questions currently, madam chair, if we could open it up for public comment. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor kim. because it's the first time i'm seeing the round of amendments, i may have some comments, but we'll open it up for public comment. items 7-11, central soma. if any members of the public want to speak, please come on up. we have speaker cards. my apologies. anita diaz, jim warshel, cynthia gomez, anthony vercamp, mike buehler, andrew wolfram, cindy heightsman, jonathan haber, and susan millhouse. >> thank you to the committee. i'm anita denz, d-e-n-z. i'm here to represent the

victoria alliance of san francisco. we're the city's oldest, all-volunteer, nonprofit organization dedicated to historic preservation. founded in 1973, we protested the destruction of the paris dome and went on to see that. we've raised and awarded $400,000 in grant-worthy projects. many went to fine arts, windmills of golden gate park. when it comes to the old mint, we're fashion at about this historical landmark of the city. we've endowed it with $23,000 in grants over the years. most recently in 2014, we were able to repaint the two historic

receiving rooms, cashier's room and receiving room. we had some pushback from the office of economic work force development about this because they were taken over stewardship, but we persisted and the rooms are glorious today and the city and their events contractor, nonplus ultra, has benefited greatly from these rooms. the alliance has held many meetings at the old mint, because we have no headquarters of our own. we participate with the history days with 80 partners and our officers have participated in the california historical society focus groups on the revitalization of the mint. so we strongly support full funding of the project funds awarded for the revitilization

of this. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker. >> thank you. mike buehler, san francisco heritage. i, too, am here today to advocate for maintaining the city's pre-existing commitment of $20 million to the old mint project. in 2015, san francisco heritage successfully nominated the mint to the trust most endangered pleases, making it one of few to be listed twice. we've long been advocates for the cultural heritage district and sustaining the filipino community amid the transformation that will result from adoption of the plan. to be sure that it's a citywide priority, but the future depends on coming up with the needs and desires of the surrounding south market community.

far from becoming just a museum, the city and the california historical society seeks to transform the mint to a community cultural commons for the neighborhood and city as a whole, which can range from cultural programming, to providing office space for nonprofit organizations. c.h.s. will have a process to further define the comments concept, building on workshops held last year in partnership with shaping san francisco. indeed, the blockbuster success of events at the mint including night market and history day, unscores the potential for the central soma and commitment to that vision. central soma has enormous potential to generate benefits, it will result in a loss of heritage resources. we see this as a way to improve and interpret the neighborhood and sustain the existing cultural communities. we hope in the months ahead,

that we'll be able to work with the board to maintain the funding commitment and explore uses that are relevant to the neighborhood. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, members of the rules committee. andrew wolfram, president of the historic preservation commission and speaking on behalf of the historic preservation commission. on march 21, 2018, the historic preservation commission held a hearing at which we reviewed the central soma plan. at that time, we did not have these amendments that are proposed. at that time, the historic preservation commission unanimously adopted a resolution stating that we were in support of a plan because it preserved and transformed the cultural heritage funding the rehabilitation and maintenance of historic buildings and the

historic residences. we also stated that we recommended increasing financial support for the old mint under the central soma plan to at least $50 million in order to rehabilitate and stabilize the structure, including seismic and safety updates. and provided increased financial support for the arts under the central soma plan of at least $50 million, so that the planning and cultural heritage activities in the community are well represented. thank you very much. >> hi. jim worchel, san francisco victoria alliance. there is so much good in the work you are doing here, it's almost surprising that speakers are talking about something that's less than 1% of the total plan and around the historic

preservation issues around the old mint. historic preservation is critical. we owe it to future generations to protect the resources. i fully concur with mike buehler and mr. wolfram all said. we should be looking at $50 million of support for this, not even $20. the idea that we would be looking at cutting the $20 to $15 is rather appalling. you know, we've had these thing go from the recommendation of 15 to a first estimate of 30 that would be budgeted to 20. and now we're talking about cutting it further. our resources are absolutely critical and it indisputably is the most key historic public resource in the district.

we need this for our residents and for tourism. it's not a key tourist zone. i'm reminded that the national trust will be out here. not only is this an endangered resource, but they're meeting here for the first time in 20 years. if we do another cut to this, my message to them is that san francisco really doesn't support its historic resources. please don't let this happen. i would like to present a recommendation that we are standing behind our most important resources. thank you. >> good afternoon. cynthia gomez, local 2. you heard only a few items before and i will keep my remarks brief because i know that i'm still getting up to speed on the amendments as they're getting proposed and i understand that the process of

drafting these amendments is designed to be flexible to design to commitment. so i what i will do is reiterate support for a couple of projects that are included. one is the project identified as key development, and stands out to us as an example of what key development sites are in terms of enforceable commitments to build hotels with union labor and staff hotels to allow the process for hotel staff to be coming. and, as i am pretty sure i mentioned, one vassar seeking support for changes that would allow a rooftop deck for the hotel project, which we support. as mentioned last week, it seems like there is positive momentum

in the project sponsors at 816 folsom and community in response to community concerns. so we hope to hear soon that those have gone well and for 816 folsom, they signed out to us early on to staff and build the hotel. we hope that the zoning changes that are proposed would preserve the opportunity to build a hotel at that site. and lastly, there is a proposed hotel at 399 5th street. we don't have an agreement yet with that project sponsor, but working in good faith toward that goal. so we hope to keep it alive to make further progress to that goal. thank you. >> i'm cynthia heightsman, executive historic foundation. speaking on behalf of 15,000

supporters to ask you to remain the $20 million allocated to the restoration of the san francisco mint. please do not reduce funding at this critical time. with the preliminary planning for the restoration under way, a reduction of funding can affect momentum of the restoration of this historic landmark. it has national significance and huge potential to serve the local community. i can speak personally to the positive impacts and our offices are in san francisco and have been for 15 years and are facing displacement. we're in an office building that is planned to be converted to a hotel. speaking as the director of a nonprofit faced with finding a new home, remaining in san francisco is a challenge. finding space to serve others is difficult and i'm certain we're not alone. a restored mint building will have enormous benefits for

organizations like ours. we stand with the city of san francisco and historical society to realize this vision. now is not the time to alter process made by reducing funding for this national landmark and vital community service. thank you. >> i couldn't say in such eloquent terms that cindy said what i mean to say, but what i wanted to add to that. i'm john haber, field services director for california preservation foundation. as i lead groups of people by the mint, their eyes open widely and they want to see more. these people are from all over the world and they're appreciating the site for which it's known for and continues to be known for. so when you're consideration cutting funding from $20 million

to $15 million, consider the impact that it has on visitors and the people that live in the city and the surrounding environments. and please don't cut it. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm anthony vercamp, policy development with the national trust for preservation, private nonprofit dedicated to saving america's historic places. i'm a 20-year resident, live at valencia and market. i'm a beneficiary of city housing programs that have allowed people that work for nonprofits to stay in the city. i'm grateful for that. however, the national trust opposes the proposal to reduce from $20 million to $15 million. we concur with the historic

preservation in that it should be raised to $50 million. there's a longstanding commitment to restore the mint. we placed it on the most endangered historic places in 1993 and did it in 2015, one of few buildings that has appeared twice and the only one in san francisco to be on the endangered list. we served on mayor jordan and mayor brown's task force. the funding is an essential piece of the puzzle to assure the reactivation. as a city-owned asset, it holds great promise to serve as a cultural lynchpin to connect downtown, civic center and soma. we ask that you reject the amendment to the plan that would lower allocation. thank you very much.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm karen kai. and i've been active in historic preservation since about the late 1990s. and i have done that as part of an effort for community building for japantown. i'm not here representing any organizations from japantown. i'm here as an individual. what i've seen is that an historic building that has meaning to people, that is implemented by people that care about their community and are involved can make a huge different. it can become a point of pride, a point for displaced organizations, a point where our history comes together and we share it. and this has happened in japantown. it happens in other places. i'm also part of an organization called apia-hip, asian pacific

islanders, historic preservation. we'll have our national forum here in san francisco in november. this is our fifth forum. it's really significant to us. and throughout the time that we have held these events, the california historical society has been a key partner. they've helped us grow. they helped us bring our programs together. they would do the kind of work that would make the old mint a very important structure for not just the city, not just the nation, but for our comments. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is paul wermer. and i realize i can't add a lot

to what people have already said about the importance of the old mint. the one thing i would like to re-emphasize is that when you have a place azmathest -- as majestic as the old mint, it helps people to focus and tell the stories about the fact that help to inform where we are today and perhaps help us better understand the problems we're facing and possible ways of moving forward. and the old mint is one of those magnificent structures and i urge you, please, maintain, even increase the funding for the old mint. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm susan millhouse, here as a san francisco resident and i'm here to support maintaining the

$20 million allocated for the repair and restoration for the old mint. we've had speakers talking about restoring the mint because of its historical significance. i would like to say that i would like to restore it for the activation that it can provide not only to the mint plaza, which is next door, but the surrounding neighborhood and greater san francisco city as well. supervisor kim's amendment to reduce $5 million severely jeopardizes the plans and reactivate the historic, beautiful building. to restate and keep it short -- i'm here to support keeping the $20 million currently allocated under the central soma plan and even to increase it. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm aaron highland, 26-year

resident of the castro as well as the vice president of historic preservation commission. president wolfram spoke for the commission, but i thought it was important to give background on why we thought it was important to in crease the funding from $20 million to $50 million. the old mint is in dire need of stabilization. what it means is that the envelope needs to be repaired so water stays out. it needs to be graded for seismic -- in case of seismic events. and ultimately, once the envelope is maintained and stabilized, then the building won't be in jeopardy of getting further deteriorated. this is an approach that was applied to the williams building on 3rd and mission, which is -- which is stabilized in the mid '90s. and now has become an anchor to

have successful development with the st. regis. so i implore you to at least at a minimum maintain the $20 million funding. thank you. >> hi, supervisors. i have a copy of our letter here, which we'll discuss in a minute. we're happy that the city is beginning to look at first right of refusal against david wu. but we have a long way to go to address gentrification and have concerns with the plan as it currently exists. the city must aggressively purchase rent-controlled bulledings. there should be no $15 million cap for small sites fund and the 10% inclusionary fees should be raised. it limits the buildings that can

be purchased. only a handful of sites have been land trusted in soma. one of the main aims of the district is to preserve existing residence. privately owned, open public spaces are inadequate for children, youth and families. it must require there be a standard designs in place. no incentives should be given to developers. it should be required. rather than giving extensions to developers on currently inadequately popos, it needs to be redesigned to serve children and families. 505 brandon as a new, key site was not vetted by community members. it shows that this plan is by and for developers, even at the

late stage of the process. a new key site was added without explanation. as the plan continues to bounce around various committees and last-minute changes are made to the plan, there must be full transparency with the public including sending out notifications on any changes to dates and times. we'll discuss further concerns in our letter, which is right here. >> supervisor kim: 505 brandon was not added this week or last week and everything that was introduced today will go back to the planning commission on august 23, so it will be an additional month to vet through the amendments. >> we appreciate that, supervisor. i did not notice on the key sites from planning department that 505 brandon was included in the graphics. so any clarification would be

great. >> supervisor kim: i see. we'll work with you on that. >> thank you. >> hello. i'm claire. and i live in soma. continuing with points in our e.i.r. appeal, the following must be addressed. the plan does not provide an open spals. it has a negative impact for a lot of reasons. they're not friendly for youth, children and families and not protected by the shadow ordinance. it's difficult to have a shadow protection because ceqa is not specific on this matter the e.i.r. does not study the health impacts from increased noise, air degradation and organizations that work with seniors and disabattles are concerned that increase in wind speeds will cause a hardship to people and seniors with disabilities. similarly, there are concerns

around vehicle collisions. the extent of increase in automobile traffic is underreported in the e.i.r. and incidents is underestimated. also, degraded air quality will have detrimental impacts. 5m is the largest development. it must be considered with other developments in central soma. they've not associated with separate, cumulative impacts. thank you. >> hello. i'm jamie undone with somcan. there are other issues that are raised. first central soma creates a second financial district at the expense of familiarses , youths

and seniors the development is not conducive to a healthy neighbor. this e.i.r. must be studied against the healthy development measurement tools, developed with the department of public health and community organizations during the eastern neighborhoods rezoning. adequate infrastructure with ride-hailing companies are not fully considered. the transportation infrastructure adjacent to the plan area of central soma, lags behind the needs of past and current growth. it's negligent with ride-hailing and transportation network services like uber and lyft. the impact can in no way be equated with bicycles in terms of traffic or environment impact. next, central soma disregards

soma special use district. we demand that projects when the soma youth and family district are required to undergo approval by resident groups and community organizations before they're considered by the planning department. we're demanding that it function similarly to other special use districts. thank you. >> hi, supervisors. i'm chantal, with somcan, continuing with reports in our e.i.r. appeal. regardless of the assertions in the e.i.r., there are environmental impacts due to displacement from residents from their homes or small businesses in some yes, especially considering the vehicle miles traveled that will result with this central soma plan the gentrification will have a quadruple environmental impact by lengthening commute times,

replacing them with a population more likely to own and use automobiles, increasing the people in soma as a bedroom community on a shuttle to the peninsula and increasing ride-hailing services, which idle and circle for rides. none of these applications have been studied, a flaw in the e.i.r. the e.i.r. omits analysis of the units not being you'd for housing. the inadequacy is that it studies residential development. the corporate rentals, short-term rentals and other commercial uses are difficult for other uses. without civil controls, there is no way to ensure that new housing incentivized to be built will be used as housing. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm t.j., also with somcan.

continuing on the e.i.r. appeal, continued p.d.r. uses in central soma is inadequate. there has to be more consideration, especially in light of the p.d.r. under the eastern soma plan. the e.i.r. does not address the lack of affordability of housing incentivized by the plan and social economic makeup of new residents that will result. it does not provide any studies or figures to support the claim that new developments will drive down housing costs. as it continues, what affects development would have is a matter of controversy and that the influx of real estate investment and higher income, residents may increase gentrification and displacement of households being a negative outcome. further study must be done to affect new housing development on housing prices if the plan is serious about its commitment to maintain diversity of residents.

and it does not assess the displacement of nonprofit organizations. commercial rents will be more expensive, place be nonprofits at risk. low income and immigrants rely on them. without the organizations, soma residents will be further at risk for displacement. displacement results in environmental impact. the e.i.r. is deficient in that it does not recommend strat egg -- strategies for stabilization. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm carol branson. i lived in san francisco longer than i care to think about right now. and i watched a lot of changes,

many of which have been detrimental to maintaining ities. and i heard some well-reasoned arguments about the importance of the mint historically. we could learn some history, because we seem to be repeating it. and the fact that a mere $20,000 is being taken away from the attempt to restore that marvelous building. and so i don't have anything to add to the marvelous things that people have had to say, but i'm in a sardonic mood. i find it odd to be here in this beautifully maintained, historic building, which provides a superb place for gathering of community of the political classes. would you grant that same benefit to other parts of the city? thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is catherine petra, architectural historian. in 2002, the committee commissioned a structure report for the old mint. i worked on it. now i lead tours for "chronicle" subscribers at the mint and i always make the point that it's the most significant building in california if not all the west. in 1874 when the building was completed, the state was just over 20 years old and the building was a huge source of pride for san franciscans that looked at the building and thought, we are finally part of the nation. now we're talking about the old mint's restoration as we have been since 1994. and although progress has been made toward the old mint restoration, it's important to envision how the mint can serve as a gathering place for a changing neighborhood, a

catalyst for a neighborhood in transition, and opportunity of revitalization not just of the building. it's important to realize, though, that in order to achieve this vision, we as a city must come together and we must invest in the future. it's not going to happen on its own. whether it's through the community benefits from the central soma plan or other avenues is for you as city officials to decide. i would just close in saying that mayor lee fully supported the future rehabilitation of the city's most valuable, underutilized, city-owned building and i hope the committee will, too. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm fernando marte. we would like to associate ourselves with the we are soma coalition, which includes several of our member organizations. i would like to speak about the

housing sustainability district that is the new-fangled thing that will be incorporated to central soma. one of the things -- the maintaining that h.s.d. does is make the projects moving forward ministerial approval within 120 days. if there is no approval by the planning department within four months, the project moves forward. we hear over and over again how difficult it is for developers, market rate and affordable, and how it can take two years to get approval. it's a great boon for developers moving forward. one of the things gratifying to see, is that in return the community asks that those projects be built. and so i want to thank supervisors for putting that amendment before you, a

use-it-or-lose-it provision. the other part that is important is that in every other city what it requires is in exchange for getting 120-day approval, developers agree to certain labor standards and agree if there was inclusionary zoning 10% minimum affordability requirement. we believe that in exchange for that 120-day approval, we should see an additional affordable requirement as part of projects that do the h.s.d. we hear over and over again how much it costs developers to wait the two years. so in exchange for that, we think we should be able toll get, i don't know, 5% above, as what we get as a community benefit in ex-chanunnge -- exchange for the h.s.d. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, committee members. i'm bradley weedmeyer.

architectural historian that comes as someone who was a research assistant to another historian that 60 years ago, when it was stopped the demolition of the mint. robert justin clark, professor emeritus, keep him in our memory, but the mint is so important and i know it's hard to fund everything, but the $5 million from the $20, let's put it back and give consideration to the h.p.c., historic preservation commission, which is one of our city bodies, that's asked for $50 million. i don't know if we can do that, but let's try. the stabilization is so important. just in my 41 years in san

francisco, waiting for buses at 5th and mission, you see the cracking of the great granite blocks. the granite lady needs stabilization or we're going to lose her and you see the rust and other things that have to be aggressively addressed. we don't want it to languish. and we don't want the plan to langui languish. we want it to be a center of community and historic resources. so let's get the full funding and see what we can do about that. thank you so much. >> supervisor tang: seeing no further public comment, through the chair, i would like to ask that we close public comment on the items. public comment is closed for items 7-11. >> supervisor kim: there's a series of amendments that i have stated on the record. i also want to add that sara

dennis phillips is here to answer any questions. a couple of things i want to note in regards to public comment that was made. there is an ordinance that is being drafted by supervisor sandra fewer on the right of first purchase that came up at public comment earlier. there have been meetings where we have discussed accusation. i'm not sure if i should ask ms. chan to speak to that, but if you could speak to how much money is available. you don't have to come up now. i will good through a series of responses. i wanted to note that we have not added any additional key sites to the nine that were originally in the plan. there is a discussion and there was a request to add 505 brandon, but it's not been included last week or this week. our also is planning on drafting a good jobs resolution. this is something that jobs for

justice local 2 and we've been asked to do to ask project sponsors to write and development a jobs plan for not just the construction jobs but long-term jobs that they will be completing. our office will be working with the planning department to split the citizens advisory committee between south of america the and now east, central and west soma and the mission, waterfront and showplace square neighborhoods. that's another trailing ordinance that our office will be working on. i do want to consider the discussion around open space. i appreciate what members of the public have said. there are portions of central soma that should be creating open space and rec centers that cater to youth and families. i do want to note that within

the central soma benefits package we're seating aside $25 million to renovate gene friend rec center, which is also increasing square footage, by increasing the heat of height, so it's a minimum of two levels. we also are planning to build a new rec center with a swimming pool at the tennis court sites. we're looking at a new one-acre park in the southwest portion of the plan, along with other parks, but it is noted, duty noted, the need for youth and family needs and also looking at how can better serve ya youth a family needs. we are looking at looking at the school board to in the deuce a

resolution to dedicate school impact fees to south of market. we would love the assistance of our community members here in getting that through, because that's not something that the board of supervisors can do. it will be through the board of education. finally, on the restoration of u.s. mint building, it's not a decrease. when it went to planning, it was proposed at $10 million. we have increased it to $15 million. so it's -- i would not look at it as a decrease, but rather an increase. and i think that given the immense amount of needs in this community, most importantly, affordable housing and preservation of housing and jobs including p.d.r. and open transit, who are balancing a lot of needs. while it may seem that we overwhelmingly heard from stake holders, know that we've engaged

in many community meetings with participants and doing the best we can to spend limits funds, though a great deal of funds -- it will be the most generous community benefits package ever seen in area plan, it's a balance of so many different needs and the old mint is a very, very small part of that. so it will be an increase. that amendment has been made under amendment 15 and reallocating funds to a p.d.r. relocation fund, knowing that we're losing many p.d.r. uses and central soma plan and as many of the key sites and project developers reconstruct and rebuild we want to be able to continue to stay in san francisco and hopefully able to stay in the central soma and south of market neighborhood. so, colleagues, would love to address any questions that have come up now that we've had time

to review the amendments. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor kim. i had a moment to look through these. thank you for clarifying certain questions. again, given the sheer volume of commenters that came out today regarding the mint, i wanted to focus on that, not to take away the fact that this entire plan and how much work went into it. i do want to acknowledge that and thank you supervisor kim and the planning department for that work. for now, one thing i have is, regarding the mint, yes, i understand that p.d.r., preservation, is important. i'm wondering if there's a ballpark number as to how many p.d.r. businesses we're looking at in the creation of $10 million relocation fund? is there any estimate?

thank you, ms. chan, from planning department. >> supervisors, so this is a new proposal, so the details haven't been fleshed out. so the amendments are to create the fund and we'd need to do more research to really establish the number of businesses and so on. but depending on which source we look at, it's 150 to 200 p.d.r. in the area that are active, we think. so it depends on water is advices we're providing. also, we could speak to some services that we have for p.d.r. businesses. some of the funds could support existing services. >> supervisor tang: thank you. that's helpful, so roughly 150 to 200. i would love to see in summer or early fall, more analysis on that. and then going to the mint, i'm

curious -- and i was not part of the long discussions with the community, but how is it decided that the money would be taken from what the mint would have received under the c.f.d.? for this relocation fund? >> we would defer to supervisor kim to share more information on this, but we did take a look at the entire public benefits document, so $2.2 billion, which is a range of categories. and we were looking line item by line item to see where there may be other funds that are available. and everything in there, we prioritize and think are important, but we were trying to figure out where the key opportunities might be to find funding elsewhere.

>> supervisor tang: okay. supervisor kim, i don't know if you have more background on that and how it was arrived at for the mint. >> supervisor kim: total, $104 million allocated to the cultural preservation services. if you don't want to just look at the old mint, because it's just one building, there's $104 million allocated for cultural preservation and community services. $50 million to dedication to restoration of the u.s. mint, $20 million for maintenance of historic buildings throughout the district. and then a mixture of new facilities, including healthcare clinics, programming, and cultural amenities. it's a key part of making sure that we're helping to preserve a neighborhood. when this was first proposed in may, the old mint had been allocated $10 million.

so it is an increase at $15 million. it was at the planning commission that many stake holders came to speak asking for an increase in the allocation. it was proposed at $20 million. again, like i said, if you look at the list of all of the public benefits packages, they're all incredibly important. so we just have to play a balancing act. we're dedicating almost $1 billion to new and rehabilitated affordable housing. by far and away, there's the most important priorities. keeping people here in san francisco. i just don't think there is any comparable priority on this list as there is with affordable housing. also, public transit, capacity enhancement. this is not just a huge priority for the neighborhood.

and they actively want to make sure that we're serving our youth and families, many that live in south of market, whether it's expanding parks and rec centers, open space, linear park and making sure that we are keeping the popos maintained, but in a way that's hopefully of service to the neighborhood as it came up in public comment today. production distribution and repair is also a big priority of this neighborhood. it's just not preserving uses in our city, but also living-wage jobs, so a diversity in our work force. and then we have the cultural preservation services that i mentioned as $104 million. next we have environmental sustainability and resilience, very important. making sure as we build out this dense neighborhood, we're

working on air quality issues, noise quality issues, stormwater management. other energy and water efficiency projects. as this neighborhood grows, we're trying to move forward as carbon neutrally as possible. that's come up in the e.i.r. it's a great concern to the residents, making sure that we're keeping them healthy and safe and that as we grow as a city, we're the model for what it means to grow and be an environmentally friendly neighborhood. childcare centers, schools, betsy carmichael, this is the smallest pot. we want to be sure we're serving our youth and children and families. the items are important and wants to increase affordable housing funds, environmental funds. so the balancing act that we're playing here is what we're

bringing before the land use committee. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that explanation and i see that another $4 million is coming out of the sustainability -- sorry, environmental sustainability and resilience category as well as $1 million water recycling and stormwater management. how much of they receiving? they will be okay? >> supervisor kim: yeah. so this -- i came through some creati creative brainstorming. there are enhanced requirements that has been passed around stormwater as well as -- what was the second one? stormwater management and water recycling in parks. so we reduced this dollar amount. project sponsors will have to provide that on site on their own dime. so there would be less of a need

for the impact fees or c.f.d.s to contribute to that. >> supervisor tang: okay. so, began, i do appreciate supervisor kim explaining this balancing act overall of how to allocate the c.f.d. funds. this amendment is not to the planning code or admin code, but to the implementation program documents and how it is that the community benefits, the funds will be allocated. but i would like to, following our land use community hearing, continue that conversation, given the amount of concern that we've now heard from folks and the community. so i definitely want to be able to address that, but i hear what you are saying. so -- and i know that this will have to go back to planning commission anyhow. but i wanted to make planning staff aware that i would like to follow up with you on it. colleagues, any other questions or comments?

>> supervisor stefani: i have one question. i want to thank supervisor kim for the context around how the money will be reallocated or or allocated. is there any flexibility in the funding? if needs changed or something happened to the mint that needed more than $15 million? i'm wondering how concrete this is? >> supervisor kim: this is an art, not a science. there will be some flexibility as time moves forward. the c.f.d. will have self more layers of approvals and every time we go out to bond, we'll have to go through some approval and i imagine it will be flexing of dollars in different categories. we also have to keep in mind that these dollars don't all come in at twice.

it will be over a projected 25-year life. and so there will also be a very fierce, rigorous debate on how and in what years the dollars are spent as well. so i think you will see a great deal of flexibility via the process into the future. there is is a suggested plan of how the funds will be sent out. the impact fees are fairly set in terms of the arenas that they are allocated to, whether it's transit, affordable housing, open space. within those buckets, there is discretion and most all of that comes before the board of supervisors. the c.f.d. has to go through several additional layers and before the first bond is issues, the expediture plan will come before the board of supervisors. so there will be flexibility based on need and change of costs. >> supervisor stefani: okay. thank you. >> supervisor tang: any other

questions, comments? one final comment, one comment was that amendments were driven by project sponsors. i push back against that. we'll be sure that they're heard at the planning commission. any amendments at the full board will not require rereferral. but i wanted to give the community as much time as possible to evaluate the requests, for instance, the values, as we move forward with the process over the next 1 1/2 months. very few amendments requested by project sponsors were included unless they were technical or increase our ability to increase housing. if you see any amendments by project sponsors, they increased housing or in relation to land dedication that's part of a commercial -- mixed commercial residential development.

i want to assure the community that i have pulled back the sponsor-driven amendments. but there will be at least 1 1/2 months to go through the amendments with our office through a process. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor kim. looking through your summary from today, i agree that most of these are to create more affordable housing. with that said, what would you like to do with items 7-11? >> supervisor kim: i would like to make a motion to amend as i had stated prior to public comment and i would like to make a motion to refer items -- sorry. let me pull that up. city attorney john givner. >> the committee should continue

the items so that planning will have an opportunity to consider the amendments. and the clerk's office suggests continuing it to a date certain for noticing rementquirements. practically speaking, the soonest that the planning commission could hear the items and act on it and send it back to the committee after the board designed the ceqa appeal on september 4 would be september 10. so if you continued it to september 10, you could at that point if the ceqa appeal is resolved, send it to the full board. if the ceqa is not resolved, you could continue it on september 10. >> supervisor kim: so i will continue those items to monday, september 10, if the chair deems that date okay, so we don't have

to refer items 8, 9, 10 and 11 back to the planning commission. we can simply continue the planning commission and hear our amendments and make recommendations after the appeal on september 4. is that correct? >> that's correct. after you act and continue the items today, the clerk's office will refer all the documents back to planning. planning can hold a hearing and take approval action to the board and consider ceqa appeal. >> supervisor kim: for item 11, the 90 days by which we must act is now -- am i looking at the right one, item 7? >> that's right. >> supervisor kim: which the board has to act within 90 days but because an appeal was filed, that 90 days has proven. >> correct.

you will have time under the ceqa appeal to act on the general plan amendment. >> supervisor ki >> supervisor kim: i want to make that clear to items of the public. it is essentially frozen in time and will continue that until october 2. >> supervisor tang: are we taking the amendments today? >> supervisor kim: we are first. >> supervisor tang: may we have a motion to amend -- >> supervisor kim: as stated. >> supervisor tang: without objection? >> supervisor kim: and motion to continue the items to land use committee monday, september 10. many of the amendments that i made today require rereferral to planning commission. >> supervisor tang: made a note of the september 10 date and we

can do that without objection. okay. thank you, everyone. madam clerk, are there any other matters before us today? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor tang: thank you. we are adjourned.