become sali. there are some alleys that have established housing. the existing [ho-fs/] cluster of zoning that we have is extended down to 7th street. regarding heights. much of the heights in the district are currently limited to 40-50'. you have one exception with the hall of justice and also much of the state property around the interstate is lower than 40' . there is some strategic upzoning proposed. this map for the proposed zoning, there are a lot of hatched properties and i will go into detail what those

recommend. this gives you a quick indication of the height changes. growth projections, we have existing conditions and current zoning and the proposed zoning. this is not a full-capacity build-out projection, but just a projection of the likely growth to take place over the next 5 -- 25 years. again the creme was not to create a whole new style of zoning or districts, but basically to plug into eastern neighborhoods and the no set

density rate per property size. instead you must meet other factors like dwelling use mix. two bedrooms or more and other physical controls and whatever you fit on the site is the appropriate density. there are minimum ground floor ceiling heights in most districts to allow for more gracious non-residential uses on the ground floor. parking maximums instead of minimums are already in place. there are a lot of very large blocks and they would be required for very large projects to which possible extend alley connections. we do have new requirements for non-residential open space. open space requirements for non-residential requirements and perhaps more importantly, in terms of impact fees, there will be no new impact fee for western soma. again, this will plug into the

existing eastern neighborhoods, the existing rates will apply. all of the existing processes and procedures will then apply to western soma as well. there are a few differences worth pointing out. western soma poured out of eastern neighborhoods do its own process and it would be expected it's not proposed to be exactly like eastern neighborhoods. some of the difference worth pointing out that in eastern neighborhoods, reduction of certain large developments is codified. in western soma, that is not codified and will be handled more under design standards. in eastern neighborhoods there is also opportunities for the zoning administrator. the wmug district, which is along most of the major streets

north of harrison street, if it has essential in the development would be required to have a rear yard at the ground floor. roof decks, while they can be provided for the use of new tenants, they would not be permitted to counted towards open space. there currently exists special use district for this process and that special use district will live on, but in the new role. it will basically take on the role that most other special use district now play, which is to provide additional controls, other than what exists in the underlying zoning districts for the properties within the sud. i will go over some of the more

important ones. major develop is a term that essentially refers to properties that are greater than half acre in size. the concept is that those properties are zoned with a split height. with a base height and maximum height. if a project chooses to take advantage of the additional height it triggers an automatic conditional use authorization. it also requires specific criteria to minimize conflict between different uses within the development. the idea is to encourage a mix of uses and not necessarily a mixed-use building or a group of mixed-use buildings. it may be okay to have some single-use buildings within the larger project. the idea that was discussed at the task force was taking western soma and putting it in a blender and what you would get is one of these major developments. so with those

major developments, if they take advantage of the additional height, the affordable housing and the residential impact fee rates basically convert to what is currently use the in the umu district and would increase to the tier b level in umu. approximately 12-16% and the residential impact fees would be reduced from tier 2 to tier 1 and that essentially amounts to 33% reduction in residential impact in fees. the commercial impact fees would be unchanged. so that rate would stay tier 2 if that was the tier designated for that property. >> mr. teague, i have some questions about that issue. >> sure. do you want to cover that right now? >> i can do it either way. would you prefer to wait until the end?

>> i will wait. >> thank you. some of the other controls located within the special use district worth mentioning are formula retail for conditional uses. there are very specific criteria how to handle formula retails and try to ensure that you don't get overconcentration. there is a recreational facility replacement policy and new definition created for recreation facility. something that does not currently exist in the code, if you have a non-conforming night-time, within the suded is you could reconstruct the building and replace the non-conforming night-time entertainment use. there is also the 200' bufferers around the rud red and red houses.

retail generally permitted throughout the district ept ask the for the residential enclave district. if it's a historic building they may have some retail. there are limits on the size and type of retail use, but generally no retail can be permitted that is larger than 25,000-square-feet in any district. office again is completely prohibited in the sali district, but it's principally committed within the wmuo. north of harrison street, they also have office. it's only permit in the wmug and red and

red mixs in an historic building. pdr uses are permitted in almost all the districts except red. heavy uses -- and then an additional height and to take advantage of the additional height in the sali, a project would have to devote one entire floor to an arts activity. regarding night-time entertainment, it's been that way since 1990. all of the existing night-time entertainment uses prior to 1990, the new code would principally permit night-time

entertainment uses in the sali and wmuo with exception of the folsom street corridor -- or the 11th district up to folsom. they are generally prohibited in districts north of harrison street. it gets to the issue of separating night-time entertainment and residential. generally speaking, night-time entertainment is prohibited north of harrison street. however, limited live performance would be permitted in the harrison street llp. regarding historic buildings and land use flexibility that they may have. it's not proposed to give any boeings within the sali or wmou

flexibility. in the wmug, rcd, red, red and mix, general all areas north of harrison street, the original proposal was land use flextibility essentially with business -- would only be permitted in buildings that are designated as article 10 or article 11 of the planning code. in the planning commission that was amended to include properties that are individually eligible. so there is a larger group of buildings that are able to take advantage of that provision under the current proposal. this just the map that shows all of the different colored properties, either blue, yellow, salmon or green. that under the current proposal

is able to take advantage some of land use flexible flexibility due to the historic nature of the building. originally the plan did not call for any grandfatherings or pipeline. when the planning commission choose to a project with longstanding application planning to build a residential project and created a pipeline provision to allow it to move forward. the issue came up with the academy of art project for the art tecture program at 601 brannan street and located in a sali, that does not permit

educational services. if that grandfathering provision is not included, that project would not be able to move forward either. here is a quick map showing the projects. so our knowledge there is no other significant project of that size that would have a need for grandfathering provision. supervisor kim mentioned the draft that you have before you, a few amendments are proposed and most of those are technical amendments dealing with references to sections and districts, or typos or inadvertent controls that were caught since the planning commission adopted their version. there are three others that are slightly more than that. one is that we did originally have some height districts with a b bulk designation, limiting the bulk above 50', that is proposed to be converted to x buck, essentially saying no bulk controls.

also most reds on major streets rather than the alleys have been proposed to be red mixed to give those sites a little more commercial flexibility, since they front on major streets, but give the interior alleys protection of the the one exception 245 11th street. and educational services was split in many districts to better regulate elementary school, secondary school and postsecondary schools separately. the planning commission also asked us to present information on the potential for legitimization federal program. in eastern neighborhoods there was zoning before that permitted office, but there are many projects that established office uses and it was an

amnesty program they were able to legalize under this program, but they had to get their permits and pay their fees. the problem is that in western soma, there are very few land uses currently permitted that will be prohibited. offices uses have been prohibited throughout western soma since 1990. the only caveat to that is work space of design professionals, which is a very unique land use in the code that is permitted within sali currently, that is a very prescriptive definition. not sure of how many of those currently exist legally, but to our knowledge no permits have ever come through to for that land use specifically, since it was put in place with the soma zoning. so that is the planning and zoning map -- planning code and zoning map amendments. very quickly looking at

implementation, there has been some discussion of impact fees. this list are the priority projects with their projects costs and based on project development over the life of the plan with the funding that may be available for those. you can see these projects are projected to cost around $92 million and impact fees are projected to come in at about $42 million. there are essentially three different buckets. one is open space and it's projected to generate $17 million. the second is transit, streetscape and the plan is projected to create $22 million for that. and finally community facilities such as child-care and library materials and the plan is projected to generate approximately $3 million for those. the administrative code amendment is very straightforward and essentially it's just amending it to again

plug western soma into the eastern neighborhood's process officially and to take the four non-voting members that currently are on the citizens' advisory committee and make them voting members. it's important to note, too, there are three specific components to the plan that were called for that are not part of the action in front of you today. special heritage districts, one filipino and one for the lgbt communities. the community stabilization policy, the very first objective in policy in the plan states there should be a community stabilization policy and to achieve as you heard from others a balance of jobs and especially affordable housing. but that actual policy that would be implemented is not in front of you today. that is something that will also be a trialing process in

legislation. and finally design standards, which i referenced in the plan and code are in progress and hope to be finished this year in time to dovetail with the plan adoption. and that concludes my presentation. i am available for any questions that you may have. >> thank you so much, mr. teague and i wanted to thank you. >> supervisor kim? >> thank you. and i want to thank members of the west soma task force for presenting as well. it says a lot that they didn't have any notes and just spoke because they knew the plan so well, because the number of years that it took, but also their dedication to the process. i know that there are a number of -- there may be a number of questions and i want to limit them, as much as possible to allow public comment and have more questions after public comment, but i know supervisor wein had supervisors wiener had questions and then allow members of the public to speak,

if they need to leave. >> i do have some questions for mr. teague. specifically as to the impact fee that i mentioned in the beginning that you covered in your presentation, where if a project goes above a certain size, there are changes to the impact fees, specifically affordable housing fees go up and other impact fees, including transit impact fees go down. can you talk a little bit about where that proposal came from? >> sure. i can give you some basic information on that and how it works. obviously jim niko and others

are here to provide more intent about the treatment of those sites in the process. the general idea is essentially those are large sites that can accommodate potentially a larger amount of growth. where having an additional floor may be valuable enough to, if you create an incentive like this, have this trade-off happen. as was mentioned affordable housing is a very important goal as are many goals in the plan, but affordable housing is incredibly important and these provide an opportunity to provide more affordable housing. not in a way that would not work and essentially make projects not pencil out that. is why the trade-off was given. the model for that is something that is already happening at eastern neighborhoods which is the umu district. all of the parts are that zoned umu have a residential impact

fee tier of one, which is the lowest, regardless of how much zoning the property received. instead the paying the city a standard rate for affordable housing or providing it, they are required to provide affordable housing on a higher tier based on the upzoning. so it basically works out to be same trade-off. >> and by the way, i completely agree with you, and with supervisor kim's comments in the beginning about how critical affordable housing is. and for that reason, not only did i vote to put prop c on the ballot, i was a cosponsor and actively campaigned for it, which will generate close to $1.5 billion for affordable housing. if you talk to affordable housing developers, they will talk about how i harassed them to put affordable housing in the area because we decent have enough there. i understand and agree with the critical need for affordable housing. and so typically when we add

new residential density, for example, going up to a larger concentration of residents say in these larger projects. that does place additional strain on our transit system. is that the case? in our planning code, that is how we typically view increases in density requiring additional transit investment; right? >> yes. >> okay. and and so here what happens is when you go above a certain size, in the affordable housing fees go up to the higher tier. transit and open space impact fees actually as well go down. and that become more or less somewhat of a wash for the developer in terms of the overall level of impact fees, is that right?

>> that is not entirely accurate. it is accurate in the sense it's a 33% reduction in residential impact fees and a 33% increase in affordable housing. but the actual cost of providing the affordable housing is generally understood to be more than the reduction in fee. >> so the overall impact fee level goes up, but not by as much as if you just increased one fee, right? so if you just increased the affordable housing fee period, that would be significantly higher increase than what we have here? because we're lowering the transit impact fee, open space impact fees, et cetera? >> so the scenario that you are describing, if i understand, that there is no -- there is no trade-off. it's just requiring more affordable housing without any reduction in anything else? >> correct. >> okay. and you are asking would that be more to a development?

>> right now, if we had simply said we value affordable housing. so we want to increase affordable housing fees, period. and we're just going to do that and not reduce any of the other impact fees, that would be a pretty significant increase in terms of overall impact fees for the developer, correct? >> yes, it would be an increase. obviously, the amount of increase of affordable housing required would come into play in terms of how much of an increase it would be? >> right. so in order to avoid that much of an increase, we're reducing these other impact fees, which include transit impact fees? >> yes, that is the idea. >> okay. now in terms of just understanding the amounts that we're talking about. i think that is very important. my understanding is that there are 13 sites in the plan area that would qualify for this

potential increase in size to the point it would trigger the reduction in transit and other impact fees? >> so there are only 18 properties that are actually zoned for this split height. but of those 18, five are definitely not going to be developed. depending on how you define a self-site, the maximum would be 13 properties available to take advantage of that. >> and we actually asked you for an example of the actual numbers and you provided us with 900 folsom street as one of the examples. and the numbers that we see here in terms of the transit and public realm improvements, for example pedestrian safety. it would reduce from 1.25

million to $836,000 for a change of approximately $417,000? >> that is correct. the example we provide sade d is a development that is approved and under construction. it was a good project to use as an example and pull the numbers from. those are the numbers that would be generated. >> so that is almost slightly less than $500,000 reduction in transit impact fees. if you extrapolate that out, times it by 13 and obviously different projects range in size. some might be larger than that, some might be smaller. i calculate that as being approximately a reduction of $6

million in transit, ped safety impact fees and it's actually an overall reduction of $13 million, including open space impact fees as well. about $6 million of that would come from transit and transit-related impact fees. >> the only thing i'm not sure about there is we would have to look at the development potential site. obviously the numbers used for 900 folsom is a large site , but we could do a more elaborate analysis of those sites within western soma for information next week. but for this week, such an

analysis wasn't quite possible. but based on those numbers, if you project that out, using 900 folsom as an example, those numbers sound accurate. again, if we converted those to the sites available in western soma, i think we would get a different number. >> maybe it's not $6 million, but $3 million or $4 million, but still in the millions. >> i'm sorry? >> i said whether it's $6 million or cut it about a third, $4 million or even in half, $3 million, i would imagine it's in the millions. >> potentially. it also depends if we're looking at a full-capacity. you know, if every project built to its full capacity, what would those numbers be or what are we projecting to develop over the next 25 years, which is generally when we do

and make it a more complicated analysis. >> it's a 33% reduction in fees related to transit and transit-related fees, correct? >> that percentage would be maintained on each project. >> okay. and where would we get the money to improve transit to accommodate all of these new residents who resumably are going to be relying on, it since we don't want them to own cars? >> as you mentioned earlier, we do have the transit impact development fees, which goes directly to transit and funded by non-residential development. >> so residential development doesn't pay that? >> right now that does not happen. in one of the slides that we looked at, one the three buckets, the open space,