work over the last couple of years. i'm figuring out how we cannot just build more jobs in housing but how we can make it a livable and moveable neighbourhood. woe have corridors where we have five lanes of traffic and very narrow sidewalks. this plan is going to help transform our neighbourhood to be one that is more residentially oriented. whether it is the improvements to howard and fullsome or expanding sidewalks on harrison and townsend and more crosswalks, all of this are ways to make our streets safer for, again, our many residents that live here. next, i'm also very proud that the plan is commiting to a measure that our office introduced in 2016. proposition x. which will ensure that there is no net loss of p.d.r. distribution and repair. we talk a lot about building, housing and office but we know

that we have to preserve our p.d.r. because those are the spaces where we can grow blue collar jobs that provide living wages for individuals that may not have a college degree. our zoning map again is a map of what we believe a healthy city looks like so we need to make sure that we encapsulate a balance of all of these needs. so, compared to the existing, the plan as-is represents 450% for jobs and 300% for housing and we know that central soma again is the place for both. it has some of the best transit in the region and developable land. i also want to acknowledge a number of things that will be brought up by members of the community. and i will be the first to say that there are many doubts. i wasn't here at the board at the time. but there are many doubts about how the soma stabilization fund would work. i have to say from my perspective as a supervisor, i think that has been incredibly successful.

both in preserving resources and services for our existing residents, many who are struggling to remain in the south of market and a fund that has been able to help us cede important cultural projects like the lgbtq dmrikt western soma. the south of market has been a historical site for so many of our communities and in particular our filipino and leather lgbtq community. we want to ensure that that community has a long-term viability to stay in the neighbourhood as well. we don't just want it to be a historical district, but a living, breathing district. and we can do that by investing in community-based organisations, affordable housing and small businesses that serve and represent these communities. and so i will be supporting -- i will be supporting ways within the ordinance thats will

directly support a citizen-guided governance body to help invest the benefits and the fees that will be generating through central soma plan to go back into the community. and i think that, you know, frankly our residents have done a tremendous job of that over the last 10 years and we have to ensure that we keep that up. as we welcome new residents and workers we're not pushing out the existing ones that have called the market their home for decades. so, thank you to everyone. i look forward to the process over the next three months. we have a lot of work to do. there's still some improvements i would like to see in the central soma plan. the biggest one for the planning commission that i will mention is how we can expand our housing production opportunities in this plan. so, thank you very much. and i look forward to the work. >> thank you. we appreciate all your work to get us here. thank you. mr. wortheim? >> good afternoon, commissioners.

steve wortheim, planning department staff. i feel like everyone knows a little bit too much about me today. but here goes. for the purpose of today's hearing is to initiate the general plan and amendments for the central soma plan. review the full packet that we submitted on february 15, including the proposed planning code and administrative code amendment and zoning map amendments. as you may know, as was mentioned here on tuesday, the mayor and supervisor kim introduced the planning code and administrative code amendments so you no longer need to initiate them. but you will still need to review them so we can act on them in a few weeks. we're pleased that the mayor and supervisor chose to introduce this legislation. i feel it is a strong endorsement of the plan and multiyear effort that got us here. so this presentation has two parts. first i'll walk you through the proposed legislation and then present the themes for discussion and possible amendment, foe cushion on issues and questions you raised at our last hearing on february

1. legislative pack etz includes the following con tenltzes and executive summary, general plan aoement amendments known as our m-case, planning code and amendments known as t.k.s, the planning so*eds amendments and a supplemental information. and i'll walk through parts one through four in detail. it includes the draft resolution to initiate, which lays out the case in more detail. there's sections necessary to implement the central soma plan. to help understand the proposed changes to the general plan, there are three documents included in the supplemental information section of the packet and that is about helping people understand what's in a very lengthy document. these aren't required documents, but people have been

spending a long time following this plan. i rather they hone in on the change rather than search around and figure out what's changed. it includes a summary of revisions since the 2016 draft. a summary of revisions to the east soma plan which details the proposed changes to the east soma plan and similarly a summary of provisions to the west soma plan which details proposed revisions to that plan. speaking of which i'd like to point out a typo in the draft ordinance that has been amended in the red line version that i handed over to jonas a couple of minutes ago. on page 18 under west soma policy, 1423.2 where it discusses surrounding areas. in the legislation, it should have been crossed out. it's nonsubstantive, but you should know why there is a difference between the packet and what you are looking at today. so a reminder.

the vision is for economically, socially and environmentally, a philosophically pretty straightforward, keep what's great. fix what's not. there is a lot of great thing about soma and we'll hear about them from the community and a lot of things that need fixing and supervisor kim did a great job of spelling out the things that need help around open space and streets, etc. and also our straenl to get there, there is a three-pronged strategy to accommodate the growth that wants to be here. do so in a way that enhances and maintains neighbourhood character. and the plan has eight goals. each of these is a chapter of the plan so it is kind of organized in a legible way and each of the goals has their own objectives and policies and supporting text. i'll read the goals right now. accommodate a substantial amounts of housing.

two, maintain the diversity of residents. three, maintain a lively job centre. four, prioritize transportation. five, offer an abundance of parks and reriational opportunities. seven, celebrate the neighbourhood's cultural heritage and eight is hidden behind the teleprompter. but it says things about designing the neighbourhood to be -- designing the architecture to be keeping with the great neighbourhood and the city. moving on to the planning code and administrative code. this packet consists of the following items. the case report that provides a summary of the ordinance. the draft resolution to initiate, which is no longer relevant. given the action taken on tuesday. and the draft ordinance. to understand the proposed changes, the suspect mrep tament information section includes the summary revisions to the planning code and administrative code which details all the changes

proposed to the existing codes and ties them to the relevant plan policis that these changes implement. i'll send the next few slides summarizing the proposed changes to the code. the first set are regarding the land use and zoning. the first major change is the creation of a new central soma mixed use office district or cmuo as planning code section 848. it encompasses all the areas of previously plans shown as m.u.o. which you'll see in a couple of minutes when i talk to the so*efrning map amendments. -- zoning map amendments. the plan isn't proposing to change any rules outside the plan area and, thus, create a new zoning district. like all zoning districts, it has all the controlled references and it allows a wide range of uses, including housing, office, p.d.r., retail and hotel. the plan creates a new central soma special use district and

planning code section 249.78. the s.u.d. encompasses the whole plan area and includes the following land use control. it requires a large site to be commercially oriented which is why -- what gives the plan its job orientation and keeping p.d.r. beyond the existing act. and to facile tate active ground floors and commercial uses on ground floors on many of the major streets and that large project contains micro retail spaces of 1,000 square feet or less. finally the ordinance includes a new section 128.1 that allows historic sites in central soma to sell their transferable development rights. the next set of code changes deals with the neighbourhood's physical character. we propose a new series of controls in section 132.4. the purpose of these controls

first to create a comfortable urban room with a prevailing sense that the buildings are as high as the streets are wide. reinforcing the character of soma in the mid rise neighbourhood. for mid rise neighbourhoods that are taller than the street, we created a performance-based measure that requires a certain amount of line air to reach the street while providing room for architectural flexibility and creativity. and for tower 200 feet and tall, we limited their floor size and requiring they be sufficiently separated from each other. we've also worked to maintain the fabric of streets that already have a fine grain pattern, by [inaudible] on the streets in the s.u.d. and the s.u.d. would include protection against strong winds which is the first time to have such strong language codify outside of downtown. the next set of code changes deals with open space, greening and environmental sustainability. the most important changes in this area are tied to the public benefits package, which we'll talk about in a few minutes. as far as the code goes, for

open spaces, the biggest move is requiring privately owned public open spaces or popos, for section 138. as we discussed previously, they aim to improve on the downtown model by being on the ground floor, open eveningings and weekends. they are incentivized to provide additional community facilities like dog runs and sports courts. they aren't meant to replace or substitutes for publicly open space but the complement and expand the system which is grossly inadequate in the market as we know. additionally, these popos can serve as the out door space for child care centres,s which are greatly in demand in the area. but impossible to build with the requirement of 75 square feet open space outdoors for kids. it enhances the sustainability strategy by requiring living roofs on most of the buildings

to enhance the habitat and air quality in the neighbourhood. as well as requiring that 100% of the electricity used in new buildings be from greenhouse gas praoe. -- free. fourth topic is parking and loading. our goal here is to limit the parking and create certainties to every project coming here, seeking conditional use. sf151.1, we adjusted it sot that they're personal use. and we set the space for every 3500 square feet, which is one to 15 to 20 employees and commensurate with the three c standards of area. s to-to-facilitate better park and transit system, we banned curb cut on parking garages on many streets. and also in section 155, we required projects to work with the city on a driveway and

loading operations plan so that we can plan ahead to accommodate the inevitable demand from passenger lead loading from yaouber and lyft. the fifth topic is exactions. we added new fee tiers for central somo. as the development capacity increases, we have the ability to capture more value. in section 432, we create a new feed to pay for community facilities. in section 433, we created a new fee to help pay for more transit. in sections 4, 13, 15, 17, and 19, we codify add strategy to have housing fees expanded within soma. in 27, we update our fee options to be more in line with the costs of building the space. the language around our

proposed community melrose facilities district which we're working on language at the city attorney's office. the perception projects of over 20,000 square feet or more would need participate in the c.u.d. if the lot receives a substantial up zoning as part of central soma. the second piece is figuring out the transactional around the new central soma park, which is proposed to be built as in kind as part of our major development projects in the area and that piece may become part of this ordinance or as part of a separate ordinance. the final topics of discussion regarding the planning code amendments is proposing the process. the first proposed skhaing to section 329 where we're proposing to increase the threshhold for projects to trigger come to this dmoition 50,000 square feet or buildings taller than 85 feet up from the threshold today of 25,000 square feet and 75 feet and this changes to prenrekt that the project in central soma is much bigger than other parts of eastern neighbourhoods and this is meant to be for a large project.

a large project in soma may not be an 85 foot project. we also create a new subject that speaks to our key development sites and provides the planning commission additional flexibility and review of these projects. it is meant to be used in development with the guidelines included in the implementation document so that when these projects come forward for entitlement, the commission has guidance and tools to help shape them. another process change that includes can grandparenting for projects benefiting from the upzoning. the concept is that that project should not simultaneously benefit from old requirement benefits while relying on the new plan to make the projects possible. this change affects sections 169z, 411a and 415, which our transportation demand transportation, the sustainability fund and our new sustainability housing requirements. 171.1 allows projects that

aren't subzoned and part of our pipeline based on the existing zoning to be grandparented in any new controls in central soma, and not benefiting from the upzoning. as part of the special use district, we're proposing to remove the plan at prop x getting a conditional yaou.z it would slow down hundreds of projects and require the commission to find them necessary and desirable and we hope that the pattern of these projects is necessary and desirable and it does not result in a meaningful outcome since the replacement of p.d.r. itself is not in question. and we recognize this amendment that the prop x will require a simple majority to pass at the board. while we hope we can achieve that threshhold, we'll remove this proposal if it looks like the whole plan would be catered because of this. finally proposing amendments to administrative code chapter 35. that requires that new residential uses in p.d.r.-friendly districts sign an affidavit saying they won't complain about p.d.r. uses that

are legally operating. ok. moving on to zoning map amendments. the package consists of the the case report, the smaeb of the ordinance, the draft resolution to initiate, which is no longer relevant given actions taken by the board and the draft sort did nance. -- ordinance. it includes a summary of revisions in the zoning map which details the way that our map changes from 2016 until today. geting into details, the map you see here shows the existing and proposed zoning. the main difference as we discussed is that most of the area will be sli and sally, which are the areas in gold south of the freeway. and the c.m.u. allows for range of uses have s.l.i. and sally are very restrictive and don't allow housing or office. north of the freeway and west

of 5th street, it moves from m.u.r. to m.u.g., which allows a little more commercial use and along the south side of brine street from east of 5th to 6th street, zoned from sally to west soma m.u.o. which only permits nonresidential uses such as office, retail and p.b.r. -- p.d.r. of course, the zoning map is full of nuances and i tried to distill the basic differences that shows where development of housing and office is permited in green and where they're not, which is in gold. as you can see the proposed plan includes substantially more area where development and housing and office permitted. the next one, we know the high maps are harder to distill than zoning maps. i'll start with a generalized map and move to a specific map. this map shows that the existing heights are generally 85 feet and less except on the edge of downtown where they're 135 feet.

they will be adjacent to rancon hill. and close to major developments around 5th and brandon. by contrast, the highs are generally the same in the northeast and southwest parts of the plan area. and here's the more detailed map and the thing that jumps out here is our strategy to protect the existing alleys in the area around south park by maintaining the heights around 40 to 45 feet in those areas. putting it all together, this map shows -- don or conveys the development capacity business combining the height and zoning. we showed you this map before. and the major emphasis of the plan is to focus development on the area that is currently industrially zoned. between cal-train and 5th and brannan with some additional boards easier between downtown and rincon hill. the next is the implementation

programme which is not legislation but needs your approval. it has a strategy for implementing every single plan -- policy in the plan, including the what, how, who, and by when. the draft advantage programme that shows how to collect and expend over $2 billion in public benefits generated by the plan. the draft guide to urban design which includes design guide specific to soma that will complement and supplement what is in the code. the draft key, development sight guidelines that go into plan about assigned strategis that can improve the project and result in additional public benefits and the key street guidance that provides a vision for each of the key streets in the planned area. to understand the proposed document, it includes a summary of revisions -- summary revisions for the implementation matrix, the public benefits programme and

the key development sites guidelines. i'm going to spend some time going over the public benefits package per your request at the last hearing. for starter as a reminder, the plan -- there would still be development if the plan doesn't pass and deal with about $500 million in public benefits. however, the plan would quadruple that building to over $2 billion and it's exclusively in new development in the plan area and generates $2 billion in the general rev fund and this is over a 25-year period. [please stand by] [please stand by]

-- because of the nature of the loan it's more difficult to create middle-income housing and we're supportive of the middle-income housing but to get to 17% will probably cost

another $500 million and for transit the money will be divvied up to one thi-third mtso improve computer service. the regional money will be controlled by the city and expected to go towards increasing capacity of the station and improving caltrain service and doing the engineering and environmental study for the rail crossing. the present new development essentially contributes to the regional transit since sustainability fund exclusively for the agencies that carry a third of the trips including inside the city. we feel it's important implement

strategy progresses to construct the future of soma and even or the we're moving through the restricted zoning and it's at the same rate as proposition x and as a benefit it represents the nearly 1 million square feet and new york city the plan area and includes money to activate the primary to existing rec park facility certain the north and also two new park and a recreation which is one of the biggest areas in the public without a park and seed other open spaces including new amenities and there's the

estimate of the 4 acres by the plan and it will be proposed to the community. for streets and he can fulfill the city's vision zero policy. the plan dedicates $70 million to sustainability and resiliency to reduce the threat of flooding in the streets. a third would go to green air quality improvements in and around the freeway and the measure costs about $6 million and the rest is going to a

series of smaller strategies as well as strategies for larger investments. the plan dedicates nearly $60 million for school and childcare and pay the maximum amount. on the schools it will generate $30 million in fees to accommodate growth. i know the school directly successfully passed a bond to build a new school. the plan dedicates $40 million to the cultural preservation. in this case, all the preservation goes to historic building and $20 million towards all historical building and towards health care clinics and job training centers and there's $70 million in the-to-be determined bucket. our presumption is it will go to

maintenance and other parks. we've been working to understand the need and present the options and we'll talk more in the second part of the presentation which mercifully i'm about to begin. and this is all what i heard commissioners raise and issues we want to talk about. the first theme for discussion is planned timing. last time i heard from several commissioners was to move the plan forward expeditiously with an amendment tuesday and presuming you amend it today the soonest you could act on the ordinance march 29. and make a decision after the informational hearings on the remain issues. and one topic discussed at the

last hearing was housing to explore the issues of the jobs housing ratio and expedite plans for planning development. i want to convey how many units we have to work with and the difference from what the e.r. studies and the plans through the proposed zoning and heights. as we discussed the e.r. study considers high amounts of housing to give us the cushion we're talking about. the table shows it compared to what we expect. one which we look for the study area to market street and one in which we pull out the numbers just for central soma and there's 60 more units than the current plan would result in. so just for a moment let's discuss the ramifications if we develop a plan that added more than 1260 units, right. first it would require a brand new e.r.i. which would take

another three to five years and millions of dollars and would be tantamount to starting the plan over again and by then i'll have five to six children. and if we're okay with doing that, for example, and our goal to create a jobs-housing balance given the density we're proposing sweet get about 10,500 units and jobs so we'd be adding 3500 units and losing 25,000 jobs in potentially five years of time. and i want to reiterate why we support the plan area particularly for the large area. there's control and the jobs

will go elsewhere or if high-paying they'll squeeze out the other jobs and when the jobs go elsewhere unless they go to downtown oakland they'll go to places with worse transit which means more driving and bad for climate change and causes more people at the lower end of the spectrum to spend more time in vehicles and this meets reduction for greenhouse gases than putting jobs on top of transit. jobs pay for a range of public benefits where housing pays for affordable housing which is reasonable but would not fix what is isn't working and adding more money for parks and complete streets. as we said, there's an extremely limited number of place to put jobs in san francisco and none as good as central soma. by contract -- contrast there's

many placeses that would be peril in exchange with the plan and we need to remember the larger context relative to the 17-block area. . and we heard to raise the commercial orientation size from 30,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet. as currently written the plan says if you're site is greater than 30,000 square feet you have to be commercially oriented. if we change that threshold to 40,000 square feet we can capture the wells fargo site and 330 townsend. here's a map at the reference point of where the parcels sit.

combined they can result in about 800 more units. there's both tower sights and they require skinnier towers which are more appropriate for what we expect in the neighborhood. the second idea is to rezone the idea proposed to cmuo. this is the area from just east of fifth to along sixth street wrapping up the project along bryant. this change can result in 6,000 units and 250 between fifth and sixth street and about 100 could go along sixth street itself. and the reason i'm breaking this down specifically is the you

units between fifth and sixth would be affected by the axis accessed by the flower mart and may not be the best location given all-night operation for the flower mart and would exceed the 1260-unit threshold. so those are the ways we can increase housing without raising heights. that would be another trigger so within the existing height limits. importantly, there are other ways to make housing more feasible and ensure the units that could be built do get built and do so expeditiously. the first is to speed up the process through the assembly bill 73 adopted last year. the city would create a housing sustainability adistrict where housing would be approved if covered by a plan under e.r. such as this one and pays

prevailing wage for construction. doing so would make the city eligible for incentive payments from the state. it with a bit part of the planned proposal but the mayor and supervisor kim have expressed interest. the second idea is to make rental housing more economically feasible. since we developed our economic analysis in 2015, costs have gone up considerably and while office rents and condo prices have gone up commensurately it means the projects don't [indiscernible] and ware looking to look at the different realities of the development types and given the importance of rental policies we don't want to make it unfeasible. this could result in a reduction in the benefits package and would require tough choices but

if projects don't get built we don't have any money to better to have less money than none at all. the final is the hotel. on one hand, hotels are great for the city and facilitate tourists pumping funds into the economy and creating a 365 neighborhood. and it's a great place for hotels given the prox -- prox -- proximity to the ballpark and given the challenges of building housing we heard about and the prop m challenges, we've seen a to be of applications for new hotel sites in the area. the goal is to maximize the housing and you may consider a

cap on hotels or another allowance strategy. finally, here's a list of the additional issues. foremost is the cultural and social package. there's $70 million identified to the pool mostly in the position of listening to the community about their needs and desires and toward the end we received a wish list from the community on tuesday which i think they'll be presented to you today. the goal of the next few weeks is to work with you and the mayor's office and develop a package of requests. the next issue is splitting the citizens' advisory committee into two and we know the supervisors are interested in looking at that. the legislation is not part of this package now and could be

included or could become a separate ordinance all together and the third issue is east of third street. heard from residents up nearby residential towers concerned about nearby heights of buildings and want heights lowered. while we're not recommending such a change, we want to recommend the ongoing source of comment and discussion you may want to consider as part of your deliberation. and finally some members of the community flagged some errors in the legislative packet. i'll be presenting potential changes at the next hearing. this is my favorite slide in the presentation. thank you, looking forward to everyone's comment and happy to answer your comments. >> commissioner: thank you, steve. we'll now open this up for public comment. i have a bunch of speaker cards. >> the clerk: we have two organized opposition. >> let's do that first.

>> the clerk: it's the todd co group and we are soma we need a maybe a minimum of three speakers. >> do we have that? >> i must have overlooked it. >> commissioner: you'll be third. so john and todd co, you want to start?

>> good afternoon members i'm the president of todd co group. want to present to you a very different set of priorities for the central soma plan as your plan now stands, we're opposed to it. very strongly opposed to it. and the basic reason is no matter how your director may spin it or how many times you utter the word neighborhood here, it has been always and still remains fundamentally a downtown expansion plan of tech office space into our long-time soma central neighborhood. our alternative vision is to build a real 21st century neighborhood central south of market that does include a substantial amount of tech office space but puts first the neighborhood building. , the

with housing and all that entail. we're submitting a pab -- packet and we have gone through the implementation section and marked up all the necessary changes to implement our proposal. so it's all there. i just want to focus today on a couple of the most critical issues. and after the overview, samantha meier will address our housing program and joyce lee will talk about the community empowerment not yet in your plan but are now open to incorporate. the overview is this is an office plan. when you look at the acreage chart, you can see very clearly that the staff has always

proposed to zone most the cmuo office first district. the current proposal, 106 acres is about two-thirds of the whole area. our proposal instead would be less than one-third-. the mur and mug, the department only proposes 27 acres. that's 17% of the district for housing-oriented zoning. our proposal increases it to 44%, not quite half. when you look to restore the p.d.r. issue which is what the soma plan was about that included this area just 10 years ago, the department recommends cutting it down to less than 5% of the district from the current 38%. our plan does reduce it substantially but still would hold 13% of the district for that purpose. this is obviously a very

different set of priorities. and when you look at the jobs/housing balance issue and the numbers -- the parameters you can assume for how many units you need per million square feet of office space and all that are debatable and can change but when you boil it down, the way it seems now the department is only proposing to satisfy a third of the demand and our proposal would get that to 87%. in terms of the affordable balance in particular, because half of the new housing needs to be affordable with county modern income households. your plan only gets about a quarter balance for the lower modern income needs. our plan would produce close to 60% and has a surplus in the market rate category. that's obviously a major

difference. in terms of fighting displacement, your plan doesn't do much of anything to stop displace many of businesses. our proposal includes incentive and the key one i want to highlight is it's great it see they'll require office developers and p.d.r. space and .4 s.a.r. but if it's not affordable none of the p.d.r. businesses or rent-sensitive businesses can afford it. we're priced out. the incentive is you prioritize for office buildings that provide below market p.d.r. space or super market space. we know that's possible. that's what the flower mart is doing anyway. i want to stop now and ask

samantha to present our housing. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm here to present the affordable housing of our soma community plan. specifically we need to ensure half of all future soma development will be affordable with 33% for low and moderate-income housing and 17% for middle-income housing. the city looks to have more than 50% of housing affordable and passed with 66% of the vote. our plan shows how to accomplish the goal and the city's plan requires only 38% affordable housing and 3% affordable housing for middle-income families. our plan lays out how the goal can be met with the following five tactics. first, set aside an additional

middle-income inclusion requirement for all location are up zoned for rental housing this is for a total of 30% inclusionary and for ownership 11% for a total of 33% inclusionary in 2020. second, secure sites through multiple approaches including parcel set aside retirements for imminent domain and target fees through the ac question of residential hotels and existing rental housing including small sites.

this is to ensure 50% is met in soma. thank you for your time. i'll turn it over to my colleague, joyce. >> good afternoon, commissioners, we'd like to see stronger provision for long-term community empowerment and one with the engage the in the eastern they'll

be presenting shortly. for your constant communications. >> to conclude, if you pass the plan the department proposes the outcome in 20 years is going to be a homogenized south of market

that's been determined not by a community but market forces and the agendas of the land owners and the developers. that's what it's going to produce. if you adopted ours, you'd have a diverse soma and include uses for everyone including the office but is set by the public interest and community goals first. and i do need to add one post script. i heard the changes are for prop x and we haven't discussed those issues and introduce several things that would weaken prop x. that's a speak attack. that's not good faith planning and shouldn't have happened. >> thanks, john. so we'll hear from we are soma next.

>> i'm one of the members of we are soma coalition. we presented last month and just so remind you who we are, we are we represent an array of organizations that really represent the existing community and the most vulnerable populations and want to make sure we stabilize, preserve and empower the members that are currently living in soma right now. again, these are some of the organizations we represent.

and i just wanted to stress again i said this last time it's not that we're in opposition we want to work together and make sure the central soma plan does prioritize existing community and the most vulnerable population will be affected by it. the documents i shared with you are free it learn about what is important to us and shared with planning and not necessary a wish list but the point of agreement -- [please stand by] .

. >> and also, making sure that we are putting more funds for our neighborhood services. and finally, also just community oversight. we've stressed this. you've heard supervisor kim also stress it, as well. it's very important for the community to have oversight over the funds that are in central soma plan, and to do that with a governing plan that represents our diverse community, our existing communities so we can continue to live here. i'm going to go into the draft

points of agreements and additional provisions that we have. i'll just start off by saying in the area of cultural preservation, the one thing we want to stress is cultural preservation for us, it's not just about supporting living buildings, it's about preserving the living culture of the communities that have contributed to the soma community. we're home to two cultural districts, soma philippine, and we just want to make sure those communities are prioritized and cultural preservation of people is prioritized over facilities, and facilities are actually ones that are identified by the community. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cynthia gomez. i'm here with united local 2,

but i have been working with the we are soma coalition, and i will be presenting some of the terms of our agreement. the proposal is that the new soma cac which has already discussed should review the annual plan from the mayor's office of housing to review the housing plan for central soma. there are a lot of height increases. where heights are increased, the affordable housing unit on-site should be increased. it should be 33% rental, 33% condo. there is also compliance with prop x, and when that is done, there should be no reduction of the eastern neighborhood's impact fee. community services. the new soma cac must review specific proposals for use of fee funds, and the proposed fee should be doubled for commercial projects, so it should be increased from $2.60

for -- excuse me, i'll start over. double the proposed fee. it should be $3.50 persquare foot for commercial projects, and $2.60 persquare foot for residential projects. there's a lot that isn't yet in the draft program, and two of those points include increased funding for essential soma community services and for the cultural districts you've already heard about. also, employment and training programs were so far left out. this -- these need to be included, and they should reflect local hire and local employment programs. again, so many of the priorities for the we are soma coalition have to do with protecting local control and community advisory control so that funds stay back and continue to benefit these existing communities. in terms of -- i'll give you a few examples some of the points of agreement that we honed

together. developers, when it comes to the potential between 9,000 and 60,000 new jobs for hotels, and 40,000 new jobs -- potential new jobs in the neighborhood, there should be accountablity and equity. for example, soma residents should be employed with living wages and fair working conditions. developers should commit to targeting retention and hiring goals for new residents, signing agreements for union contracts for contractor and subcontractor jobs, signing a responsible contractor agreement for all projects, and if these community accountablity targets are not met, these projects not be approved for the central soma plan. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is misha olivas. i've worked for the central

soma. i'm a native san franciscan. i grew up in the mission, and i've lived most of my adult life in the soma. my children are growing up in soma. they've attended school in soma. for them, soma is home, and the current buzz word around the city is equity, but the pace in soma is not currently and has continued to not inequitiable. we recognize the efforts to address this with this plan, and moving the needle forward is ever deeply important to the constituents that you hear. if you hear anything today, please hear affordable housing and community oversight. of any funds that would go to the community advisory committee, we want to be involved in it and we want to have a role. we fully support the plan's

prioritization of the parks and intent to create more parks. we want the new cac to be empowered with some kind of review process to make sure that new popo's or that these opportunities for open space are truly neighborhood serving in addition to serving the new residents and workers that will be spending their time in soma, as well. i want to thank those that have participated in the community planning for current and new residents of soma. we are excited about the complete streets section of the plan and look forward to seeing these types of improvements for pedestrians and everybody else traveling through soma, but there was no mention of the alleyy way improvements and the alleys are really importants to our residents. many residents live in the

alleys, and the alleys are important alternative streets for many residents of the districts. they also find it difficult due to the increased uncleanliness, needles, human waste, trash, and other safety issues, so we'd really like to see some attention not just to the maybe thoroughfares but to the alleyways, as well. lastly, soma currently has one public school, one. one. and this school is in crisis just walking through the neighborhood on their way to school, young people see violence, crime, open drug use, mental health crisis, and that's not even taking into account the poverty that they're living in, fear of eviction and displacement, and the other struggles that young people undergo in our neighborhood. research to trauma shows that this impacts the student's ability to learn. we really demand that all funds from the soma developments must

go towards this soma school and new ones. so thank you for giving us this time. i'm excited to see our community growing, but our concern and our hesitation is from the reality that we've lived. so just more housing, community control and oversight. thank you. >> all right. thank you, miss olivas.