the carbon wall in the park by two-thirds, it makes sense to me as a business person to at least try the approach first. i think i may speak for my employees and for the diners and everybody who visits us and formally making the park as beautiful as possible. we also are in favor of saving water. of course. >> clerk: the speaker's time has concluded. >> president cohen: thank you. that's it. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> president cohen: next speaker. any other speaker that would like to comment on the appeal? all right. next we'll hear from the planning department. are you coming to speak up, ma'am?

>> good afternoon, i'm sorry, i'm late. i couldn't figure out where to go. my name is joan wood. i live in north beach. i support mrs. bruno's appeal but i also wanted to say i object to the whole project for many different reasons. at the last -- there were no public meetings about close the park, built irrigation system and about adding a seemingly at the last minute that this cement sidewalks around the park were just thrown in on top of it. this is the a whole separate project of the there was no public hearing about it. at first, it was said it would be completed in six months by mr. conner and then it was a year or less and now the history of the m.t.a. is such that i

doubt very many people truly believe that two separate projects involving closing the park, could be completed within a year. also, it seems that an easterly year evaluation of what needed to be done about the irrigation system was commissioned by the public utilities commission back in 2016. we haven't heard a word about that. now, the plan is to dig up the whole park and going down six inches. that has not been justified at all. it's just not right to close a well-used park. one of the park participants have never been notified. people walk their dogs there everyday. i still have a few seconds. >> that's right. >> this project should be

postponed. there should be hearings on it. there should be competitive bids. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to speak in favor of the appeal? i want to pivot and go to the plan department so they can present up to 10 minutes. the analysis fora for affirminge categoric ale exemption. >> good afternoon. i'm sherry george, senior environmental planner with the planning department. on may 13th, 2018, the planning department determined the washington square water conservation project is categorically exempt under the california environmental quality actor ceqa. because it meets the criteria for a class 1 existing facility's exemption.

the project required an approval of a certificate appropriate nesbitt historic preservation commission because washington square is designated as a san francisco landmark under article 10 of the planning code. the project also required an approval of the project's concept plan by the recreation in parks commission. the decision before the board today is whether to up hold the department's decision to issue a categoric alex 'emion and deny the appeal or to return the project to the department for additional environmental review. our responses to the appeal generally deal with two different types of issues. the procedural and substantive. they relate to whether the project is exempt from see q for my presentation, i will highlight the issues that the appellant brought up that relate to whether we go adequate noticing, and did not interfere with the appellant's ability to appeal the exemption.

the first procedural issue has to do with noticing to the public. the department complied with the requirements of chapter 31 of the administrative code by posting a paper copy of the exemption at the offices of the department as well as a link on the department's website. the ceqa determination provides the required information to comply with chapter 31 of the administrative code. which is to include the type of class exemption applicable to the project, a project description and any other supportive information that provides sufficient detail to explain a location and the ability and the app lick ability of the exemption. the action for the project and date for issuing the exemption. the certificate of appropriateness case record stated may 13th, 2018, states that the project is categorically exempt and continue analysis of the project's impact to a historic resource. therefore, the historic preservation commission had adequate time to review the

department's determination that the project is exempt. although the department did not include a separate exemption determination document in the case report, it did not prevent the commission from understanding the determination that the project exempt from environmental review and would have a less than significant impact on a historic resource. the second procedural issue has to do with what the approval action is. that establishing the point in a project's approval process that the ceqa appeal is considered timely. the historic preservation commission notice of public hearing incorrectly identified the approval project as the approval of the certificate of appropriateness. the department acknowledged this error and notified the appellant in writing it is the recreation and park commission's approval of the concept plan for witt project that is approval action. when determining the timeliness of an appeal of an exemption under ceqa, it is the

department's practice to consider the approval action as the approval of the whole of the project for both public and private projects. the recreation and park commission's approval of the concept plan for the washington square water conservation project was the first approval action for the project as a whole. the historic preservation commission certificate of appropriateness was necessary for the project to proceed but it was not an approval of the project as a whole. specifically because it does not authorize any project work to commence, including project construction activities or commitment of funds. therefore, it is not the approval action for the purposes of chapter 31 in determining whether the appeal is timely to be heard at the board of supervisors. as stated, the department clarified the approval action as the recreation and park commission to mr. bruno. the clerk of the board also notified mr. bruno that the appeal would be held on file until there was an approval

action for the project. which occurred by the recreation and park commission on august 16th, 2018. thus the appellant's a peel ceqa exemption is now being considered by the board. the appellant's right to appeal has been preserved. the error on the commission notice did not render the categoric aleal exemption inadequate. for the reasons stated in our appeal response and active hearing, the appellant has not provided evidence that there is a reasonable possibility of a significant other. i request that you up hold the department's seek request determination and deny the appeal. as i side note, should the board

return the project back to the department to renotice the h.p.c. hearing with the correction approval action as the recreation and parks commission, it would still not render the categoric exemption inadequate. the timeliness of the appeal is unrelated to the exemption issued for the project. this concludes my presentation. and planning staff are available for any questions that you may have. thank you. >> president cohen: any questions? thank you for your presentation. next up we'll have the real party and interest to present their project. the recreation and park department for up to 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. good afternoon supervisors. my i am the director of capital and planning for the recreation and parks department.

with me today is levi conver, who is the project manager and has been managing this project. just a bit of background, washington square is locked in north beach neighborhood at the intersection of columbus and powell street. it was established in 1847. washington square is one of the city's oldest parks and it was issued a landmark designation status in 1999. in 2012, the recreational and parks department partnered with the sfpuc to develop parks water conservation plan for 12 parks within our portfolio. of the 12 parks surveyed, washington square was the highest user of water on an annual per acre basis. with a total usage of over

3.3 million gallons of water per year. contributing factors to this high water consumption, so the age of the infrastructure itself, the current irrigation system was installed in the 1950s and poor layout of the irrigation zones and controllers. inefficient sprinkler heads, insufficient water, pressure regulation. in addition to the aging irrigation system, the park suffered from over saturated soil on the main lawn and deteriorating pathways that do not meet a.d.a. standards. the project scope also seeks to address the issues through replacement of the parks infrastructure beneath the main lawn and full replacement of the pathways to make them a.d.a. compliant. i'll speak a little bit about

our community process. the department has worked closely with the friends of washington square to develop the water conservation project from its early inception in 2016. the support from supervisor peskin's office was central to obtaining the sfpuc grant award for the irrigation improvement scope. the larger community work began in february of 2018 with a goal of messaging the project and obtaining community feedback. with at least count has received over 225 responses. the north beach community is

highly engage and it worked. three our outreach, the department set the support from the community groups to circulate project updates to the e-mail distribution. this collaborative effort help ensure the neighborhood received up-to-date project information from sources that actually read and we estimate that this should help the department message the project to over 1,000 people. this includes the north beach neighbors. the friends of dimaggio playground. the friends of washington square. additional outreach community groups has included project updates to the china town community development center, the chinese press, the north beach business association and a community meeting that was held in july of this year.

letters of support from the friends of washington square and russian hill are available for your review. community feedback obtained during our outreach had a direct impact on the project scope. at its inception this project was irrigation project with the goal of conserving over 2.2 million gallons of water a year. the community raised concerns and advocated for addition of scope items which resulted in the inclusion of pathway improvements and drainage improvements to improve user experience in the park. additional significant focus of the community feedback were received has been on the over all project delivery and related of constructionment we believe we have achieved a concept design and project scope that the over all community is supportive of. with the understanding that we

have support on the project scope and we have a focus a significant effort of planning the management of the construction impacts of greatest concerns to the community. as i indicated, the project scope includes installation of new irrigation with 20 irrigation zones up to from about two zones that we have right now. planting new drought tolerant landscaping, installation of new sub grain infrastructure and replacement of the main lawn, pathway improvements for a.d.a. access, tree maintenance and maintenance of the existing benches. the department has done extensive community outreach during the project planning and believes the vast majority of the communities are supportive of this project.

followed the appeal on june 15td park department developed a letter of understanding with a core appellant in north beach neighbors. the north beach neighbors subsequently removed their organization from the appeal and understanding outlying steps the recreation and park department will take to reduce construction related impacts to the project. phase in. the project will increase the preparation increasing poet joke from six months to about a jury will be a huge impact, we believe. increasing the project duration also would also add cost to the project. in terms of schedule, the continuance could result in project delay of up to two months on the timing of our rec

park calender. they begin the project as early as possible in 2019 to make the park available during the warm summer months. additionally, the community, as it spreads concern the department reopened the park in time for the animal parade of the indigenous people's day in october. if this project is delayed, i don't believe we'll be able to meet that. in previous conversations with mr. bruno, he has expressed one of the major concerns is the displacement of the parks homeless population during construction. the department has engage with the department of homeless, homelessness in supportive housing. the san francisco police department, to begin early outreach to the neighborhoods on this population and we continue to do that during construction.

additionally, the community and the local business advocated for former plans to reduce construction impacts. we've included specific requirements in our contract documents that would address some of the concerns like homeless outreach, pest control, dust and noise mitigation, park and plan, and traffic and pedestrian plan. the project has received and been reviewed by the planning department with a presenter you saw before me and was heard by the historic preservation commission in may of this year. the project was issued a categoric alex 'emion on the class one existing facilities. the project concept itself was subsequently approved by the rec and parks commission in august of this year. which was their approval action as defined by the subsequent

add-min code. barring any delays, the project anticipates starting in the spring of 2019 for a six-month project. in closing, i would like to say this project will be saving over 2 million gallons of water. in addition to that, i'll be open to answer any questions that you may have. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you, very much. are there any other members that will present from rec and park? seeing none. colleagues, do you have any questions for rec and park? let's keep moving. let's -- let me find my page. let's go to two minute presentation from the public. public comment speaking in support of the affirmation.

they support the planning department's findings. are there any members of the public that would like to come and speak? please come on up. >> thank you, madam president and members of the board. my name is ken mayly, i'm here on behalf of friends of washington square for more than 20 years, our neighborhood organization has advocated for improvements to a park that dates back to the 1800s. it's one of the first three parks that with designated as open space in this city. the first park bond that was passed by this city in 1957, was the very first improvements to this park since it was set aside in the mid 19th century. we have advocated for many years to save this park, one, from a garage, which we did manage to

do, unlike port smith square and union square. it did cost us jack shelly as mayor and got us joe alioto but we'll live with that. we have lobbied on behalf of this park and neighborhood. this park is the living room of our neighborhood. it's the largest in only open space of its kind in our highly dense population. our organization has paid for trees. we have replacements. we have worked on various clean up project for years. we designated the park and lobbied it to be a landmark. we are here to up hold in support and up hold the finding that will move this project forward. we're looking at a project that not only will improve us for today but for the future generations of this park. thank you, very much. >> president cohen: thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to

comment on this categorical exemption? please come on up. >> dale whitener. member of friends telegraph hill dwellers, north beach neighbors. i would just like to say we thank rec and park for all the work they've done. i don't want to take up your time. everything they say is true. i worked with the community. all members, i've never seen a project in our community where more organizations have been involved. they all want to move ahead. no one wants to shut it down for six months. everybody i've talked to, we've talked to a lot of people, are ready to move forward. we need to do it. and basically we're willing to bite the bullet now for the future generations to enjoy the park. thank you and please help this move forward. >> president cohen: thank you. any other members of the public that would like to speak on this item? ok. well, we're going to close public comment and give the appellant, mr. bruno, an opportunity to come back with

the rebuttle. just keeping in mind, mr. bruno, you have three minutes. >> thank you all for allowing us to come here today with this project which is much importance to us in north beach. you've seen fantastic people from north beach on both sides of the very important issue. that's why, as legislators, it's so important to be fair referees to offer an administrative process that is fair and neutral. let me read you something from the administrative code. i'm sorry to bore you with the administrative code, the last thing you wanted to hear someone talk about was the administrative code. we have someone and i apologize for not recalling the representative's name from the planning department but she stated it's the tradition or the practice of the senior planning and the environmental control officer to do something. that's something something was what? it was like, oh, well when the project of a whole is considered and the project is considered as this whole, it's nothing about that in the administrative code. what the administrative code

says specifically is that the planning officer, the environmental control officer, senior officer has no right to suddenly interpret when the ceqa process starts. but it says here in 31.05 is revision of an administrative regulations, this is a section called environmental control officer. revision of an administrative regulations to implement ceqa shall be by resolution of the planning commission. after a public hearing. and that is why this is so wrong. we wouldn't even be having to bothers you guys in the referee process, by planning, and by the environmental control officer, was done correctly. you can't just kind of chose when things are going to happen in a schedule because it conveniences you or i'm sure it's done honestly but by the representative here of the planning department to say well, we've chosen our practices is to decide that when the whole project is being considered, that's when the approval action date begins. first of all, i receive many

notices from the planning department and many of them are before the historic preservation commission. to this date, they often say those same words that i showed you earlier, namely that that is the approval action date. when you a fare i appear in froe commission. i want to correct something said and i'm sure the representative will confirm this, we were never given an explanation before we filed the appeal on june 15th. you never stated a date that we were given this explanation about it having to go before rec and park and somehow we were bad because we did this despite that to muck up the system. we were given this explanation well after we were told, for the first time, by the senior environmental control officer, that our appeal was supposedly untimely. by the way, we communicated with your co-worker, the planner and

she communicated with the city attorney's office, specifically asking, we have those e-mails are part of this appeal. specifically asking if we were doing this in a timely fashion and they said yes. [ please stand by ]

[roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 10 ayes. >> president cohen: thank you. without objection. madam clerk? >> clerk: we have items 46-51 that are still open. and supervisor kim wanted to return to items 52-56 at some point. >> president cohen: are you ready to return to your items, supervisor kim?

no problem. please call item 46. >> clerk: ordinance to amend division 1 of transportation code to establish a procedure for board of supervisors review of municipal transportation agency decisions related to bus transit projects that don't include transit-area lanes, vehicles, taxis, vehicles, and/or golden gate to affirm ceqa determination and make the appropriate findings. >> president cohen: supervisor peskin, i see your name on the roster. >> supervisor peskin: colleagues, before you is an amendment to legislation that we passed that was originally introduced by supervisor safai and co-sponsored by myself earlier this year that enacts a condition that was in 2007's proposition a, muni reform charter amendment, which i authored then and voters passed,

which gives the board of supervisors limited review authority over m.t.a. decisions related to management of our city's valuable curb space. that legislation exempted certain public projects from that review including bicycle lanes, large infrastructure projects, and bus rapid transit projects. but following the m.t.a.'s decision earlier this year in august to allow preferential access to geary by commuter shuttles and other vehicles, i'm amending the ordinance to expand the review authority to include review of rapid transit projects not solely designed for the reliability of our public transportation system. this does not mean that the m.t.a. cannot make a decision to allow preferential access for private transit vehicles including transportation network companies, but it does create a

check on that authority, which i expect will lead to more careful consideration and more robust public debate around the critical decisions related to the use of our public realm. i have one further amendment to the legislation, which i passed out to all of you, which is highlighted on page 2. it's a nonsubstantive amendment to clarify the nature of it and pull it from subsection 1, where it was located into its own subsection, reading as follows. "final m.t.a. decision shall not include, 3, decision by sfmta, related to a bus rapid transit project and that there is not preferential access and loading zones that is in vehicle, taxi, authorized emergency vehicle or golden gate transit vehicle."

i want to thank the m.t.a. staff and my staff for helping to draft the amendment and chair tang and supervisors kim and safai that sent this to the full board with a positive recommendation. with that, i ask for your support and would like to move the amendment. >> president cohen: thank you for that. supervisor peskin. any other discussion for item 46? motion has been made by supervisor peskin. seconded by supervisor safai. before we take action on this item, i want to recognize supervisor catherine stefani. >> supervisor stefani: i would like to be added as a co-sponsor. >> president cohen: madam clerk, can we please do a roll call vote. >> clerk: after you accept the amendment without objection.

>> president cohen: we'll take that without objection. all right. madam clerk, now please call the roll on the item as amended. >> clerk: [roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president cohen: without objection as amended, passed on first reading. madam clerk, can you call items 47 and 48? >> clerk: these two are being called together represent affordable housing credit and development agreement. item 47 is an ordinance to amend the planning code to allow the use of affordable housing

credits for proposed development at 1629 market street and to make the appropriate findings and affirm the ceqa determination. item 48 ordinance to amend a development agreement between city and strata brady llc to allow for use of affordable housing credits and to make the appropriate findings. >> president cohen: thank you. can we take this same house, same call? yeah, we can. without objection, these ordinances are passed on the first reading. >> clerk: item 49, ordinance to amend the planning code to modify the date in which products must obtain a building or site permit from the ceqa determination and to make the appropriate findings.

>> president cohen: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: we had a lengthy discussion at land use and we looked at who is impacted by what we affectionately call the use it or lose it clause. in other words, for entitled projects grandfathered into our new inclusionary housing affordability. there's been a direct and transparent expectation that the developer is going to build and build timely. after evaluating the 33 development projects on the pipeline list, we were able to establish that actually only two projects were seriously at risk for not meeting the december 7, 2018, deadline of obtaining a site permit, which was in the original legislation. and we were able to reach a compromise extension for projects seeking to avail themselves of the grandfathering benefit by amending the legislation to give only

entitled projects 18 months from the date of entitlement or by december 7, 2018, whichever is later. the time to secure a site permit and demonstrate that the project is serious about building in a timely manner. it is to ensure that the projects availing themselves of a state density bonus in exchange for grandfathering, subject to fees on bonus units. you are already getting a freebie from the state by using the state density bonus, so you don't get an additional freebie on top of that from the city. that amendment is not ready yet, but we want to be sure of having this be included in the final degree ageig -- legislation. this is something that the planners were interested in and they will have to hear this amendment before it comes back to us,o i will introduce that when it is ready.

>> president cohen: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you. i will be supporting this legislation today. and i am appreciative of the amendments that my colleagues, supervisor kim and peskin, made at committee. i wanted to make a couple of comments. i've been committed to building as much affordable housing as i possibly can in my district and i'm really excited to say that we have one project under construction and another celebrating a groundbreaking tomorrow and five more soon to follow. and at the same time, i pushed and negotiated with market rate developers to get the best package of community benefits that i can each time that a project has been approved. of the pipeline projects that will be affected by this legislation, six are in my district, with the possibility that one more may reach entitlement before december 7. these projects were already grandfathered once after the

proposition c in june, 2016, when the voters told us that future projects should build 25% of the units as on-site affordable. i appreciate the amendments, as i said, that my colleagues made last week at the land use to limit the extension to entitled projects only to -- and to offer a more reasonable 18 months rather than the 30 as originally proposed to move from entitlement to site permit or building permit. but it's also important that we keep in mind that inclusionary requirements are imposed not as a benefit, but as a mitigation for the increased need for affordable housing created bid new market rate units. in 2016, the city's residential affordable housing nexus study calculated this demand as an on-site requirement at 24.1% for rental projects and yet we are allowing these projects to go forward with between 13% and 16%. the link between market rate

housing and increased demand for affordable housing is not something that we can simply ignore. when we lower the inclusionary rate to meet investor's expectations of financial return, we dig ourselves deeper into a hole. beyond this list of pipeline projects, i look forward to working with the community and developers to get projects back on track to meeting our inclusionary housing needs. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i want to add my support for the compromise moving forward today. when we originally crafted this grandfathering ordinance in 2016, anticipating the passage of proposition c, which would raise the inclusionary obligation of market rate developers, who is our single largest source of affordable housing now in san francisco and throughout the country, since the federal government has decided to go out of the business of building affordable and middle-income housing. we've seen a number of projects

muff through, understanding that they had submitted project prop oe ow osals. understanding there is always delays. i do think what we're moving forward with is a fair compromise to ensure certain projects make it in time to move forward with their project as proposed. but to answer ensure that other projects move quicker to getting their project across the finish line, because we need to build the housing as quickly as possible. i'm pleased with what is being introduced today and ask our colleagues to support it as well. >> president cohen: thank you. madam clerk, i would like to answer my name as a co-sponsor as well. >> supervisor brown: i am really in support of this. because of the fact that i think it's really important that we definitely push the number of

affordability, but also not to kill the project. and i think what we're seeing is a lot of developers -- and i had one on divisadero that was grandfathered in at 13.5 and that's why i pushed to bring it up to 20%. but i think a lot of developers now are looking at the density bonus to go higher and get more units. and i absolutely feel that we should have the fees on those density bonuses. so i would like to add my name to this and i'm in full support. thank you. >> president cohen: anyone else like to speak on this? can we take this same house, same call? without objection, this ordinance passed on the first reading. madam clerk. >> clerk: item 50, ordinance to amend environmental code to allow food vendors to supply plastic straws only upon

request, allow for the sale of plastic straws and to affirm the ceqa determination. >> president cohen: any last-minute remarks? all right. can we take this same house, same call? thank you very much. without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. madam clerk, next item. >> clerk: item 51, diesel-free by 33, to establish a goal to cut diesel use to 0 by 2033. >> president cohen: same house, same call. without objection, resolution adopted. madam clerk, please call the next item. >> clerk: i believe supervisor kim wanted to recall 52-56, which have been called and are before the board. have to do with the central south of market plan. >> president cohen: are you ready? >> supervisor kim: i am. i want to thank the board of supervisors.

this plan has been on the board for 8 full years. right off the top, i want to thank a number of people who are integral in making sure that the plan came before us today. i want to thank director ram, john worthheim, and lisa chen and josh whiskey, who have practically lived in my office. and i also wanted to very, very strongly thank our city attorney's office who has drafted all of these amendments that are complicated, but important in making sure that we're putting a balanced plan that allows us to accommodate

increased growth and jobs and housing but also keeps in mind that we are building a neighborhood that residents live in and that we want to build complete streets and parks and public transit, sustainability, and affordable housing. and so i want to recognize victoria wong, peter millionedge and john givner. i've had three legislative staff members, april yenning, bobby lopez and john ukobo. it's an inter-agency project that began in 2011. central soma is 230-acre area in downtown with excellent public transit and contains numerous, underdeveloped sites. it's proposed to accommodate the growth in employment and housing in the core of the city and the bay area region. the central soma obtains goals

and objectives and policies such that the result serves the best interest of the city and the neighborhood that exists in the south of market area. through this process, we have worked with the community to make sure that we're drafting the best possible plan for all those that are involved. we sat through countless community meetings, individual h.o.a. meetings, to ensure that every voice was heard and we tried to incorporate as much of that as possible. we heard loud and clear over the last year that the plan is not building enough housing. and certainly when this flannaghan -- plan began in 2011, it did not anticipate the housing crisis that would ensue. so understanding that, we've increased that up to 8,800 units, residential units. the central soma area plan will net roughly $2.1 billion in

public benefits, almost $1 billion will be set aside for affordable housing, to be specific, $940 million. 44% of the plan benefits, acknowledging the number one issue that we've heard which is to build more affordable and more middle-income housing and units that are multi-bedroom for families and so this prohibits s.r.o. units not 100% affordable housing. this plan will also be the very first in the state to take advantage of 8773 authored by david chu. we will be streamlining housing projects and commit to union labor and prevailing wage under a certain height in central soma plan. we also understand that production distribution and repair and the arts continues to be an important need in the south of market and is a major

part of our identity. there will be no net loss of p.d.r. and i want to acknowledge steve wartheim that worked to be sure that p.d.r. will grow. plan is subject to replacing all p.d.r. under proposition x, which the voters passed in 2016, plus nonrest derthal projects that are required to build new p.d.r. we also established a p.d.r. relocation fund to support businesses during the construction process if they need to move out of the project sponsor site. this will supplement building services providing a fund for businesses displaced by new construction, potentially providing one-time support with subsidies. we want to ensure that we continue to build a livable neighborhood. south of market was originally built as a manufacturing

industry neighborhood with 5-lane streets with narrow sidewalks and long blocks. we are investing $110 million to upgrade the streets to complete the available of walking and widening sidewalks to ensure that pedestrians feel safe walking on sidewalks like harrison, which are quite narrow, and creating dedicated facilities for transit and cycling. this plan will also approve a plan that sfmta has been attempting to move forward for years, which includes the environmental review for howard and folsom streetscapes, which can make it akin to valencia in the mission. we also have identified at least three key sites, which will dedicate land to affordable housing. another key site that will

dedicate land for a new multiuse park in central soma and another that will dedicate land to build a new recreational facility for a public rec center for south of market, which includes a swimmiswim pool. this is probably one of the most exciting benefits for many of our families and children. they're very excited to see a swimming pool built. we're ensuring that key sites will contribute to building housing or affordable housing and working to ensure that this occurs and we have other major sites proposing housing, over 1,000 units, which is 330 townsend, and the creamery along with 4th and bryant. we also have another site dedicated to 100% affordable housing.

821 howard street, 200 units of affordable housing. i've thanked our city agency and staff members. i want to recognize our community groups that have been following the plan for 8 years and input and amendments for all of them. we are soma coalition jobs for justice, action network todd co. colleagues, i mentioned 113 amendments were made over six land use. i have three more amendments to make. all of them have been heard at land use and are substantive but will not require us to continue the vote today. and so i have handed -- distributed to board members. again, these have been discussed. i'm introducing them to the final plan.

commissioner safai wanted to introduce them with regard to ground floor on one of the sites. >> supervisor safai: yes. we had the opportunity to talk about heights of ceiling. and we've met with with the project sponsor and got greater explanation. part of the recommendations from the planning department, parts of the site will be at 17 feet. others based on the way that the slope of the land is will not. overall, in general, they're doing a significant job and have dedicated and committed to building affordable housing adjacent to that. after having further conversations, i'm fine with the recommendation from supervisor kim and project sponsor and we're happy for this amendment today. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. is there more, supervisor kim?

>> supervisor kim: two more positives of the plan. it will be required to build on-site childcare facilities. and i'm proud that it will be included for the first time. and i want to acknowledge supervisor fewer's continued advocacy to make sure that we plan for a public school, potentially public high school, in south of market as well. and i will continue to meet with our board of education as well as our sfusd central staff office to make sure that we're pursuing that expansion of being able to provide education -- public education, for our new families in south of market as well. so, colleagues, this has been probably one of the biggest and more complex area plans that i have worked on. it's technically the third area plan that i worked on after transit district center plan if

you don't want to include treasure island. it's been an honor to help build the future of san francisco within district 6 and be able to work on area plans that will greatly grow our neighborhoods to accommodate the growth we're seeing throughout our city. and so i simply ask for your support today of this plan and hope that you can pass it unanimously. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you, supervisor kim. colleagues, any other questions or are we ready to go? all right. don't be so excited. >> clerk: supervisor fewer is on the roster. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, president. i just want to thank supervisor kim for all this work, all these years, of this planning. and -- but i do want to just point out that what i find disappointing in this plan, as supervisor kim has mentioned, there was not planning for the development of a school in

central soma. some of them are parcelled out and there's no room for a school. i do think this is an area where we're lacking. and it's been lacking for years. we're not working with them, what is in the pipeline, what we are developing, so we can capture as many public school families as we can in a city with the lowest percentage of school-age children of any large, urban city in the united states. i think we can all agree if we didn't have families in san francisco, it would be a sad place. we plan to build 100,000 new households by 2040 and developing a new community and i know it's a central soma plan, but what i see in the communities is that we're building actually a brand-new community with priority on

family housing and affordable family housing. it seems to only make sense that we would plan for a public school in that area. that school -- that area which is a school desert and that we are building and building more households and family households that we want to really keep families here and want to build lives that are viable and also have opportunity and families stay here, then we must think about public education. i'm thrilled that all the departments are getting together to work on a plan to create enough schools so that every child in san francisco can be educated at a san francisco public school. and i think this is a responsibility of a government agency to advocate for public education as public education is a great equalizer of our society and the foundation for our

democracy. although it's difficult for me to vote for a plan that i feel is lacking in a very major way and that is lack of planning for educational opportunities for students and i want to recognize all the work that supervisor kim has put into this, not to mention the city departments, and not to mention the city attorney's office, and all the neighborhood groups that have come out to advocate and so i will be voting in favor of this plan, but i want to note that we have the responsibility to grow families here and make sure they're healthy and viable. and one of the institutions that makes that happen is our public school system. i hope that the meeting the 28th will be productive and we move forward with positive, strong

planning with the san francisco unified school district so we can meet our goals of raising the percentage of school-age children that live here in san francisco, having raised three children here myself, i know it's a wonderful city in which to raise children. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you, supervisor fewer, appreciate hearing that. supervisor kim, which items are you amending today? there are four that are open and that we're discussing. >> supervisor kim: there are three pages that i have distributed to members of the board. the first effective litigation is added to section 249.78 section f. the second, which also deals with litigation is added to new

subsection 249.78g. >> president cohen: is it pertaining to item 52 or -- we can go to the city attorney. >> supervisor kim: my apologies. >> president cohen: that's okay. >> deputy city attorney john givner. this is for item 53. >> president cohen: thank you. supervisor kim, anything else? >> supervisor kim: no. >> president cohen: okay. so supervisor kim has made a motion to amend item 53. is there a second? supervisor yee, i saw your hand. seconded the amendments, and we can take them without objection. without objection, item 53 is

amended. madam clerk, is it best to call items 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 together? >> clerk: call 52-56 together and 53 as amended. >> president cohen: we will do that. can we take that same house, same call? without objection. passes unanimously. madam clerk? >> clerk: roll call for introductions. supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: submit. >> supervisor kim: rerefer. i'm introducing one new ordinance today. this legislation is an amendment to proposition c known as baby prop c, which passed on june 5, 2018.

there was a request to be considered for a credit to the new tax liability under proposition c, if the developer's provided on-site childcare facilities within their commercial buildings. this would apply a tax credit to early rent tax owed, new tax of 1% for warehouse, and 3.5% for other commercial spaces. framework for early childhood education is essential to providing quality care that our youngest san franciscans need. we need infusion for child care for families, we need facilities to make sure that we have safe places for young babies and toddlers to go. the childcare tax credit will offer a tax credit equal to 20% of the rent paid by childcare facility. facilities with 1-49 children

will be offered a credit of $7,200. with 50-99, a credit of $16,000. and facilities 100 or more, eligibility for $36,000 credit. we know that early childhood education is not a luxury. it's to ensure that they're nourished and meet potential. it is what allows many of our working adults and parents to continue to work. it's why we offer more resources to make childcare affordable and unsentiviizizizizizize -- incen. there are only 8 childcare facilities downtown. having childcare options located where parents work versus where they reside, allows them to be near their children if there is an emergency. opening near