test test. test test. [test captions ] ]

>> you want to grant the appeal and overturn the public working order on the condition that three and possibly four replacement trees be placed in 36-inch box size. >> if we can move forward with four if not three. >> if possible. >> do we need discuss the transplanting of the three trees? he said there were other sites potentially but the three sites, you know were identified by the project sponsor. there may be issues with them, but to me making the effort to try to do that is not a bad idea? >> i didn't think so either at all, so let the department.

i mean the permit holder seems more than willing to do stuff so i will leave that up to the department. do we want to condition it? >> well, i think they proposed it. i think it's easy enough for us to document it, all right? >> mirror image honda commissioner honda can you clarify on what basis? >> commissioner honda: that makes sense. [laughter] is this an error in abuse. >> no. on the basis that the trees need to be replaced. >> more trees being planted than transplanted. >> let's start all over. the motion is made by commissioner honda to grant the appeal an overturn public works

order on the condition that three and if possible four replacement trees be placed in 36-inch boxes subject to bureau of urban forestry approval as to species and other features feature, and the second condition is that the three will be replanted an area specified by the bureau of urban forestry on the basis that more trees are being planted, there is a net gain of trees. >> that is exactly what i meant to say. >> perfect. on that motion, president fung. [roll call] >> that motion passes. thank you. >> no further business? >> would you like to stay

longer? >> no. >> the meeting is adjourned. p.

>> >>[music] >> i came in with her impression of what i thought it was good >> what i knew about auditing with the irs spears i actually knew nothing about auditing >> in my mind it was purely financial. with people that audited the pain no one wants to deal with it >> now i see a lot of time explaining auditing is not just about taxes. >> oftentimes most students believe that auditing is only financial whereas when they come into a government environment we do much more than financial audits. we do operational audits that were looking at the operations of the department for economy and efficiency and effectiveness. >> when i hire an intern some of the things that i am looking for first of all is is this

individual agile and flexible because i am our environment is so fast-paced and where are switching from project to project depending on what's going on in the government at any given time. >> primarily i didn't with audits on utilities management across city departments. >> citywide this ods management audit was also been assisting with housing authority audit program >> the homelessness audit >> the it functions >> [inaudible] >> were starting any water on the department of public housing environment allows >> i also assist with the [inaudible] program. >> then additionally i really enjoyed having staff who have some critical thinking skills. because i believe the basis of auditing is not do you know how to audit, but to have critical thinking skills [inaudible]

>> [inaudible] even though i've only been here for short time our quick in-depth analysis and research >> analytical skills there's a lot of taking enlargement of information a compacting it a very concise report because we've a big focus on [inaudible] if you're transmitting this information to the audience you need him to be able to understand it. >> so i work with the sparrow program primarily. broadway stan abused [inaudible] they prepare me for full-time employment because i knew i could not to challenge myself in order to be an auditor. >> at the [inaudible] we are a content feedback and communication and they pointed out areas where i need to grow. >> one of the things i like about working at [inaudible] is that they actually give you quite a bit of autonomy i feel

like kevin sage trusted me. >> the environment really [inaudible] to everyone feeling super collaborative and wanting to get to know one another. which i think at the end of the date is a better work environment and gives you a better workflow. >> i believe that a really is a great experience because it provides an opportunity to have a better understanding of how government works. >> i think what i've learned so far is that every audit is unique everyday. different learning opportunities. >> the recordation we make in on its i can honestly go home at the end of the day and zack and treated [inaudible] in a better way. >> even of not familiar with what auditing is you should deftly find out. it's been really really awesome he was it turns out there's a whole world of auditing that i cannot open file oriented performance and [inaudible] and that's an exciting. audit is a lot broader than i ever knew before. >>

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. feesasibility 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 ismplemented instituting a first right of refusal which could be tied to the disclosure process. funding for these anti-displacementanti-displace anti-displacementanti-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 100,000100,000

units 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.