>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee. my name is scott wiener. i'm the chair of the committee. to my right is supervisor jane kim, the committee vice-chair, and to my left is supervisor david chiu, a member of the committee. thank you to sfgtv staff, jennifer low and [speaker not understood] for broadcasting today's meeting. madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be completed as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will be on the march 12 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. and for members of the public who are wishing to speak on a

particular item, there are blue cards in the front. if you would fill one out if you haven't done so already, indicating the agenda item for which you'd like to speak, that would be helpful. madam clerk, can you please call item number 1? >> item number 1 is an ordinance amending planning and administrative codes, to correct errors, and make language revisions and updates; revise graphics to be consistent with text; amend fees to be charged for certain kinds of applications and appeals; clarify the meaning of certain planning code sections; and adopt findings, including findings under the california environmental quality act and planning code, section 302, and findings of consistency with the general plan and planning code, section 101.1. >> supervisor tang, who i believe or will be the sponsor of this legislation, has requested that we continue it one week. colleagues, if there are no comments, we'll open it up to public comment on either the merits of item 1 or on the possible continuance. is there any public comment on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we have a motion to continue this item one week? >> so moved. >> okay. and can we take that without objection? that will be the order. item number 2. >> item number 2 is an ordinance amending the building

code, and adding various sections, concerning seismic standards and making conforming changes; making environmental findings; making findings pursuant to california health and safety code, section 17958.5; and directing the clerk of the board to forward this legislation to the california building standards commission. >> okay. president chiu is the sponsor of the legislation. >> thank you, mr. chair. this is pretty simple legislation that would amend our city's building code to require that higher levels of building repair retrofit would be required if there is significant and disproportionate damage caused by relatively small earthquake. these code changes were recommended by the committee action plan for seismic safety otherwise known as caps and have been supported by the building inspection commission and the advisory committee. i know there are a number of staffers from dbi who are prepared to talk about it. colleagues, if folks have questions, but let me ask, does dbi or does anyone from the city side want to make a brief explanation of why we're here? >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you, president chiu. my name is patrick, director of earthquake safety for the earthquake safety implementation program. i just want to thank you for

picking up sponsorship of this, president chiu. this is an important item. it is a very simple item at that, too. there is not a whole lot of contention surrounded around this issue. the purpose of this legislation is to identify the, what we call the bad actors in the build world. these are buildings that would substain a substantial amount of structural damage in a very minor earthquake. ~ substantial. just to be safe, we brought some of the engineers and some of the [speaker not understood] behind the formation of this. brilliant minds ~ we would only bring them up here in case the committee has any questions. >> thank you, mr. [speaker not understood]. is unless, colleagues, you have any questions about this legislation. mr. chair, unless any committee members have questions, i think we are open to public comment. >> public comment will be two minutes. when you have 30 seconds left, there will be a soft bell, and when there is a hard bell that means the two minutes is up. so, go ahead.

good afternoon, land use. ♪ the city shaking, the baby's on its city shoulders the town is sinking like molasses in the sky [speaker not understood] wanting city more flags in the city town budget smile fix it up fix the seismic mile a new earthquake will [speaker not understood] that will bring you to your knees blood velvet city fix the earthquake in case it happens won't you please >> thank you. are there any additional speakers on item number 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. president chiu? >> colleagues, like to ask if

we could move this from the committee with full recommendation. >> are there any -- are there any objections? >> please forward this recommendation. >> so, without objection, we will forward item 2 to the full board with positive recommendation. madam clerk, can you please call items 3, 4, 5 and 6 together? >> item numbers 3, 4, 5 and 6 are ordinance amending the general plan, by adding the western south of market area plan, generally bounded on its western portion by 7th street, mission street, division street, and bryant street, and on its eastern portion by 7th street, harrison street, 4th street, and townsend street; making conforming amendments to the housing, commerce and industry, and recreation and open space elements, the land use index, and the soma, east soma, mission, showplace square/potrero, and central waterfront area plans; and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. [speaker not understood] market area plan. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you so much. so, this is the second hearing on the western soma plan. i already spoke at length on the introduction of this plan this week, but it's great to see so many of our residents and community advocates that work in the south of market here as well. to finally see this plan through fruition. this plan, as many of you know,

began back in 2004 and has really gone through an extensive and rigorous process over the last eight years. and certainly over the last six months we've done a lot of the final hammering and tying up and cleaning up for this plan and we're really excited about this moving forward. and just want to recognize shamika who chaired this task force who is here before us today. and i see other -- a lost other folks that have been engaged in this process over the last eight years as well. as we did make a couple of changes, as some of you know last week, some amendments that we made. and, so, i think we're going to have a discussion about some of those items today. the most important one being around the umu in western soma plan. and, so, through a process over the last week, which we've been discussing what types of bonuses to give if we give additional height in this plan, we have been chatting with the

community about those, the housing and residential impact fee structure. and, so, i will be proposing another amendment today that will hopefully make all of us happy because i think we are going to be able to do both. and just to give a little bit of history on the amendment as it was presented or the policy as it was presented last week, i think that policy was presented really at a time when the real estate market wasn't doing as well as it is today. and we believe that we can maintain higher residential impact fees while still increasing inclusionary housing based on a height bonus. and, so, i will be making a motion to amend later on. but at the time, if there are no further comments or questions -- actually, i'm sorry, we do have cory [speaker not understood] from planning to make an updated presentation. and then i know many members of the public are here to speak as well on the plan. so, i was hoping to get to that and i'll move forward with any

amendments after that. >> mr. teague who i think is going to [speaker not understood] combat on this. >> i wouldn't turn it down. cory teague for planning department staff. good afternoon, chair, supervisors. so, you asked us last week to come back with some additional information regarding a couple of items surrounding the western soma rezoning. the first item was addressing the issue of the academy of art location at 61 brannan street and the potential of grandfathering that project's ability to move forward with the conditional use authorization or not. we also -- you also requested more information, nora analysis regarding the major development sites in western soma. ~ so, we're going cover that as well including some additional background on the eastern

neighborhoods impact fees and affordable housing in general. so, first of all, though, to address the academy of art issue, your concern was that with the grandfathering provision needed to allow the conditional use authorization to go forward, or would that project be part of a larger negotiation that would allow it to move forward potentially in the future without the conditional use authorization process being grandfathered. ~ and the answer that is kind of similar to what we said last week -- yes, last week, which is, you know, there may be a larger agreement down the road. that agreement in and of itself would not rezone this parcel if it was not grandfathered. so, your options are essentially to grandfather the process at this time or if you do not grandfather the ability for that project to move forward with conditional use authorization, then at a later time you could have a rezoning request before you that would

then allow it to go through an approval process again. and if you want to take questions on that specific issue before i move on with the rest, i'm okay with that. >> just ask a follow-up question. >> sure. >> in other words, you're saying that assuming that at some point down the line the city and you are able to come to a global agreement on their issues, we could make this change at that date and move forward with what au is looking to do? >> yeah, it would be a separate action from the agreement itself. the agreement wouldn't rezone the parcel as part of the agreement itself. it would have to be a separate action. but that action could come later. >> okay, thank you. >> if there are no other questions about that specific issue, we can move on. again, the developments in question are the major development sites in western soma which are properties that are more than half an acre generally speaking and they

received a potential height boyne us under the plan. and if you go above the base height and take advantage of the maximum height, it requires a conditional use authorization, some other approval criteria just about how the uses are mixed within the development itself, but more specific to our discussion today is that it would also trigger an affordable housing and impact fee structure that is taken from the umu district within eastern neighborhoods. and what that is essentially, that's the affordability requirement would increase tier b level which is currently 16% for on-site affordable, and the residential impact fees would be reduce today a tier 1 level from tier 2 which is currently $8.85 per square foot. and the commercial impact fees would be unchanged. so, that would not change at all. so, again, just a reminder, western soma is going to come into eastern neighborhoods to be a part of eastern neighborhoods as a whole, same fee structure generally, the

same citizen advisory committee, it's the same pot of money. just to give a little bit of background on the eastern neighborhoods impact fee, obviously it's based on the nexus stud that i was originally done for eastern neighborhoods in recognition that the funds that -- the rates and the funds collected would not cover the entire cost of all the infrastructure needs for the community. the citizens, the eastern neighborhood citizens advisory committee along with the inner agency planning implementation committee worked together to recommend projects to the board of supervisors from that fee fund. and there is also a memorandum of understanding with multiple fee agencies that 80% of those funds that come out of these neighborhoods would be applied towards listed priority projects within that memorandum. >> to your first bullet point. >> sure. >> what are the total estimated for structure improvements that you guys are estimating are required -- >> for western soma? >> for western soma. >> bum parking it's about 92

million give or take, and the projection under the original plan proposal was to generate around 42 million total. >> okay. so, not even half of what we're trying to do? >> right, yes. >> okay. >> again, the impact fees in eastern neighborhoods, they are not charged, first of all, to pdr uses they are excluded. the two grizzly that apply are residential and nonresidential and they are different rate structures. the tier of impact fee is indexed to how much a property was up zoned in an attempt to capture some of that value given through the property through the up zoning. these fees are indexed every year by the city controller's office to keep up with inflation. you can see the rates here on the screen. and again, the residential rates are somewhat different from the nonresidential rates. and then specifically once that

-- the fee funds come in, there are very specific provisions on how those fees can be allocated. and it is again between residential and nonresidential fees. so, for residential, 50% of those fees must go towards open space and the capote recreation, 42% must go to transit scape and above ground improvements, 28% for [speaker not understood]. for nonresidential development, 90% goes towards transit and streetscape improvements. only 7 towards open space and 3 towards community facilities. beyond that, there are two zoning districts within eastern neighborhoods that are designated as affordable housing zones. and in those districts the residential impact fees have a different allocation. the nonresidential stays the same, but in those areas, 75% of the impact fees -- residential impact fees goes towards affordable housing, 13% towards open space and recreation facilities, 10 to

transit and streetscape, public ground improvements and only 2% to community facilities. just to give you an idea, this is a very quick map to show you that basically the mission street nct is one of those districts and it runs along mission street. the other affordable housing district is mixed use residential or mur, which is primarily in east soma kind of a long [speaker not understood] street corridor and east of there. and then a few areas that are further south throughout eastern neighborhoods. so, just some quick background information on affordable housing in general. there is a city-wide standard for projects that are now 10 or more units. it used to be 5 post prop c. you had the option to pay an in lieu fee based on 20% of the dwelling units provide affordable units off-site based on 20% of the dwelling units. or provide affordable units on-site based on 12% of the units. the printed copies of this

presentation have the 20% figures listed as 16%. that was an error. prop c reduced the required amount of affordable housing provided on-site. so, it reduced the third option there from 15 to 12% but it did not tree deuce the other percentages. it's also worth pointing out that some projects, based on the type of project they are, rental versus ownership situation, sometimes they can't provide units on-site legally. so, that city-wide standard applies throughout eastern neighborhoods as much as it applies anywhere else except within the umu. one exception does it differently as we were kind of discussed where the residential impact fee remains at tier 1, even if it was -- even if it went from a 40 foot to an 80-foot height district, the residential impact fee stays at tier 1 and instead of indexing the impact fee to the up zoning, the affordable housing

requirement is indexed to the up zoning. this gives you an idea of the tiers within umu. it's also worth noting that within umu beyond the on-site, off-site and in lieu options, the affordable housing requirement can also be met through a middle income alternative which is providing a higher percentage of units. but at a higher income level. you can also do land dedication. most recently this was done also -- it's also available in mission nct, new mission theater project did this. i think the concourse development also recent deli that. i should point out in this table as well, again, to recognize that prop c reduced the requirement for on-site by 20%. they did not recruit -- reduce the in lieu or off-site by 20%, but this table does reflect a 20% reduction across the board. so, those columns, those numbers aren't accurate. only the housing on-site development is accurate.

and this gives you an idea of where umu is currently located within the city. it's generally kind of a buffer district between pdr districts and more mixed use and residential districts. supervisor chiu had asked to kind of provide information on how, you know, how projects have been going in umu since it's been enacted. you know suexctiontionv eastern neighborhoods became affected, the economy went south a little bit. so, it actually hasn't been that many large residential projects that have come along for umu. but there's only three or four. the two [speaker not understood] daggett triangle and concourse development were just recently approved. both of those are in umu with a fee structure that is tier 1 for fees and tier b for affordable housing. and both of those are in 68 foot height district so they're fairly good models for the western soma version as most of the heights are 55-65. so they would be 65 for the high project, five story projects ju