special code provisions that western soma wants to apply to all of the districts in western soma. i just want to take a moment to highlight a few of those code issues that will be part of the code update. first of all, there are several what we call large sites in western soma, half acre or larger. some are multiple acres. those are proposed to be split zoned in terms of height. you have your basic planning code requirements, but if you go above that height, you will trigger a conditional use, and there'll be other trade-offs. things that more affordability required, findings having to be made, it to mitigate or reduce land use and sex between different types of land uses

within the proposed development and adjacent developments. and preferably a way to have more of the impact fees used on site through in-kind agreements, and especially for open space. there is a real dearth of open space within soma and western soma specifically. we already have the concept in use in south of market right now with some of the districts in terms of higher heights given further trade-offs. it is not completely new, but we're trying to take it may be to another level we talked about the red's, residential enclave districts. their typical residential and very small, narrow alleys. those will say -- stayed the same. but it will be extended. there'll be more alloys that become zoned red, but also red

mixed. maybe the alleys are a little wider or they already have a little bit more of a commercial or mixed field. some might be appropriate on those alleys to have slightly more permissive code for commercial uses. so that will be an interesting new district. also, for these districts, we will continue to the concept of the first, and that will be for entertainment uses -- the concept of buffers, for entertainment uses end animal services. there could be potential issues with this, so we try to include adequate buffers to help resolve those issues. also, the development at 9 was a good example of where it was originally proposed to put the curb cut, which a lot of times

we encourage on side streets are the back streets. but that is not what they want in western soma. they want to preserve the owl is, because their narrow and easily affected. they want to keep them pedestrian nature. they do not want a lot of traffic on their they can help the. we worked on that project to help them to the curb cut to ninth street, and it actually worked out really well. one of few projects or the sponsors actually said thank you. we hate to admit this is better this way, but it is. those are the kind of things we want to do. the penny on the uses, there will be limitations on corner sites to these red and red mixed alleys, having curb cuts on the alleys themselves because of traffic. similar to neighborhoods in historic buildings, it will be a little more liberal with where office is permitted.

and except for, again, the district south of ocean street, there is no office except for a historical building. one interesting events between the existing muo and the wmuo is that in each neighborhood, you can also have residential. but in western soma, we will not permit residential. it will be much more focused on office and non-residential development. one last thing to point out is entertainment uses. again, this will become sallie for the arts. it has lots of entertainment, even beyond the arts. nighttime ithe entertainment. there will be the residential, is a prime area for more entertainment uses.

then the issue of texas reader to me, which has been addressed in other areas of the city recently, it would be proposed that accessory entertain it would be permitted in the folsom st. nct, to add a little life to that street, with it being the main street of western soma. >> thank you. >> well, thank you very much. thank you so much for sitting through two informational presentations on the plan. no, the board of supervisors, which is currently elected by district, this commission, which shares split appointments between the mayor's office and the board of supervisors and the western soma citizens planning task force, are all basically

the result of the excesses' of the 1990's. we had a planning commission and the board of supervisors back then that approved housing where housing did not belong. we are responsible for a mix -- for creating a mix of incompatible uses that are still fighting with each other. it caused a great deal of displacement. the western soma task forces how the community responded. we created a unique partnership with 26 stakeholders from the community, with a good many educational institutions, such as san francisco state, you see berkeley, cal poly, and others, and the city family. the planning department, transportation authority, department of public health in particular, as well as the mayor's office of housing, o

gwb, and others. i hope you have enjoyed listening to all of the good things that are included in this plan as much as i have. it is kind of interesting to just sit back and take in what we have created over the last six years. a dramatic expansion of the residential enclave districts, which are really the heart and soul of the community. a folsom street neighborhood commercial district, a regional commercial district zoning along ninth and 10th streets. medium, large, and very large development sites will add a great deal of housing to the area. a sensible amount of growth in the context of a mixed use community for the entertainment industry. at the schnell attention to the needs of the arts community, -- essential attention to the needs of the arts community.

we have given you a plan that passes muster with the department of public health healthy development measurement tool. we have created social heritage districts, as you heard tonight, and ultimately we will be adding 3000 to 4000 additional units of housing over the next 20 years. in short, a complete neighborhood. the overproduction of market rate housing has created a job- housing imbalance. recent master plan development, including mission bay, bayview, hunter's point, shipyard, yerba buena island, treasure island will yield the balance with 30% affordable housing, including but inclusion airing and nonprofit affordable housing. a principal goal of the western soma community plan is to

ensure an mixed income community for the long term. since the 1990's soma redistricting was done, it has actually been 38% of the total housing units built. 38%, 707 units of affordable housing, out of 1862 total units of housing. therefore, the same 30% minimum standard for affordable housing development can reasonably be set as a community of said the goal for new residential development in western soma. data used in the environmental analysis for the western soma community plan shows that in 2005, a job that tells of a mix of 7.67-1. without the western soma committed the plan over the next 20 years, the jobs-housing mix

would drop to 5.8-1 as household growth is projected to outpace job growth in the neighborhood, what with the provisions included in the western soma community plan, the job- household makes is anticipated to remain relatively high at 6.6-1. we have evaluated the existing conditions and set forth metrics for the preservation of the historic balance of housing affordability and never the land uses that are proposed for use by the planning commission in evaluating product approvals and conditional uses. the soma communities stabilization policy is based upon two important components of the plan. i object of 1.1 reads build on an existing mixed use character. it encourages production the

residential uses in areas most appropriate for new housing, with a proximate mix of uses and services serving local needs and thereby developing a complete neighborhood. and that is followed by policy law and established a committee stabilization policy for the western soma special use district based on the planning principles adopted by the western soma citizens planning task force in order to maintain the historic balance between affordable and market rate housing and ensure that jobs are not pushed out in favor of more residential development. we have much in common with all this discussion that is going on right now about sb 375, the sustainable community strategy, and reasonable housing need allocation. the regional housing need

allocation is based on new methodology that directs more growth to existing urban areas and locations with jobs and less growth to the suburbs. the methodology also attempts to distribute low and moderate income housing units more broadly by taking into account existing low and moderate housing stock within the jurisdiction. builders are currently producing 50% of our regional housing deed allocation. low to moderate income housing, only producing 56% of the need we have identified. we are producing 300% of the upper income need that we have identified. the long era of pretended away or simply talking about affordable housing problems has been exposed and is being

seriously critiqued. whether through carrots or sticks, i think it is pretty clear we will see higher expectations on jurisdictions to produce results rather than just plans and policies. all that said, things may well change very soon under the game changing policy framework in the works at the regional level to comply with state ab 32 and sb 375, a climate protection and smart growth mandates. funding to cities may be tied to some measures of actual affordable housing production, so there is a real monetary incentive to achieve good affordability policy and having anti-displacement policies in place so overproduction of high end housing does not push out existing residents. i am hoping that we continue to

move forward together. the best thing about the western soma community plan is that it was developed in a unique partnership with the community, outside of institutions, and city family. the board of supervisors has urged, by a vote of 11-0, that you, the planning commission, ensure that policies to maintain the historical balance between affordable and market rate housing and the jobs-housing mix shall be incorporated into the western soma community plan. none of the good things in this plan are going to come about unless we work this out together. i look forward to continuing this conversation. thank you. >> thank you. i would like to open it up for public comment at this time. >> hello, commissioners.

my name is glendon. i am and on the western soma planning task force, a representative of jane kim's office. i have been a book -- unable to talk about the entertainment plans for western soma. it has hindered in cancelled or pesticide. we're trying to preserve and enhance and they're looking at heritage districts for gays and lesbians, so i wonder why we cannot have living heritage in this area. since we're changing the planning, especially on some of the major streets where we're not looking for residents, perhaps some entertainment would be allowed on these streets. i think part of the problems that happened in the 1990's and so on is definitely because we had a lot of development that is not up to code above places that are entertainment places. and the only recourse, the people who have moved into these

apartments, have is to go after the small business. i do not believe that that is actually something that is correct, and it damages these small businesses. and i believe that if we're looking at the heritage in the history and we're going into the 11th hour of planning, i think instead of saying that entertainment is not a proper use, i think that with proper resources and proper management, entertainment is a proper use for this district. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is seth, and i want to speak in appreciation and applauded the work that this commission has done. there are a lot of political groups in the city who wish to preserve their heritage. whether those are racial groups, cultural groups, are very flagrantly -- frequently

minority groups such as lgbtq. we have not had a conversation about other types of diversity around sexual activity, the oppression of people engaged in certain sexual activity, and the diversity of sexual expression we find in our city. you have before you an opportunity to start a dialogue about the rights and about the impression we have of people in various communities, whether we call that the leather community, the kink committee, sexual alternatives, the fetish communities. all these can be grouped into one, even though within the communities, there's a lot of diversity. what i hope you will consider in reviewing this plan is the opportunity to start a social recognition of a new organization that is recognizing

the diversity of sexuality in our community. and i appreciate your work in that direction. thank you. >> hello, good afternoon. my name is robert. and i have lived in western soma for the last 13 years. my daughter is 8 years old and was born in western soma. she goes to school here in san francisco. i work in san francisco, and the homeowner, and pay taxes. western soma is my home. but there's a large group of us known as concerned citizens of western soma, a web site, that do not agree with the majority of the things the task force that has come up with. our group of homeowners and business owners would like to see growth in the neighborhood of all kinds. not just affordable housing, not just special interests, but of all kinds. if you go to western summer right now -- to be good to western soma right now, several

areas have not been developed in eight to 10 years because of restrictions, constraints, and other areas, and there are restrictions after restriction after restriction on all types of development. there are some good things but a lot of things we do not agree with. we think there should be less restriction, especially in this economy, especially in this jobless environment. and we're taking this one area of the city that has been carved out of the soma area and are trying to restrict it. the task force is not made up of homeowners. is not made up of business owners. all of us live here. many of them do not live in western soma. please take that into consideration. also, i have one more point. that is, you'll see that there is a family vacancy on the task force. i was on the task force over two years ago. i was the family representative. i was told after a while -- i cannot make some of the meetings because i was watching my

daughter, that i would have to leave the task force. after this, it has not been filled. the family position has been open for two and half years. it you need to consider the interest of the people that live there, the business owners that work there, where there at night and during the day. it is very important to us. we want to see growth in all areas. thank you. >> get afternoon, commissioners. jeremy paul. and want to echo my support for entertainment uses and wanted to bring up something that is lacking in this plan. the existing entertainment spaces are largely non- conforming uses, non-complying with the zoning. that means that if those buildings ceased to exist, then that use goes away. that used does not continue with the site. many of our most valuable

entertainment resources in the district are in, generously speaking, structurally or physically threatened to buildings. buildings that have serious maintenance issues, serious structural issues, a different code issues. if someone were to be willing to make the investment to make some of these venues, take them down and build new buildings that would be more sound-containing, more problem-containing, have modern security devices and allowances for proper exiting, and more. we need to have a mechanism by which to transfer that non- conforming entertainment use into a new building if it is demolished. otherwise we are going to have the trove of leaving a few sticks are leaving a portion of

this dog standing and building a less satisfactory building for the entertainment needs of the city, and the new building will be much less able to meet the modern needs of the community around it as far as containment of its external impacts. so i would recommend that you look at the western soma plan and see whether there is a way to accommodate continuing the non-conforming uses beyond replacing structures. thank you. >> hello, my name is ray, and i own one of the properties on the 400 block of -- [inaudible] i admit i have a personal stake in this plan and what happens from a building it i am a native of san francisco.

i understand and support reasonable historic preservation. i have done historic preservation on a building that was commercial in the gallery. i understand the additional cost as well as the benefits of the historical site. i am really concerned about the city's historical survey process, and i have never had a response from the department regarding my questions or concerns on this subject under this plan. i hope you will receive my letter and attachment in advance of today's hearings. i included quotes and documents from spur, the eastern neighborhoods citizens advisory, tim kelly, a consultant. in my case, i learned of soma's historical survey by following the rezoning process. in my specific case, i found out about the proposed nine building

blocks and towns in a warehouse district. for my building, there's only one parcel. the survey found is properties -- [inaudible] industrial development in the industrial1910's and 1920's. there was not architectural significance for these structures. the lack of that also deletes the benefits and i could achieve in historical work for tax benefits. the buildings do not qualify for any tax benefits. the planning department's survey simply provided objective data and would save money for property owners. i find that totally ridiculous. i have been through the process. the department also concluded that 630 of the 1467 properties in the survey area constructed before 1962 were contributory.

a large percentage, meaning almost any building that is 50 years old has historic value. they only held one single community commit -- meeting for the soma survey when i was out of the country. [bell rings] in keeping with policy, i hired a consultant to redo the plant and find problems. the big picture, and adequate public outrage, negative impacts on environmental goals. survey approved by preservationists, and the findings are subjective. preservation says unintended social economic impact. city sponsored surveys contain inaccurate information and findings. [bell rings] >> thank you. >> commissioners, andrew. i usually keep a low profile and

not come before you, but i feel strongly about the survey process and preservation issues associated. first, i would like to acknowledge the amazing work done on the western soma rezoning, the time spent there. i want to address a few of the major issues with the soma survey and some of the other services that have come before. public notice. there was one public meeting, and this survey covered 2,000 properties, 1400 of which are 50 years or older. 630 properties being contributory. one public meeting. i have done two and three community meetings for one wireless antenna site. incomplete and inaccurate findings.

i know the city had to do a large area, and they were cash- strapped. but there have been -- the city has said, listen, they're providing indisputable historical facts to help property honor's going forward. i have been told, history is the history. on many occasions, the department and consultants are making important preservation assumption that the findings based on limited and inaccurate information. i argue that faulty and inflated preservation conclusions do this forces people to spend time and money disputing the flawed findings. surveys and findings are subjective and they have a real impact. the ongoing assertion was that they were providing objective and historic fact. as we know from north beach and

beyond, wise and caring people have strong disagreements about whether something rises to significant levels and how that plays out. these are not strictly objective because we are making conclusions and assigning historic status codes. do not just believe me, that is the conclusion drawn by the letter that was attached. it goes on to say may be some further analysis is justified. i agree that this commission can do two things, one is told a joint hearing with the historic preservation commission to rectifying the survey findings with the development and rezoning findings or have an independent study examined and have some folks who were not just preservationists' or

department staffers look at this in an evenhanded fashion. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i have been a resident and a service provider south of market and i'm currently working with the filipino american development foundation. the people around the world, especially if the immigrant population, are looking to work with this. this is very important. before, during, there was three in place. one was near chinatown which disappeared. the second was on fillmore. we grew up with african-