good afternoon, everyone. welcome to our land use committee meeting of monday, july 23 -- sorry, this microphone is crazy here. i'm katy tang, chair of this committee. today i'm joined by vice chair, jane kim, and catherine stephanie joining us to phillip

for supervisor safai. we would like to thank sfgov tv. can we get a motion to excuse suspects safai from land use? >> so moved. >> clerk: make sure to silence all cell phones and recording defsh uses. and any documents to be in a file should be submitted to the clerk. items here will be on the july 31 supervisors agenda. planning 1, planning code, permit review procedure and zoning controls neighborhood commercial districts in districts 4 and 11. and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: colleagues, we already heard this item in land use. it's our pilot program to attract more businesses. today we have amendments to introduce in light of the

process improvements legislation passed by the board of supervisors. there's been an entire reorganization of the planning code. and so the amendments i'm introducing today literally just put our legislation in the proper sections now given that change in the planning code. so i won't have any further comments on that, but it's really a technical change. if we can adopt the amendments, i would like to send it to the full board as a committee report. questions, comments? seeing none, we'll open it up to public comment. members of the public? mr. carnolowicz? >> good afternoon. i'm president of the san francisco council of district association. this is great legislation. thank you, supervisor tang and supervisor safai.

we're having a hard time these days with on-line shopping and then the storefronts that don't generate the foot traffic it would like to have for shops and so forth. i'm speaking on behalf of the council. we don't vote on this. i did contact bill barnacle and grace from excelsier and they're very supportive of the legislation and urge you to pass it. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 1, please come on up. okay, seeing -- come on up if you want to comment on item 1. >> scott havey. i have a business on 33rd. i'm here to support the proposal. i there i it makes a lot of sense. >> supervisor tang: great. thank you very much. any other members of the public on item 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we get a motion

to adopt the amendments to the legislation? >> supervisor kim: so moved. >> supervisor tang: without objection. underlying item with positive recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor stefani: i will make that motion. >> supervisor tang: without objection. item 2, please. >> clerk: amending the planning code to allow catering as an accessory use to certain restaurants and make appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: this is an item sponsored by supervisor safai here. i don't know if he has staff that will comment. but i believe it was continued last week due to amendments. if i don't see anyone else, we'll go to public comment on item 2. any members of the public? >> hi. henry carnelowicz. again, the amendment with the catering at the restaurants, a

lot of them close at the certain time or have black mondays when they close on a mondays and it gives an opportunity for the caterers to get out there and provide service to the communities around town and so this is another piece of legislation that i support and we, again, the three -- the locations, i think, are really great, so looking forward to having this passed, too. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. i, too, am very supportive of this legislation. i think we need to be more creative with retail and commercial spaces and figuring out how we can best have people occupy spaces with more flexibility. our office will have more follow-up legislation to that effect soon as well. so with that said, again, this was continued from last week.

if we can get a motion on item 2 -- >> can we have there as a community report? >> supervisor tang: yes. without objection. thank you. item 3, please. >> clerk: ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map to establish 2001 lombard street special use district and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i will turn it over to the sponsor, supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: i would like to ask for a continuance to call of the chair. >> supervisor tang: we have staff report? no? public comment.

>> hello. diego gomez, research analyst. this item was proposed for continuance, that was the ask that we came to make, so we support a move for continuance so there's an opportunity to understand more of what the project sponsor is proposing and have a chance to engage. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 3? seeing none, public comment on item 3 is closed. >> supervisor stefani: i would like to add that this item will be heard at the planning commission in october. so we won't hear this in land use until after that. and there will be plenty of time to have conversations with the community around this legislation. it's not a proposed project at this time. we look forward to a robust community engagement on this legislation. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. so that item continued to call of the chair. we just did that. okay. did we do that?

okay. motion to 21 to call of the chair. without objection. all right. item 4, please. >> clerk: amending the planning code to permit massage establishments in union street neighborhood commercial district and approve appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: this will allow three businesses, which happen to be massage establishments to be permitted. currently, they are not allowed because they didn't file in time under supervisor tang's 2015 massage establishments ordinance. we propose a path to legalization here to support the continuance of small businesses in the union street n.c.d. on march 26, planning commission heard and hey proved this ordinance the commission provided two

recommendations, which we agree with, so i would like to propose two amendments, which came from the planning commission's recommendations. the first will amend note 1, page 2, to include an 18-month timeline for filing a building permit to legalize their business. and the second recommendation will amend on page -- let's see -- will amend it to specify that only massage uses currently within the union street neighborhood commercial district may avail themselves of this legalization process including the exemption. and i can read the amendments into the record, if that's necessary. no? okay. so these are three businesses that are currently in operation 2, equinox and spa radiance and

elements. i urge your support on this piece of legislation. if not, we'll have three more vacancies on union street and these are three vetted establishments. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor stefani. mr. sanchez? >> diego sanchez, planning department staff. i would like to reiterate the planning commission's recommendation. it was very much in support of this ordinance. voted anonymously to supervisor report this with the modifications that supervisor stefani had mentioned. and they did this because they thought these modifications would help to improve the legalization process and implementation going forward. so that concludes my presentation. as mentioned, i'm here for questions. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. all right. seeing no other comments, questions. we'll open up item 4 to public comment. any members of the public that wish to speak? okay.

seeing none, public comment is closed on item 4. supervisor stefani, if you want to make a motion. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, supervisor tang. i would like to move this forward to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: john givner. >> this will trigger a continuance in land use. so the committee should continue it and send it out next week. >> supervisor stefani: i would like to amendment motion and continue this for one week to land use committee. >> supervisor tang: okay. without objection. this item is continued for one week. >> clerk: were there amendments to accept provider to that? >> supervisor tang: i'm sorry. we have to accept the amendments. we'll rescind the vote. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: yes. i move to accept the amendments that were read and then continue this to the next land use committee hearing. >> supervisor tang: amendments first. we can do that without

objection. and underlying item as amended continue one week. without objection. all right. thank you. madam clerk, item 5, please. >> clerk: ordinance amending the planning code to correctorors in enacted legislation, updated out dated legislation and reorganization of articles 7 and 2 and approve appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you. we have david brosky, planning department. >> it improves errors and the code itself. it completes article 2 and 7, as well as overlooked items. the majority of the amendments are not considered substantive, with a few exceptions.

145.4 would allow an exception to ground floor. the code is silent on it, but has provisions for other zoning in the code. the second is from the cannabis ordinance, which removed applicable requirements. the change is consistent with the intent of the cannabis. and the failure to remove it is a drafting error. a third came at the mayor's office and housing that continued development. it would change median to market. using median as benchmark is not a valid standard for the problems the provision is attempting to solve. the planning commission voted to approve the ordinance with modifications april 19 this year. the one recommendation is to remove limited commercial uses to be permitted in the store and zoning districts per 186.3.

this was inadvertently deleted and this has been added to the ordinance. so staff has additional corrective amendments, that include page 2. deleting 312 from the sections being amended, since 312 is being revamped. it's being taken out completely of this ordinance. corrections are no longer needed. page 6, line 5, accessory uses are being added to the definition for reference. page 8, line 24, and page 9, lines 5-24. this table was completed in the version adopted by the commission. it removed the duplicated section of the table and adds the direction to nc3 and nct3 to the table that's remaining. page 10, line 9.

section 206.3 to contend with the hope sf legislation that was passed last week. removal of section 312 for reasons previously mentioned. we respect that the committee makes the amendments and moves the item forward with the positive recommendation. this concludes staff presentation. >> supervisor tang: and to clarify. i think i saw in there that we are also adding a reference to the sub district because it was not carried over to the new format. correct? >> yes. >> supervisor tang: i know that's a handful there. colleagues, questions, comments, on the massive planning code cleanup? no? okay. all right. hopefully everything was caught there. why don't we go to public comment then on item 5?

any members of the public that wish to speak on item 5? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. so with that said, colleagues, there are a number of amendments that were suggested. i would be happy to help adopt those on behalf of the planning department. so i make a motion to adopt them as was stated. can we do that without objection? okay. all right. so -- yes. if we can get a motion on the underlying item as amended. >> supervisor kim: i would like to move this forward as a committee report. >> supervisor tang: as amended. without objection. all right. moving right along here. okay. i think we need to call item 6 now. >> clerk: item 6 is an ordinance amending the planning code to allow limited nonconforming uses in specified zoning districts to

operate between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. with conditional use and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you. we have mr. aaron starr here from planning. >> the item before you is an ordinance sponsored by the planning commission that would allow limited nonconforming uses in specified zoning districts to operate between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. with conditional use authorization. they're only permitted between 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. now. it's normally found in residential districts. when a lot of row zoning happened in the '70s, the businesses were allowed to operate and stay open per the limitations in 186. they can reconstitute when use is abandoned. that process is how this ordinance came to be. from a conditional use

authorization for legalization of nonconforming event, located at 3359 cesar chavez, chicken john's. the applicant wanted the ability to stay open until midnight, but the code did not permit that. during the hearing, the business thought they should be able to stay open until midnight, so asked for an ordinance to allow the extension of hours of operation. the commission heard this ordinance on april 19 of this year and voted to approve the ordinance. that concludes the presentation and i thank you for your consideration of this item. >> supervisor tang: thank you, mr. starr. were there comment outreach or comments that the commission or department received on the potential extended hours of operation? >> there were no comments during the planning commission hearing. >> supervisor tang: supervisor

kim? >> supervisor kim: i was curious what other types of uses fall under this category. >> supervisor tang: mostly, it's like your corner store that you see in residential districts. sometimes a restaurant or an architect's office. >> supervisor kim: legally nonconforming but grandfathered in in the '70s? >> right. and the board passed something that allowed them to be re-established if they go out of business. so then conditional use authorize can be obtained to open up in the commercial spaces again. >> supervisor kim: retail, low-impact office and spaces like these that are arts and -- is it general assembly, too? >> i'm not sure what chicken john's is considered. it must be a general

entertainment or something like that. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you, mr. starr. seeing no other questions or comments, we'll open up item 6 to public comment. any other members of the public that wish to speak, please come on up. light public comment today. okay. we'll close public item on item 6. collegues, can we get a motion on the item? >> supervisor kim: so moved, with recommendation. >> supervisor tang: to send forth to the full board with pos recommendation. without objection. all right. let's call 7 and 11 together. >> clerk: through 11? >> supervisor tang: yes. amending south of market with amendments and appropriate findings. item 8, amending the zoning map to create the special use district and other amendments to height and bulk district maps

and zoning use consistent with the sental soma area plan and appropriate findings. item 9, amending planning codes and business and tax registrations, to provide a streamlined process for certain housing projects within the district. creating an expedited board of appeals process and making appropriate findings. item 10, ordinance amending administrative and planning codes to give effect to the south of market plan and make front findings. item 11, san francisco special tax financing law, related to the central soma area plan. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. i will turn it over to supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much, chair tang, and we did already hear this item last week at the land use committee and i

made a series of amendments, 48 in total, largely technical, all discussed at the planning commission, which we incorporated into the central soma ordinance last month. i have a second series of amendments i'm introducing today, largely requested by project sponsors or members of the community that would require rereferral to the planning commission. this would allow all the amendments, i hope, to be heard at the planning commission all together, so when this item comes back to land use in the fall, there will no longer be a rereferral to the planning departments. so i distributed a list of the amendments. i'm happy to answer any questions that committee members may have. in the meantime, what i would suggest is that we move to

public comment on the items, so that members have a chance or opportunity to read through the amendments if they haven't had the opportunity. i did want to offer planning department staff an opportunity to say a few words. i know that director john ram is here, along with planners lisa chen and josh switski. amy chan is here. so we have them here if they want to make any remarks. director ram, because you are here and we don't often see you at land use committee, and it's a walk, i want to give you an opportunity to say a few words. >> thank you. no. i don't think we have a whole lot to add today. i want to say much i appreciate, supervisor kim, your leadership and working with us on these changes. we're very aware of them. i will not take up any more of time, but thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you, director ram. it's been a pleasure to work with the planning department on this plan and i'm really looking

forward to seeing us approve this plan in the fall. some quick highlights, just so members of the public can understand some of the amendments we're making today. some of them were requested by project sponsors, they're predominantly all amendments that would allow more housing on sites. so whether it's on some of our key sites, where we're allowing flexibility, where it's zoned hotel. we're giving them flexibility to build housing as well and keep their height. and allowing exceptions on bulk on parcels again to increase housing. for projects that decide to participate in h.s.t., housing sustainability district, we're requiring them to build 100% of inclusionary units on site. if you are going through the ministerial process, that we would like these project sponsors to build their

obligation entirely on site. it's not only accelerates the production of housing, but ensures that below-market rate, low and middle income. seeing no further comments or 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 communities. 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 ll