test test. >>speaker: good afternoon,

evening, whatever times the, steve -- department staff. this is the 16th hearing for the central

mitigation measure mt465 on the street loading spaces and loading zone. finally, evaluate as list of recommended and other potential changes to the central som a plan. aside from the request to set development capacity to see sites based on the key sites guidelines the recommended changes to the plan and other

issues for consideration are evaluated in the eir should you choose to adopt the plan with these motion. regarding certification for the central soma plan has been revised. i was extra copies of the plan to my left. this analyze it is plan with the exception to the proposed open space improvements and street network improvements which are analyzed at a project specific level. the implementation would result in the following unavoidable environmental impacts that could not be mitigated below a significant level.

jurisdiction over the project with the purpose of mit mitigatg an environmental effect. related to changes to street which results in greater traffic noise. the eir finds this to be a significant plan level and cumulative plan use impact. plan development would result in adverse change in the significance of historical resources and defined in thified lines 15064.5. for transportation and circulation, central soma plan development including the proposed open space it proves

results in significant plan level and qume ra live plan impact. central soma plan development including the open space improvements and street network changes result in cross walk overcrowding. sen tra soma plan development results in plan level and commercial and passenger load impact. construction activity including the proposed open space improvements would result in substantial interference with pedestrian bicycle or vehicular circulation and results in potentially hazardous condition.

construction activities including the proposed street network changes and open space improvements result in a temporary increase in noise level. for air quality the operation of subsequent projects in the central soma plan area would violate air quality standard, contribute to existing or projected air quality violation and/or results in a considerable knelnet increase of pollutants h the project region is not attained under federal air quality standard. central soma plan development results in operational omissions of fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants that

results in exposure of potential receptor. the eir finds this -- impact. also could alter wind in a manner that affects public are areas. the legislative sponsors and the planning department propose modifications to the plan which were transmitted to the commission on april 10, 2018 and april 3, 2018.

these modifications are addressed in the april 10errata. the staff changes will be incorporated b

however, these references are in correct, and the b.a.r.t. ridership data is from 2012. therefore references to 2012 b.a.r.t. ridership as used in the baseline analysis will be updated to reflect that the data was based on 2015 b.a.r.t.

ridership data. second, the comment of oscn 1.62 is presented in response tr-6 when it should be response tr-8. these errors will be updated in the final eir but do not constitute new information that requires recirculation under ceqa guidelines section 10588.5. staff recommends that you certify the contents of the report before you are accurate, and the procedures through which the final eir was prepared comply with ceqa and the applicable chapter of the administrative code. that concludes my presentation on this matter, and i am happy to answer any questions. if there are no questions, i will turn this presentation

back over to steve. >> thanks, liz. >> so carrying on, after adoption of the final environmental impact report, the next action for the commission would be the adoption of the ceqa findings, and the mitigation monitoring reporting program. this contains four items. the packet report, the draft resolution, and specifies the proposed action, which is the adoption of the ceqa findings and mmrp, the ceqa findings, which includes the rational for adopting the eir's alternatives and the mmrp lists all of the proposed mitigation and improvement measures broken out in those to be implemented by the city and those to be implemented by project sponsors. the third item for you today is adoption of the amendments to the affiliated plan and general findings. your general plan packet

includes the following findings. first, your packet report, the adoption resolution, a draft ordinance, which as initiated by the planning commission on march 21,2018, including the following, the central soma plan. additionally it includes amendments to the east and western soma area plans and other elements of the general plan to recognize the creation of a new central soma plan. and fourth your packet contains a summary of what has changed since the planning commission adopted the ordinance earlier this year. as we discussed at the march 22nd hearing, this changes the result of the input received from the commission and from organized labor. and in in a couple of minutes i'll share with you the proposed commission policy that would help implement this language. the fourth item is adoption of the minutes to the planning code and the administrative code and the affiliated

findings. first, the case report which briefly summarizes the actions to be taken as well as a list of recommended modifications which i'll discuss in a moment. second, the adoption resolution which includes the adoption action and related findings, fourth, the ordinance, the document summarizing all of the code changes and conveying what code policies. a document conveying the changes made by the april 10 legislation, and there's an issues for recommendation document that brings issues to our attention that were not brought forth in the april 10 legislation. [inaudible] >> as such, aid --

[inaudible] >> -- largely from input received by community members and stakeholders since the release of our first version of the ordinance as well as further deliberation by staff. in case report includes most of those modifications as well as the rational for implementing them. today i'd like to highlight those and a few additional modifications that i'd like to call your attention to that were not in the packet. in terms of land use and zoning, the project requires that there's pdr space. [inaudible] >> in terms of physical character, we have one nonsubstantive amendment that i want to call to your attention because it wasn't in your packet, and that's a cross-reference in the cmu

table in section 848, the residential lot coverage requirements in 249.78. we're also recommending for key sites we tailor some of the proposed receptions. just for one call out at the tennis club sites, they're adding a lot of public benefits, and one thing we're comfortable with them doing is not providing all the pdr sites. we would like to start tailoring those, and work with the city attorney on how to do that, but we want your blessing to kind of tighten the key sites language. the owners are seeking to place an additions on that site to go from 85 feet to 250 feet and to do so would benefit from exceptions around tower separation and set backs.

in addition they would provide benefici additional benefits. this is a good opportunity to talk about tower separation, since you asked us to share some visuals to help clarify this concept. as a reminder, the plan proposing a tower separation of 115 feet, which is the width of a soma street plus 215 feet set backs. this can be reduced under two circumstances, when the buildings are allowed are slimmer and have substantial difference in heights, in some of our key sites, the second reason is where a reduction task separation can facility tate other -- [inaudible] >> -- that being said, i want to show you three examples of the tower feet created by the different distances. here's a model and example at 115 feet, here's 85 feet, and

here's 30 feet. they're pretty different. i'm sure you could find perfectly good and terrible examples of all three somewhere in the city. the key will be in the details as well as the different overall effect on the street. personally, i think the distance between buildings in the midblock condition is less important than their set backs. if you're in the middle of the block it's less important than the street view, but to be talked about. one more item on physical character, one of our process goals in central soma is to increase certainty and clarity. one way to do so it take those things to the commission almost always granted as exceptions and make them the rules. we're recommending to modify the code to codify these concepts in three ways. one that units above 85 feet in

height need only a 15 foot exposure instead of 25 feet since a 15 foot set back on all properties would give them a 35 foot buffer. [inaudible] >> finally, that the interior courtyards are not required to expand by 5 feet on every floor because pretty much no project is able to achieve that. moving onto parking, loading, and transportation demand management, the first proposed change is to require a passenger loading plan for new large projects along high injury corridors. like elsewhere, we tried to codify relevant mitigation measures because people are more apt to look at the code than they are the mmrp. the second strategy is to amend

the grandfathering clause for our transportation demand management program. the tdm program was passed in 2017, and allowed pronls that applied before september 4, 2016 to only meet 50% of applicable targets. the central soma ordinance would have removed this grarnting provision for projects benefiting from the up zoning. project sponsors were significantly upset about this concept until the release of our language in mid-february, they had been relying on the concept design accordingly. since april 12, we had about a million meetings on this topic internally and with stakeholders and we think we've reached an agreement. should you --

[inaudible] >> -- we have a few proposed modifications. foremost, the project needs to include information on the applicability of the proposed language district. first, ones that are substantial in size and that they involve 40,000 square feet of new construction or additions, this way we can make sure that minor additions in small projects are not captured in the cft. second they need to have a substantial up zoning through the plan and finally, the proposed project is bigger than the one you could do today. for example if you could build a 65 foot building today in the mixed use office district, and you -- if you want to build a 65 foot building in the future, you'd be allowed to and be join the cfd. that way, we're kind of having

a fairness clause regarding the benefits of participating in the up zoning. it's worth noting that we previously included in our public benefits program that the cfd would exist, and the proposed fee rates. also as a new taxation district, adoption of the cfd itself will require multiple actions at the board of supervisors. few more proposals regarding exactions. first is the recommendation to add a waiver allows land dedication of space and construction for land on a block -- [inaudible] >> -- but not for these other fees. this waiver of will if a tate the timely and cost effective construction of the park on that block, and just an aside, the legislative process regarding this land swap and where this language would be

effective is slated to move forward at the board later this month. i know a lot of people are tracking this separate legislation. it's a swap that facilitates our park and the temporary flower mart site, and eventually an additional 6.8 acres of land for the puc. as you know our public benefits package is very aggressive, but also responds to the feasibility of projects. currently there's legislation to raise the tsf by $5 persquare foot. while we are all for transit money and honestly increasing fees in downtown where the fee burden is lower, i'm fully supportive of but we're concerned that the increase in central soma would make increase of fees infae

[inaudible] >> we think this'll afford better oversight and provides opportunities with the soma stablization c.a.c. the second recommendation is to create a commission policy regarding good jobs. for background in the last few months, organized labor has become very involved in the plan and has raised issues of job quality. in recognition we amended the proposed central soma plan as i previously mentioned. the proposal before you would be one way that the commission could bring this issue to the floor. it states that all nonresidential development over 20,000 square feet shall provide a community good jobs employment plan for community comment prior to project approval by the planning commission. [inaudible] >> -- with benefits. the plan must detail how the strategy would be implemented

including -- [inaudible] >> the document would be informational only and implementation of jobs program would still be the responsibility of the office of economic and workforce development and the office of labor standards enforcement, and in terms of process since this is a commission policy and not a change to the code, i believe you would probably want to have a separate resolution making this action. just a couple more items before i turn it over to paolo to talk about the housing sustainability district. your plan packet includes the following item. first the case report which summarizes the actions to be taken. second, the draft resolution of adoption that includes the adoption actions and related finding. third your packet containing the ordinance proposed on april 18, 2018.

i will be reiterate the information unless there are questions. the april 12 hearing i made comments about the ordinance that replaced the documentation made on april 10. . [inaudible] >> your sixth item for action today is adoption of the plan's implementation program and affiliated findings, including the following items. first the case report which briefly summarizes the action to be taken and summarizes the comments of the implementation of the plan program. second, the adoption action. the implementation program, which shows a strategy for implementing every policy in the plan, the public benefits

program which shows we're going to collect and expend over $2 billion in public benefits generated by the plan. the key development sites guidelines which go into the detail for each of the plan's nine key development sites about design strategies that can improve the project and result in additional public benefits and finally the key streets guidance. fourth, your packet includes a document detailing the changes made to the implementation packet. there are two changes we didn't discuss at previous hearings. the first is that the additional of the key development site that i mentioned earlier. we also added that 1133 mission street could be a candidate for recommendation open space funding should other projects not need their full funding amount. it's 1.5 blocks west of the plan area and was identified as a potential park site by the

d-6 open space task force and development of park would benefit the residents of the northwestern part of the plan area. in the public benefits program we have a $15 million line item for capital for cultural amenities. we realize that the packet itself doesn't specify yerba buena gardens, so we'd like to add that language in. finally there's an issue for consideration document that includes the issues brought to the attention of the lengths lay tough officers and office that are not included in the proposed implementation program. i'm going to turn it over to pauloi ikesoe. >> also for your consideration today is not aordinance amending the business and tax

regulation codes to create the central soma housing sustainability district. if we can get the slide up. in your packet for this consideration are a case report, and a draft for the ordinance under consideration today. i've also handed out some clarifying amendments which i'll discuss, as well. so i gave an informational presentation last week on ab 73 and its requirements as well as some of the preliminary details on our local ordinance, so once again, our local ordinance would not change any of the under lying zoning regulations or height limits proposed in the central soma plan. it would simply provide the option of a stream lined approval process for projects meeting certain eligibility requirements, including prevailing wage, labor and on-site affordability requirements. our local ordinance would ensure that we comply with all the requirements in ab 73, the

state law, and qualify our city to receive zoning incentive payments from the state. we'll also create a stricter local eligibility criteria for projects and procedures for review and approval of projects within the district. so as required by ab 73, the ordinance would require project seeking to participate in the central soma hsd to include at least 10% of units, affordable to lower income households. it would also require projects to pay skilled wages or used a skilled workforce depending on the size of the project. the ordinance also sets local eligibility requirements for projects, so these are rules that we are -- that we have developed. so projects over 160 feet in height are not eligible unless they are 100% affordable projects. any parcel containing an article 10 or 11 lifted

building is not eligible, and finally, any project which proposed to demolish, convert or remove an existing dwelling unit would not be eligible to participate in our housing sustainability district. what does it actually mean to participate in the central soma hsd? qualifying projects would be able to seek entitlement pursuant to a new planning code section, section 343, which this ordinance would create. projects seeking entitlement under this new code section in meeting all the requirements of the hsd as well as the under lying zoning would receive ministerial approval of permits within 120 days of the department's receipt of a complete application. section 343 would require projects to comply fully with any applicable central soma eir mitigation measures. it would require projects to undergo design review, like all other projects, pursuant to the urban design guidelines and the central soma guide to urban design. as required by ab 73, section

343 would require a public informational hearing on each hsd project, and finally it would introduce a projects requirement to ensure projects benefiting from steam lined process actually move to ux skr. we have a few topics of potential discussion for today, including a clarifying amendment to the introduced ordinance which is highlighted in red in the version that i just distributed. so the first topic which i believe was raised at last week's informational hearing is our eligibility requirement that projects up to 160 feet in height be eligible to participate in the hsd and receive stream lined approval. that is not a requirement of sb 73. it's something we came up with locally on the theory that larger projects taller towers often require exemptions from the code and are more complicated from a design perspective, and they would go through our standard

entitlement process. this is a map of proposed height limits on the central soma plan to give you an idea of how many parcels we're talking about that would potentially be excluded from participation in the hsd if we went with the 160 foot height limitation that is included currently in the ordinance. the idea of a progress requirement really came out of this commission, so i'd like to take this -- i think it would be good if we take this opportunity for the commissioners to weigh in on it. as currently proposed an hsd project would have 36 months to obtain a first site permit or building permit from the department of building inspection. if that deadline is not met, the director then holds a hearing requiring the project sponsor to report on the status of that project. if the sponsor cannot demonstrate a good faith effort to obtain a first site or building permit, then the director must revoke approval for the project. some of the things that we think are are -- for discussion are, you know, after the project receives approvals from the planning department, it

moves onto the department of building inspection, where we have sort of -- we don't really know as much what goes on there, how long permits take. so to expect a project -- to obtain a permit within 36 months, we don't necessarily have as much control over it, so maybe consider if someone has applied for a building or site permit could be a good threshold. the ordinance does not make clear what the director is able to do if the sponsor does not demonstrate good faith. we would suggest specifying a renewal period so at that hearing, the director can say your approvals are extended for 12, 24, 36 months; some period of time to ensure that they keep moving towards construction. and finally, we have a

clarifying amendment to the legislation. so perour city charter, the planning commission is required to approve all permitted regulated by the planning code but may delegate its authority to the planning department. so these amendments in red would clarify that the commission is delegating its approval authority for these hsd projects, meeting all requirements to the planning department to enable ministerial approval. that concludes my presentation, but i'm going to invite our director, john rahaim, up. >> thank you, everyone. commissioners, for the record, john rahaim with planning department staff. it was a long presentation. we understand this has been before you a number of times. we are indeed asking for your approval today of a seven-year process, and the products of that process. i think i won't spend a long time talking about this, but i do want to just remind us all

why we did this to begin with. we came to the idea of doing a central soma plan during the eastern neighborhoods process when we determined that this corridor was a central subway and nearby other transit improvements was a valuable corridor to look at for an expansion of jobs and housing in the city. and we, after a lot of initial discussion with the neighborhood, were very careful to create a plan that we think is not an extension of downtown but is kind of a special district of soma that allows high-rise in a number of key places in the neighborhood, but generally maintains the quality and character of the neighborhood that's there today. in addition, we felt it was very important to us to make sure that we were maximizing the public benefits to allow the impacts of that development and other amenities of the neighborhood to be created as a result of this growth. we have learned a lot over the

years from the eastern neighborhood, from the rincon hill neighborhood transit center plan, and we think that the lessons of those plans, both good and bad lessons are incorporated in a way that moves us forward in a you new planning area of the city. this plan as a reminder creates more housing than the rincon hill and transit districts combined. it will be one of the densest residential neighborhoods in the city. it will also create thousands of new jobs and exactly where they should be, in our opinion. on a transit line, near a caltrain station, and within a fairly short walking distance of the transit center terminal. so we believe this is the right plan at the right time, and we are asking for your approval of the plan. with that, i'd like to turn the mic over to moses who introduced the legislation with the mayor as well as a representative from supervisor fewer's office who's here to

make a few comments. thank you so much. >> the supervisor would like to thank the staff with the planning department for its seven year effort to modernize the zoning surrounding the largest transit investment the city has made this century. at the top of that list is steve wertheim, thank you, who has spent many hard years of collaboration with the community -- under whose umbrella under the name, we are soma, who are in a very present tense, shaping the central soma plan to be reflective of the needs of the community now and for the next 30 years to come. the plan reflects the time in which it was devised in which we are exiting, and economic -- when we were exiting an

economic slump. we are currently engaged with the discussions in the past few months to make a more complete central soma plan that incorporates the wisdom of our neighborhood leaders and lessons learned in the past few years. we're still -- there are still a multitude of issues that need to be vetted. clearly, we're heard that the plan needs additional housing, even though it is providing more housing than other areas that are adjacent. the type of housing that is affordable to our middle class and working people. we concur with statements provided at past hearings by the community partners that the city must aggressively seek site acquisition for new development and acquisition of existing rent controlled buildings for this plan to work. we also concur with statements that steve presented today that make an opportunity for the plan to support job creation in a way that benefits local

residents. in other words, much of what it was stated in the good jobs for all plan with jobs for justice. in terms of child care and school site, the plan encourages a mixture of two bedroom units, and it behooves the plan to create more on-site child care. parking remains equal to that of downtown, itself a bill outdated in its parking regulations. this transit-rich neighborhood of the future, the future should be one that has less private automobiles as possible. we're deeply concerned about the reservation of pdr uses and jobs within the plan, and we want to ensure that the will of the voters who pass proposition x is respected by this plan.

we strongly encourage the planning commission to discuss the issues presented in written correspondence by our community partners, such as we are soma, todd co, the trades, jobs with justice, and we look forward to hearing your considerations and the rich dialogue that will ensure regarding this plan that it will shape our conversations at the board of supervisors. and with that, i'd like to bring up my colleague from supervisor fewer's office. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is ian fragosi, a legislative aide with supervisor fewer. supervisor fewer, she's been briefed on the central soma plan and recognizes that this has been in development stages for a long time, seven years now. however, the supervisor is very concerned about the jobs-housing imbalance, that we

recognize that the gap between office space and housing has been narrowed after recent amendments. her biggest concern is that this plan does not include a public school, and this area is already lacking adequate public education facilities to serve the current population, let alone all the families that will move there. she firmly believed that we are not only building housing, but we are building lively hoods, and that includes public schools. if we're not thinking about where all these families are going to send their kids to school, then, we're not planning, we're just building. supervisor fewer urges the planning department to work with the school district to identify at least one potential site for a school in soma and that the school fees from this project be dedicated to

building schools in the area. so thank you so much for your consideration. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. mr. wertheim, is that all for the presentation? you want to wrap it up. >> thanks, everyone. >> president hillis: thank you. so we will take -- we'll open it up first for public comment. >> we did receive a late request for organized opposition. >> president hillis: so -- from mr. drury? [inaudible] >> clerk: okay. you get three minutes. >> president hillis: we'll just call you during public comment, because i know i've got a card for you. we'll just call names. [names read ]

>> president hillis: you all can lineup on the screen side of the room and speak in any order. >> good evening. happy bike to workday, commissioners. my name is yee wan. on behalf of the san francisco bicycle coalition and our more than 10,000 members, we support the central soma plan's goals to prioritize working, biking, and transit in the central soma plan area. we believe this will help relieve the traffic in the area and make all road users, not just people biking, safer. at the same time, we are delighted to see there are planny proposed improvements for people biking on soma streets. as some of you may know, some of the -- [inaudible] >> -- 13% of streets accounting for 75% of serious for fatal

injuries. as the city has committed to eliminate traffic fatalities by 2024 through vision zero, we believe the improvements proposed as a part of this plan are a huge milestone towards achieving that goal. the central soma plan and its proposed addition of cycle tracks along folsom, brannan, fifth and fourth street will bring us towards our goal of a safe, bikable neighborhood. however while we want to see more improvements for people biking in the area, we also want to make sure that these improvements and the existing infrastructure are built and maintained to be of the highest quality. given the history of serious and fatal crashes along the folsom street corridor, we know that anything that the cycle tracts protected bike lanes are sufficient and