>> good afternoon commissioners. my name is connie ford. i'm representing jobs with justice today. jobs with justice is a coalition of about ten to twelve unions and about 20 community organizations working all over the city but many are housed or live or work in soma. you can see by reading the comments today, that one of the big things that is missing out of this plan is about the good quality, the quality of jobs. you talk about jobs, jobs, jobs, everybody talks about jobs. but what are these jobs? are they going to be good jobs? are they going to increase the economic disparity that we all live in today? the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? we in jobs for justice support our members of the we are soma. we support the demands. my granddaughter is seven, and

she lives in soma with her parents, and she walks four blocks every day to her school, which is bessie carmichael. in that school, at that walk, forward and back, if you haven't taken the walk down fulsome, you should see. these services that are being asked to be paid for by the community here is desperate and needs. this is not an exaggeration of how we need to support the people who live there. some of them have lived there for decades. they need the support. they need the helping hand. and that's what the we are soma coalition is all about. the other part is the job question. we need good job standards. we need good job qualitificatio. and we need support for the people in soma. yes, we support the building trades and getting their standards enforced. yes, we support the hotel workers in making sure those hotels are like every single other hotel in the city who have

the standards that you can be a hotel cleaner and actually have a good wage and great benefits, but that's the kind of thing we need there, and, we need the kind of pathway that can give entry level jobs in these hotels to the community members after we train them, support them, give them the encouragement and go forward that way. we really support all the labor standards people are talking about. we need to work on this, the ab73 that's been mentioned by steve and others is one way to do that. but it's very important to know that we just can't have jobs of any sort or any variety. we need good jobs with benefits. and it is our position that if the developers or if the hotels are not willing to sit down and talk to us about that, then we think they should not get the benefits that this zoning plan

endale entails. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a community organizer on staff at the bicycle coalition. i'm happy to provide support for the initiation of the central soma plan on behalf of our 10,000 plus members, especially especially as it relates to transportation and bicycle safety. the neighborhood, the south of market expands, we want to make sure all our residents can bike safely. to get there, we need a network of walkable, bike friendly and people centered streets throughout the planned area. the plan, as it is and the proposed of tracks along fulsome, brandon, third, fourth street paired with other projects going on in the area would expand the biking network in a meaningful way and bikable neighborhoods. with all the new trips generated

by the plan, it is really important that all the proposed new facilities be implemented. class four cycleal tracks. given the history of fatal crashes, we know that anything less than these protected cycle tracks is insufficient and will result in increasingly unsafe conditions for people biking. so we look forward to working together as this plan continues to ensure that these programs are all delivered at the highest level of quality. we support the bicycle elements outlined in the central soma plan and believe that strong transportation improvements will lay the ground work for a thriving soma. we look forward to this process moving forward quickly. i want to thank the staff for their particularly hard work. it's been a long process, but with we're excited to seet move forward today. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. todd david on behalf of the

coalition. just want to take a second to talk about the environmentalal benefits of this plan. we have amazing transit here. we're also going to be housing the trans bay terminal coming online. and, you know, this area is perfect for density of housing and jobs. and that the number one thing that we, as californians can do for the environment, reduce greenhouse gases, is get people out of cars. this project is going to be easily accessible for a lot of people. that's something that is environmental feature that i don't think we're talking enough about in this plan. that being said, i also want to agree that, as i've said before, perfect place to have a lot of jobs. perfect place. we do need to have a plan for housing. to add additional housing.

i differ with my friends in that i don't think it has to be in this location, but it does need to be somewhere. we do need to start talking about where that housing is going to be and more than talk about it, we have to plan for it. it's in step one that can be done. as i was saying, this is such a great location. it's so well-served by transit, there's no reason to not move this plan forward as-is. get it approved and immediately start looking at an upzoning in the central soma to an overlay of the residential units there. the residential buildings. there's no reason. that's a good option. it doesn't slow anything down. everything can move forward, just like it was said, we should be looking at gary boulevard. we have to be looking on the west side. we have to be looking everywhere to add housing. i would not say that we cannot

add additional housing into this location. we absolutely can. also, i want to say that i know right now we're planning for 7,000 units of housing. a couple of locations have been easily identified. we could add that easily. we're talking about 8,200 units of housing, which is nothing to sneeze at. it's a nice amount of housing, given the amount of jobs that are being created there and the opportunity to do more housing there, i really hope that this is something that you will consider and instruct planning department to start looking at doing another overlay in that area. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. welcome, commissioner johnson. my name is mike griso. i'm the senior vice president. we're the developer at the

market site. i want to thank all the staff and all the hard work that's gone into this. the corporation is absolutely committed to preserving the san francisco flower mart. that is why we signed an agreement with the flower mart and the flower mart tenants association guaranteeing affordable rents for the 56 flower vendors in perpetuity, guaranteeing them almost double the amount of parking they have now and guaranteeing that we would cover all the relocation costs during the construction. on that subject, since it came up in the hearing, i should respond, that same agreement describes the parameters for which the relocation site would be selected. of course, we didn't know and still don't know what sites would potentially be available. so the agreement that we signed with the flower mart and the tenant's association describes the parameters by which the site would be selected. we've been working very closely with the vendors not only on the

design of the project but on the selection of a temporary relocation site. the fact is that the piers 19, 19.5, and 23, which we're currently evaluating, are the only site that meet the criteria in that agreement. in brief, it says that the site has to be located in the city of san francisco, and it has to accommodate all of the vendors and their need for parking and refrigeration and all the other features that make the flower mart work. just a couple of corrections since things were said about the piers which are not accurate. first of all, we are aware that some vendors are not happy about the piers. we've been working closely with them to resolve those concerns. there are also many vendors who are excited about the piers. you will hear from a couple of them today. some of the things that are not accurate are about the parking. there's more parking at the piers than there is at the existing flower mart. let me say that again. there's more parking going to be

available for customers at the piers than at the existing flower mart. there's plentiful street parking and public parking for the committees in the neighborhood. we have even offered to help subsidize parking costs, if there are any, for the employees of the vendors when and if they move to the piers. finally, in terms of the number of entrances to the piers -- again, i wasn't expecting to talk about this today. i'm happy to send the plans to the commission or anyone who's interested, including the customers who came today. there are multiple entrances to the warehouse space proposed at the piers. four large sets of double doors on the embarcadero and roll-up doors on both sides of the piers that will make it easier to access to space from multiple entry points. so, unfortunately, there seems to be some misinformation out there. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is carlos ortega. i'm a vendor at the flower mart. i've been there for 20 years. before that, i was a rose grower with my family. so we've been in the flower business all my life. the flower market, as you've heard before from other speakers, it's an important entity andstra -- california. i'm here to support the soma project. they spoke about the movement, but i don't see any perfect place. anyplace we find there's going to be some negatives. where else can we move in san francisco that's large enough for all of us? i appreciate you hear me, and i

appreciate your support for soma. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is gina gomez. i'm here to support the soma plan. my father owns americana flower market. it's been there over 25 years. i think the building of the new flower market is going to be wonderful for the community. it's going to be state-of-the-art. it's something that i look forward to running in the future and then passing it on to my children. when i heard some of our other vendors that were here today saying they want the flower market, but they don't want the new relocation area, i was kind of taken aback by it. in order to have a wonderful, new state-of-the-art flower market, we do need to go somewhere. what i drew from it because they've been in the business a

lot longer than myself, is they just don't like the change. you know, when we do do our business, it's from 1:00 in the morning until 6:00 in the morning. customers roll in, and they're usually gone by 9:00 a.m. so i really don't see a problem with it. as gilroy said, there's more marking. there's a lot more access for our big box trucks and everything that we would need. i just -- i think they want the prize at the end of the road, but they don't want to make any adjustments to it. i hope the commission approves this soma plan. we're really excited. i actually travelled from sacramento to come to the flower market. so if anybody is going to be concerned about more things and stuff like that, it would definitely be me. i'm just excited and can't wait to the future. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hello. i'm also with mission emby. i want to talk about a statement made about the zoning map. is zoning map is not a vision of what we believe a healthy city is. it's a relic of how the city was visioned as a segregated city. i'm here to ask for more housing in the central soma plan, either in the central soma area itself or in the still segregated neighborhoods that we have in the city. for example, glen park, which is right near a bart station or the st. francis wood area within walking distance of the west portal station. both are accessible. i also want to bring up the

current job-housing gap in this area is an amazon hq2 worth of jobs. we don't see cities like pittsburgh who are competing for the amazon hq2 plan not coming up with ideas about how they're going to house all of those workers. i, as a resident of san francisco, feel nervous about my future tenure in the city and my possible displacement from where i live. i would also ask all of you planning commissioners who are deciding on the fate of this project, it seems like we take the idea that we have a lot of transit in this city for granted, and a lot of the people who will be commuting into central soma, if we don't have a nice job-housing development in that area are going to be using cal tran and bart. they're packed to the gills. they're overcapacity. i commuted for a year in 2014.

i was consistently getting bumped from trains because i was unable to actually get on the train because they were so full. so those are reasons that i believe we need to have more housing, both downtown and throughout the rest of the city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. members of the public. my name is star child. it's with the enby party before there was an enby party. i stand with those who want to see more housing built. not as a government effort, but simply giving people the freedom on an individual basis. there's a lot of people in these neighborhoods my colleague just mentioned, west portal, st. francis wood. glen park, et cetera, where i'm sure there's a lot of individuals living there who would be delighted to have the

opportunity to build extra housing on their premises. i don't think there are neighbors who want to live in some kind of wealthy enclave, whatever, keep everything set in stone the way it is for years should be allowed to block that. we believe that property ownership should mean something. today, the way it is, really, everybody is a renter. either you rent from a private landlord, like i do as a tenant, or you rent from the government and you pay rent in the form of property taxes and all the kinds of burdens that the government puts on property owners. this is not how san francisco was built. this is not the city that knows how. this is the city that needs to ask permission to blow its nose. the central soma plan here, this is deficit planning, really. huge difference between the amount of jobs being allowed and the amount of housing being allowed. if you're going to have some

central planning, at least don't make it deficit planning. make the numbers add up so we're not creating an even worse situation with regards to people not being able to find places to live. there's thousands of homeless people on the streets in the city. it seems to me, having lived here for some 20 years, the problem is only getting worse, not better. the city is spending about a quarter of a billion dollars a year through the city government, coercively taking tax money on supposedly helping the homeless, but the numbers never seem to go down. you all as members of the planning commission have somewhat of a responsibility to address that. the best way to address is it not through some complicated plan but simply through freedom. take away some of the controls. take away some of the regulations that are preventing people from building affordable housing and doing it at a market rate without government subsidies.

there's homes that have been built that show it is possible to build homes that even poor people can afford. final just quick note, response to the gentleman from bicycle coalition. i bicycle all the time. it's my main form of transportation. please, no more bicycle lane bearie barriers. just pave them properly. it's not an improvement from this average bicyclist's perspective. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. ms. gomez, did you speak -- >> i didn't speak for local 2. i spoke as part of the we are soma. >> that counts, unfortunately. >> it does. you don't get to speak twice. i know you guys were looking forward to hearing another comment. >> there will be other opportunities. thank you. we always appreciate it. any additional public comment on this item? welcome.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is tim chan. i'm be bart. we've heard a lot about regional transit. i want to lend our support for the plan. i want to thank supervisor kim. she came and talked about the need to preserve transportation and regional transit. i also want to thank planning staff because they included bart from the inception of this plan process but also recognizing the key role that bart plays from a regional perspective but also from a local perspective because, after all, we do have eight stations in san francisco. so we bring a lot of value to the central soma plan, as it currently exists, but with the planned growth for this project, we're expecting a lot more housing, a lot more commercial growth, a lot more jobs. bart is going to play an even greater role. so with that, the preservation of the funding allows us to, number one, look into

modernizing and expanding powell street station. so currently, the planned area doesn't include powell street station, but we know that, as it serves bart and muni, there's going to be increased ridership from this project and the planned area. and then, at the same time, we're going to start looking into the second tube alignment. there's been some work that's already been done by ntc, but bart is going to be taking that and advancing the analysis and begin to identify where is the next alignment going to be in san francisco. potentially, we want to line it up with the tran space but also serve this area. that also potentially can include a new station. so this funding is really critical to allow us to begin to do this detailed analysis. there is funding already available through regional mtc and also at bart, but this will be the city's contribution to this really important project.

so with that, i ask that we preserve the funding for transportation and regional transit all the way through the adoption of this plan. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. this is the second time in a row that you didn't call my speaker card, but i won't take it personally. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm an architectural historian. i'm going to talk about the old mint. i want to remind the commission at the hearing on february 1st, there was terrific public support for increased funding for the old mint through this central soma plan community benefits package. over a dozen speakers testified to ask for your support on that point. as an advocate, it is gratifying for me to see the level of consensus that various commissioners regarding a

significant increase in the city's commitment of $20 million for the old mint's restoration and reuse. we are eager to see specifics regarding increased financial support for the mint during the upcoming adoption actions around this plan. as you know, i say over and over, the mint is kind of a monumental structure that will never be built again, and the city has an opportunity we don't want to lose. thank you for your recognition of the importance of the old mint. >> thank you, ms. petrin. it was not intentional. next speaker, please. [please stand by]

>> you'll need to find a way to do it faster than having to do it in an entire eir. with all the immigration issues, we need to take care of this sooner than later. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item?

seeing none, we'll close public comment and open it up to commissioner fung. >> thank you, and thanks to everyone who spoke today and has spoken in the previous hearings. thanks. you know, i take this particular plan subject matter over the eight years that i've been here and watching this grow and morph very seriously because eight years ago, san francisco was a very different san francisco. i think it plan, how it looked on paper eight years ago looked different. i still strongly believe that cities need to continue to grow and need to build out these kinds of plans to ride out economic cycles, and over the last years, we've ridden an incredible economic cycle. we've seen the growth of downtown and transbay physically grow in front of us and change our feeling and mood about how we see the city. i'm kind of bummed that the yimby folks have left the room,

except for one. >> quasi yimby. >> i say it because there are strong words that are used, and for them to not trick aroustico hear at least how we feel is disingenuous. i've never seen the city so competitive. to the one yimby speaker, i think we are all nervous about being displaced, whether you've been here for five months, five years, 50 years, 550 years, we're all nervous about our kids being able to afford to live here. there's a baby in the room. how's that baby going to afford to live here? i'm not so certain, and i'm not sure that i can be convinced otherwise that more jobs ease the situation. i think more of the cluster.

[ bleep ] that we feel are going to create a sardine can, and we're not going to be able to get out of that. i'm not convinced that the person who works in san francisco and gets on the b.a.r.t. and makes it to walnut creek is leaving money in san francisco. i think there's some payroll tax dollars that are left and some property tax dollars, but as far as where that person's buying groceries, having dinner, is probably in walnut creek and san francisco. so in having those funds in this district, in the city, or in another part of the city, that's difficult. i know that's a little bit controversial, and maybe all the work that's gone into this plan and worked at in the reading that i've done, but just at this particular time

and this kind of pressure that you feel, and you know, anger and angst amongst people is concerning. so i -- you know, i'm going to be probably -- i want to hear what staff has to say and everybody else has to say, but going to be supportive of the plan generally but not without a plan that produces more housing and getting to a closer balance of jobs and housing in this particular plan or this particular area nearby. >> thanks. commission commission commissioner koppel? >> thank you. a lot of good speakers and presentations today. wanted to take the time to thank steve wither for all the work he's done on this project. want to thank supervisor kim and the mayor's office and also

the near community for their input. i'm just going to go down my notes here. everything may not be in order, but bear with me. very impressed of jane kim's announcement of 40% affordable housing. that is an amazing plan. also, very excited to see the prioritizing of the living roof. you know, this is, again, a small little portion of our town, but considering, you know, looking at the map from above, you've got very, very high amounts of roof square footage that can totally be utilized for, you know, greening of roofs and solar panels and renewable energy, so i'm really excited to see that actually in writing in the plan. again, a lot of antioffice pro-housing arguments, and i've said it in prior hearings, but this is one of the only little

sliver in the city that can yet still accommodate commercial buildings, so again, we are, on a weekly basis trying to approve as much housing as possible and address this crisis, but this plan alone is not going to solve the housing epidemic, but i still want to give a shout out to the developers at kilroy and tmg and tishman, that have paid prevailing wages, that have encouraged san francisco residents through city build, that will go to work on these projects. in my opinion they've earned getting through this plan, and it's really interesting to see how things are materializing as things go. we've had a number of hearings on this plan, and it's

refreshing to see our assembly men and supervisors to write some plans that we can go forward. i'm really liking the idea of making this a sustainablity district that i think would give most developer what they're asking for. they want expedited approvals. they're saying it takes too much, it takes too long. we don't want to stall projects. we downtown want to not approve projects. we want it to knock our socks off, and give it a 7-0 aprofessional, but they want the developers to show up with a project that is going to get a 7-30 outcome for us. i don't think it's too much to ask for these upzonings and expedited approvals, that we go with the ab-73 model that david

chiu has, skilled trained and workforce language. again, this is going to open up doors for san francisco residents to get career opportunities through hotel trades, through construction trades, and it's just going to add to the value of this plan to this city. do want to acknowledge connie ford and alex lansberg for their comments. it's often just not housing, it's hotel components here, and if they want to be a part of this plan, and if they want expedited approvals, i think they know what they need to do to come in here and walk out of here with an approval. >> thank you. commissioner richards? >> so thank you very much again. this is like the 12th time -- it's been a long time. i've only been here four years, not eight years, but i appreciate commissioner koppel's and commissioner

fong's comments. with mr. wertheim, we have an eir that goes to market street, but the plan boundary doesn't go to market street. what do we do with that overage? can we use it somehow? >> no. unfortunately that's no growth in c-3. >> you can't carve out. what's the difference between wmou -- wmuo and cmuo zoning. >> wmuo is a western district of soma that does not allow housing. it can be any other use, but not housing. cmuo does not allow housing, as well. >> as i honestly laid in bed last night, i was reading an article on how we will work in the future, and you know, i've got -- i've started my career a while ago, and it talked about

ways that people are going to be working, and this one came up, and i kind of went oh, right. i hear this 25 years ago, that people don't have to be in physical offices, telecommuting. and i go oh, god, i heard this 25 years ago. if you look kninto the future, building all this office space, do you really think we're going to need this, based on how the future is going to be. what do you -- honestly, what do you think. >> i people that people are social beings, and graed ideas come from one another. i think that's what makes the bay area so great, and that came out of the ethos of the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and it's economically viable, but the reason it came about is people have these open ideas

and they're willing to share, and you need to be physically proxible. >> i agree with steven. i heard the same thing 25 or more years ago as technology advanced, oh, we no longer need to be physically next to each other to work, but i think people do it because they want to, and i think the success of we work, for example, or companies like we work with shared office space is a great example of that, people kind of voluntarily taking space. it's just office, it's just that it happens to be occupied on a very short-term basis, but they are hugely successful because of that. i think whether it's a iin a high-rise or some other form, people will continue to do that. >> if we have some court of cataclysmic, and people don't want to work with each other, and we've got all these empty buildings, can we convert them to housing?

>> yeah. a lot of these old buildings, have been used again and again and again. some of them are lost conversions, and some of them are industrial, and offices and all things in between. that's a great thing about the large floor plate buildings. >> i'm all for adding more housing within the initial capacity that we can, up to the very last unit, and i also agree with commissioner fong, we need to have a second act, and it needs to be let's get pen to paper pretty soon, whether it's an overlay, as mr. david said, or something close by, or i'm not saying the words western neighborhoods at all, but i think we need some kind of a second act. i think laura clark's here smiling at me. she doesn't smile at me very much. so we do need it. i know the other places in the region need to do their fair share, as well, but being provocative, if we maximize the

neighborhood in the eir, haven't we -- what if we just ti kind of entitle more than we're allowed to? >> we have legal counsel in the room that may be better -- >> i didn't mean to be provocative. i hesitate on the issue with the cap on the eir, and i'm like, we had the cap on the eir in the eastern unit, and we're 2,000 over. the cap eir doesn't mean anything. maybe the mayor -- or the city attorney can weigh in on this. >> president hillis, kate stacey in the city attorney's office. you may recall in the eastern neighborhoods, this issue kept coming up about the cap and have we exceeded the cap? the eir is not a regulation document, so what the commission approves az centrs

soma needs to be compared with the eir. one use of the eastern eir, although one use -- [ inaudible ] -- whereas the other use hasn't, so planning -- environmental planning group has evaluated whether there are new environmental facts in the uses and if there are change, and have recently found the developmental approvals are still in the big picture of environmental analysis. >> i think the court agreed on that. so the question could be, mr. wertheim, the question, then, could be if ten years down the line if this gets adopted or for some reasons buildings aren't getting built, we could

title this the second act like we did in eastern neighborhoods. the answer is we did, right? we -- [ inaudible ] >> the right, there was less commercial -- >> i think commissioner, though, in this case, we have -- i mean, what happened in the eastern neighborhoods is that much of the housing -- much of the office that was anticipated in eir did not happen, okay? s >> that was my point. in the case if we have 7 million that's already in the pipeline that's going to get processed. >> that's office space. i want to be clear on that, that space will not be built in one year, but this -- it's -- i think it's fair to say that it's more likely to happen here than it did in the eastern neighborhood. >> so potentially, from a timeline point of view, if prop m is our kind of limiting

factor, and we do some type of overlay or we do some type of new area that takes three years, someone who was out of here in six, seven, or eight, if we add a new eir, we can kind of dovetail build new housing along the way and have this come on the line at the same time. this is kind of pie in the sky thinking, but it's possible. >> yes. certainly certainly, as the director mentioned, prop m is a titling force, but it won't happen for a few years out. >> you're going to be retiring from this job. these are the kinds of things we should be looking at and being creative, because time is on our side if we have prop m that's limiting. so mr. elberly came and gave us a nice presentation around his view of what the plan should be. what are your thoughts on all

of that? >> i mean, we've learned so much from john over the years. i really always appreciate john's insights. we don't always have the same tactics on how to communicate, but the plan is chock-full of his ideas, and the ideas are continuing to evolve. honestly, sometimes hard to keep up with it because necessarily the government is not as nimble as a nonprofit and can't come out with plans all the time. we put out a plan in 2013, we put out a plan in 2016, and we put out a plan now. but working with john and working with the we are soma coalition, and even having access to some of the community social cultural money that we haven't had access to before, that's kind of the point. we have the opportunity to shape something that does put money towards job creation, that does put money towards bessie carmichael.

you i'm looking forward to putting a proposal together that hits on all of these issues that you talked about. now there are some issues in john's plan that require some moves above and beyond the central soma plan, and i think we obviously support more affordable housing, more middle income housing, more community services for the neighborhood. you know, they calm frome from propositions and the voters and all kinds of things. >> i'm all for taking the 2 billion in goodies and doing all the entitlement but still maximizing additional development in the years to come after that, whether it's adjacent or in the plan areas. we've talked about this, you and i. a couple of other things. one of the things -- there's some things here that are missing and a lot of members of the public spoke about this. we have stuff around the people, but i also worry about

displacement pressure. i looked up the housing balance report for drix six and between 2007 and fourth quarter of 2016, it was 24.6%, which was great. actually one of the best districts in the city, but by 2016, it had already decreased to 6.5%. i think some of the money we have, we should use for acquisition and rehamburgeb, i all of these things that people mentioned during public testimony is a really good idea, and i would support it. maybe we need to move some things around and put some money atide for some opportunityistic signs. we had several of us sit here and say 20 million, it's nice, but we knew that the oldman needed like 100 million -- it was some six, seven, eight

number -- god, i'm an accountn't and i can't count. i'd like to see some more money for the old mint. it's a building that can be activated for the community, and it is a national treasure. not just a city treasure. it's not some victorian house on some city street, it's a national treasure. mayor lee, i think he said 20 million in funding. but i'd love to see at least 30 million up there. the other one up there on the people thing that's missing, not only the displacement is also the job training. i don't know if the nexus study allows for that type of thing, but if you have people in the neighborhood that are facing pressure to live there, and there's some issue around economic equality or inequality, they don't have the skills -- especially if they're

close. we'd love to have the people that are close by work in the offices. i think we need to have some money for some type of money to meet the workforce training of that the future. >> yes, please. the nexus, the capital -- nexus allows us to only spend money on capital infrastructure. we've created a new nexus as part of this as supervisor kim's request that allows us to build places for job training for the first time. if we build a facility, it would have to be other sources of money to program it, like we're talking about money for bessie carmichael. all the stuff we dream of is only available through this new source of money. i'm sure we might overextend ourselves on that, but that just means because there's so much opportunity. i really resonate with the community members that are passionate about what makes

soma so great. that is he why i'm excited about this funding opportunity to put money right back into the organizations that are already on the ground, doing amazing things for the community. >> right. i also sympathize and empathize and agree with people that say what's having a cultural district without the actual people there that carry on the culture. i'm a member of the lgbt community, but still, we need to have the people there that they're kmem rati they're commemorating. i do support more money for the mint, the physical spaces to actually job train. i like the meeting of prop m to jobs and housing, displacement funds, and land banking, small sites. i think it's been a good job, and it's good you've heard us, but we've got to maximize to

every last unit we can within the eir. if that means we miss a hotel or two, i'm open to that. >> okay. thanks. i'm just on the -- i think in this discussion, we've had, obviously, a lot about the kind of housing and jobs, you know, tilting this plan one way or the other, a balancing of it, and i appreciate supervisor kim's comments on this also in that let's maximize the amount of housing, let's get up to what we can do in the eir. you offered a couple of solutions in the presentation prosecute a planning standpoint. which of those do you think work the best. >> the 30,00040,000 is a no brainer if you're trying to maximize them. they're great sites for housing, and it's a very simple shift, so one letter in the -- or one number in the code.

>> right. >> and then, the more challenging one is the west coma muo, and ju coma -- soma muo, and just because i'm really sympathetic to the flower mart and the way it operates as a community member spoke, 1:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., i wouldn't want to be backing up to that facility. that's a challenge, with that, maybe more along sixth street makes sense, and certainly along the sites of fifth street makes sense for being allowed to have housing. >> well, it'll be good for the next hearing to come up with recommendation on that to get more housing because i would echo that notion to get up to the eir level on housing. and just to this question of job, you know, office versus housing, i appreciate the departments kind of citywide in

regional perspective on this. for those, i think people have a little bit of short-term memory on this. we sat here fore decades, as least the past decades and passed planned, eastern octavia, the shipyard, treasure island, which were predominantly housing plans. but we ended -- and i think if going to build more office, this this is this is a place to do it. we've got to strike a balance, but we've got to realize this is a regional office market. people are going to commute from -- from, you know, through b.a.r.t. to get to this location, and we should be cognizant of that. it's build housing where there isn't transit or building office where there isn't transit makes a lot of sense, so we've got to kind of figure those tradeoffs, but i support

increasing to kind of maximizing the housing on this site. how does this plan work with the state housing density bonus? could project workers use this plan to develop more housing. >> yes. that part of the -- the height limits you see today, all the projects could use a state density bonus, and we're in the process of figuring out -- we've figured out through some of our programs how that works with density caps. we're figuring out how this works in parts of town like central soma where there's no density cap, so what exactly are you giving in terms of state density bonus and we're working that. >> so the numbers you have here account for taking advantage of the state testing bonus, but not necessarily the height? you could go actually higher than this? >> right. there's many ways to fulfill the state density bonus. you go up, you go fatter. yeah, so those are the two

strategies that buildings could use for the state density bonus. >> and then in terms of livablity, you mentioned mergers in terms of alleys. what does that do? >> the code, there is a map in the previous one that kind of shows if any street has a fine grain pattern of buildings that are -- this is getting into the weeds but from a historic preservation standpoint, we studied all the buildings, and there's a range from one to 6 z, z being there is not historic viability at all. anything from one to 6 l, if you have a fine grand pattern of lots, you have to maintain not the building -- maybe with historic, it doesn't mean you have to maintain the building, but the lot pattern that's already there. that's how it works, is really

if you're walking down these giant street, but you have a fine grain patterns of buildings already, that makes it much more enjoyable to walk down, and if not, we don't do that. >> so tonight it's a prohibition of the merger. i think that's trips us up in other places. and then, in alleys, we have kind of gone back and forth. clearly, the alleys are important in the blocks of market. that kind of livablity of the alleys is important, and we've had projects where there's this kind of this tension between putting parking in the alleys and access to kind of back house functions versus kind of preserving the ability for transit to move quickly and traffic to move quickly on a larger commercial street, so how do we address that here? >> so the plan to the top stack issue in the neighborhood is the major streets, right,

second and third and fourth to sixth, and then all the way to townsend. that's where the majority of the people are going to walk, where all the transit is going to be, and all the bikes, especially the through trips are going to be. we have to fix those first, we have a limited amount of funding. we have to use the funding to fix those streets. the plan says -- [ inaudible ] to start thinking about what to do in those alleys? and then we'd have to identify another fronting source in terms of identifying what those alleys would need to be. most trips of more modes is on the major streets if you're going to have a limit on funding, let's do that? if the commission's discretion is let ease do that, throw another 10, 20 million at the streets, we'd do some of the implementation of it, as well. >> and then just briefly on tdr's, so there's a new type of

tdr that's here in this plan, right? >> there's a new dr in town. sorry. long hearing. >> so if somebody's got a historic building, is it like downtown where they sell the tdr. >> yes. it's a private market. there's a tdr that works great in downtown. we said this neighborhood's going to have some heights that are suddenly creating a market -- this is tdr's rights for a chance to serve the normal humans. there's a difference between the height limit and what the historic building is, so now there's more of a difference, there's more of a motivation to have the right to sell, so we're introducing this here. same mechanism as in downtown. the only thing different we're doing is giving the right to affordable housing to fill their tdr because based on their construction costs, they go a little bit more than their height limit. >> okay. in the issues that came up about the flower mart, they're

somewhat beyond the scope of this plan. i know there's a deal in the works or that's been in the works for the flower mart, and it's got an alternative location or they're working on an alternative location, but the plan doesn't necessarily -- >> no, the plan just requires that there's pdr space in this location and highly recommends that it be a flower mart, and all of the rest of this is precontractual between the developer and the tenants, as well as the developing in process that we're working on through the mayor's office. >> and then on affordable housing, is there a preference for, like, acquisition? is there a requirement in here because again, that gets that displacement and we've tried to push this small sites program, and it -- but is there a preference for that first building affordable housing or is that going to get the same process that we citywide. >> i think on that detail, i will defer to my colleagues at

the mayor office of housing and community development who can come to another hearing, but my understanding is it's one pool of money that mocd can decide to use. you've heard of mocd's money, maybe spending some more money in the community. and the cac model is oversight of that spending, but it's open on how that's spent. we've had rehab program for years now. i talked to a gentleman yesterday of about approximately 100 units. it's not a game changer in the city, but if there's a building that's in distress, it's really, really effective, and so we've met with some other members of the community and asked them, what buildings dow think is a priority for active rehab. being in the community is a much more efficient way of knowing what's necessary and what's important, and also, help us identify sites for

acquisition for new -- for new affordable housing building, so we're out kind of with the community saying hey, you're eyes and ears on the street, where do you think these things are going to build? >> and i think a couple people commented on implementation and how funds are allocated in the future and strong community involvement. i think we see cac is working well, so getting some details on how that would work here and what the recommendation is to keep, 'cause this is a, you know, decades long plan in keeping the community involved in that, i guess, is critical. commissioner moore? >> i think it is a first, and i think it's actually wonderful that mayor farrell and supervisor kim yesterday issued legislation which really introduced their support for central soma.

this has, i don't think has ever happened before. i don't think we had anything similar on the eastern neighbored or central market, octavia. we were battling with it all the way to the end. i kind of have a difference of having to dive over high board in a swimming pool, and the reason is the following. i think the plan itself is a great piece of planning, i think it's extremely well crafted and it's very thoughtful, even to the level of detail, which at the moment we are just accepting and hearing, we may reflect on a number of points as we go forward, but from the top down, it's a really great piece of planning. however, when i sit in this room, and i hear the community ask those questions which also resonate with me, i have to go

and actually restate of what i heard and what matters to me, asking that that level of detail gets further examined and refined and really, really carefully taken, again, under the microscope before we go to fully approving the plan. today, we're initiating it in the trust that this plan will ultimately be mature in answering some of the facets which some of us may have questions about. so let me briefly repeat, just to acknowledge, incredible amount of comment we received today. we have been on this for about 3.5 hours now. that resonates to me, and i will take them off my notes and not necessarily in the order of important. so for give me.

i'm going to go through them as i wrote them down. i think commissioner koppel restated with the deal with land use, the deal with office, basically in code, doing the right things, while the hotel component is completely silent and have a can't on that particular comment and residential raised a lot of questions. excuse me. there is the cultural component as it deals with the cultural identity and the need of people in the neighborhood to feel that this remain their place as the project moves forward because it comes with colossal changes in every aspect of the plan, and then there's this historic preservation component which together with the cultural component is a very special part because it really visibly preserves what this neighborhood was, currently is and what will bes