this meeting will come to order. welcome to the july 9, 2018 rules committee meeting. i'm asha safai, chair of the committee, to my left is senior catherine stefani and we're waiting for a couple of other members. today, our clerk is alissa. madame clerk, any announcements? >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards to be included as

part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. >> supervisor safai: thank you, today we're joined by supervisor jane kim, the sponsor of a few pieces of legislation in front of us today. for item number 1, handing it over to supervisor kim. item number 1 is ordinance amending the administrative code, making appropriate findings and 2 is special tax financing low related to the central soma plan area. >> supervisor safai: great. >> supervisor kim: i don't have opening remarks. i did want to welcome anne-marie rogers, head of long-term planning to give a presentation and lisa chen who will give a

brief overview of plan. >> i'm andrea rogers. the central soma plan before you today gives shape to the growth that is expected west of the downtown. the accessible area is near the transit center and bisected by the central subway. it has surface parking lots and under developed buildings that position it well for the future. it also holds reservoirs of affordable housing, pdr and existing communities. this plan provides growth opportunity and considerably more. it provides what is needed to transition this area into a full-service neighborhood. with your adoption, this plan will accommodate growth, provide public benefits, enhance neighborhood character, and facilitate a diverse and lively job center. before i get started, i want to acknowledge our partners, district supervisor kim, as well

as mayor farrell and the agency departments in attendance, there are also many implementing agencies who helped us refine the package. mta, the rec park department, and the school district. most importantly, i'd like to thank the thousands of community members, residents, advocates, developers, non-profits, business owners, all of who have shaped the plan for the better. here's some of the highlights and benefits of the plan. it would create a sustainable mixed use neighborhood. it would leverage the city's substantial investment in the subway while delivering 33% of all units as permanently affordable housing. it preserves and builds new industrial or pdr space, ensuring no net loss due to the plan. it adds 16 million square feet of development capacity, about 8 million each for both housing

and commercial. the plan leverages this growth with a comprehensive $2.2 billion worth of public benefits. this will fund critical needs for transit, bicycle and pedestrian safe streets, parks and rec community facilities, non-profits and social services, and more to create a truly inclusive livable neighborhood. most importantly, most of these public benefits are dedicated to affordable housing. this includes both new construction as well as the preservation of existing rent controlled units in soma. there can be no community plan without a sincere and sustained community dialogue. today is a culmination of almost eight years of planning with thousands of stakeholders. there have been 17 hearings at the planning and historic preservation commission. nearly a dozen open houses and walking tours. and literally dozens of meetings

with neighborhood groups. and yet, after eight years, there is a sense of urgency. with our housing crisis and growing demand for commercial space, we want to capitalize on the current market cycle. this plan maximizes housing studies, there is 20% increase in housing from the 2016 plan. right now there are several projects waiting in the wings set to be entitled. these projects include proposals to gift land to the city for 100% affordable housing. the affordable project relies on the plan passing soon to meet deadlines. with your adoption, the housing sustainability district will create the first ministerial process for housing in modern san francisco history. bringing co-compliant housing online all the faster.

the plan before you is the result of a lot of people thinking. let's jump in with an overview with our plan manager, lisa chen. she's joined by josh witski. >> thank you, supervisors, thank you, anne-marie, i'm lisa chen with the planning department. if i could pull up the slides, please. we're very pleased to be here, as anne-marie said, after nearly eight years of work and work with the community and city partners, today's hearing, you have several items in front of you. there are administrative code section 35 amendments related to nuisance complaints against pdr uses which are intended to protect the valued businesses as the neighborhood grows.

there are admin codes, this is a technical amendment related to the proposed special tax district which is expected to generate $316 million to fund community benefits. as has been mentioned, technically both the planning code and admin code are before you today, but we will be focusing on the admin code sections as the other portions are intended to be heard at land use. today's presentation will include an overview of the plan, including the vision and goals of the public benefit package. i'll describe the administrative code amendments and then describe the special tax district. you have a very large set of legislative items before you, not just today, but at the full board, so the next two slides serve as a table of contents. in bold are the items before you today.

starting with the plan overview. that is an ideal location for new growth. we intend to create a sustainable neighborhood in all senses of the world, socially, economically and environmentally. our strategy to get there is three-fold. first, accommodate demand for jobs, houses and other uses to change the zoning to allow growth. we'll develop it through fees and provide infrastructure and services. third, we'll also help preserve and enhance the neighborhood character. what this means, we'll build upon what is great about soma, diversity of residency and jobs. a truly eclectic mix of buildings and architecture. access to transit. and the fact it's already a hub to arts, culture and night life. we also want to address what is

not great about the neighborhood. high rents, inefficient zoning. this philosophy is embedded in the goals for the plan. each goal is accompanied with policies and implementation measures. the first three goals are accommodating growth. goal 4 is transportation, goal r5 is about parks and recreational opportunities, existing and new opportunities. goal 6 is about creating an environmentally sustainable neighborhood. goal 7 is about preserving and celebrating the cultural heritage and goal 8 is the urban design and character of the neighborhood. as has been noted, it's been a long road to get to this point, so the planning process began in

2011. since that time, there have been two draft plans in 2013 and 2016, as well as a full environmental impact report. we've spoken with thousands of people during this process, over 15 public events, 17 hearings, planning commission and historic preservation commission, two hearings at the land use committee. here's a snapshot of the neighborhood organizations we've met with over the years. so to give you a sense of what the neighborhood might look like, here is a 3d model showing the new growth in the area. so everything in yellow before you is the planned development under central soma and everything in blue is under way. so the plan would create 16

million square feet in development. this is another look at the development capacity. this map combines the zoning and height changes. you can see on the left there is limited potential for new growth. half of the areas are industrial, while others allow modern development of 30-85 feet. if it's adopted, we would see this increase significantly, adding mid rise and high rise buildings in some places. while these images show the physical extent of the plan, the public benefits package is about the human element. about the services and infrastructure that will serve the people now and into the future. the plan will leverage significant value for new development. if it doesn't pass, we would still see some growth. central soma would more than quadruple this, raising $2.2

billion. this would add $1 billion in tax revenue to our general fund. here's the public benefits package that would be funded by the plan. again, this is over the first 25 years. this list was developed working closely with partner agencies, policymakers and the community. nearly half of the revenues go to affordable housing to ensure we reach our goals. the next is $500 million for transit, and we'll fund $185 million for parks and rec so enhance existing facilities and build new parks. $180 million to pdr space. $110 million to complete streets. another $110 million to community services and cultural preservation to fund nonprofit services, as well as to preserve

historic gems like the old mint. $70 million to environmental sustainability. and finally $65 million to schools and childcare to support the growing population. this is the same $2.2 billion benefits package shown by funding source, over a third will come directly from new projects provided onsite, like affordable housing units. the rest is from a mix of existing and new development fees and taxes. here are the new fees and taxes on residential development that projects will need to pay in addition to the requirements. each is getting up-zoned as a plan to a development fee tier. the fees and taxes are scaled accordingly. i won't go into detail, but the new requirements include a community infrastructure fee, the special tax under discussion today, and the community facility fee that will provide

capital funding for nonprofit facilities. similarly here are the new funding sources that will come from nonresidential developments. in addition to the new sources mentioned for residential projects, these nonresidential projects have to pay for transferrable development rights, provide publicly owned public spaces, and provide pdr. and here's a map of the development fee tiers, if you recall the 3d map from before, it matches the area where we see the most growth. i'm going to describe the amendments today. currently the code protects pdr uses against nuisance complaints, for instance, because of noise or odors, as long as the pdr use is meeting conditions.

under the amendments, hotels would be added to the list and would not be able to make spurious complaints against businesses. they would have to notify future buyers. the rationale for the amendment is to protect and preserve pdr. the plan ensures no net loss, so it will continue to be an integral part of the neighborhood. as we add other uses, we want to make the transition as smooth as possible by notifying people when they're moving into the area and limit complaints that could hurt businesses. this is consistent with best practices around the country. 24 hour uses are part of a vibrant and mixed use neighborhood. these are similar to admin code section 116.

today, you are considering amendments to the city special tax financing law which is in chapter 43, section 10. these are made so that the tax district will be able to add a categories for tax revenues. grants to public service organizations, including air quality mitigation and technical studies and park planning and activation. this is on top of the many other categories of public benefits that they are traditionally spend on. you are not voting on the specific categories today, but amending the tax law to the documents will be able to add the spending categories. so you have a technical mental health in front of you. -- amendment in front of you. we have a brief overview of the tax and how it will be used.

the tax would apply to larger condo. a number of uses would be exempt, including 100% affordable housing projects, pdr, and community facilities. these revenues can be used to issue bonds which would accelerate the provision of public benefits. here are the starting rates in 2018 by development tier. the first table shows the rates for the first 99 years of the tax, when it is considered a facilities tax that can be spent on both capital facilities as well as services such as maintenance. after 99 years, the caps drop by 75% and become a services only tax and will no longer be spent on capital facilities. you saw the $2.2 billion public benefits package before. here's the slice of the pie just from the special tax district. a good portion will go to fund transit needs and then it will also fund parks and recreation,

complete streets, environmental and schools. this is just a highlight what has changed since plan introduction. in response to feedback from community members and policymakers we were able to allocate additional funding for the following uses. $25 million to go towards the existing soma stabilization fund, $15 million for park and landscaping, maintenance, $15 million for cultural amenities that could fund capital needs at the gardens. and $6 million for supplemental services at the car michael school. these are the entities responsible for programming the tax revenues. the central soma tax, capital planning plan. and oversee add movings the

tax -- administration of the tax. the inner agency plan will play an advising role in expenditure plans as will a chc, which will provide oversight. we also anticipate further collaboration with non-city public agencies such as transit providers. any of these agencies receiving tax revenues will be required to enter into joint community facilities agreement, spelling out how funds may be used. in conclusion, i also just wanted to highlight another recommendation that was made at the planning commission during the adoption hearing on may 10. they actually did raise one recommendation that you are not acting on today because it would require further work and trailing legislation and be referred back to planning comings and then come to the board again. that is related to the cacs as i already mentioned, so there was

a recommendation to look at splitting the eastern neighborhood into two because of the unwieldy geography. you do have the planning code package in front of you. i'm not going over that, but here's a summary of what is contained and we're happy to answer any questions. to reiterate the actions before you today, and thank you, and we're available for questions. >> supervisor safai: thank you. we'll open it up for public comment, if that's ok, and then come back to questions. any member of the public who wishes to comment on the item, please come forward, you have two minutes to speak and please state your name for the record. if you have documents, hand them

to the clerk. >> good morning. i want to focus on the community facilities district in particular. good morning, supervisor, didn't see you joined us. three important things. number one, it has to be very clear who the final decision-making authority is that decides how the up to $300 billion over 20 years will be spent one project at a time. it hasn't been clear. i'm not quite clear from this morning's presentation. is it the board of supervisors, commission, or some other board? we need to know. second, what this letter to you addresses is the crucial role of a new south of market citizens advisory committee that would include, as was mentioned by the presenter, review of the proposals to spend the cfd funds. that's critical to have an open community planning process, but

not just this and not just the current very limited scope of overview, oversight that the current neighborhoods have. the other critical departments that right now do not go to these neighborhood cac for input is the mayor's office of housing and the affordable housing programs and soma are absolutely a top priority. for the community. as well as the entire city. mayor's office of economic workforce development, the arts commission, and several other bodies do not now have any really input in the process in the neighborhoods. they don't. we need a new chc to have that broad purview so that members of the public, rather than having to go to five different groups to keep up with what is going on in their neighborhood, can come to one place and learn. the last thing is, community

benefits for south of market have to focus on south of market. right now the plan often designates funds could be used in transbay as well. that is not appropriate, please correct. [bell ringing] >> supervisor safai: next speaker. >> hi, supervisors. christie wong. i wanted to thank you for the opportunity to weigh in. i don't have detailed comments, but wanted to underscore the importance of the plan and moving it forward as quickly as possible. we're pleased to see the use of ab 73 to create a housing sustainability district here that will expedite the housing we need. this is a ground breaking plan in the most important part place for growth from an environmental perspective in our region. close to all the transit, close to our most dense financial district, where people actually take transit. so this plan is adding housing capacity at a time when we are

more broadly understanding how much we have a housing shortage. adding capacity for jobs and the one place in the region where we take transit to get to work. it keeps the things we like about soma, the mix of uses, the funky character and adjusts the things we don't, the wide streets that are dangerous for people walking and biking. it creates unprecedented amount of community benefits. and i guess the last thing is that the over the time that the plan has been under way, sustainability has been integrated into this plan in a way that has not been done before here or anywhere else. feasibility is key. and if the bar is set too high, we're not going to see the proposed development and that is key to getting the outcomes we want. so appreciate all the work that city staff and our elected have

put into the plan over the years, thank you fort opportunity to share our support for the plan. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> we still have significant issues with the plan, feel it should be strengthened. we have issues around the displacement that will come with the plan's rezoning and city wide effects. we demand changes and proactive steps to be taken now before the plan implemented, instituting a first right of refusal which could be tied to the disclosure process. funding for these anti-displacemeanti-displac

anti-displacemeanti-displace efforts must be funded early on. waiting several years fort fees to come in is unacceptable. we feel that 10% of inclusionary fees that go to acquisition rehab should be higher. there are several issues we're raised in the appeal that must be addressed, including that the plan does not address and there is no provision for the stabilization of base non-profits that help prevent against displacement of tenants. that the inadequate transportation, infrastructure and ride hailing companies within and adjacent to the planned area are not fully considered. there is no proof that will be maintain diversity of residence and further study must be done what on effects it will have on housing prices.

that consideration and continued pdr uses in centrala -- central soma is inadequate. and the plan provides inadequate amount of space on popos. [bell ringing] >> supervisor safai: thank you. any other members of the community wish to come forward and speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. ok. any questions from the committee? i have have few, but i'll defer to supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: thank you. i have sort of a general question for our city department. i want to preface this by saying that no one area is going to

solve our issues completely in san francisco, but what i'm seeing over the several years is that as all of us agree, the housing issue is pretty much in crisis situation. and many caused by the fact that we're actually creating more jobs than housing, the market can't sustain. so there has been an imbalance of what is being built in the last probably 1 and a half decades, so the question i have is, again, i want to preface this one planned area can't solve everything, but did we take it into consideration in regards to the fact that this is a big project, i guess, and how

this particular project can actually start balancing the housing versus job creation. because what i see with the numbers, 33,000 more jobs, 8300 housing units, doesn't seem to address my question which is how do we rebalance our housing stock versus our job creation? so i don't know who could answer that, but -- >> i'm happy to take a stab and then planning department can come up and kind of talk about the larger picture. so, when this plan was originally studied, now almost ten years ago, in fact one of the first briefings i got from the planning department when i started in 2011 was the central soma area plan.

it was really conceived of as up-zoning area for office and commercial, because this is the part of the city that we can build large scale commercial and offices. and it's really not possible to do this anywhere else in the city. now over the last eight years, i think it would have been hard to conceive them the immense housing crisis that would approach us that we're all thinking about today. a couple of things, restriction, the eir studied a number of housing units in the central soma plan. for us to dramatically change the housing units that could be built within the central soma plan, we would have to send back the eir, which would hold the plan back for one or two years. two, i have made some changes during the last couple of months to maximize the housing based on what was studied under eir. so when the plan was first introduced, it was going to

build about 7100 units of housing, it's now going to build 8300. i know it's not super comforting, but we're trying to maximize the envelope of housing built within the plan. land use committee, rezone smaller parcels versus office and hotel. so we're doing what we can. it is pretty extraordinary that this plan will achieve 33% affordable housing, because i think one of the most critical parts of our housing crisis is actually the affordability crisis. we don't have new working class, middle class housing we're building. and this plan will achieve 33% without redevelopment as a financing tool which is unprecedented. in the city and probably in the state of california. so we are doing what we can to maximize housing. i did watch the planning commission hearing in may, and

many of the members of the public did urge planning to look at how we can build more housing throughout the city, which is appropriately zoned primarily residential. so we do need to look at the city as a whole and achieving housing-jobs balance. again, if i could go back in time, i would actually put in more large scale residential development into the plan, just given the technical restrictions that we have at this point, this is the best plan to move forward thus far. and i think there are things we dock to maximize as much housing as possible and i'm not sure if mr. switski wants to add anything. >> thank you for the excellent answer. i would only add that we have been taking this issue very seriously for am time, and have been working diligently to

expand housing capacity in the city for a number of years. as you know, the city has adopted numerous plans over the last decade to add 100,0100,000 of housing. supervisor kim mentioned, this one area based on proximity to transit and the downtown, is probably the one place left in the city where it is responsible to sustainable continue to add job capacity from a local and regional standpoint. this plan also meshes well and supports the visions of planned bay area and the region's obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the chief way is by locating jobs near good transportation. but within that context, we're primarily concentrating commercial growth on a few large sites in the area, and the balance of the hundreds or thousands of parcels in the area will be residential and we're

doing what we can to maximize housing in this area. we're continuing to work city-wide. i would add that even with the build-out of the plan, with the numbers it has, the city combined with all the other plans that have been adopted over the last number of years, will have a more housing favorable jobs-housing balance than it has currently. so we have been moving in the direction of more housing per jobs. and actually have been outperforming the rest of the region in that regard. we're happy to share specific numbers if you'd like to see how they add up, but that's the broad strokes of it. >> supervisor yee: no, i appreciate that is easier to have hindsight, but -- i wish we did have better hindsight to be

truthful. i don't want to argue it, but it is a concern of mine that the city needs to start reversing it more and we can't keep on approving projects where unfortunately it's a 10-year process and then all of a sudden in the last three years, we want to change it. but at the same time, we have to draw the line in the sand somewhere and say, you know, we can't keep on doing this to our city. i just wanted to bring that up as an issue for myself. the other thing i had was in the presentation, i think, it talks about open space or parks as sort of a problem, not having enough in the area. and i might be getting it

confused with the other presentation, but somewhere along the line there was some discussion, here are some of the issues. and later it talks about the things that can be done. and i believe that in this whole area of development there be an addition of one acre of open space of park, which doesn't seem by adding 33,000 more jobs and 8300 more residential, that you put one acre of open space to be actually solving a problem. it's actually creating more of a problem as far as i'm concerned. does anybody have an answer to that? >> i'd be happy to talk to that,

supervisor yee, if i could get the overhead projector as well. i know it's a little bit hard to see, but this is essentially a map that is in the general -- the general plan amendments, the central soma area plan, showing the locations of new and existing -- new and proposed open spaces. as you noted, the plan is set to add an additional approximately 1 acre in public open spaces. i would also add that the plan doesn't have a requirement for publicly owned public open spaces for popos that would kick in another approximately 3 acres, so we're looking at combined total of 4 acres of open space across the plan area. in addition to the new significant parks we're anticipating, the puc site, we

are also looking at a linear park and then popos scattered throughout the area. and the popos proposal, we tried to learn from the downtown area plan. and in central soma, we're asking that popos be open to the sky, open 24 hours a day, and truly accessible. i will also note that in your package, larger package of materials, there is implementation program that lists the details of how the $2.2 billion will be spent. i'm going to swap out the tables. thank you -- >> do we have that in our

packet? >> it's part of the larger board packet. it's within the implementation program for the plan. that lists not only the specific projects that are intended to be funded, it also describes the process and the agencies and other partners part of implementing this. so we have worked extensively with rec and park to develop this specific list of projects, based on the priorities that they have identified to meet the needs district 6 and the neighborhood -- >> supervisor safai: can you go back to what you said about the private open spaces? do we have the ability to write that into the legislation? because that is actually one of my frustrations when you go around the city and you have these privately managed open spaces that are intended to be added to public benefit, but but and they're closed on the weekend, they're not open after a certain time, so really they end up being like open space for

offices. because people aren't there during the day very often. so i'm curious, add on to supervisor yee's point, which restrictions are you putting to ensure that -- you said 24 hours, but what are you going do in terms, what are you proposing to ensure that happens? >> for much of the planned area popos will be in an open area we're saying you're not loy lowed to -- allowed to have fences or gates. people will be able to walk through like any other city-owned park. the issue is that buildings that are closed certain times of day, those will have limited hours -- >> supervisor safai: what percentage of the three additional acres does that fall

into? >> that's a good question, i can get that number for you. >> supervisor safai: eye know we're going to -- i know we're going to take this up in land use, but that would be a good thing to come back and enable supervisor yee's question to be answered. >> supervisor yee: can i continue asking? >> supervisor safai: please. >> supervisor yee: even in the open space that are planned, because we're beginning to talk in the city, including city planning about housing that is appropriate for families with children, and as you know, a lot of the open space that have seen in the last decade, that's been created around this area, has been more like plazas, so you have kids, it's really not fun for them. in regards to what is there to do for them. it's great for office buildings to have a plaza so the office

workers could have lunch. or after work they drink their chardonnay or something, but are there any plans -- how do we encourage more of open space to have activities that would be fun for kids? >> i'm really glad you bring that up, supervisor yee, so there are actually incentives in the plan to get this more diverse set of uses in the public open spaces. in the popos specifically, there is an incentive where the square footage is reduced if you provide things like playgrounds, tennis courts, dog runs, programmed types of spaces for recreational uses, including all ages and all different types of users. there are also a number of key development sites. i know we didn't talk about that here today, but part of the public benefit package involves working with the largest developers in the plan area. there are nine key development

sites, where we're essentially creating very crafted zoning rules in exchange for a public benefits above and beyond what is required through the plan. so a number of those developments are planning things like recreation centers, the facility at 598 brannen, which is the park that is going to be on land owned by the pc, is currently proposing childcare adjacent as well playgrounds. so i think through the larger sites there is opportunity to leverage very specific benefits we'd like to see as well. >> supervisor yee: is there, in regards to -- i love to talk about childcare centres, but i won't this time, in regards to city-wide question, but again, we're adding quite a few residential, so any discussions about schools, public schools or how we're going to actually be

part of the solution? >> thank you for asking that question. we have been working very diligently for the last year or plus with the school district to help them and the city at large understand the growth and enrollment in the school district. as you know, enrollment has been rising in recent years. when we started this plan, it was close to its lowest point in decades, but that has turned around. with this growth, as well as other growth, the school district is assessing how and when it might need to add new facilities. there is a site that the school district owns in mission bay close to central soma across from mission creek that has over $50 million of construction funds to help to build and that will serve central soma in the near term. beyond that, we're working with the school district and bringing

other resources to help discuss what resources might be made available to look for additional sites if needed that the school district might need in the future, to land bank those, and to pore through the data to understand when and where additional school facilities might be needed. >> supervisor kim: i wanted to respond to your question. in regard to open space, i now you have heard me, but district 6 has the smallest and fewest parks of the city, so open space was a key part of the discussion. however, in talking to constituents, there is hesitancy around building more parks, without ensuring that there is the funding for the maintenance and security and the new parks don't become blight in the new neighborhoods.

there has been a push from a lot of our residents to actually build upon the existing parks we have. if you notice the central soma fees, a lot of them go toward building up the rec center, which is the only rec center in the south of market. and it is undergoing major capital plan, where we can build up the rec center to increase recreational capacity by building additional floors on site. there will also be a rec center that is part of a deal with one of the key sites. this was mentioned by ms. chen. this will be the first new swimming pool -- in fact the only swimming pool that will be built in the south of market and it will also include a kid-learning pool for young children. and so there are plans to build more parks and honestly many of our residents are hesitant about the new parks even being included in the plan, so we're really pushing the neighborhood

on accepting the new parks. there is going to be a considerable obligation expected both office of residential developers into terms of the open space they provide in the plan. and finally, a greater investment in the rec center and the gardens. i want to appreciate your point about how do we specifically leverage within the public spaces that the city is building or the spaces that are private -- developer sponsors are building that children-friendly facilities are built as well. that's something i'll figure out how to insert more concrete language as we amend the finally on the schools issue, our office is going to be reaching out to the school district about how to

obligate any school fees to be limited to the south of market. that's not something we can do here at the board of supervisors, it's something we need to ask the board of education to do, so if we need help on advocacy, i will reach out to your office, supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: ok. i have a question -- i guess one of the things mentioned was who decides how to use the money. and i guess that's a good question, who would decide and whether or not it has to be put

into this legislation or not in regards to, for instance, one of the amendments was on the -- i'm sorry i don't have it on the benefit district, i guess. or the new taxes or new fees. who decides how to spend that? [laughter] like the 49ers over there. >> so as mentioned in part of the presentation, we're trying to learn from how other area plans have addressed this same issue of programming funds that are generated by the plan, as well as public oversight, so that gets into the fee discussion as well. but in terms of what we're proposing through this plan,

that that's formalized in the public benefits document. there is a description of the implementing agency as well as the kind of capital planning agency, that would be responsible for this. so the intention is with the special tax district, in particular, it would come under the purview of the capital planning office as well as the office of public finance, so they would be the responsible agencies for essentially developing the proposal for how the funds are spent and bringing that to the board for approval. they would be apprised by the committee that works mostly with impact fees, so this would be adding to their duties. please stand by.

-- so i think that's important. in term of the administrative code in terms of the special

tax, i'd like to ask a few questions about that. you named some additional categories, but what are some of the existing categories that those are being added to in terms of what can be -- the tax revenues can be spent on? oh, we have someone new. all right. >> morning, supervisors, chris lynch, counsel on this project. the purpose of the administrative code amendments is the community facilities act. in general, the law allows the financing of real or personal property with a useful life of five years or longer. if it's publicly owned and is a facility with the life of five years, it can be financed. the process is identified for community facilities district or a special tax district. the board of supervisors adopts

them and lists them. >> there was a list that you said -- recreation, p.d.r., affordable housing. how does that fit into what you described. >> this is amending the special tax financing law to allow things that the melruse does not allow. the board of supervisors will consider an intention to form and attach as an exhibit will be two categories of special tax uses. one, a list of capital facilities. secondly, a list of ongoing services that will be paid from annual taxes. >> i know there's a lot of conversation around p.d.r. and one of the things, the stated

goals, is that any p.d.r. that's demolished will be replaced and then there's a gap, so what do you do with that space? thinking about the creative ways that you can use this money. so i wanted to hear this a little bit more because that's specifically in front of us today, the special tax revenue and how it can be used. and then i have another question. >> to clarify, while p.d.r. preservation and ensuring no net loss is part of the benefits package, it's not funded by the special tax district. >> cannot be funded at all? >> it will be through new development. large office projects, certain size over 50,000 large cap threshold. 45% of the ground floor will be allowed for p.d.r. on top of that, proposition x, planning code 202.8, which

requires replacement of p.d.r. in all types of uses, residential and nonresidential. >> supervisor safai: okay. that's good. i had another thought. oh, just kind of going back to t the bay with@ supervisor yee say and how the money should be localized to the area it's created for. i think that's an important conversation. any time we have peripheral concerns as much as i want to support new schools and so on if they're not within the area plan, i think that they should not be considered. i think this money should be localized to other comments that were made. i think that's really important. but the other conversation is when you are generating this revenue -- and i understand hindsight is 20/20 and we'll get into this conversation more in land use, but i think about the idea that when you're creating these special tax districts, you

only have one shot. in my point of town, our district, we don't have the opportunity to create a melruse. we will not have an engine of development, so these financing tools need to be utilized to maximize what's in front of us. i see that 10 years down the road we have a plan in front of us. 33,000 plus office but only 8,000 affordable. i get we'll not send it back. i'm in favor of moving it forward, but we need to think about it going forward. this housing crisis didn't just pop up in the last three or four years. the housing crisis has been going on for decades. i just wonder what the thinking was at the time and inception of the plan and thinking about the housing crisis. i understand fully from a planning perspective, why you want to localize office development. you cannot build 200-feet-tall

offices in the sunset. it has to be downtown, where it's transit-rich. i think it's housing, in particular, middle class housing, that you cannot finance any other way, there are limiting financing tools. i just want to hear what some of the history and thought was behind that. >> thank you, supervisor. on the broad topic of the things we can finance with the c.f.d., the -- through the addition of the amendments before you today, the city will have broad authorization to expand money on tangible capital infrastructure and property as well as on social services and things like grants and nonprofits and other things that can broadly fall under that bucket. so while the plan that's been crafted has the set of funding priorities that would be endorsed by the board to move forward, we would have the legal

authorization if in the future we would like to spend some of the funds on support for services that relate to supporting p.d.r. businesses or building p.d.r. buildings if we can rationalize that as a legitimate, public purpose, under the law. so we can legally do that. the package before you, achieves the policy goals using a broad variety of mechanisms, including the direct provision of p.d.r. and affordable housing and so forth, so it's the suite of these measures. in terms of achieving our housing affordability goals, the broad mandate was to achieve the minimum 33% low and moderate income in -- as a result of the plan. so we're able to achieve that through the mechanisms that didn't include the c.f.d., including our section 415 as well as the jobs, housing,

linkage and other -- >> supervisor safai: 33% of 800, right? >> correct. >> supervisor safai: we can talk more at land use. those are my comments. i wanted to clarify. i think p.d.r. is pretty straightforward. any other comments? that was before. okay. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i would like to make a request to the committee that we refer items 1 and 2 to land use committee. >> supervisor safai: we will do that, so we can have the whole package. anything else? okay. we'll send it to land use on the 16th. july 16, land use. >> supervisor yee: so i can make a motion? >> supervisor safai: without recommendation right now. >> supervisor yee: okay. i will make a motion to send it

out of commission without recommendation to land use. >> supervisor safai: on july 16. great. thank you. so moved. thank you, everyone. and thank you for your hard work, to the staff, i meant to start with that. we'll see you again in land use. please call the next item. >> clerk: item 3 to amend the charter of san francisco to adopt a privacy first policy on an election november 6, 2018. >> supervisor safai: maybe we can skip this item -- can we come back to this item? can you call item 4? i want to make sure that supervisor peskin's office has an opportunity to come for this item. >> clerk: item 4 is a motion approving or rejecting the mayor's nomination for the reappointment of joseph marshall to the police commission for a term ending april 30, 2022. >> supervisor safai: thank you. mr. marshall, please come forward.