space and two preferred -- to preserve views. it sets up a pattern which allows some flexibility. on the left and on the right, 13 towers. we analyzed the visual impact and the affect on parks and open space. this gives you an example of some of that flexibility and specific controls to maximize sunlight and of the use -- and views. chairperson mar: supervisor weiner? any other questions? is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? i have one card from libby.

if there is anyone else who would like to speak, please come forward. three minutes. is thomas lipp here? if not -- >> thomas lippe represents lippe and wagner. we are one of the appellants of the environmental impact report. mr. lippe had to be excused to work with his colleagues. with regards to tomorrow, he asked me to make the following statement to you. the city attorney interprets the administrative code as allowing the committee to oppose this public hearing and forward this matter to the full board without a recommendation. our attorneys disagree.

closing is public hearing and forwarding this matter to the board is considering the approval of the project, because it indicates you have reached a closure on this part of the process. this is a matter i think our attorneys will be revisiting with you at some point in the near future. i have materials here for the district attorney. i have also materials for the board members here. supervisor weiner: i am just curious. if we don't forward it to the board, what are we supposed to do with it? >> the proposal would make is that you table the matter until tomorrow. typically, no action is taken prior to the appeal being heard by the board. then the clock starts again and that process moves forward. it is unusual in this process

that we have moved forward while an appeal is pending. supervisor weiner: i understand now and disagree. we routinely consolidate all matters into one hearing before the board as a matter of efficiency and the convenience of the public, so people do not have to show up multiple times. but thank you for the clarification. >> our experience with the shipyard was slightly different. as i mentioned, our attorneys will revisit this with you later. i am here today to urge this committee to vote no or table the matter until the treasure island eir has been heard. for the last 27 years, we have done our best to help the city understand the complexity of this process. i have stood before this committee of the board on numerous occasions over those past 27 years to urge caution when the mayor's office wanted to press ahead for reasons that

may in retrospect seem unnecessary. i warned the city that the 1994 memorandum of understanding with the navy was voided because the navy was withholding information on toxic contamination. in 1999, we want the city not to lease a building of the shipyard because it sat on top of a pcb dump. mr. cohen argued we should move forward with it. the dump broke the surface and burned from august until april 2000. it caused ongoing cleanup for the next 10 years. we have worked very hard to assure you understand this. in response to comments, the

city has stated that the navy has accepted responsibility for all the debris found on treasure island, including that related to incineration site 12. on the other hand, article 12 of the economic development conveyance -- i am going to jump ahead. chairperson mar: i would like to ask you to simply try to wrap up, if you can. >> if you look at article 21, the navy says something very different than that. we have a number of cleanup projects on the island. this product is unstable, with many unknowns. we are concerned these will vastly modify the project proposal. thank you very much for your time. chairperson mar: thank you. is there anyone else who would like to speak?

seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, the item is before us. i would like to know if there is a motion to move this forward as a committee report to the full board without recommendation. supervisor weiner: so moved. chairperson mar: without objection. thank you, everyone. please call the next item. >> resolution urging the planning commission to incorporate the policies and objectives of the western soma community stabilization policy and community plan. chairperson mar: we have a guest from planning. >> good afternoon. ms. rogers from the planning department. this resolution has not been sent to the planning commission. only the ordinances are sent to

the planning commission, with a 90-day hold. the department is concerned with the task force. we agree that balanced development is of the utmost importance. the general plan has policies that encourage a balance between affordable housing and market rate housing, as well as a balance between jobs and housing. that said, the department has concerns about the proposed message to reach that balance. before you is a resolution that relies on the community work, with a rigid emphasis on new development. this may bind future planning commission or board members from using their discretion to approve what could be potentially a beneficial project. removing that discretion would be a dangerous precedent. a growth ordinance was found to be invalid by the courts. establishing strict controls in

such a small geographic area could be problematic. consider the size of western soma and the need of affordable housing, as you have been doing. to give a desired 30% affordability in this area, this area would need to see not only inclusionary housing but project with 100% affordable housing. as you know, these 100% affordable housing projects need to be of a certain size and height to be viable and secure funding. we would like more time to study the parcel size in this area, as well as the parcels likely to be developed, and see if there is even enough room to build the needed affordable housing. the small size is not the only potential barrier to help the growth. also, the boundaries here are arbitrary.

the boundaries of western soma do not reflect actual neighborhood boundaries. the boundaries are a result of negotiations and lines split through blocks, zoning districts, and streets. chairperson mar: i should mention that we are joined by supervisor jane kim, sponsor of the legislation. after you are done, we will invite her to comment. >> lastly, this metering is contrary to the mechanisms of proper -- prop m. this major's office development citywide, which is more appropriate -- meters office development citywide, which is more appropriate. instead of legislating the metering, we would prefer something along the lines of,

"the board would urge the planning commission to consider the goals of the western soma task force with an objective of balancing affordable and market rate housing." if not, we request more time to study the issue and discuss alternatives with the community. the director has a meeting with community representatives on june 14. therefore, we would respectfully request a continuance of the resolution until that meeting. chairperson mar: thank you, ms. rogers. supervisor kim: thank you for including me at your committee meeting. good afternoon. i am sponsoring a resolution urging the planning commission to incorporate the western soma community plan and the objectives of the community stabilization policy accepted by the task force in 2009. this is why my office is

involved. the central market revitalization and attraction of businesses sparked a conversation on how to do development without displacement. the reason there was an initiative around the tax exclusion to attract new businesses to the area has created a spirited discussion. the south of market and western soma area has evolved to become a vibrant mixed-use and mixed- income community. this pattern of development, which developed organically, is the type urban planners are attempting to replicate in developments across the city. a summary of the main points of this policy. the community stabilization policy looks at historical development patterns over the last 20 years and articulates a policy to make sure this balance is maintained as the area undergoes development.

this will stabilize the area against speculative land-use proposals and commercial development. the rate of a portable development in this neighborhood is close to 30%. -- of affordable development in this neighborhood is close to 30%. this proposal is more conservative and asks for 50%. development will be delayed to future calendar years. it has lots of language setting appropriate jobs and housing mix. this policy of support from the tax -- task force, which has been meeting for seven years -- we are currently in the eir process. this plan will be coming to the board next year. this is a symbolic resolution in advance to show the board picked support for the stabilization policy -- to show the board's

support for the stabilization policy. if the chair allows, i would love the chair of the task force to speak of the process from his perspective, so you can hear more about the membership that has been involved. this has been a long discussion over a long time, with input from the community. this is a policy i support. that is why we brought this policy forward. chairperson mar: can i just explained, to those of us who do not know the boundaries of the area -- it looks like mission street to brian between 13 -- to bryan between 13th and 7th street. it is like these two-lot areas connected by -- two-block areas connected by 7th street.

>> the policy does exclude large development in areas over 1 acre. -- supervisor kim: this policy does exclude large development in areas over one acre. we are only asking for a half of the below market rate development. i do not know if you would allow the chair of the task force to speak. chairperson mar: without objection. mr. meko? >> good afternoon, jim meko, chair of the task force. thank you for your time. this policy replaces an earlier policy of citizens' review, which originally put a housing

cap in place which would have limited housing production to 100 units. that never was able to achieve a majority group -- majority vote in a diverse group of people. we took a second crack at this and sat down with spur and many other people. this is the alternative to the original housing proposal. i see my friend and tim -- my friend tim cole waiting in the wings. we said in this policy you can build all the housing you want. the blood probably rush so much to his head he did not hear the second half of that sentence, which is, "as long as you do not mess up the historical balance of affordable versus market rate housing and do not drive jobs out and turn this into a bedroom community."

what you are looking at today is four lines that would appear in the proposal for adoption that is going to the planning commission and then will be before you. that policy reads "establish a community stabilization policy based upon the planning principles adopted by the western soma citizens planning task force in order to maintain the historical balance between affordable and market-rate housing and assure jobs are not pushed out in favor of more residential development." chairperson mar: a supervisor has a comment or question. supervisor cohen: if you would finish your sentence. >> that is all that appears in the plan. then i was going to go through the steps that go beyond that. i can finish that thought,

perhaps. supervisor cohen: please do, yes. >> when the plan is presented to the planning commission, it will also have an accompanying implementation document with simple policies the planning department will simply say. do not allow this or that. we have made a commitment that between now and when the policy is adopted by the planning commission we will work out the details of how this policy will work. to the best of my knowledge, the director is looking forward to having that conversation. i do not think we are that far apart. your question? supervisor cohen: your last part was? >> i do not think we are that far apart.

if the housing committee can recommend 64% affordable housing, 50% is possible. supervisor cohen: in the short time i have known you, i have found you to be a reasonable man. i was going to ask if you were a willing participant in the june 14 meeting coming up with the director. >> yes. that is june 13. the task force, i often say, works in partnership with the planning department. this represents the director on the task force, and represents the director through the process. we work closely with the department of public health and the transportation authority. they have representatives. supervisor kim has several on the task force as well. supervisor cohen: could you may

be articulate your thoughts of this body continuing this request? >> i am sorry? supervisor cohen: do you have thoughts about this but the continuing this resolution until after you have a meeting? >> we do not have the authority to make any changes. the task force is set up as a 26-member body. we can hear his thoughts, but we cannot rewrite the stabilization policy. that would require committee meetings and a vote by the task force, which would drag this out for several more months. thank you. chairperson mar: it seems there is the language ms. rogers suggested. healthy balance, i think was the term. i would like to know the political implications of that,

from what the 26-member task force came up with versus what was proposed by ms. rogers and the planning staff. that would be helpful for me to understand the difference between healthy balance and the existing language. >> with all due respect, they do not mean anything. chairperson mar: did you say weasel words? >> i don't mean anything. -- they don't mean anything. the director did not want to be tied to the background language. that is an evolving document outlining how we think this could be accomplished. the point of this resolution is that currently the balance of market rate to affordable housing -- people are producing 38% affordable housing,

historically, over a 20-year period. historically, our housing balance is 7.85, i believe. if the plan is adopted, it projects a 6.6% rate of jobs to housing. if the plan is not adopted, it would drop to about 5%, or a five-to-one ratio. we are asking that if affordability drops below 30% that would trigger the process. if the housing rate drops below 6%, that would -- if the jobs- to-housing rate drops below 6%, that would trigger a conditional use. i cannot change this in one

meeting. we are going to be having an interesting conversation over the next year. this is the first neighborhood plan coming before you. i know you have had some big one-of developments, but this is an entire community. the western soma task force is your creation, a creation of the board of supervisors. a few years back, when the planning department was trying to resound almost a fourth of the city in -- rezone almost a fourth of the city in a process called eastern neighborhoods, south of market pushed back. we were not a post-industrial abandoned area. instead, we were a vibrant mixed use neighborhood. we werere- zoned as recently as 1990 -- we were re-zoned as

recently as 1990. that was the first real mixed- use zoning the city had seen. it worked very well in many ways. in other ways, live-work and business services, it was a failure. the eastern neighborhood process was top down and tried to impose a one-size-fits-all set of zoning rules on practically a fourth of the city. western soma pushed back. planning agreed and removed as from the eastern neighborhoods process. we worked closely with the board of supervisors and created a much more democratic process, which was intended to write a new community plan. that is where we are now. we completed our work in three years.

it has taken another three years to get this eir off the ground. in the meantime, we have taken on the role of an implementation body, something we anticipated but did not know we would be doing for this long. it has been about seven years since this was first drawn up. planning has not served south of market well over the past 20 years. a lack of infrastructure. inadequate attention to the sighting -- siting of incompatible uses. this placement. in 1990, south of market had a total of 9757 housing units. over the last seven years, that has grown past 17,000 housing units. that accounts for more than 27% of all the growth city-wide. the addition of 3000 to 4000

more units, as anticipated, would seem to be more than doing our fair share. we will support increased residential capacity in the community plan in exchange for a guarantee that the historical balance between of portable and market-rate housing and the jobs-housing mix is preserved. the board has to be sensitive to the impact of the decision it makes. some recent ones will potentially spill over to the tenderloin and western south of market, the revitalization of market street, the central subway process, and economic incentives to bring in new businesses. they all have consequences. every planning effort to date seemed to put off the hard decisions about affordability and jobs. inevitably, they leave it to south of market to provide a solution.

you might say why are you concentrating on this little sliver of land. because of the end of the road. market octavia did nothing. eastern neighborhoods tried and failed. in the end, the solution comes to what can solve the -- what can south of market do. we are the jobs solution in the eastern neighborhoods eir. they essentially said western soma will take care of it. this provides a balance of growth and residences. we might be better off leaving the existing zoning in place. it is not bad. but our support for this plan is predicated on acceptance of our 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