program. if it works out well, would love for whoever comes up after me to continue this. i hope that it challenges us all to think about how we permit and the barriers that people go through and if we want businesses to open up in san francisco, it's some of the things we need to do. with that, i would like to bring up diego sanchez from the planning department. >> good afternoon. diego sanchez, san francisco planning. we heard this on july 12. the commission was very much in support in the ordinance and sees it as a common sense way to attract new business activities. the planning commission voted unanimously and did so with the following recommendations, to permit arts uses and conditional

use at the second story and above in the named neighborhood commercial districts in district 4, which is to permit the following institutional uses in the excelsiear, religious institutions and social service use. the third modification was to include a reporting requirement to track the changes of house to the use types accepted from the notification and planning commission review request within districts 4 and 11. and the final modification to reconcile this with the streamlining ordinance, and that's because that profoundly changes some of the language

that is supporting the change. so we want them to mesh correctly and well. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> supervisor tang: at this time, i do want to make two of those changes that -- three really. one was what mr. sanchez mentioned about arts activities, allowing it in district 4, named commercial district. so definitely want to do that. that is somehow i neglected to see in our tables. and the second amendment, 20 months after the effective date of the ordinance, we're asking the planning department and mayor's office of economic and work force environmental to submit a report to the board, describing permit applications in the ordinance and evaluate the impact of this. and then i will ask to reconcile this legislation with the improvement ordinance. deputy city attorney, does that mean that this has to be

continued for a week? >> yes. we can make the first two amendments today. that will trigger a continuance for one week. next week, we suggest that you amend to line up section 312 with the process improvement ordinance. you can send it out to the full board as a committee report. >> supervisor tang: the last was about reconciling with process improvement ordinance, because the structure is different now. any other questions, comments? i will open up this item to public comment. any members of the public that wish to speak. seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to thank the small business commission. i will act committee members if they will adopt two amendments.

>> supervisor safai: move amendments as proposed. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection. and i believe you have some district 11-specific amendments? >> supervisor safai: yes. just a moment. a lot of paper here today. sorry, folks. [laughter] oh, boy. i can't seem to find it right now. hold on one second. can we come back to that? >> supervisor tang: i believe it has to do with institutional uses. >> supervisor safai: i don't know. i'm looking for it. here it is. oh, here it is. give me of one second. i'm sorry. there is so much stuff piling

up. i can't find it. that's the recommendations. yeah. >> supervisor tang: mr. sanchez, maybe we could restate the recommendation. >> supervisor safai: yeah. i need to have a conversation about that. >> diego sanchez, planning

department staff. the second recommendation was to permit a set of institutional uses that are being proposed in the ordinance to require canal use authorizization or prohibit them and that list was community facilities, private community facilities, job training uses, religious institutions, social service uses. >> supervisor safai: and the recommendation from the planning department was -- >> from the planning commission, to permit uses on all floors like they were before. >> supervisor safai: i know we had some back and forth with staff. we're not ameanable to those. that's probably why i didn't have them. we want to see the -- we want to drive certain uses that are there. we have a significant number of those.

some of which have popped up without any authorizization in the areas that we have to revitalize. we will not accept those amendments at this time, but we'll look at it if it's a problem going forward. >> supervisor tang: great. so we just have the amendments i proposed and we adopted those. can we get a motion to continue it to the next land use meeting? we'll do that without objection. madam clerk, item 4, please. >> ordinance amending the planning code to allow catering as an act'sry use to restaurants and neighborhood under certain conditions and appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: i will turn it over to supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: i promise i will not shuffle through my papers. we are excited about this legislation. we have another piece of legislation that will work in partnership with this.

at this point, what we're putting forward is a legislation that will allow for limited use restaurants, cafes, bakeries, to use their rich -- kitchens and their spaces when they're not utilized for primary use to allow them for catering. we have owners in our neighborhood that have these facilities around the city. they came to us. we started a conversation with them, thinking about the cost of doing business in san francisco. many of them are legacy businesses or would fall under the legacy business category. a lot of them are women and owned by many different immigrant -- people that hail from different communities. they're people of color. they've been here for a long time. they're feeling extreme pressure from the market.

we need to figure out a way to use their spaces. if you think about a bakery and how they operate, the hours of operation, of doing their main work is very earlier in the morning and then their large kitchen will sit dormant the rest of the day. so a lot of those limited restaurants and cafes and bakeries, use or have been or have beenen couraged or would like to, use their kitchens and rent them out as an accessory use or catering would be the accessory use. so we believe that this would be a way to encourage and enhance thes businesses as well as open up the city for this type of use. the planning commission, i believe, was 100% in support, in fact, they wanted us to expand

it beyond neighborhood commercial districts. so we feel it's a good piece of legislation at the right time. we feel that it will encourage small businesses to get into this line of work. this is a pathway to restaurants and small businesses to get off the ground. they don't have to worry about overhead. they can prepare their food and use that facility on a rental basis. so we're super excited about this. it's a way to expand and enhance existing businesses and businesses that want to get into the catering business in san francisco colleagues, i ask for your support. anyone from the planning department? >> supervisor tang: yes. we have geno from the planning department. >> good afternoon, supervisors. gina saulsiton. it would allow catering as an accessory use under certain

conditions. as it stands now, catering use is not permitted september to be an accessory use. catering must also provide products for retail sales. this would allow educacatering without the retail sale requirement under the following two conditions. one, that the catering use does not operate more than 75% of the total time within restaurant hours of operations within any given day. or that they don't distribute to customers directly from the lot. the planning commission heard this meeting on june 21 and approved the ordinance with modifications. the proposed was to apply the catering use provision

city-wide. the ordinance applies only to commercial use districts in neighborhoods, but we understand that the supervisors are amending to incorporate the commission recommendation and want to thank them for that consideration. that's my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> supervisor safai: one of the points that we wanted to make, and i think it was a recommendation of the planning department, was that if a limited restaurant applies for the ability to have accessory use, we didn't want them to be discourage the primary reason. so we wanted to limit that. if you are a baker and bakery, you wouldn't want to decrease your hours of doing that to get into the -- to become a space for catering. so that's why the limit on the time. i appreciate you bringing up that point. other than that, i would say we

would like to make an amendment to expand this to outside of just the neighborhood commercial districts and we would expand this to the entire city. anything else i need to say? do i need to highlight the specifics? okay. >> supervisor tang: okay. do you want to go to public comment first? >> supervisor safai: sure. >> supervisor tang: any members of the public -- come on up. >> hello, supervisors. i'm william ortiz cartegna, i'm an officer of a small business. as a small business owner myself, these are the legislations that we need, especially in a city where there are so many artificial barriers of entry to business, such as

trying to develop a brick and mortar or the financing for a brick and mortar. so these creative options encourage business. by having planning on board, once you hear planning, you get scared, no offense, but just having this legislation, i think it's very receptive to small business owners and speaks their language. so thank you. thank you for this. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. a lot of planners here today. [laughter] any members of the public that wish to comment on item 4? seeing none. i also agree this is one of those unique ways that we can really try to help, again, be more creative around spaces and, in fact, our office is working on legislation that we'll introduce soon about more flex space in units.

i think the amendment is great. i would want to support that. >> supervisor safai: thank you. i appreciate the commissioner coming. the way i found out about this and we also are adding supervisor ronen. supervisor ronen and i met in the mission on 24th street a few years ago. invited us down to see what they were trying to do. this bakery had been -- has been in existence since the '60s. they've been using that space, their kitchen, as a space for folks that are caterers for that many years. and more recently, the last four or five years, the planning department had gotten into a situation where they said, your business is not zoned for catering and public health saying, you don't have the right

facilities for catering. so we tried to dark being on the ground, tried to see how we could facilitate this. the original solution was, if you have a catering business, you have it have the catering products, put them in the front, sell them on site. it became -- it's a burden for a business. if you are a bakery, why would you have any of the other -- and no one understands why they're there. it's hard to implement. it's an attempt to have a solution on the ground to works for everyone. and now that we're in this crisis, crisis of displacement, of rents going up at a higher rate, and businesses that have been there for a long time, we wanted to be creative of the commissioner said it more eloquently than i did. it's about trying to be flexible. trying to help businesses start off that need a foot in the door when they cannot afford a brick and mortar space in the city. i appreciate you coming here

today and appreciate the planning department working with us as well as the department of public health and commission and staff that recommend we go further even than m.c.d.s. i would like to see this considered citywide. >> supervisor tang: great. shall we take a motion on amendment? >> supervisor safai: yeah. >> supervisor tang: and without objection. and the underlying item, as amended. supervisor, want to make a motion? >> supervisor safai: motion to approve with -- >> this triggers a one-week continuance, so it can come out of committee next week. so you -- >> supervisor safai: motion to amend and continue one week. >> supervisor tang: we will make a motion to the next land use meeting, without objection. thank you. item 5. >> clerk: ordinance amending

planning code to designate 6301 3rd street a landmark under article 10 of the planning code and affirm appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i know we don't have a representative here from district 10, however, they've expressed support of this legislation, but we have desiree smith here, believe. >> good afternoon, supervisors. desiree smith, planning staff. this is a consideration of landmark at 6301 3rd street. the property was nominated for landmark designation by dr. auerelis walker through a land mark designation application. the historic preservation commission initiated it and

voted unanimously to approve this to the board of supervisors. 6301 3rd street is significant for the association with dr. coleman, influential healthcare and civil rights advocate. dr. coleman came here from philadelphia in 1948 to establish a medical practice in the hunter's point area, which had become a black enclave when 27,000 african-americans moved to the city to look for wartime employees. dr. coleman was one of the first african-american physicians in san francisco. in 1959, he constructed 6301 3rd street for a medical clinic.

the original team of physicians known as san francisco medical associates, is pictured here with dr. coleman, who is in the bottom, left-hand corner. opening in 1960, it reflected the styles of the period. dr. coleman was celebrated as a local pioneer. he worked tirelessly to achieve racial equity within the healthcare system and medical profession. and advocated for the environmental justice causes. the center causes bayview-hunter's point. and it's led by physicians and

staff that knew and were mentored by dr. coleman. the subject property meets three of the four established priorities for designation. these include properties in underrepresented areas. the properties with strong cultural or ethnic associations or buildings of the modern era. we have two letters of support for designation. no known opposition. the h.b.c. briefs that it meets eligibility. this concludes my presentation. we're hope to answer any questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you. questions and comments? okay. seeing none, let's -- oh. sorry. colleagues, no questions or comments. now i will call public comment. you may come up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm jason finch, senior vice

president with new south parking. this clinic is one of the organizations that we work strongly with. we've donated transportation. we're conducting job fairs and finding paths for employment for the folks they work with. we're here to support the initiative and the important work they do in the community. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thanks so much. any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 5, please come on up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm pat coleman. and it's no coincidence that i'm related to dr. coleman. and i'm here in support of the landmark designation for the building at 6301 3rd street. in the last '40s, my father left in the east coast because he heard that there was a need for

a physician in a small town in georgia. unfamiliar with the customs, he went to the gas station and neglected to call a young teenage whipper-snapper sir, he was a captain in the air force and medical doctor, and he received a punch in the nose. at that point, he said, i'm headed to california, to serve the people that come to build the shipyards and ended up in bayview-hunters point. i don't know what happened to that small town in georgia, but what i do know is what happened in bayview-hunters point, where he served for 54 years, 24,000 or more patients, many multigenerational and many for free. my father's service to the community is iconic and i think when i'm in the bayview, i never fail to have someone come up to me to tell me a story about how

my father treated them. so he's history in the bayview district. and very worthy of the landmark preside designation for the medical center. >> i'm marlena watkins. i was raised in the bayview community. i remember when the clinic opened and it was a family neighbor in bayview. dr. coleman helped many people. he served the community and he saw a lot of people and didn't charge them. we need that clinic in bayview. and we need to let them continue the work that dr. coleman started. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm patty rodriguez, chief

operating officer at bayview hunters point clinic, which is at the arthur coleman medical center. our goal is to provide innovative health and wellness services. it has been an honor for us to be invited by pat to be at the arthur coleman medical center and here to support the designation of an historical landmark for the medical center because we take pride in continuing the legacy of dr. coleman and what he did and he was ahead of his time. that's what we want it do, continue his legacy. thank you. >> supervisor tang: any other members of the public? please come on up. >> madam chair, i'm the senior pastor of true hope and we just

celebrated 50 years of pastoring, the 12th of this month. i come here with excitement, with joy, to speak on behalf of landmark being developed for coleman medical center. is with a patient of dr. coleman for several years, prior to his demising. and this is the third hearing concerning this project, the board of supervisors, planning. and the last point i would like to make is many times i have spoke before the board of supervisors and planning commission. i have never seen a group so excited about the project to the planning commission to the point that they would push one another and it was a unanimous vote. so i'm sure that you, this

committee, and i think the recommendation, can be more enthusiastic. you need something positive at bayview-hunters point. you talk about the crime-ridden neighborhoods. and so i would appreciate if you would do a greater job in approving this project and recommending it to the board of supervisors. thanks very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> hello, board of supervisors. i'm a resident of the area and patient of the clinic. it's just as exciting to see something in bayview become an anchor. dr. coleman's story is amazing. when he saw patients, he went

back to school to become a lawyer to help his patients. the man was amazing. having something like that in the community and people of color to get healthcare in an environment that understands them, that's amazing. so i hope that we consider making this a landmark. hopefully it will even be a legacy business. thank you. i also want to thank supervisor cohen's office, she's been instrumental in aiding through the process. thank you. >> supervisor tang: any other members of the public that want to comment on item 5? seeing none, it's closed. perhaps we can get a motion on this item. >> supervisor kim: positive recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor tang: without objection. all right. new we're joined by supervisor peskin. madam clerk, if we can call call

6. >> clerk: item 6 ordinance amending the planning code cannabis retail and medical cannabis dispensaries in chinatown. >> supervisor tang: thank you. welcome, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. last year when we were working on our retail cannabis delivery, i indicated that i would be back relative to the amendment before you today. i want to thank you, madam chair, and supervisor kim, for your co-sponsorship, along with supervisor fewer. and i think you will find in the legislative file a letter from the community tenants association that outlined some of the concerns of the community, which for the record, are broader in nature than the way that community concerns were

recommended and responsibly so by advocates and perpetuated by the media last year. but they really center around concerns about gentrification and rents that chinatown has been fighting. i am on record being 100% access to cannabis be it medical or retail in nature. having said that, district 3 is very well served. we have the second highest number of existing permits and 14 new pending permits. so given the geographic nature of the third supervisorial district, exempting out chinatown will not diminish access as we have pending applications throughout the district. finally, to supervisor safai, i always love it extol the

planning commission support for the legislation in so far as they have not supported this legislation, will not be extolling the planning commission's recommendation or lack thereof as to this legislation. i also want to thank our former colleague and now mayor london breed for her support of this legislation. and i'm available to answer any questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor peskin. yes, aaron starr, planning department. >> good afternoon. aaron starr, legislation affairs. this would prohibit retail and medical cannabis from chinatown. planning commission heard the item and voted to not approve.

>> supervisor peskin: i extol it when it's a recommendation for approval. this is tolling for disapproval. if passed, the mayor has indicated that she will sign it with zeal and it will become law with all the respect to the planning members that didn't approve it. >> supervisor tang: okay. any members of the public that wish to speak on item 6? okay. wow. no one. seeing none, public comment is closed. all right. can we get a motion? >> supervisor kim: motion to move forward with recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor tang: we're in the middle of the vote. >> do we have to amend the planning commission? >> planning commission held a

hearing. that blank is fine. the board must, however, make its own finding of consistency with the general plan. and we can work with the supervisors' office on that piece. board and planning made a number of findings with the original cannabis ordinance and i think it's largely going to be a matter of working that out. >> supervisor peskin: so we can amend those at the full board? >> correct. >> supervisor tang: okay. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i want to be added a as co-sponsor and say that i appreciate the theme of respecting the district supervisors' issues when it comes to issues like this. hopefully we'll have further conversation in the months to come.

>> supervisor tang: i recall another supervisor wanting to do the same. with that, we'll move this forward to the full board without objection. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, colleagues. >> supervisor tang: madam clerk, can you call 7-11 together? >> clerk: amending the general plan central soma making environmental findings. item 8, amending the zoning maps for the soma social use district and other amendments to consistent with the soma plan and appropriate findings. item 9, ordinance amending business and tax riegistratioie provide a streamlined approval process for certain housing projects within districts with an expedited board of appeals

process. item 10, amending planning codes soma with appropriate findings. item 11, amending special tax financing law to authorize tax of facilities and services related to the isn't central son with other amendments. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i will turn it over to supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you, colleagues. this is the beginning, at least at the board of supervisors of what i hope will be not too c convoluted of a process. i've had the honor of prose -- presiding over central soma and now this, i think i've got it

covered, along with special d.b.a.s including treasure island and mission bay. it's been 10 years in the making. it was one of the first briefings i got as a member of the board of supervisors in 2011. i thought we would pass it before the end of my first term. now it's nearing the end of my second term and i'm happy that we're finally hearing this here at the land use committee. i want to recognize a number of individuals at the planning department, including john ram, our director, who is here to present today, josh whitsky and lisa chen and maya -- i don't know her last name. maya small, for your tremendous amount of work on this plan. there's a lot of technical details, which i've really been

swimming through over the last month. i will be making, i think, about 48 amendments today. we will have to continue this to next week. i will have more amendments to introduce next monday which i will go over in broad categories at the end of the planning department presentation. i also want to recognize sara phillips, anna dagna, peter milgenic, mark blake. not everyone is on this list. and i apologize, because i talk to everybody by their first name, so i apologize if i don't get your last name correctly. a couple of things, when this plan began, it began as a way of increasing office and jobs in the city and county of san francisco.

we were setting this during the time of a recession and also wanted to grow employment opportunities for san franciscans and bay area and south of market, where we're building the subway, the neighborhood where we will be building more jobs. throughout the last 10 years, we've been working on a number of policy frameworks and goals that we wanted central soma to achieve. i'm really proud that even before the plan came to us today, we were able to work out some goals and not fight over it as it often happens. the first is proposition that our office passed in 2014, proposition k, which was to achieve 33% affordable housing. this plan has ambitiously taken on this goal and i'm thankful to the planning staff for working to ensure that we would hit 33% affordable housing.

second, we didn't want to lose p.d.r. it's important that we grow and maintain other types of jobs, whether it's in retail, nonprofit, arts, manufacturing, other living-wage jobs that don't necessarily require the same degrees and education as office jobs do. as i mentioned, this plan really began as a study of how we can accommodate jobs as the bay area grows and a transit-rich district that includes the new central subway, caltrain, and hopefully an extension through the district plan and maybe even eventually high-speed rail one day. understanding it could be the location where a lot of our

public transportation networks would meet, we wanted to accommodate more jobs. over the time that this plan has been studied, we have entered into a housing crisis that i think would have been even difficult to anticipate in a city that's always not created enough housing. so over the last couple of months, our office had been working very closely with the planning department and our community in increasing the plan. as you all know, we've increased capacity from the 7,100 originally stated from 8,300. this -- we're also, and one of the amendments that i will make today, is to rezone parts of the plan to maximize additional residential housing opportunities, since this is what we're hearing the most today. and we're rezoning north of

harrison and south from sally to m.u.g. sorry about that. and we are also working on a separate ordinance to permit 100% affordable housing on sally lots in south of market. without the plan, parcels would be $500 million compared to $2.1 billion we're introducing today. that's $500 million in traffic infrastructure and $185 million in open space. it's not important that we just grow jobs and housing, but also that we grow the community where it's pedestrian and bike safety, transportation infrastructure, parks, rec centers and a

swimming pool, coming to south of market. as i mentioned, i will introduce about 48 amendments today. it's hard for me to keep track because we've added some, deleted some. and then another set of amendments. i will bring up some large policy pieces that we will be discussing as the plan moves forward that i will not discuss right now, ranging to requests from the community around anti-displacement efforts, as well as good jobs, ensuring the jobs that we create in central soma are jobs that go to our residents and i will mention some of those afterwards. i will start by asking the planning department to come up with the general presentation on the central soma plan. finally, i want to thank -- this has gone through many staff

members, but april zonronski and bobby hang, to thank them so much, because it was a heavy lift. it is a lot more work to do and a lot more staff members that will get involved. without further ado -- >> thank you very much, supervisors. i'm thrilled to be here today to talk about this plan, which inde indeed, we have been working on for the better part of the a decade. i would like to think this plan has taken the best lessons from all the other plans, and we think we have learned over the last decade about the best and not-so-good components and learned how to improve them. we're here to present the central soma plan. lisa chen will present the bulk

of the plan. i want to thank a few other folks who are here and some who are and some aren't. mayor's office of community development, key player. sfmta was involved. recreation and parks department, especially on the public benefits. office of public finance as well. if i may, in addition to the planning staff you mentioned, want to mention a few names from other parts of the department, especially those in the environmental impact report, which is necessary to make this happen. jessica range, project manager, liz white, chris kern, and many others worked on this complicated e.i.r. an effort like this takes a team, a big team, and it's a complicated plan. and then finally, it's very

important to mention the community folks, the nonprofits, business owners, all who have shaped this plan and it's evolved extensively over the last several years. so the central soma plan we believe will create a mixed-use neighborhood, leveraging the city's investment in the subway line. we believe that the growth that this plan enables will be 5 million to 6 million square feet of office. and 8,000 units of housing. that growth will be leveraged with $2.2 billion public benefit package, to create an inclusive neighborhood. it will fund many needs, walkable, bikable streets, social services, and half of the public benefit package is for affordable housing, which is the

first time we've been able to say that within one of our plan areas, i think. the process has in earnest been seven years. in addition to the smaller community meetings, there's been 10 open houses and other events and, of course, dozens of meetings with neighborhood groups. we do believe, and i know there's been a lot of discussion in the last couple of years, the city's economy has changed dramatically in the time we've been doing this plan. as i walked over here today, i thought about the fact that we approved, you approved, six years ago this month, transit center plan. when you approved that plan and what would be the sales force power, there was serious concern that it would never be built because no one would lease that much office space in a single tower. and that was only six years ago.

and how the world has changed unexpectedly and we did not anticipate the pace of change that's happened over the last six years. we believe this is the best place in the region to accommodate that growth. and we believe that we can accommodate a substantial number of housing units here in this plan area and this will be one of the densest neighborhoods in the city. and it will have more housing units than transportation and rincon combined. so that's not small. we're strongly supportive, as was the planning commission, it creating the state's first housing sustainability district, which was put forward by david chu. we believe that half the housing units can be processes through that mechanism, which we think

will increase the pace of new housing production in the area. as you know, the plan maximizes studied 8,300 units. i know you are working on adding to that, supervisor kim. that's great. we've been looking at how to add 200 to 300 more. several projects that we believe can be entitled soon after the plan is approved, propose to gift land to the city for affordable housing. one of the advantages of the plan, the large development sites will include land for affordable housing. in a city as densely developed as we are, land for affordable housing is often what we face as a critical issue. with that, thank you for your time. thank you, supervisor kim, for introducing this with former mayor farrell. and i will hand this over for a

more complete presentation. thank you. >> thank you, john, supervisor kim, members of the land use committee. if i could get the overhead, and i've submitted packets for you as well as letters from the department of housing and community development and the state. state.

>> we have an implementation plan that describes the action in responsible agencies to realize the plan's vision and the implementation matrix and the guide to urban design and key development site guidelines, resolution and ordinances to establish the district. and finally we have the creation of the housing sustainable district in central soma to create a ministerial review process for some housing

projects under ab73. the plan's vision, as we know is succinct. our aim is to create a sustainable and environmentally. supervisor kim have already mentioned how this area is an ideal place for growth. we hope to leverage the city significant investment in the central subway and transform this neighborhood into a new hub for housing and jobs. we've a three-prong strategy to get there. accommodate demand for jobs and housing to change the zone to go allow more growth. we will leverage this growth for fees and taxes to fund much needed infrastructure and services and third help preserve and enhance neighborhood character. it's building on what is already great about seem a. including diversity of residents and jobs and a lot of p.d.r. jobs, truly eclectic mix and it's a hub for culture and night life.

at the same time, we want to address what is not so great about the neighborhood including high present, dangerous streets, a distinct lack of parks and greenery and inefficient zoning to fund public improvements. this philosophy is 'em badded n the goals. it's a chapter in the plan document with policies and implementtation measures. goals 1-3 are accommodated growth and maintaining affordable housing strategy and how the plan will improve transportation, parks and environmental sustainability. goal 7 is about historic and cultural preservation and goal eight is about the urban design and character of the neighborhood. as has been already mentioned, it's been a long journey to get to this point. the planning process began in 2011. since that time there's to plans published in 2013 and 2016. during this time, we also conducted the environmental

impact report. all of this culminated in the adoption of the plan on may tenth. and as was already noted, during this period, we spoke with thousands of people to really help shape the plans' vision. including 15 public workshops and events, 17 hearings at the planning, and as well as two hearings here at land use committee. and here again it's just a list, a partial list of the many advocacy groups and neighborhood organizations that we've met with or presented over the years. in terms of the vision of the plan, the next slide shows what the area could look like before and after central soma. this image shows existing conditions. and here is plan development under central soma. development under the plan is in yellow while the area in blow show surrounding development approved or under construction. development is concentrated in the southwest portion of the plan, primarily industrial area

where many of the large development sites are located. and in the northeast corner closer to downtown. the plan would create 16 million square feet of new development, split between non residential and housing uses. this would yield enough space for 33,000 jobs and 8300 housing units. this is a more detailed look at the change in development capacity. this map combines our zoning and height changes. as you can see on the left, there is limited potential for development. about half of the area zoned for industrial and most other areas allow moderate development of 30 to 85 feet. if central soma is adopted we could see this increase significantly adding mid rise and highrise buildings of 130 to 400 feet in some locations. while the prior images show the physical elements of the plan, the public benefits is really about the human element. it's about the services and infrastructure that will serve the people of soma now and in the future. as was already mentioned the

plan will quadruple the benefits so $2.2 billion during the plans build out which is anticipated at 25 years. in addition, the gross would raise $1 billion in additional general fund taxes. this is an estimate that's based on the best information available but the actual amounts raised would depend on the timing and extent of the development projects. here over the next few slides are the public benefits that can be funded by the plan. this list was developed through a process working extensively with our partner agencies, policymakers and the community. the public benefits package is non binding. actual expenditures are subject to board approval and this is all-out lined in the implementation program document. as was mentioned half of the revenues will go towards affordable housing to reach our goal of 33% affordable units and 500 million for transit. we'll fund $185 million for parks and rec facilities for

both exiting and new facilities. $180 million will go towards building and preserving p.d.r. space to ensure no net loss, due to the plan. $110 million will go to complete streets to transform the streets into bike and thorough fares. 110 million to cultural preservation to fund non-profit services as well as to preserve the old mint and historic gems. 70 million to environmental sustainable to make the neighborhood a world-class example of green and resilient development and $65 million will go to schools and childcare to serve the growing population. here is another way of looking at the public benefits package shown by funding source. over a third of public benefits will be provided on site by projects, such as affordable housing. the rest comes from a mix of existing and new development requirements. these new requirements are outlined on the next two slides. here are the new fees and taxes

for residential development. projects will be required to pay these in addition to any existing requirements such as the eastern neighborhood fee. each parcel getting up under the plan is assigned to a development tier depending on how much an increase they're getting and the requirements are scaled accordingly. the new fees include central soma community infrastructure fee, which would fund transit. the new mel a rooze and construction of non-profit facilities. here say list of new funding sources from non residential developments. non residential pay central soma fee. in addition they will be required to pay for transferable development rights, publicly-owned public open spaces -- excuse me. privately owned public spaces

and p.d.r. and another critical element of our public benefits package is the key development sites. they are large sites where we have crafted more site-specific exceptions and zoning requirements in exchange for providing public benefits above and beyond what is required in the plan. the planning department has been working with these sites for several years to hone these proposals and the public benefits provided. which fall into the categories listed here. they're providing affordable housing, parks and recreation facilities, community facilities, low rent or extra p.d.r. as well as bike and pet improvements. the housing sustainable district is critical to our public benefits package streamlining housing projects that chose to provide on site affordable units and use wage or union labor. as adopted it would be the first in the state under assembly

member david chu's bill. it would create projects to receive 120-day ministerial review establishing the district would make the city eligible for in sen tive payments from the state. last week we received a letter from the california department of housing and community development stating they have done an initial evaluation of our proposal and found it to be consistent with 8073. it's part of the public record for your reference. the bill requires the district provide 20% affordable units, central soma will provide 33% and that the area have anna proved e.i. r. for specific projects, the bill requires developments to provide 10% on site affordable units and they use either prevailing wage or skilled and workforce labor depending on their size. central soma would add local criterion projects lo not be

eligible unless they're 100% affordable. properties with existing housing and mixed use projects that include over 25,000 square feet of office are also not eligible. projects would need to comply with the central soma e.i.r. the 120-day clock begins and it would go through a public hearing prime to approval. when approved, projects must sikh seek a permit or extension. this is the use it or lose it clause. i also wanted to highlight the special text financing law amendments before you. these were also heard last month at the rules committee. in chapter 45 section 10. these amendments are being made so the special tax direct will add