planning principles, a stabilization policy that implements those principles. i ask that you forward this resolution to the full board of supervisors with a recommendation. i would be glad to answer any questions. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. i would love to have public comment first. but i really want to point out again -- when you look at the historical rates, even in the years when we sought a housing boom that has been unprecedented in the city -- in 2001, where we probably saw the lowest rates of affordability being built in western soma, we were still able to build 39.4% affordable. since that boom, we have been building an average of 40% of portability in that neighborhood. i want to point out the

historical pattern in the neighborhood. i think this is a conservative measure in terms of what we can build in the area. i want to accentuate that this has been to a long community planning process prior to becoming a resolution to the board of supervisors. we still have many more months to hammer out the mechanisms of this policy before this comes to the planning commission and the full board next year. chairperson mar: thank you. why don't we open this up for public comment. supervisor kim: sure. i have three cards. tom berdoulovich, scott cueyper, and angelica kubande. >> i am the executive director of livable city. perhaps more importantly, i was

a member of the soma task force, code-share of the transportation working group. -- co-chair of the transportation working group. i am in support of this resolution. it is rare to see a groups say they are willing to seek unlimited density. western soma is increasing height limits along major streets from 50 feet to 65 feet. it is lifting density controls. this is a very pro-housing plan and a pro-transit plan. you also do not hear -- it is interesting that this was on the same agenda as booker t. washington. you do not hear a lot of neighborhood say they want to help fill affordable housing needs for the city. two-thirds of the housing we

want to produce as a city in the next decade needs to be affordable. they want some of it. that is rare. this really is an extraordinary neighborhood. i am always happy to see neighborhoods asking for more density. the other thing that have asked for is that they stay a diverse community. there can be unlimited development in this neighborhood as long as you are not erasing jobs. that is reasonable. they want to maintain the historic rate -- below historic rates of housing production in the area. we would encourage your support for the fact that it is good policy, but also in general. you can lock the whole

neighborhood down and create no change, which is what most neighborhoods do. the other option in the neighborhood is "we are not going to allow you to control any aspects of the process." i think the balance being struck here is a reasonable one. i urge support. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is angelica. i am here to ask for your support for this resolution to pass. from the payroll tax ordinance, i recall a presentation about the displacement issue and that western soma will take care of that. as you know, that plan has not passed yet.

this resolution will provide that leverage to ensure the community will not be displaced and there will be balanced growth in our neighborhood. sorry. i was running and i am out of breath. we feel this resolution and the plan itself is well thought out, well balanced, and has community input and different interests. therefore we really ask for your support and to continue supporting our neighborhood and not replace our existing community, and really balance out our community. we have a lot of new development in that area and want to make sure our community are able to live, work, and drive our

neighborhood without displacement. thank you. >> good afternoon. it was my distinct pleasure to attend the task force meetings. i fully and freely want to say there is much in the plan that is commendable. it makes great sense for the neighborhood. however, we are comfortable with the stabilization plan. it promises abundant unintended consequences to the city. to say we are going to restrict housing in an area adjacent to many of the job centers of the city, the task force was not successful in getting a 100-unit annual cap. this was the closest they could

get to it. it does not involve universal support. it sounds great. this language sounds really good. but the main point i would say is that it would set a terrible precedent for the city. language like this would be a dream come true for forest hills, street francis would come up pacific -- st. francis, and other communities that want to restrict housing. "we want to be able to restrict housing in our neighborhoods. we want that too." they are looking for ways to do that. we think this deserves a lot more time. it deserves a conversation with

the director. there is language that could be set up that would make a lot more sense. we think it is a bad idea. thank you. >> my name is scott quicker -- kueyper. i want to hone in on jim's advocacy. we have been a target for many large-scale housing developments. i hope this can help maintain the community. we are still set to develop a lot of the city's housing stock. we need to have a policy like

this. we need for san francisco to consider this in other neighborhoods. more so, what would be a useful part of the information -- i would like to propose the board create a report that all projects that are currently in the pipeline for the west soma area. this would provide a necessary tool for evaluating what the neighborhood is already becoming. these projects are entitled but have not had the funding to be built. we would like to see the shape of the neighborhood that will be transformed as a result of those. we would like to see the final stages of what is happening to the neighborhood, especially if we are considering ratios or balances. it is my belief there is a mandate to maintain a mixed-use neighborhood here. western soma and large parts

of the area are the heart of the arts and entertainment community in san francisco. i will approach you with other agenda items related to this as we finalize your plan -- finalize our plan. thank you for your time. >> in general, i do support jim meko and the task force and its objectives. i saw language today from the planning department and other language i could support. but i cannot support this the way it is currently written. in this town, you have immigrants and people without degrees. there needs to be a place for them in san francisco. they rely upon the business of the construction industry and the trades. as they work themselves -- their ways up, they become small builders.

imagine if you buy one of these sites and all of a sudden an imbalance was triggered. the rules change in the middle of the game. you submitted the plan for a code-conforming project. all of a sudden, they will not process your permit. who is going to make the payments for you? what banks will land on the site in which you are not guaranteed an entitlement process where there is a chance the process could stall? i have questions regarding the exemption for one-acre sites. why are the smaller builders going to be stuck? why are smaller buildings being punished by forces beyond their control? housing is complex. affordable housing depends upon federal and state funding. how is a small building going to have any say on what happens on the federal or state level? we are on the verge of a much bigger issue. there are ways of achieving many

of these goals and objectives, stopping projects -- the objectives. stopping projects and stopping the process is unprecedented. other towns may think san francisco is wacky. but nobody in san francisco has ever stop progress. the community goal is to come up with objectives and policies they would like to see implemented. but it is our goal as the development community to implement that plan and put those into a reality. this would undermine our ability to execute the western soma plan when it is ultimately adopted. thank you. a continuance would be great. i got a call about this this morning. i worked hard just to get a copy of what it actually says. this should be part of the agenda as well. this is where the details are. thank you.

chairperson mar: are there any other cards? any other speaker cards? if there is nobody else that would like to speak, let's close public comment. ms. rogers has made a request that this item be continued. can i ask supervisor kim to respond? >> it would not change -- supervisor kim: it would not change our position. the planning department has been in discussions with us. they know our position. i do not see how another meeting would make a difference. we have been in discussions for over a month. on the day of to ask for a continuance was a little surprising. i would have been more than happy to discuss this last week. today, i cannot support it. i would like this to go to the full board. this is just a resolution

supporting the basic principles of the policy that went through close to a seven-year community process. there was a lot of room for many people to interface with the community members impacted by the planning we do. i have a lot of concerns about what sean has brought uppe, concerns about small builders and developers. i would like large builders to be included in this. that is stop what came out of the community process. i would love to work with small developers to develop a mechanism of predictability. i would not want anyone to put their money on the line for a small property development and have it thrown away because of something they are not able to predict four or five years from now. i support as building community housing in the city. we talk about it. we talk about our general plan. we do not try to put in any

mechanism or tools to ensure we are building for all of our residents. there was a very important point that we want the city and neighborhood to be accessible to all people. i take that to heart. we want this to be accessible to all people, despite incomes, to be close to the center of san francisco. i think this policy pushes that forward. chairperson mar: supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: thank you, mr. chair. i support the planning process that is under way in western soma. i simply would like to see a more robust conversation between task force members and planning staff about the language. i believe the proposal that planning staff is putting forward is reasonable. i would support its inclusion. supervisor weiner: thank you.

i do want to thank everyone who spent many years putting this and other plants together for the western soma area. i have deep concerns about some of the aspects of this plan, as have been very articulately stated by the planning department and by other speakers. i am not sold on the concept of metering. i do not think it has been tried anywhere in san francisco, or anywhere else, to my knowledge. i am just not convinced. i am concerned it could have unintended consequences. i am also very concerned about the job metering. i understand the importance of a linkage between housing and jobs. but to define it in this area could create some distortions we

do not intend. when this comes to the billboard, i think it is highly unlikely i will support -- to the full board, i think it is highly unlikely i will support the resolution. however, given the sponsor wants to forward it to the full board, i am going to respect that desire. i believe we should forward to the board without recommendation. chairperson mar: let me ask supervisor cohen if that is acceptable. i believe you were saying you would support a continuance. i would just like to say i do feel like some dialogue and discussion with supervisor kim's office and the planning staff is something that should happen. there was a meeting mentioned. i would like to see some time for people to sit down and hammer this language out.

i think a continuance is something i would support. is there a reason why you would want this to go forward without recommendation, supervisor? supervisor weiner: i think it is more i am deferring to the sponsor. supervisor kim: can i respond? we have been meeting with planning for the past month. if you are asking us to have another meeting, we will have another meeting. but we will be coming back to you with the same resolution. chairperson mar: i guess out of respect for the autonomy and self-determination of the task force, i also think that moving it forward without recommendation is wise. but with respect to the supervisor whose district this impacts as well. is there a motion to move this forward? supervisor weiner?

supervisor cohen: ask for a roll-call vote. >> on the motion to move forward without recommendation. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor weiner: aye. chairperson mar: aye. >> we have two ayes and one no. chairperson mar: thank you. let me know which meeting -- this would go forward in the next scheduled meeting, but not this coming tuesday. so that is at least after, i believe, the meeting with the community-based organization and the planning staff. thank you. could you please call the last item? >> item 5, ordinance amending the planning code for parking in the south of market and mission bay district. chairperson mar: thank you.

ms. rodgers, were you going to present on this? supervisor kim is the sponsor. >> i would defer to the supervisor unless you would like me to summarize the ordinance before you speak. supervisor kim: i would prefer your preference. >> this legislation was originally introduced by supervisor chris daly in 2010 and i agreed to sign on as a sponsor in january. we have been working closely with livable city and neighborhood associations to develop iparking requirements.

this is intended to have better consistency with adjacent districts and to require non- hotel parking in the mixed use district adjacent to downtown, to maintain a fee structure which discourages long-term parking. i would like to thank the planning staff and our city attorney for their work on this ordinance. judy had to do a lot of last- minute work. we have met with several key stakeholders in mission bay, which includes the mission bay community advisory committee, the port, and the giants. after meeting with the stakeholders, we understood there was already a planning process under way. we have asked the planning department to remove any proposed modifications in this area until the process has been completed. so we have taken out certain

blocks. given this change, i have an amendment to make to the title to remove mission bay district from the title of this legislation, also striking it wherever it is referred to in the legislation. second, we had concerns from small businesses. this came to us from the small business commission about the requirement to participate in a transportation management plan. there was a concern this might unintentionally burden small businesses. this version has already included language that limits the applicability to larger venues and limits applicability to neighborhoods -- to neighborhood-serving retail. the last amendment i would like to introduce today is a little language change on the waiver of the off-street parking requirement for historic streets. we are just asking to insert

this language back into the amendment of the hall and delete page 36, line 20. it was originally in section m. we moved it to section q. we are asking that come back -- that to come back. this was after talking it through with the city attorney. chairperson mar: thank you. ms. rodgers, did you have anything to add? >> as you heard, this ordinance is -- was before the planning commission and month and a half ago. they recommended approval of the modifications the supervisor has put in. we appreciate supervisor kim's work on this proposal. in general, the legislation before you remove scar -- parking minimum requirements and establishes maximum limits.

it also requires that non- residential and non-hotel parking in districts adjacent to downtown maintain a fee structure consistent with a c3 structure that discourages long- term parking. in addition to making the amendments, the city has been rushing to make all the amendments to conform this legislation before you with other legislation this body has recently approved. there are six ordinances that have been approved since this was originally adopted. the legislation before you has been rectified so it will not inadvertently deleted and the recent amendments. -- any recent amendments. the commission recommends approval. thank you for your time. chairperson mar: is there anyone

from the public that would like to speak? mr. rasoulovich? >> thank you for hearing this today and thank you for bringing this forward. "we were trying to do with this legislation -- what we were trying to do with this legislation -- there has been a lot of rezoning. that left a bunch of holes in soma. there are areas with and acquited zoning. this makes them consistent with one another and the adjacent districts. this plan will change some of these controls. it will mean that any interim development is going to be more in keeping with the way we would like to go with the eastern neighborhood. the other thing it does is it removes a few catch-22s we put

in the planning code. there are things we say we want people to do like preserve historic streets, or we want them to retrofit. this allows a process to create exceptions. if a project owner wants to save a tree or do a retrofit and change the parking, there is an administrative process they can go through. it will help advance the other goals of the city and remove conflicts which create for project sponsors when they try to do the right thing. they can remove the historic tree if they want. but this will smooth the way for them. it is part of creating a livable city, a livable and walkable city. this will also make a lot of dwelling units in this neighborhood conforming. a lot of non-conformities put

tenants at list -- at risk. if you lose your house and, often you cannot rebuild that. -- if you lose your housing, often you cannot rebuild it. we urge support today for the ordinance and thank you for your time. chairperson mar: thank you. mr. collins? >> tim colin, here to speak in support of what the amazing livable city is doing. we like for this is going. for the record, the housing action coalition for a long time has said we favor the elimination of parking minimums. do not require it. put in parking maximums. we love housing, but wind up fighting about parking. the idea of making housing conforming and bringing rationality to the process, we

support. we urge you to move this proposal along. thank you. chairperson mar: if there is no other person who would like to speak from the public, let's close public comment. our city attorney. >> city attorney's office. after reviewing the proposed changes for today, it is suggested that we combine the best of these provisions regarding significant landmark trees. i would suggest a slight amendment that combines them to give context to the zoning administrator's decision. what i would recommend is that you retain subsection m that appears on page 36, line 20. add to it the following language, which was from the deleted section. you would have a new sentence that would say the zoning administrator's decision shall

be governed by section 307 sub i am sure require either the recommendation of the department of -- sub i, and require either the recommendation of the department for conformity to the plan. it combines those sections together. we will prepare this. supervisor kim: i am supportive of those amendments. chairperson mar: thank you. supervisor weiner: i would like to move the amendments that supervisor kim submitted earlier, including the amendment reticulated by the city attorney's office. chairperson mar: without objection. supervisor weiner: i would like to move the item with a positive recommendation. recommendation. chairperson mar: without