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 eligible uses for tax revenues. these include but are not limited to grants to non-profit or public social service organizations. some of our environmental sustainability investments including air quality mitigation and technical studies and park programming and activation. to clarify today you are not acting on these specific category but amending within the code so the subsequent special tax district formation documents will be able to site to these spending catagories. this is technical amendment. so that was the whirlwind plan overview. i'm going to highlight the key areas where the plan has changed

since it was last heard at land use and transportation committee. they fall into three catagories. jobs housing balance. public benefits package and development requirements. under jobs housing balance, we've heard a lot under this area. we've heard a desire to maximize housing production. especially affordable units. we heard we should streamline the production process and the review process as much as possible. and that we should protect and produce affordable housing early on in the plan through aggressive site acquisition. in response, we've made changes to the plan. we have modified the zoning to add 20% more units up to the maximum allowed in the e.i.r. of 8300 and we have explored room on top of that as will be discussed later. we have developed the housing sustainability district to streamline housing production. we've worked with some of the key sites that are planning to

dedicate land for affordable housing and we are working with to develop a strategy to accelerate affordable housing acquisition and development. amy chan is here if you have any questions about that. the next set of feedback we heard was related to the public benefits package. the request were at follows. affordable housing was already mentioned. provide funding for social and cultural programming. plan for future capitol needs. since the redevelopment area there is set to expire. fund neighborhood cleaning and maintenance and work with the school district to support existing schools and plan for future growth. support development of good jobs such as living wage and unionized jobs for low income households. and keep the conditional use authorization for replacement which is required under proposition x. here is a snapshot of what has changed. we have increase housing over all which has resulted in 230 more affordable units up to 2900

total. we were also able to allocate funding to meet a number of the questions mentioned that were shown in this table. if you recall from last year, there was a 70 million-dollar t.b. d. bucket in the tax so we've been able to allocate that to the uses that were requested. and finally we added a public policy goal supporting good jobs in the general plan amendments. here are items that have not been fully resolved as they may require discussion or legislative action. we've heard from stakeholders to re-evaluate the eastern neighborhoods community advisory committee or c.a.c. as well as the soma stabilization fund to understand if it would make sense to reorganize and merge elements of these two groups to create a single c.a.c. this was actually one of the recommendations of the planning commission, however, this would be a pretty complex undertaking

and would require trailing legislation. staff are continuing to work with the school district to assess future school capacity needs and how growth may be accommodated and we're happy to discuss conversations if you like. the good jobs goal has been added to the general plan amendments however it might need to be flushed out through trailing legislation. and finally, i'll just note the conditional use requirement for p.d.r. replacement was not reinstated. as we feel it would add unnecessary process since p.d.r. will be required outright. the impact on housing and specifically the streamlining benefits we expect to see from the housing sustainable district. we estimate that 75% of parcels that currently have active p.d.r. use may be eligible for streamlining. which would mean that the conditional use requirement would negate most of the benefit of this law. the last category we heard about

was development requirements, first we know that the market has changed a lot since we did our financial analysis back in 2016 and now some projects are less feasibility particularly and rental housing. projects also express wanting greater flexibility and exception similar to our planned unit process. in response, we did drop the special tax on rental housing, which was 1.75 per square foot. however, we did not take the proposal to change the proposed zoning structure. we feel that this is in keeping with the commission's feedback and the goals of the plan. we did however add the potential for site-specific exceptions for the large key sites as part of the section 329 large product authorization process. these exceptions would be reviewed on a project by project basis at the planning commission. finally i wanted to chose by highlighting a little bit of what is in the package of 35

recommendations adopted by the planning commission on may tenth. they were proposed by staff and recommended by commission. in the interest of time, i'm not going to go over them in detail but we're happy to answer questions. the categories of recommendations relate to the design standards and exceptions to allow flexibility and preserving good design. passenger and freight loading requirements to streamline and i will prove our current review practices. grandfathering for the city's transportation demand management or t.d.m. program to allow grandfathering for projects that have been in the pipeline for a long time. modifications to our active youth requirements on ground floors to allow for hotel uses. allowing alternate uses in p.d.r. replacement space, including uses such as non-profit social services or other desirable uses. policies relate today our key development sites including crafting zoning exceptions to

projects and adding a key site at 505 brennan street. the park fee rare and a one-acre park at 598 brandon street. establishment of the special tax district and allowing it to fund the soma stabilization fund and finally re-evaluating the structure and geography of the c.a.c. as was already mentioned. there are also a number of other clarifying non sub sta tive amendments. so this, in conclusion, here are the list of items before you. this concludes our presentation and staff are here to answer any questions. >> thank you so much. i did forget to adjust how incredible it is that you've been able to take on the plan after steve who did spend 10 years working on it. thank you for coming up to speed so quickly and also helping me meddle through all the technical

details of this plan as well. i just did want to state just members of the public and the land use committee knows one of the issues that was brought up in terms of the recommendations from the planning commission was grangrandfathering in the key ss that submitted their application before september 2016 to only meet 75% of the requirements in the t.d.m. policy. that amendment has not been included yet. it's not because i will not support it but i do think that there's still quite a bit of work that our office needs to do to understand the benefits and value that we're con verring to these key sites. whether they can meet 100% of t.d.m. because that would be the ideal goal and so that conversation will be on going. so, are there other

presentations from other members? from other departments? seeing none, i just want to mention a couple of larger policy areas that our office will be following up on and that will be a discussion here at land use committee that also came up. both through the planning commission hearing and over community meetings, the first is a good jobs program which i mentioned at the introduction which is to ensure we're not just creating thousands of jobs in the central soma area plan but that we're also creating a good pipeline of jobs for san francisco residents whether it is through the hotel jobs that we're creating and janitor and security jobs developed through the office buildings and of course for our construction jobs and so we're working on trailing resolutions that would ask for a

plan as a requirement of your major development through the central soma plan. second, the housing sustain ability and i'm excited about piloting in the central soma plan. we're working with the community around a number of different concerns. particularly around anti displacement efforts that the community wants to ensure in exchange for streamlining the process as of right housing projects within the central soma plan. it's important that we allow projects that are building housing to move forward. in particular, the fact that we are exceeding affordability requirements throughout the plan i think is an important point to note. but we also want to make sure that we have a balance plan moving forward and so i will work through that process with the community. there is of course, the conflict with proposition x, which i

authored, which we passed in 2016 and understanding that we would have to eliminate the c.u. requirement, which is a very important piece from the communities and how we can have that interface with h.s.d. that's still something that our offices is working out. i know at minimum, we will be requiring the c.u. for non residential projects. but we do need to figure out a way to eliminate for housing projects so we are modeling through that. third, we are still looking at anti displacement mitigation that can move alongside the central soma plan and i know that there are a variety of ordinances that the community has been working on with other offices including a first right of refusal and that supervisor sandra fewer has authorized that she will be introducing,

hopefully soon that can move alongside the soma plan. we are separating the c.a.c. which i strongly support, into two separate neighborhoods. one from east-central and another advising body which will be the mission, the waterfront, where as eastern neighborhood grows, i think it makes sense to have two citizen advisory bodies that recommends how to spend down fees and the south markets case, the upcoming c.f.d. funds which will generate a lot of new infrastructure as well as community benefits for the plan. there's a number of issues around key sites that we're still working through. i am also holding on fees and land dedication back into key sites as part of their benefits. in part of my evaluation of the

value we're conferring to key sites. and finally, working our way through another company ordinance around the community facility district to make sure we're putting forward the strongest e.f.d. planned for the city and for central soma. next week, i will introduce a series of amendments for key sites and large projects that were requested by the project sponsors. many of them do require referral to the planning commission so that is why they have not been introduced today. we will be working through those amendments next week. so, i believe i have gone through most of the major items that both policy wise and technical that i wanted to ensure that members of the public and members of the land use committee understood. at this time, through the chair, i'd like to open up for public comment. >> great, public comment is now open. >> thank you, chair tang.

i only have two cards in front of me but i know there are many other speakers for this item. first i have cynthia gomez of local 2, kevin carole of the hotel council and please just lineup to speak on item 7-11. >> all of the amendments --

>> thank you so much. >> good afternoon. supervisor kim, and to the other honorable supervisors, my name is catherine, i'm on the board of san francisco architectural heritage. today i'm representing heritage president mike bueller who couldn't be here but submitted a letter for your consideration. i'll summarize it. to say that of the many community benefits to be derived from the central soma plan, san francisco heritage is pleased to commend the city planning department for prioritizing reactizatioization of the mint. the old mint has potential to be a community asset and anchor for neighborhood in transition. until recently, the mint was seriously neglected. the city assumed ownership from the government in 2002. in 2015, heritage successfully

nominated the mint to the national historic preservations annual list of 11 most endangered historic sites. in 2016, the california historical society and the city formed a partnership to develop the long-term vision for the mint. the partnership has made great strides in activating and planning for revitalized mint. essential to the partnership and the mint's future restoration is the city's 20 million-dollar commitment through the central soma plan representing 1% of the total public benefit generated by the plan. in 2018, alone, central soma plan was considered at five planning commission hearings, one historic preservations commission attended by dozens of advocates expressing strong support for the mint. what's most important, i think for this committee to know, is that nearly all planning commissioners and historic

preservations commissioners called. the commission voted unanimousl- >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, i'm cynthia gomez here at local 2. i will acknowledge, first of all, this process has come through many years and probably dozen of hearings representing a great deal of hard work. in particular today, i wanted to call out a few steps that we think are incredibly positive. the goal is to create good jobs are a model of what can happen when public policy and community advocacy come together. we really want to thank all of

the work -- honor all the work that was done to bring these good jobs trailing policy in. in particular, there are a few projects that we wanted to call out and call attention to. one is one of the key development sites, the vasser projects. it's an example of what can happen when the development and the community can come together and have a productive conversation that leads to voluntary agreement that provide good jobs. the one vasser project the development sponsors have come to an agreement that guarantees good jobs for construction and staffing of the hotel, which will be a tremendous boone to the neighborhood. and i have learned that that project sponsors also hoping to put a rooftop bar and add to the city's stock of rooftop bars so we hope whatever they need to get done in order to get that rooftop bar, we will be able to get ushered through. and there's another project where there's a deal and the

project sponsor has signed an agreement for good jobs for construction and staff and we want to urge that whatever process is needed to make sure that 816folsom has a total on that spot and get exemptions has needed, we wanted to make sure that the process is preserved for both of those to be possible. so, thank you very much. and i look forward to the rest of the hearing. [ please stand by ]

-- i commend this plan for helping the construction job to be good jobs for everybody. i don't condemn it, i congratulate them. i'm sorry. the hotel jobs that are being referred to by local 2 are going to be good jobs and the last piece of this is our piece, where we're taking entry level folks from the neighborhood, working with lowd and the designated target sectors to ensure that these jobs also have an entry way for the neighborhood folks. and we're in the process now of working with -- over the seven hotels that are designated to be built there, we have not concluded all of our negotiations but we are in that

process and we look forward to the policy legislation that will be developed around that to secure it in the future for all low-wage workers. because they deserve that laser sharp direction of our city planners. so thank you once again, supervisor kim, and the planning department. and we look forward to continuing this work until it's completed. thank you. >> good after nan, supervisors. my name is kevin carole and i'm with the hotel council of san francisco. i want to thank you and supervisor kim for all of the work that's been done on this project and especially the planning department as well. i'm here to talk about one of the specific programs and asks for an amendment that would be prohibiting hotels on small sites. it would just ask that you consider to add language that allow pipeline hotels that are in the project to move forward. specifically we ask that you include an amendment to carve out hotel projects that had

applications already accepted before may 10th of this year. one of the hotels at fullsom is next to the musconi center and as you have heard already there are jobs impacted by not being allowed to have a hotel here. and also that hotel would have 216 hotel rooms that would also provide for more positions and jobs that people would be coming into as well. i believe that there's about 30 permanent jobs and probably over 200 temporary ones, not to mention the actual construction jobs. so i just ask as you consider these amendments that you consider an amendment that allows the project to continue. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is tracy breeder and i'm with "jobjobs with justice" ande "good jobs for all coalition" here in san francisco. our coalitions are interested in not only good jobs for workers

but making sure that there's affordable housing for workers to stay here in san francisco. as a result we're also part of with a local commission that has 50% affordable housing for the soma plan. so we're still very excited to increase the amount of affordable housing available in the plan. and one specific request is around the housing sustainability district and making that the boundaries include the entire south of market area, not just the central soma plan area. and that likewise the affordable housing goals, ambitious affordable housing goals are applied to the entire area. we're happy to hear about the trailing legislation for good jobs and we're excited to work with supervisor kim and others to make sure that is detailed and make sure that it goes as far as it can to ensure good jobs for disadvantaged and local san francisco residents to make sure they can access good jobs and stay in the area. so thank you to supervisor kim and to the planning department

staff for all of the good work that everyone has done already. the basic message here is that we all know that this plan will greatly affect san francisco for decades to come. and so at this critical moment we just really advocate slowing down, making sure that we get these things right in terms of jobs for residents and affordable housing. so it's really important to us that we really do this right now and enforce good, affordable housing and jobs policy. thank you. >> hello, supervisors, i'm david wu with the south of market community action network. we're glad that the city is now considering the right of first refusal as part of the central soma plan, however, we still have issues and concerns with the plan as it currently exists and feel that the plan should still be strengthened. as we have discussed through our soma plan hearings, this is a plan -- this is a plan and a recipe for gentrification and displacement, not just in the

south of the market, but the rest of the city as well. by upzoning and allowing luxury housing uses where they were banned, the city is raising the value of the land and inviting rampant speculation. these changes mean increased rents for residential and commercial tenants as new developments create a new and higher comparable value for the area. this plan will decimate the existing community. more needs to be done to ensure that existing community members are able to remain in the south of market and under the face of these pressures. the action must be taken now to address the jept risks and displacement. before the plan is passed we demand that the following are incorporated with acquisition of the existing rent controlled buildings and sites for 100% affordable housing. and instituting with community organizations a right of first refusal for residential renters, along with non-profits and commercial renters. and creating a moratorium on the sale of existing rent control buildings and the sale of the land for private development. and on new market housing

construction for projects not currently included in the existing plan. we also want to see the plan reach 50% affordable housing and to require a mandatory land dedication of sites for affordable housing for any development that is one acre or larger. as it stands the central soma plans represents a plan by and for developers. without adequate steps taken to address the reality of gentrification and displacement that comes with such a rezoning this will be a plan for displacement. we will discuss our e.r.i. appeal points that read in our file appeal. >> hello, supervisors, i'm jamie mcdunn. and there's several issues that must be addressed. the central soma plan has a second financial district at the expense of families, youth, and seniors living, working and going to school in the soma. the scale of development and the mex omix of commercial and highd

development are not conducive to a healthy neighborhood. we demand that this e.r.i. be studied against the measurement tool developed by planning and partnership with the development -- with the department of public health and community organizations during the eastern neighborhoods rezoning. next the inadequate transportation infrastructure and the impact of ride-hailing companies within the deri are not fully considered. the instruct within the plan area of the central soma lags far behind the infrastructure needs of both past and current growth. the eri is also negligent in assessing the new impacts of ride-hailing and services like uber and lyft. the references in the draft on pages 4, d-65 and 4-d-76 are inadequate. their impact can no way be equated with bicycles in terms of traffic or in environmental

impact. lastly, the proposed intensity of the development and relaxing of the development controls have not been equated -- evaluated with respect to state density, in the e.r.r. and it references these laws on page 2-22, but only in reference to increase heights. the derr references the bonus for affordable housing projects on page 6-2, but says that the increased number of units is not considered for the deir. and it's incomplete, if it does not complete the study the impacts of increased heights and the number of units for both affordable and market rate housing. thank you. >> hi, supervisors. my name is chantelle labrento and i'm continuing with points in our appeal. first, the economic impacts from displacement were not ann liced in the eir and there's

environmental impacts due to the displacement of residents from their homes or small businesses in soma. especially when considering the huge increase in the vehicle miles traveled that will result in this proposed central soma plan. the gentrification caused by this plan will have a quadruple impact by lengthening the commute times of people working in soma from their new place of residence outside of the city and replacing it a population more likely to own and use oks. and increasing the number of people living in soma as a bedroom community for their commute on a shuttle to the peninsula. and increasing the use of ride-hailing and the services whose vehicles idle and circle in competition for rides. none of these impacts are studied which is a significant flaw in the eir. and next are the eir omits analyses of the trend of residential units not used as traditional housing. the inadequacy is that it studies the impacts of

residential development as though it's used for residences. the environmental impacts of corporate rentals, short-term rentals and other commercial uses are different from residential uses. without enforcement there's no way to ensure that the new housing that is incentivized to be built will be used as housing. thank you. >> hello, supervisors, my name is clara modley and continuing with our points in our eir appeal and the following must be addressed. plan has inadequate open space in soma. they have a negative impact on the community for many reasons. they're privatized and overly regulated and restrictive and not friendly for children, youth and families and not protected by the shadow ordinance. it's also difficult to establish a standard of shadow protection for these open spaces because seqa is not specific on this matter. soma has such a lack of spaces for public recreation and

accessible open spaces that there must be a clear plan to create a new open space that are owned and managed by park and rec. and the eir does not study the health impacts from the increased noises and the degraded air quality and the pedestrian safety hazards and increased wind speeds. and those that work with seniors and people with disabilities in soma are concerned that the increase in the wind speeds with the height and velocities of the buildings will cause injuries to seniors and people with disabilities at both public open spaces and in the public right-of-way. and there's concerns around vehicle collisions. and the increase of the automobile traffic is underrepresented in the eir and the pedestrian injuries is also underestimated. noise levels especially from the construction activity have not been studied in the eir. and after construction the degraded air quality from increased traffic and increased idling from the vehicles stuck in traffic or ride-hailing vehicles or from increased truck

traffic will all have detrimental impacts. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is t.j.bosell with somcan. and continuing our points in our eir appeal. the uses in central soma is inadequate. the eir indicates that it is removing protective zoning for p.d.r. but there's no complete timeline of how much eir has been lost and which in part is to stop the loss of eir. and having incentives to protect the eir uses is problematic. and it will quickly not be incentives tomorrow. depending on the land use, financial and macroconditions driving the development market at any particular time. more consideration of the continued pdr use is required in

the eir. the eir does not address the lack of affordability of housing and inventicized for the plan and the social and economic makeup of the new residents that will result. the plan does not provide any studies or figures that support that the new development will drive down the housing costs. as the eir states on page v-10, what effects the development on the housing affordability is a matter of controversy and that the influx of real estate investment and higher income residents may increase the gentrification of the neighborhood with displacement of households being a negative outcome. further study must be done to see what effects it will have on the housing prices. if the plan is about a commitment to maintaining a diversity of the residents in the area. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. my name is gigo.

and to continue with the points in our eir appeal the following must be addressed. the central soma plan disregards the youth and the family, especially in this district. we demand that the part of the central soma plan are requiring a review approval by the residential groups and community organizations before they are considered by the planning department. we are demanding that this community approve our process, and function similarly to other districts in the city such as bernard heights special use district. the impact of new office space and the local environments are not properly studied in the even ir. and the eir is inadequate on the grounds that it does not incorporate all of the safest policies with respect to development and controls. the eir's lack of clarity on how it can comply with the requirements, especially in light of the proposition o is a critical flow. given the intensity of the new

high-end office spaces that are being proposed, the fact that local hiring and training goals are still in the section of the deir, is a controversy and it's not only offensive to the community but is potentially very damaging environmentally. when considering the increase in the vehicular mileage with gentrification. >> hello supervisors. my name is eugenia laoa, and continuing with points in our eir appeal. the project must be included in the even ir analysis because the new development of the central soma plan is being proposed as a scale, driven be by the development, and to be approved. with it being the largest development in central soma they must be considered together. they have links that have

impacts. the plan does not address the stabilization of the soma-based non-profit organizations. by encouraging the construction, the rents will be more expensive and placing non-profit organizations even at more risk. low income and immigrant communities in soma rely on many of these non-profit organizations for basic services and to be able to survive in the community. without these organizations the soma residents are further at risk for displacement and it does not result in the environmental impacts. therefore, the eir is not recommending the strategies for stabilizing the non-profit organizations in soma. as it stands the central soma plan represents a plan by and for developers. without adequate steps being taken to address the reality of the gentrification and displacement that comes with such rezoning this plan will be a plan for displacement. thank you.

>> hello, supervisors. my name is antoine walker and i'm with citizen impulse. it's backed by a dutch pension fund. we have another hotel project, hotels operating worldwide and another 12 in development in the u.s. we have a 200 room hotel at an 8,000 square foot parcel between forest and 5th street. it would be 18 stories and 180 feet tall based on rezoning and 180 cs height and bolt district. it's a parking project. construction of the hotel provides up to 30 permanent jobs and over 200 temporary ones. we will participate in the first source hiring program for hotel construction. citizen m will work with the web core builders for construction of the project. we have executed agreements with unions regarding the construction of the project and

with unite here, local 2, for hotel operations. citizen m purchased the property a year and a half ago and filed applications for the project in the fall of last year. regarding the proposed amendment to have a hotel on a small site we ask that you consider to add language to permit the pipeline projects to move forward. specifically we ask that you include an amendment to carve out hotel projects with ee applications that were accepted by may 10, 2010. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is adi and i'm the director of parks. and we encourage you to recommend the plan for approval along with all associated amendments. we're pleased to see the use of 8073 to have a sustainable district that will bring housing to fruition more quickly. the plan is ground breaking and really important. a place for housing and jobs and

sustainable environment. it creates critical new housing and addresses our housing shortage at capacity for jobs and the one place in the region that people take heavy transit and it considers how to keep the things that we like about soma and the funkiness that comes with that and to adjust the things that we don't like, like the dangerous streetscape for people walking and biking and creates community benefits and sustainability has been intgrated through the plan for the neighborhood in a way that has not been done before. including development with 100% ghg free electricity making this neighborhood greener and cleaner. one note of caution that we have sounded throughout is the feasibility and the benefits of this plan won't happen without the proposed development. given where we are with the construction costs we may see a delay in these benefits coming to fruition. so we support any level of flexibility that we can have on a project basis to ensure feasibility and construction as

quickly as we can. thank you, supervisor kim and director tang for your contributions. >> good afternoon, supervisors, cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition and i want to reiterate that i appreciate your office and all of the work planning. this has been a massive undertaking. we are support in of the plan and there's a lot of complicated things to work out. and we're concerned about one item with the feasibility and the project. we all know that putting together these plans are complicated and we don't want to lose out on the opportunity to get some much-needed affordable housing in the district. and we're going to be giving homes and creating homes for people in that community that are already vulnerable so we think that is really beneficial. so whether that is duplicating the file and trying to move it forward to make sure that we don't basically hit that deadline clock with the financing with the project or moving the entire thing forward

at once, we really don't want to lose out on that opportunity. but all in all we're in support. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. melinda sagenpar. and i would like to express a minor clarification. it relates to the pending projects within the plan area that are proposed under the eastern neighborhood zoning. these projects are subject to the rules in place in central soma becomes affected. the way that the code is written, however, it's unclear if that encompasses the legislation that is pending but not yet adopted. that includes the code correction ordinance to address the errors and the inconsistencies in the planning code. to correct this we ask that you include the phrase "or legislation introduced but not yet adopted" into the section 175.1c. this is a minor amendment that will clarify the pipeline eastern neighborhood projects in central soma can be through the

planning code six and with the ordinance that is pending. i have a copy of this language and i'll leave it with the clerk. thank you very much. >> this is -- i missed the beginning. can you speak with lisa chang, we believe that this amendment is not necessary so if you can connect, that would be great. >> good afternoon, supervisors. sam oss from the executive director of mission housing development corporation. you know, we have about 250 affordable units in the central soma plan and, you know, while we -- it was a 1-1 jobs housing balance, i actually thought that it pertinent to bring up the fact that there's an entire other section of our city where we can add a lot more affordable housing. st. francis wood is five miles away and wedge wood park five miles away. we put the pressure on these low-income communities to take the brunt of all of our economic

development while we let other neighborhoods just be encased in amber. and, you know, this body has the ability to change that. so, you know, i urge you to think about city-wide, one-to-one affordable housing and jobs balance. i know that it can't come through the central soma plan but we certainly can do something about it after. so, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors and my name is josie erins and i'm the senior community organizer with walk san francisco. we and our members look forward to the city fixing dangerous streets in soma such as fuls is som and -- fulsom. almost every street is on the vision zero high injury network and the 13% of the city streets were 75% of the severe and fatal crashes happen. the central soma plan envisions soma as a neighborhood where it's safe and enjoyable to walk.

vision zero improvements like mid block crossings and intersection and crosswalk treatments and until upgrades will transform the dangerous streets into safe, vibrant and inclusive destinations where people want to travel, live and work. the plan would allow critical projects to move forward. in addition though we hope that you can quickly and thoroughly address the concerns of our partners like somcan, around the needs for affordable housin houd evacuation -- eviction housing. and they want interim controls to prevent displacement and the lack of the strong measures in the plan to increase affordable housing and job creation for local residents. we look forward to you addressing that those concerns. thank you. >> good afternoon, here on behalf of the kilrose flower

project. we have been delivering a project that will anchor the southwest corner of the plan area and provide long-term affordable rents for the flower market and a new state-of-the-art facility. i want to say that we're strongly supportive of the plan with the changes recommended to you by the planning commission and with that said there are a few additional changes that are necessary to accommodate the unique needs of the flower market project and the wholesale flower component of it in particular. parking, first of all. right now the plan has parking maximums that limit the wholesale flower market to 67 parking spaces and that's less than half of the flower market's current parking and well under the 150 spaces that kilray is to provide in the new project. it's been suggested that additional parking might be provided through a trailing site

amendment but it prolongs uncertainty for the flower market tenants about an issue that is really central to the project. and it adds to the workload for the city staff that said that a change would prolong the schedule for the project consideration for approval. so you have delay and uncertainty and on the other the legislation before you has exceptions that are available only for key sites like the flower market. i urge the board to take the efficient route and to insert the changes needed for the flower market's parking now. this is a unique distribution use and it needs the parking to function. similarly we'd ask you to make other minor changes to facilitate the unique site programming needs of the flower market. and that includes --

>> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is vance hushita and i'm the board president for the san francisco flower market. we recently submitted to you a letter about our concerns that we have adequate parking at the flower market. and we have 144 spaces at the flower market and that does not include all of the parking available on the streets around the flower market for tenants and their employees. customers come as far north as eureka and as far south as salinas. and it's critical that we have the parking. without the parking it will be very difficult for the vendors at the san francisco flower market to continue to be

sustained. thank you. >> my name is alex lanceburg with the san francisco electrical construction industry. i'm here specifically speaking in support of getting the appropriate amendment to protect 81816fulsom as mentioned by cynthia and the project sponsor and others. but i want to kind of talk about this within the framework of something that director rames said and we saw within the scope of this presentation. as this project has been developing over the past 10 years, we -- we've really tried to incorporate the lessons of the eastern neighborhoods plan. one of the things that we did in the eastern neighborhood plans

is that the projects that have submitted their applications long before the planning commission to have action to initiate the amendments would get grandfathered. it's a reasonable request and it provides certainty and it's one way that we can, you know, take into account that the folks do make decisions based on the best available information that they'll be able to do what they need to do. and more broadly i want to talk about good jobs and the 816fulsom project has made a commitment to hotel workers and so both on the front end and on the back end in its operations it's going to really be providing good, sustainable living wage and employment opportunities for san franciscoians. but as we talk about this policy we know that there's little that we can do legally but offer up goals and encourage project sponsors to do this.

but what we can do is to reward sponsors who take the affirmative step on the front end like these guys did and it's important that as we continue talking with the project... >> hi, laura clark. this plan needs a lot more housing and it doesn't need to come in the plan itself but it does need to be coupled with a commitment to building housing elsewhere to compensate for this. because too often we have passed things that increased our economic growth and did not come with housing to boot. we can speed up the production of housing in this plan with great legislation from assembly member david shue but we're talking but category off dwelling units a at the knees by not allowing them new cob

instruction. -- construction. i don't see a commitment from this board to be advocating for the kind of housing production that we need to compensate for this plan. i see this going another step and another direction of continuing to see the displacement that we have seen. and so i would love if this is going to move forward for it to come with either a verbal commitment or some kind of legislation that there will be housing built to compensate and it needs to be said when we pass this legislation. it can't be a hand waving and it needs to be something more, a bigger commitment. this also brings to light the delay that we're seeing and it's going to affect the tndc's affordable housing projects. this brings to light how this kind of unpredictability can affect especially the affordable housing developers. we need consistency and we need predictability, especially for affordable housing developers. so, please keep this in mind both for this legislation as well as others to come.

thanks. >> good afternoon. can you hear me? is this loud enough? thank you. my name is denise diana and i have been a resident of san francisco for 50 years and i have thought that many other groups, san francisco tomorrow, senior action network, and senior disability action, etc., to lower the number of people who live on this small inlet and we have fought for 50 years to -- on all issues to not manhattannize this city nor to

increase the population to an absurd number of one million people -- we were to have one million people on this little inlet. and as an elderly person i have even today had a hard time getting here because i couldn't cross the street. i had to wait and wait for the traffic to slow down and it just wouldn't stop and so it took me quite a while to get here and i had to wait a considerable time and i also had to -- i almost got run over by some high-speed cars that didn't want to pay attention to the lights. and so i, you know, have been through the whole nonsense. and we just can't continue the way we're going. thank you.

>> good afternoon, board members, peter cohen with the housing organizations. it has been many years but this plan -- this is the next generation plan area for those of us who went through the first generation of not only market activity in these neighborhoods but other plans this is a fresh start to learn from the past. and one thing that is encouraging is that an affordable housing plan is baked into this one. we hadn't in the previous ones but that's a problem. so in that sense the planning department has done very good effort to try to find as much affordable housing and to identify the sites which will help our member organizations but in general to achieve a higher standard of affordabili affordability. we have helpedit