so it doesn't feel that it's a sheltered open space. in addition the flower market has been an inward facing business and it will continue to be a inward facing wholesale use in the new flower mart. in a way to make it efficient for the customers. and the perimeter will be back of the office space for refrigeration space. and this means while the flower market does provide windows and appropriate locations it's not able to comply with the requirement for 60% of the ground floor to be transparent because it would be looking on the back of house spaces. so we'd ask that you build this in as an exception for this requirement as well. and we look forward to seeing next week's amendments and hope that we'll address these issues at that time. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, john aberdeen.

despite the page after page of rhetoric about affordable housing the plan is still far short of actually getting it done in south of market. it needs a number of things. first, the 33% goal should be extended for affordable housing to all of soma. two times or three times more housing will be built in a rest of soma instead of central soma. and, second, there's about a half dozen monthly surface commercial parking lots still in the south of market that should be nonpermitted now given a year or two before they have to close because they're all good infill housing sites and to make those sites development for development for market and affordable housing. third, there's about three or four luxury high rises that will take advantage of the high increases in the plan and they should have to do 33% affordable on-site if they choose that option. now it would only be 19% or 20%. for off-site they have to do 33%

affordable but i'm afraid that they'll take a way out and give us far less units. fourth, the city should condemn vacant buildings and the city has the power in a domain to chronicle the admissions for 20 years over 150 rooms and that slum lord owner has refused to sell it to anybody to reuse for affordable housing or homeless housing and you need to go after these guys. last, but not least, it's out of control in the city and we're losing hundreds of units a year. the city needs to stop that and to resort to the nuclear option at its disposal to have proceedings by eminent domain and take those properties from those greedy owners and protect their tenants and protect that housing rental supply. otherwise we'll lose thousands of units to this. thank you.

>> we can close public comment. all right, public comment is closed. so i have handed out to the committee members and the clerk the 48 amendments that we are introducing that -- that i am introducing today. the city attorney do i have to enumerate each of these 48 amendments? >> you don't. the description you gave at the outset suffices and the document that you submitted to the clerk will be a public document that anyone here can review and come back to comment on at the next meeting. >> thank you city attorney. so i will make a motion to amend these 48 -- a motion to amend

with these 48 amendments as i passed that to the members of the committee and the clerk's office and the city attorney's office. there's one tiny amendment to these amendments that i need to make which is on page 98. that the site is permitted to have a establishment formula limited restaurant so i'll strike out retail restaurant and go to limited restaurant, the request of the key site. (please stand by).

>> supervisor safai: i'm interested to know what the concern is regarding the hotel project, and was this always proposed as a hotel project and has it gone through some different renditions? i heard some different things that it might not originally have been hotel, and so that might have been the confusion. >> are you speaking about the 1 basta project. >> supervisor safai: no, i'm speaking about the -- >> 16-m? >> supervisor safai: yeah. >> so i'm not as familiar with the project. i know they have submitted an e.e.a. the sweeping reform that i'm making to the plan is from our community advocates on all sides actually ranging from our advocates like todco, and as much as yimby, which is that we

need to build as much housing as possible in the central soma plan. one of the amendments that was suggested to our service in the last month to increase available housing is to rezone m.u.o. to m.u.r., mixed use residential north of harrison and to rezone sally south of harrison to m.u.g. this would allow all of these parcels -- well, this would permit housing and not commercial in these smaller parcels. we are accepting key sites from this amendment, understanding that really, the key sites have really been working with the planning department for years on their projects, and this is really kind of the heart of the central soma plan, is really increasing the footprint of commercial activity in the central soma plan, but with the smaller parcels, by rezoning them into housing, that we would be able to build moraffordable housing.

my -- more affordable housing. it is my understanding that one company is asking us to reconsider their site. i am making the amendment as is today, but we will be happy to discuss that specific project after today's land use committee. and so we did get the letters from both local 2 and the project sponsor, and so we will be having a discussion with that project sponsor. >> supervisor safai: great. thank you. >> okay. great. thank you. so with that, public comment was opened and closed, and supervisor kim enumerated a number of amendments that she was going to make, so do we have a motion on that? >> supervisor safai: motion to accept. >> supervisor ronen: okay. and we'll do that without objections. and supervisor kim, on the underlying motions as amended. >> supervisor kim: so i'd like to make a motion to continue items 7 through 11 to the next land use committee meeting

which i believe is on july 23. >> so we'll do that without objection. >> one last piece during public comment. i did take notes during public comment. i did hear on the comment about the youth and family s.u.d., and that's not a discussion that i've had actually prior with the community or the planning department, so we'll certainly look at the overlap of the youth and family s.u.d. i completely understand the concerns there. with the parcel that includes fifth and howard, i actually spoke with don falk about his project. i don't want his project to get caught up with a lot of the work that we need to do with the central soma project, so we will reach out because we know 100% affordable housing is an important project. so we will certainly follow up

on that, as well. so thank you very much, committee members and thank you so much to all of the community members that came to speak today. so with that, madam clerk, are there any further matters before us today? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> all right. we are adjourned.

>> good morning, everyone. this meeting exactly to order and welcome to the july 19th rules of the rules committee. i'm supervisor ahsha safai and to pie left is committee member, supervisor catherine stefani. our clerk today is victor young and i'd like to thank jim smith and mr. hernandez for staffing this meeting. >> clerk: please make sure to silence all cellphones and electronic devices and give any copies of documents to be included to the clerk. anitems acted today is on the agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you, mr. clerk, call item number one. >> clerk: to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to have a privacy first policy at an election to be held on november 6, 2018.

>> supervisor safai: thank you. and i hand this over to supervisor aaron peskin and this is his initiative. >> i'll be brief because you all considered this at your last meeting and thank you for scheduling a special meeting so that this can be forwarded to the full board. and thank you for adopting the amendments that i brought before the committee at your last meeting. there's just one outstanding issue which does not require an amendment, but i'd like to address it which was brought to our attention in the last week. that's around what it means for a law or regulation to be privacy protective such that it would trigger review of the principles set forth in this privacy charter amendment. and after discussing it with the city attorney the possibility that this could be used to limit applicability everthe principles which was the concern expressed in my office i again want to point to sub-section j which explicitly states that this privacy first policy is not

intended in any manner to limit the power of the city to protect privacy by adopting laws, regulations, policies and practices within -- with the city's power, whether or not it's specified in the charter amendment. again, the intent here when we talk about privacy protective laws and regulations is actually to capture any law or regulation that implicates private information collection, storage, or use or other processing. a lot of this will play out as we discussed last week in the trailing legislation developed in concert with the city administrator's office as set forth in the charter amendment, sub-section f, and i'm looking forward to developing that policy with my colleagues and the city admin straighter's office. with that, committee members, i respectfully ask for your vote to forward this matter to the full board where it will have to sit for a week before we can vote on it and hopefully send it to the ballot.

>> supervisor safai: we have any members of the public that wish to comment? seeing none public comment is closed. great. so i guess that i'd like to entertain a motion. >> (indiscernible). >> supervisor safai: do we do it not as a committee report -- oh, no, it goes as a committee report, right, and allow it to sit there for one week? >> clerk: yes, i believe that we do have that -- >> deputy city attorney general john gibner. it's been ajendized as a committee report and so you can send it as a committee report and that allows the board to pass it out on july 24th which is the deadline for charter amendments. and you could pass it out on the 31st which does not require a committee report. >> supervisor safai: so we'll have recommendations, yes, as a committee report.

and without objection that is ordered. >> thank you, colleagues. >> clerk: call item february 2. >> clerk: approving and rejecting the mayor's reappointment of ann lazarus to the board of appeals for a term ending july 1, 2022. >> supervisor safai: great. thank you, mr. clerk. unless there's any initial comments from colleagues i'd like to hear from our applicant, miss ann lazarus for reappointment to the board ofa, peels, term ending july 1, 2022. >> ahsha safai and supervisor stefani. i would like you to meet the executive director and we went through a transition this career and we're fortunate to identify miss rosenburg and i'm happy to have her with us. she's really the frontline for the appellant and the respondents and makes our job

easy. so with that, speaking of doing the job, i've had the honour and the principl privilege of servis board now for six years. i have feel that i have at this point gotten some sea legs with the myriad of issues that come before us. and i believe that that experience has helped me in the process. i do believe that i brought diligence to the process. i have learned that what you see in the written material is not always what you get and that it's equally important to listen to what appellants and respondents have to say during the procedures. and try to come to an equitable decision that is reflective of our governing codes, ordinances, regulation. so i would very much like to have one more term on this board to continue serving the city in this capacity. and with that i am happy to

answer any questions. >> supervisor safai: catherine stefani? no questions. we had a good conversation in my office and i asked a lot of question there is and we talked about the ability of commissioners to kind of think about things that might help to facilitate the process and speed up the review and so on. and you answered those questions great. i think that you've served diligently as you said on the board of appeals. it's not easy much oftentimes you're dealing with rear yard decks or small additions to people's homes, but they are very important to the surrounding neighbours and it causes a lot of angst and consternation and you have handled that very well and i'm happy to reappoint you. so i'd like a motion. >> yes, i'd like to forward this motion to the full board with positive recommendations and amend the motion, reject to take out the language rejecting the mayoral appointment. >> supervisor safai: right.

term ends july 1, 2022. wonderful, congratulations, commissioner. >> thank you very much, i appreciate your support. >> supervisor safai: oh, i'm sorry, we have to take public comment. any members of the public wish to comment on this item, come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. so the motion stands as propos proposed. >> clerk: the motion is approved and there' it's going e forwarded to the board of supervisors with recommendation to approve. >> supervisor safai: congratulations. please call the next item. >> clerk: item three is to have a initiative ordinance promoting the identification and conservation of city resources using to assist in the enforcement or implementation of discriminatory federal laws or policies. >> supervisor safai: wonderful. mr. clerk, supervisor ronen has a notice on july 11, 2018, withdrawing her signature from the file.

180668. so we'll still be taking public comment. any members of the public wish to comment on this item, please come forward. you have two minutes. >> i'm just wondering if it's at all possible to amend the item so that it just -- sorry -- discriminatory laws or policies and not just limiting them to any federal laws or policies. and you might find discriminatory. >> supervisor safai: thank you. any other members of the public wish to comment on this item, come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. okay, so, colleagues, i'll make a motion to file the letter withdrawing this item from the november 5, 2018 ballot. we can do that without objection. the motion was to file the letter withdrawing the item from the november 5, 2018.

okay, we can do that without objection. mr. clerk, do we have anymore business before us today. >> clerk: that completes the agenda for us today. >> supervisor safai: okay, we are adjourned. oh. it was quick. (♪) 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