really dramatic thing and the plaza design that is not yet in front of you, i think it will become something very special. the location of the ballet school at the northern end of the plaza where the plaza is much larger and wider, it really gives us a much better chance to create a cuing space out there . may be some informal performance space out there, adjacent to the ballet entrance. we haven't completely finished with some of the signage things. i think we can give the ballet school more prominence. i should also point out that the area of the plaza which is closer to the corner gets narrower. what is located there is a bar and café space, but it will actually -- what they are

working on and is committed to either work with someone or actually operate it themselves to make sure that it is an active space. it is a very important to be having that kind of presence there . putting all of these things together felt like this was the right solution given all the concerns. having said that, there is willingness to look a little bit more and perhaps trying to get a little bit more presence of the ballet school on the otis street side, but -- i'm sorry? i'm sorry, yes. thank you. one thing i left off is that on 12th street, it was also felt to be the best place for the children to be dropped off. and with a direct line of sight into the entry and ballet school

the site is pretty complicated and i think we tried our best to put those elements together and attend to all of those different constraints and requirements. >> commissioner moore: my question still remains the same. i believe that dropping -- the entrance to the ballet school is not in line with the floor heights of the residential lobby next door. i would like to see the ballet school be a little bit more visible on the street. twelfth street is reinventing itself. at this moment, it is a nowhere place. it is a difficult intersection. i go to planning a lot and i stand at this corner. one exasperated to cross the street because it takes about seven minutes to go to one seat to the other, at least it seems that way, and to bring in !-exclamation-mark.

i question that there are three small retail spaces given the predicament we are in with the retail these days. and you are flanking them with residential support space. i don't quite know what that is. because a residential it residential support space, next to three pieces of smaller retail credit potentially mean either a gym or something like that, which mostly is concealed or frosted glass, not looking into. and in that particular part, it may be vacant for many years to come. i am wondering as to whether or not bringing the ballet closer to the intersection, perhaps directionally, may be an idea. they used to be on post street. we all went there and we bought our leotards and our things. that has disappeared. we don't even know.

so the whole dreamy romance when you think about ballet and sing young students going to school has a certain retail component and attractiveness that could be captured in the lobby or together with the entrance of the school. there is an instant identity. i'm trying to see how it could be rearranged. >> if i could just talk to a couple of your comments. they certainly make sense. a couple of points i left out, we are envisioning the lobby and back corner space, the retail space, the café, et cetera and the lobby of the theatre being connected so that parents when they are waiting or meeting students, can mix between that whole frontage facing the plaza. we are thinking about that. the other thing is that in order

to create the theater, in terms of the structure coming down from above, the logical place to put it was underneath the large courtyard which faces the north. so that gravitates the theater entrance to the northern end of the plaza, because that is where you access the theatres. it does complicate it a bit. >> commissioner moore: i wanted to make that comment. the other thing i would like to see an answer to, it may not be at this moment, we have the honda block which will sooner or later be developed into something larger. we all know that. i hope that this project looks at entrances to the garage unloading in a coordinated fashion. because it would be really too bad if that opportunity, and we were creating a new feeling for

12th street as it transitions into south van ness, would be too much disjointed by those two strategies not being integrated. >> i think it's important to mention that when we looked at this project in light of all the work we are doing on the hub, we have looked at that very issue. it is important that, albeit as a very large project, in one building is already construction , 12th street is only the logical -- is the only logical place to get some of the loading of the vehicular access. so it leaves only 12th street. having said that, it is a wide street. we can dramatically improve the street while allowing it to have vehicular access and some of the backup house -- back of house stuff that has to go in there. staff -- we definitely struggled on the best place to put the loading. it ended up the 12th was the

only logical solution giving the configuration and the desire which did not get a lot of discussion of m.t.a. to have a bus islands they are which will be a new feature on that street and a separated bike lane. that does not exist today. oh, dystocia otis is an unusually wide six lane street and the m.t.a. wants to put a bus island and a bike lane there so further -- that further complicates otis street. and makes it impossible to put any vehicular entrance or anything on that street. for all those reasons, i do want to emphasize we have looked at this project in concert with anything else we are planning with the hub. >> one other thing, for your information, as part of the in-kind agreement, we are also improving the side work -- the sidewalk on 12th street in front of the three buildings that will remain all the way down to stevenson. it will give us the opportunity to treat the way that the

vehicles go through there and a way that i would hope is a little bit of a european flavoured. so it is played down. and the other thing is that we are designing our garage with 1t of the move ins will take place in the garage. we don't have -- that loading dock does not have heavy use. >> commissioner moore: i have asked all of my questions and i am in strong support of the project. i would still like to see a couple more weeks of what i just described. and then i assume other commissioners will ask questions about affordable housing itself. >> president hillis: thank you commissioner melgar? >> vice-president melgar: i was going to say that about 12 street. being a mom and dropping up doctors at that school. i wanted to thank all of the students for coming today and participating in this project. it shows a lot of leadership and

commitment to your school and your craft that you came and you are standing up here doing that. i want to thank you all for doing that. i support this project. i think it is great. i also have concerns about, not including affordable housing in the project, but as i have stated, i am also worried about the affordable housing fund and the lack of availability of funds for projects that are already entitled and that are not going forward. at this particular time, this is ok with me. i will also point out this is across the street from 50 otis which is affordable housing that we have built for veterans. i think on the balance, it is ok i am really excited that this triangle between 101 and market street and van ness is being thought of as part of the city

and developed to a density that is what we need with providing different housing types. i think that going forward, particularly in citing affordable housing, we make sure there is a balance overall in the entire area between market rate housing and affordable housing. various wall units like what we approved a couple of weeks ago. i heard you that you are looking at it all in context and i hope that that is the case. i am in full support of this project. >> president hillis: thank you commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i wanted to thank all of the students who came out today and expressing your opinions on this important issue in what you want to see in your city. and also the power and importance of an arts education. i went to an arts high school

and it really benefited my life, professionally and personally, and i'm i am so excited for your futures in this school and beyond. you know, at first glance, i did have questions of affordable housing on site. and the more i thought about it and talked to different stakeholders, i would agree that while i always want to have more affordable housing on site, i do believe that the city will benefit from the funds of this development and what is being one as far as having a cultural resource, meaning the ballet school and the activation of this block. it is incredibly difficult to walk on. on the way that this project has worked with the department to really integrate the future of transit in this corridor, make me feel good about supporting

this project. i would agree with some of the concerns that commissioner moore brought up around censuring the school as the important resource that it is. it was helpful to hear some of the feedback from the project sponsor. ultimately, i look forward to seeing more designs as they come in. i want to thank everyone who came out to speak and express my support for this project. >> president hillis: thank you commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: i am also in support of the project. i wanted to thank all the public commentaries for coming out and having the first introduction to the san francisco democratic public process and your voices do matter. we heard you loud and clear. this project fits in to the neighborhood extremely well. not only with the other larger hub projects slated for the future, but the plumber's project right next door.

we are going to see changes in the adjacent neighborhood, but it is for the best. i was going to motion to approve can i motion for multiple items? >> clerk: we should certify the environmental impact report first. and then we can take up the other issues. >> commissioner johnson: i would like to move to certify the final environmental impact report. >> vice-president melgar: second. >> president hillis: do you want to make a motion for the second one? or take them up separately? >> clerk: i would also like to make a motion to adopt the sequel findings and set this shadow determination and that is it. >> president hillis: if you want to add a comment -- do you want to leave a motion to strengthen the presence of the ballet and continue to work with staff? >> commissioner moore: yes, i do. >> commissioner koppel: yes.

>> vice-president melgar: also second. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i fully support the project -- project but i have one question. we have been talking briefly about the financial feasibility of the on site versus the in lieu talks so i think it will ruminate for a lot of people. you actually looked at this and how it played out. and what it does for your ability to quickly break ground and get this thing going. >> thank you for your comments and questions around this. affordability is something that we don't take lightly. there is a city report done last year as part of the hub and you can see that if you put it on the projector, it is kind of hard to see. it is highlighted. it says 30 otis here. it says if it is a one fill, it is zero--- 0-2%. and there was another independent economic report done

as part of the statement of overriding consideration done in the e.i.r. the report findings here said the economic analysis indicate that the project, as proposed is only financially feasible. so we currently have a partner in place. we are ready to break ground. we have a contractor on board. we are parallel processing and ready to break ground. we know we have found affordable housing but we will be paying $32 million, $75,000 per unit to affordable housing fees and we will be subsidizing that. is one of the major principles of the hub and of the market at octavia plan. >> commissioner richards: that small percentage was -- >> of on site affordable allowed under current economic and construction costs have gone up. >> commissioner richards: that is way below where you would have to be. >> yet we don't have the ability to do anything on site. thank you.

>> president hillis: ok. we have a motion and a second. >> clerk: we certainly do. on that motion to certify the environmental impact report. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved. the motion passes unanimously at 7-0. on the motion to adopt the findings, approve the downtime project authorization with conditions and adopt shadow findings as amended to specify to continue to work with staff on the ballet component. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved. that motion passes unanimously. zoning administrator, what say you? >> they declined the public comments. i would like to thank punter perry for his exceptionally diligent work on this project to get it across the line and it is

quite exemplary. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you congratulations. let's go -- >> clerk: this places us on items 20 a and b. for the central soma plan. planning code, administrative code and zoning amendments. as well as case 20 b., the central soma housing sustainability district and planning code and business and tax regulations code amendments. if those persons exiting the chamber could do so quietly, we would certainly appreciate that. [laughter] >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm joshua with planning staff. it is a pleasure to be here

today. we are here -- we are back here with central soma, before you today. this is your 16th hearing on central soma to date. the last time we were here before you what you were adopting the plan back in may, on may 10th. since then we have been at the board of supervisors for numerous hearings. at which, the board has initiated several dozen amendments to the various ordinances that you acted on a may 2 adopt the plan. a few of those items, a few of those amendments were somewhat outside the scope of the things you consider as part of adopting a plan and we require we go back to the commission. we are here today to consider those amendments. many of those amendments are relatively nominal. but nonetheless, required. some of them are substantive.

lisa chan from staff will run through all the notable ones for you for your consideration as well as a number of other items that have come up since those hearings. also for your consideration. before lisa gets up, we have supervisor came here to provide remarks and then after supervisor kim provides remarks, ted egan from the controller's office will present the findings from his office's economic impact report on the central soma plan. >> president hillis: thank you for being here. welcome. >> always happy to be before the planning commission. i don't think any commission sees me as much as this one. i don't really -- i did not make prepared comments because i spoke to the commission in may in regards to the central soma plan as a whole. i have made it 64 amendments to the central so my plan. that land use -- at the land use

committee in july and we decided to refer back to the planning commission for your consideration. as josh mentioned, many of them are nominal and some of them are more significant. we also wanted to submit an additional list of potential amendments that i may consider bringing before the land use committee and the full board. as you no kak in a very unusual procedural moves, we did here the determination appeal this past tuesday. we had a very robust conversation at the board of supervisors. in my eight years, i have never had an appeal, without the approval plan. but i have to say that i thought it was a good process. many of the comments that we heard from members of the public related significantly to the plan itself van to the actual environmental impact report. so we now have that time over the next month to incorporate many of the valid and significant responses that members of the public, particularly in the south of market community cat pad.

as you evaluate the amendments that lisa and josh talk very patiently and diligently put together, i really just have to give them my highest praise. we have spent a lot of time together, along with our city attorneys over the last three or four months. it has been a lot to hold altogether and make sure we are not letting things fall through the cracks. it is a big plan. it has an ambitious plan and a complicated plan. a couple of things i will note, and these are comments i made on tuesday, as we voted on the certification of the e.i.r., i would love for the planning commission to think about as we move forward with the plan. i heard a lot in terms of how we need to plan -- build significantly more housing. it is unfair to put the job housing balance within any singular neighborhood. it has to be a citywide look. and central soma and the vast majority of the districts i represent is one of the few places we can build for jobs.

i think we will have a job housing imbalance in district six. it doesn't mean we can't build significantly more housing. and one of the comments that i made on tuesday is while i may not be here, i hope the planning commission and their future board of supervisors and all of its wisdom relate take a hard look at site his that do not have -- at sights that do not have proposals. i think given the needs of the city, we need to build more housing and we need to build more affordable housing. i look to you, the commission, to put that directive before our sights. one of the amendments that i did make at land use committee, was read zoning parcels that were not the key sights to prioritized residential. that is incredibly important for our medium and small site parcels that we build housing

wherever we can. and the larger scope and picture , we do need to look to the rest of the city to build our residential housing needs and continue to look at how we build affordable housing. one of my frustrations over the past year is hearing more and more from developers, that because of the cost of construction, that meeting their affordable housing obligation is becoming less and less tenable. [please stand by]

helping to mitigate the workers. neighborhood pavement many families live in the mission bay and the tenderloin, many members of the community live by one of the appellants that talked about the need to ensure we man dade a school, child care center throughout the plan and ensure into the design to require family friendly amenities, playground structures or others through office structures. i would like to examine child care within the offices and working to identify a site for a school in the south of market.

another appellant brought up the need to make sure was we continue to build and construct we ensure for the seismic safety for the structures. resilyancewe see tsunami and fld fire in the rural and urban areas. earthquake is one of our critical considerations and that is not necessarily related to climate change, but it is certainly something we should be considering as we build on not the best oil and on top of water versus bedrock. this will not come before the commission today, but our office is working with the community and would lovin' put from the planning commissioners on how to dove the it is -- develop the citizens advisory to be strong and provide clear input to spend down the benefits and impact

fees and the community fees what we promise to be the most beneficial plan in san francisco history in terms of benefits, affordable housing, parks, transportation, regional transportation, infrastructure, cultural preservation. this plan could be landmark plan in terks of us as a city figuring out how we invest in the multiple needs of the diverse community. we have to build without displacing existing residents, and hopefully we can have a strong citizen advisory committee to move that forward. those are some of my comments in term of what i am thinking about as we move forward with the plan. i want to thank our community members who came out on tuesday. i actually got a lot of great comments and suggests what to consider to ensure the district

is building more affordable housing, family friendly resources as well as making sure it is a green district, as this part of the city accepts a lot of the density and height and construction, we should be ensure they live in one of the greenest neighborhoods in california. thank you, commissioners for your patience. i look forward to hearing your comments on this plan. i want too thank the director john ram who has sheparded this through for 8 or 9 years. my time on the board of supervisors up until may and in the entire planning team and the city attorney's team. thank you so much. thank you. >> thank you very much for your leadership in this process. we appreciate it.

we want to continue. mr. eagan. >> good afternoon, commissioners "ted" eagan from the scrollers office. we know -- controllers office. i am passing before you our full report that we issued in july, economic impact report on this item. what i am going to share in my presentation is the highlights. i am not going to reiterate the plan for the commission. the economic information is new. i will briefly go through that and leave tim time for your questions. >> one of the important economic backgrounds for the plan and certainly something to underline key assumptions for our analysis is that real estate price us in san francisco and the market have outpaced almost any other

indicator of the fee economy in the past decade. that is unmet demand for housing, which is on people's minds, but also the office real estate and noncommercial space that is a big part of the plan. the economic benefits of accommodating that growth is part of the economic benefits of the plan. moving on page four. we looked at two big sources of economic impact in this plan. the first is the change in zoning that allows new development of residential and nonresidential and the substantial amount of community benefit spending both upfront and over time which is separate how it affect the price of housing and office space and injects new income for economic growth.

those are the two main items that were inputs into our analysis. a key input, and we appreciate the assistance of the planning department in helping us get to this number, was the actual amount of new development we would see as a result of the rezoning. the number important for or analysis is not development that will change from what is there now, but the amount of new development that will change for what is available in the current zoning to which is available in the new zoning. not every parcel will achieve new development. some aspects of the plan make that unusually hard to estimate. we are grateful four planning to up us come up with 5.8 million

additional square skeet of nonresidential pace and 5.4 million square feet of housing. that allowed us to model a phasing in over a 25 year period of the new jobs and the variety of sector in nonresidential space and housing space as well as value of community benefit. we are modeling about 15,000 jobs. we get the office space to jobs number based on the city-wide average of the ratio of office space to jobs and the same with the population number and the dollar value of the community benefits is something out of the planning financial model. we use a tool called the remi model for economic impact analysis to allow us to handle

multiple policy changes, the increased number you have jobs, population and increased spending and run a scenario how the world would be different if the changes were made versus baseline forecast. we would project a city wide number. not impact only on neighborhood but all of multiplier effects of additional spending and jobs. it is 32000 jobs over a 25 year period by the end of the 25 year period a full build in 32000 more jobs in the city, $7.8 billion larger city economy in today's dollars, both of these are 3% growth from baseline forecast. it would also have impacts on earning. a big finding of the report is that the tilting of the plan's

allocation of new space to employment has effects on wages that people might not have been considering payment. iit is the essential economic benefit to the san francisco worker when is utility the labor market in their direction by encouraging more employers to enter the labor market, locate in san francisco and try to find people with 2% unemployment and that will lead to higher wages when the housing market is so constrained. we are projecting a growth of about $2,300 per year. that growth, the growth in jobs relative to housing would lead to higher housing prices, 2% higher housing projects. the growth in income would out weigh that. we project the average income in real terms including the effect on housing prices is bigger than

it would be without the plan about .4%. we also did a breakdown of the employment projections by industry. this is a city-wide total, not a central soma area total. we show the numbers in raw numbers and percentage increases. one of the things and it is not surprising when you think about the construction the biggest growth by industry would be in construction and you have major growth in professional services, financial services that are probably large tenant in the area and also will be big parts of the city economy now. you will see more than 5% growth in administrative services and retail trade and so really across the board you will see growth in the city's economy.

if not directly as a result of the people in central soma in new buildings than other space to locate because central soma has accommodated growth also because of the multiplier effects throughout the city. just to speak again directly to the question of the balance between jobs and houses, we didn't try to model the perfect jobs housing balance. i would just sort of say that from an economic point of view only, the jobs housing balance of the particular plan i is nota critical number. if you have a lot of jobs and no housing, you will have upward pressure on housing prices and wages. providing, of course, the projects remain feasible and everything is built as planned over the next 25 years that is

assumption the city economy over the next 25 years will have the same strength. we are comfortable with that assumption. what that means is office developers will pay money for the right to try to hire people in san francisco. that will create upward pressure on wages. the growth in real per capita income notwithstanding increase in housing prices is a major conclusion of the report. i guess that is the last of my summary slides. i am happy to take questions. >> we are going to take -- do you want to talk about the amendment then we will have public comment. then we may have questions. >> if you would have questions now before the rest of the presentation. >> it is better to wait. public comment megan rate

additional questions. -- may then generate additional questions. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. lisa with the planning

department. is it an honor to be here. we did the plan on may 10 of this year. we are before you for new and trial modifications that were made at the board of superviso s per visor board of supervisors. today's presentation will focus on the proposed board amendments, recommendations from planning staff and other planning recommendations adopted on may 10 not currently in legislation as well as additional issues for your consideration. we also have some new recommendations for consideration not listed in the case packet publish order september 6. i am going to be submitting them as part of the public record and will describe them in the presentation. also is a one page memo from or

environmental planning team describing their recommendatio recommendations. so we start with the board process and amendments. subsequent to the adoption of the plan on may 10. there were four hearings by the board. the transportation committee heard the plan twice. on july 16th the committee made 48 amendments which included the majority of the recommendations you adopted on may 10th. at the july 23rd hearing there were 16 amendments several were outside the scope of what was discussed the committee referred the plan back to you four consideration. the major milestone was tuesday night when they voted to reject the appeals and uphold certification you have the

e.i.r. the next slide describes the amendments introduced that are new and trial modifications and require your review. amendments to the planning code and administrative code, zoning map, implementation program and housing sustainability districts. they have not been amended and are not before you today. to clarify the entirety of the components were referred back you may weigh in. my presentation is narrowly focused on the substantive amendments. the planning code and admin code includes the following new modifications. pdr requirements require the sponsors to inform the tenants about relocation and other business services with the intent of lesses is

displacement. projects are required to createp dr space. this amended to require lower represents for life of the project. they modified the special height for the one vassar project to allow the extra site i height for residential use instead of hotel use. this would support the goal of encouraging more housing production. also included are urban design exemptions for the proposed residential tower at 636 fourth street. it would grant exceptions if bmr units are on site ability to build a larger tower and exceed the maximum tower plan length. they also include exceptions for

the at development sites taylored to the needs and opportunities of each project. if you recall the ordinance had exceptions available to all sites and your recommendation was to develop nor cite specific exceptions. they depend on the commission approval through the large project authorization process intended to ensure they have flexible to provide high levelful public benefits. for the zones map there is an amendment to increase the site at the 598 brannon street from 45 to 50x to facilitate additional housing units at the site. in the public benefits package there is an amendment to create a $10 million pdr fund within the community service us cat

category funded by the c fd tax. it would leverages exist you go services provided did you liaison and provide support to businesses displaced so they can relocate within the plan area or city. there were pomajor a -- two major amendments. first strengthen on site requirements such that projects using it will provide entirety of house you go requirements on site. they can no longer mix and match. second strengthen the expiration other lose -- expiration. there is a 120 day review process. under the proposed amendments when the project is approved the

sponsor has 30-days. if they fail to do this they have a six month expense. after 36 months approval worry vehicled. it is to incentivize the housing projects to build as quickly as possible. a couple other amendments that are not new. they were within the scope of what you previously discussed. technically they do not need back you may weigh in as part of the larger plan package. most substantial was to reclassify zoning to limit nonresidential development. instead of c m.u.o., they would be mur or mixed use residential or mixed use general. this would result in a gain of

250 units to bring did you total to 8600 units w.the other changes you have delibrated on and adopted this is a 271 -- 21% increase. another notable amendment would tie in off street parking to encourage nonauto travel. 0.5 to 0.25 spaces per unit. projects could seek cannot you this is how parking limits are set elsewhere in other neighborhoods. the planning staff have a number of recommendations for your consideration. some are refinements to amendments others have come up in the last few months. i will highlight the once substantive. the full you you zones is in

your packet. >> there are actually a few active hotel project in the pipeline for a few years impacted by the proposal. staff recommends the hotel projects to proceed if they completed the decidesment application or -- entitlement application. projects would be for cannot use required of hotels in other zones districts where they are allowed. staff remember modified the pdr design standards. we recommend ryeducing the 16% ground transparency which is for retail require 30% transparent four longer façades over 50 linear feet. in the meantime, there would be no transparency requirements for shorter façades. this is based on feedbacks that

some uses the façades to operate. we recommend requiring a 17-foot height for the uses. the current legislation only requires 17' height for pdr. these are nor flexible -- more flexible. one more on the slide. we recommend modifying the requirement thaw 100% greenhouse gas sources to better align to improve oversight and administration of the policy. we are also recommending several additional exceptions to each site as described in your packet specifically for the flower, park site us.

with the special height exception we did include a recommendation the extra height only on the residential project if it provides additional public benefit. we recommended one way is affordable units. in number nine we suggested higher affordable other than 415 provide you had on site or off-site. we are exploring these with the edgelative phonessors. still man is a narrow street abutting a large storage yard and lacks a sidewalk on the much. it is reasonable to reduce the sun controls to allow building closer to the street similar to controls for some of the other narrow street in the plan.

lastly, we recommend modifying the language on 636 fourth street, the residential tower to receive additional massing. we recommend specifying the commission shall make design recommendations. this is of course lure within your purview. this would make it more explic explicit. there are a couple new recommendations in the handout not included in the september 6th case packet. if you would like to add these recommendations. we ask you add them to the draft resolution in your case pachket. >> for the creamery project it corrects a code reference. the second requires popo's design establish that the commission consider is open space and recreational needs of the area when make you go your

determination. that could be youth, families, seniors, workers and residents. there is an incentive to serve these groups such as playgrounds and dog parks. i have other issue us for consideration. the next two slides are recommendations you adopted on may 10th that are not in the legislation as amended. with grandfathering you recommended the projects before september 4, 2016 meet only 75% of the tdm requirements. some sponsors thought they would receive the same grandfathering and designed projects accordingly. you recommended a key site with a public park. for the park block the

commission recommended allowing potential fee waiver to allow the dedication of fac space foue park. in addition the public lynn benefits program included $20 million for the old minute and 70 for environmental stability. supervise our kim proposed reducing the funding to $15 million and $65 million to create the proposed $10 million pdr relocation assistance fund. on august 1st there was a hearing and they issued a hearing calling for retention in the public benefits package that is in your case report. also, in your case packet in

exhibit 9 there is a list of additional policies for consideration that are not recommended by staff at this time or they are pending further discussion with legislative sponsors. i am not going over the list but i am happy to answer any questions you might have. i want to hotel there are new issues for consideration in the case packet. some of them were described by super-vationsor tim. >> to provide green or living walls, next is key sites provide on site child care. main cannabis retail subject to you cannot use authorization. potential proposal to prohibit market rate sro. language about the public

benefits to specify you implementation sudependent. there is a set back exception at the fourth and harrison key site for 14-foot ground floor p dr space and reduce set backs by reducing the apparent mass reduction required. if you would like t like to recd these you need to add those to the draft resolution in the case packet. this concludes the presentation. we are available for any questions. >> i would also add that the environmental staff reviewed all amendments out you have the board of supervisor and things provided today and found that they do not issue any impact in the e.i.r. certifiesed and that is provided to you today.

>> thank you very much. we open this up for public comment. i have speaker cards. francisco de koss take, erica, david woo, christy wang, peter cohen, fernando marquis. line up on the screen side of the room and speak in any order. >> may i have the overhead, please. >> sure. >> thanks. commissioners i was at the hearing at the board of supervisors. we sat down for six hours and only one of the thing on the agenda was heard. the one we are discussing today. what i see here is that the advo indicates who came -- advocates who spoke there are not here. what i see is that when

presentations are given to you in rosy manner, you nod your head and agree. i don't want to talk about the presentation in that manner. i have the overhead here. he came and spoke something and left. i don't believe? economists. that is one single opinion like a doctor in the second, third and fourth opinion. what i want to state about the filipinos who are indigenous and who i love. often times americans forget their service. the baton march, debt march. the filipinos promised citizenship and not given. i fought for them so i know what i am talking about. if you look at the filipino

community still today they have contributed a lot to our community and to san francisco and got nothing. when thing talk about professional as, scientific. finance, retail. he is talking about a certain segment of the population. we have our heart in the right place to do the right thing. ann marie knows me very well. i worked with her for many years. she is the type of person we need. i know john, too, not too well, but i follow him. we need people whose heart is in the right place. what i am saying good people have to come together to make good things happen. i am going to go through this.

i need at least 10 minutes. what i am going to say is that there is influx from the bayview to district six which has never been paid attention to, and what we need to do is we need to zero in on the leases, rent control leases that can be transferred to the new area. i need about half an hour, you know. my time is up. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> christy wong. you as you well know, spur is a big supporter of the plan. it is a key environmental strategy for the city and region to allow growth to happen in a place where residents and

workers and greenhouse gas emissions are going to be minimized. the central soma plan has unprecedented public benefits package we will see huge benefits four affordable housing, improvement to transportation, protection of industrial uses and direct benefits to the neighborhood which really needs it. the thing i want to uplift isen -- uplift. it is part of the $70 million portion of the package. it address the health concerns raised on tuesday. the greening, living roof, stormwater management, watery cycling, all of that contributes to a green errand healthier neighborhood for those living in

a challenged neighborhood. we should put more than the $70 million towards environmental sustainability and resilience. i urge you to at least maintain what you is allocated for this direction. thank you for considering these and thank you for moving this plan forward. >> mr. woo. >> . >> hello, commissioners, david woo with community action. the central soma plan is part of the neighborhood fabric and any re-zoning of the area has a ripple effect on the entire city, especially in terms of gentrification. planning needs controls incorporated throughout the

whole plan not just boundaries that overlap with the plan. these control ofs must be incorporated more bedroom units. restrictions on micro units. amend existing laws. a strong community opportunity. land bank soft sites four future developments such as caltrain. nexus study on did you jobs linkage fee, prop k. requiring predefinedefine popos designs that took you ideas in the workshops from betsy carmichael and residents and workers in the area. require living walls and roofs