the richness of the existing facade but to also provide a contrast that emphasizes the brick. as an example, the dark metal panel we've selected will have deep contours with ease corners that speaks to the softness of the brick but will have a modern contrasting finish, framed with crisp edges at the alternating floor line and roof. we also worked with comments that the design could benefit with stronger horizontal
elements to ease the window progression. as you can see here on 19th street, we formed wider slab edges at the third and fifth floors, providing a stronger counter point to the vertical and a bolder roof line with an 18-inch projection creating an articulate determination at the top. i will leave you with the street view where the combination of the existing facade, the metal panel and mural come together to create a landscape for the project. i'm happy to answer any further questions. thank you. >> all right. so we'll open this item up for public comment. we have no speaker cards, but if people would like to comment, please line up on this side of the room. this is the second hearing on this, so we'll keep public comment to two minutes. >> before we start, i don't understand why our people are not allowed into the chamber bes
-- chambers when there's plenty of room. >> the sheriffs are ushering them in. >> we're going to take a quick recess, and we'll allow people to come in and sit down. >> and, also, there was a request for interpretation. so if we could have those persons in need of interpretation speak first, that would be efficient. [speaking in foreign language] [speaking in spanish] >> thank you everybody for your patience. we're back in session. >> good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, january 25th, 2018. i will remind the public that the commission does not tolerate
any outbursts or disruption of any kind. please silence your mobile devices. we've been requested and arranged for a translator, and they're available. if those people can come to the front, we'll be accepting public comment at this time. public comment has been reduced to two minutes due to this being the second hearing. >> we'll welcome you and you can spe speak. as space frees up, line up on this green side of the room. welcome. >> gracias. [speaking in foreign languag [speaking in foreign language] [speaking in spanish]
>> interpreter: sorry. thank you. i just want to say i'm very emotional being here today with everything that's going on in the mission. i want to say that, you know, i want to talk about, you know, mission street. it's a very important street for me. i want to say i was in mexico a few days ago. as i was thinking about it, all
>> interpreter: so i want to say this is a very emotional issue for me. i identify very much with the people who are here today with this issue. right now, you know, that street has been very important to me. i've been wanting to share it with my family. and, as a matter of fact, they came to visit me, and we tried to park around there because we
wanted to enjoy the street, walk around, but it was very difficult. and so we ended up having to go to another area, you know, and it's just -- i really identify with this street. i identify with the people there. i wanted to share that with my kids. i just feel that it's just a very emotional thing. [speaking in foreign language] -- >> her time is up. >> do you want to tell us? >> interpreter: it's just very painful to see what's going on in the mission district. with all the differences, changes, and stuff. >> thank you very much. >> interpreter: and also for the families. >> thank you. next speaker, please. [speaking in foreign language]
[speaking in spanish] >> interpreter: hi. thank you for taking to time to listening to us. my name is maria villas. [speaking in foreign language] >> interpreter: i'm in outreach for the families there in the mission. [speaking in foreign language] >> interpreter: every day i see the drama that the families are living there in the mission. [speaking in foreign language] >> interpreter: all these construction sites are coming to construct, you know, very eloquent buildings. [speaking in foreign language] >> interpreter: i say largely because none of our families are ever going to be able to live in any of those spaces.
[speaking in foreign language] >> interpreter: i wouldn't even be able to afford it working 24 hours a day. [speaking in foreign language] >> interpreter: so we're here asking for your support. [speaking in foreign language] >> interpreter: the mission is dying. we need all of your support. [speaking in foreign language] >> interpreter: so this is all against ourselves, our people, our culture, and we need your help. we're dying here. [speaking in foreign language] >> interpreter: thank you very much. >> thank you, ms. villas. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. how are you? >> good. >> thank you for giving us a moment to speak about this
development here. i was born and raised in san francisco. born and bred in the mission. over 10,000 people have been displaced in our neighborhood. people keep building luxury condos, luxury units for a population that's moving in to our neighborhood that we have built. this, what we're calling the baby beast is one of those projects. it's up to you to help us not let this happen. i have a family of four. i've been displaced out of san francisco. i can no longer live in this city. i spent a year and a half in a studio with my two children to try to find a place to live in this city. i haven't been able to find one.
and yet we still have luxury units being built in our community. what's going on? just because you put a mural on the side of a luxury building doesn't mean people in our community can live in that building. i don't care that they put a mural on it. i care about living in it. so just because you put a facade that has a mural of brown people in the revolution, but yet you can't put people inside the building. what you doing? you represent us? you represent the people. do your job. that's people haven't come and sat at the table with us. they haven't sat down at lacocina to say we can have a business downstairs that helps
all the senoras that make food for us in the community. >> your time is up. >> give me a minute. >> sir, unfortunately we have to give everybody the same time. so thank you. >> all i'm saying is do your job. we're here to tell you to do your job. we're still in this community, and we want representation from you. we want you to do your job. help our people. there's people on the street. do your job. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. [speaking in foreign language] >> i was at the hearing you just had. you know what happened. we had 30 days to sit down with us. i didn't get a call. did anybody in this room get a call? >> no. nobody in this room got a call. we all came. you need to check them.
it's that simple. you know what? la cocina, they can't do it. they want to charge $4 -- $4? you guys. you act like you don't know what i'm talking about. they got high-end lawyers, high-end lobbyists. we're here to be free. we're here to work for free to represent the poor people. to represent the seniors for free. we're here to represent disabled people for free. we're here to represent the people for free. we don't get paid $500 an hour, $1,000 an hour. you know, you, all of you simply just asked them to sit down with the community and work it out. we're reasonable people. you all know that. am i correct, director? are we reasonable people?
he's shaking his hand. they didn't do that. that's bad faith. total bad faith. i don't understand it. i don't understand it. so today deny them. teach them a lesson that just because they have high-paid lawyers and high-paid lobbyists, that they can't just come into a community and do whatever the hell they want, especially at a time we're in today. we're in a crisis. a crisis. for the last five years, we've been in a crisis. we keep coming back and keep come back -- coming back to you. it has not gotten better. it's just gotten worse. today, let there be justice. >> thank you, mr. hernandez. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i just wanted to speak on behalf
of the community and say the last time we were here, we did get a commitment that these developers would come to table with us, sit down with us and talk about more concrete plans than just the vague promises they provided at the last hearing. to date, we have not had a single meeting with them. they've now fallen through on their deal with la cocina. we have a vague promise of pdr, at what that's going to be, at what price point, we don't know. is that actually going to be a pdr space that's going to serve the local community that's going to be affordable to local communities, serving business owners? probably not without a concrete commitment. today we've received no concrete commitment for the pdr space or greater affordability. also, there's way too many parking spaces we know there's going to be a flood of ubers and lyfts coming in. not the mention the additional
vehicles that are going to be parked on this building that already should be a quiet neighborhood. so what we would like is stronger commitment and a good faith attempt to sit down at the table with the community, discuss the plans for this project, and work in good faith to come to a deal that's going to not benefit only just the developer and the higher income wealthy affluent people coming in and utilizing those new buildings but help the community that's existed here for decades. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is tim wong. i'm a worker at the commuter services. i'm here to implore you to listen to the community unless you live in the community, you don't know what's going on. public comment has a space for us to tell you how we feel. right? so, you know, i know this
happens every time. we always come up here, and we talk about a development that's coming up, and we feel that the community is going to be hurt by it. and if you think that we need more housing, which is true, the community knows what's best for them. you can't be patronizing. you should really listen to us. we need more pdr work space. we need things people have mentioned for us. especially in this political climate, how are you going to go back on the people? we establish ourselves as a sanctuary city, but, you know, is it a sanctuary city for whom? with all these evictions going on, it takes a big mental toll. so if we really want to do the right thing, there's got to be a place to start, and it's got to be now. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
>> hello, my name is patricia ing. i was wrongfully displayed from 24th and harrison. i invited hillary ronen to 400 mcallister when they were illegally displacing me. she never showed up. again, ratco dropped the ball. i've been throwing big, big barbecues. in fact, some of you probably went to the barbecues in front of my house. we've been throwing them for years. roberto hernandez, mitchell salazar, eric, everybody goes there. i'm sure you guys eat your burritos in the mission too on 24th and harrison. my sister's mural is on 24th and harrison. well, that building is not even sold. just found out that the people in the top units are still there. they displaced me.
i was under rent control. my parents moved me in (foreign language). they moved me in when i was eleven, me and my sisters. unfortunately, we don't have that home anymore. we've been throwing thousands and thousands and thousands of barbecues throughout the years. i'm still going to do it. i'm still going to do it, but what i'm saying is it's wrong. now i'm in a shelter. nobody knows this. i'm in a shelter. they sit you in a chair, and i'm doing it just because i want to do it. i got a job. but i'm in a shelter. you're sitting me in a chair from 9:00 at night to 7:00 in the morning. there's not even a shower. we have to run across town to shower. we have to run across another part of town for lockers. i'm seeing what's happening. it's bull crap. my family are the quadrants of
the herreras and we're very well known in the mission district. you know what? this has to stop. you have to have a heart. i know for a fact that there's really no apartments that are to be rented. right? >> ma'am, your time is up. >> thank you very much. >> all right. >> appreciate it. next speaker, please. >> my name is rafael picasso. born and raised in the mission district, and i can't afford the mission. that's a shame. i grew up here. i work for the city. i make decent money. do you think i want to spend 3 to $6,000 on rent? that would take my whole paycheck all year long. it would put me like the lady that was just speaking, on the streets. it doesn't matter if i make