staff on issues, gentrification, displacement, racial equity, and social economic impacts in all of the work that they do. more portly, by participatory planning, i mean, someone who trained staff to build trust with their communities. by gutsy, i mean, somebody who is willing to take on the challenges of the city to expand the geographies where we build, whether that is in the sunset, the rich men, whether that's about, but keeping those primary key issues at hand. where is the affordability. where is the access that low income folks will have two transit, housing? purchase and coeducation are key , which means the staff learning from the community. the impact that our city is placing today, job growth and income inequality.

this is not just the inability of so many workers to find housing in our city today, but also how the income inequality that we have created in the city , is affecting every decision that we make. we keep acting as though the housing crisis is entirely separate from the growth of income inequality. going back to that research that the directors team produce. in 1990, folks that made over $200,000 made up 9% of the city residents. today they make over 27% of city residents, adjusted for inflation. that is a dramatic change that affects how housing crisis are affected. it affects displacement, it affects land costs, a city that sees land costs going up by 23% every year. that is where i would put my money. it affects the rate of construction. right now, we build for that top

27%. we built actually for the top 10% earn more than $200,000. when that limit is reached, if you look at all of the newspaper articles right now, building slows down. until we address that, we are not going to solve this problem. that is the kind of leader that we need who will be addressing these life-changing issues. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is mary lynne durand, i am a people organizer. hi i'm also born and raised san franciscan. this will be an interesting dating profile you guys are going to have to create for this planning director. there is a lot to think about. some of the things i want to bring forward, a lot of our community members do not have the technical knowledge. i appreciate a lot of folks presenting that, even i don't know about.

some things that are important to them is being heard, being a no space where they are open to collaboration. we need a planning director that can collaborate with our community members. someone who can understand what is happening in the affordable housing crisis today. a lot of our community members are low income, members of color, who have not seen an opportunity to shine in the city. tenants who are living,, homeless houses, people in the streets, who really want someone who is looking out for them. that is what i'm here to talk about today. we feel like we have been able to move forward with our current planning director to have some open collaboration, to be able to learn and talk about how we can continue to put forward the needs of tenants, the needs of those who are really struggling in san francisco. what we are looking for in the future, as we want someone who supports organizing low income communities. it's not easy to come here and talk to you all about the issues

they are facing every day. we get really vulnerable and personal. we want to planning director that listens to that. we want one who embraces diversity and culture. i don't know how many times you have to come and talk about how communities of color we are fighting white supremacy, in san francisco. we want to make sure a director is looking out for our culture and community. we want one that values people over profit. we don't want somebody that talks about supporting construction workers, we want somebody to support community members -- repercussions that the planning director has currently put forward. i will be here 60-70 years in the future to see what the next planning director puts forward and hopefully that is something i can be proud of, that our community can be proud of and i can live, and afford. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. hi everyone. jordan davis area i think i just

have two words for the next planning director. just two words for two very important words, equity lends. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i think the new planning director needs to consider a number of things about the planning department. many reports have been created that show many issues around san francisco. a lot of those have been asked for by the members of the planning commission. not offered by the planning department. a lot of the times, from the neighborhood perspective, the planning department does not plan. it addresses façades, layouts, number of rooms, number of units. it is a joke when we talk about community stabilization. it is a joke when we talk about the housing.

san francisco should have neighborhood planners. san francisco planning department should be funded by the general budget, not developer fees. i would like to see a planning director that would take on these kinds of challenges. increasing property values manners mainly to investors, not to us who live here. you know, we are living here, our house is not primarily an investment. proposals that the planning department looks at should be evaluated on their value to san francisco, not their value to investors. i would like to see a planning director that would implement those kinds of things, really the quality of life, we need to stop exporting san francisco residents. people should be able to live here and live here all their lives. workers, people who make lower incomes should be able to live

here, too, because we cannot run the city without janitors, baristas, people who fix our cars. schoolteachers do not earn that much either. people are doing it to work here. so, neighborhood planners, i would like to request that. from time to time it has been raised. people that get to know the neighborhood, et cetera, and know our issues. let's make san francisco not a place where you can get more streamlined housing permits, for houses and units that aren't even getting built. let's instead, prioritize get things getting built for people of middle income and low incomes. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is kevin ortiz i am with the san francisco latino club. i'm a san francisco native. i was fresh out of the city when i was ten years old. you know, i have lived these experiences of being displaced. i just want to first off take time to thank the commissioners. i know the work that you do is thankless. at the same time, i want to thank the years of service that john ramm has put forward for the city and county of san francisco. thankful for the innovative policies including the map 2020 process. we have to recognize the changes that have hit the city. with a record number of residents, the mission, bayview, fillmore. we need a champion with a vision for housing.

we need a director that is going to speak for san francisco and not implement top-down state policies for sacramento. those are impacting us viciously. gentrification is ethnic cleansing and we need to make sure we are protecting these residents and we need a planning director that is going to make sure that they are going to hold developers accountable, make sure that they are predicting, preserving us and not just a produce, produce, produce model. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the chair of the san francisco local revolution grew. i want to thank you for holding this very important hearing. this is the future of our city. i wanted to talk to you about a

lot of the challenges. you may note that the top 1% of income earners make 44% more than the bottom 19%. we have several billionaires. there are deep concerns about income inequality in our city. a lot of the way the city has been approaching planning, construction has been catering to that top 1% and not exactly catering to the rest of us in the bottom. i grew up in public housing, section eight housing, it is important that we are building a city that belongs to all of us, not just a playground for the wealthy and the rich. i am hoping while you consider the next head of the planning department, that you really -- or we really take in mind how to get someone who really addresses a bottom up model and helps us to move away from a top-down model of housing construction. the latest data shows $3,690 for a one-bedroom bedroom apartment, which is pretty insane. it makes me think that we need

to move away for the -- from the for-profit housing on moving to a nonprofit housing structure. vienna is a great example of how social housing can prioritize folks. i also would love to see changes in areas we develop, if you look at things especially treasure island. you know, we have three wonderful golf courses that are not environmentally friendly, too. maybe having the head of the planning department who tackle some of that underutilized would be ideal. thank you so much for holding this hearing. i really want to stress how important it is that we address income inequality in our city. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello everyone.

i am larry martin, i am a south market residents in a college student. i just want to say, i think it is important that the next director be not biased, you know what i'm saying? have an open heart to the low income residents of san francisco. it seems like the politicians, and the people that are in position of power, it seems like they cater to the wealthy all the time. i think it is important, and would be in the best interest of you guys to select someone who is going to be open-minded, and fair, to everyone. not just the wealthy, the developers, and the people that have all the money, you know what i'm saying? i think it is important that you guys select someone, it would be better for not only the low income people, it would be better for you guys also, you know, to select someone that is going to be fair to everyone,

not just the rich. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> no? okay. [laughter] any other public comment on this item? okay. thank you very much. commissioners, anybody have comments? commissioner richards? >> it is hard here straddling this whole. -- this pole. for a city that prides itself on looking forward in being innovative, san francisco is always trying to catch up. it is an embarrassment to me, it really is. the director that we will select a serves the pleasure of this commission we forwarded our nominees to the mayor, and the mayor picks one, the mayor may

reject them, we go back and forth until this actually works. the director is the ceo of the planning department, and we are the board of directors. i came from private industries, this is how it works. whatever we do, i really want to make sure that we have somebody that is collaborative both up and down the organization and the commission with the board of supervisors, mayor, as well as all of the community people, white brown, yellow, purple, everybody. i think the director has done a great job with the map 2020 plan. i think there is a lot of good things he has done. the city is now at an inflection point. where do we go from here? because the director works for the commission, i want to make sure that we set goals for him that a realistic and reflect our

values. we have yearly performance evaluations, in private, with him or her. i keep saying him. them, they. i want to make sure that the director sets the tone for the organization as well. we are all in this together. we are all trying to make the best city possible. we have to be responsive to the residence. city planning, i don't mean the department of city planning, i mean, planning itself in general generic terms has failed why? we never saw uber at lyft coming. we never saw the rise of airbnb, we never saw -- plan for these additional residents. we keep approving buildings, we do this ten year capital plan. the world is moving fast, and we are standing still.

that is not the kind of director i want to hire. i want 70 who is a visionary and who can understand and appreciate that planning is for the future, not to with the present. i think the new director needs to have a different philosophy, especially around enforcement. i am honestly getting very sick and tired of sitting up here and watching people break the law, committed fraud, lie to us, as long as you are abating the ship that you pole, you get off scott free which creates the lack of trust in the building inspection commission, the planning commission that there is two sets of rules in the city. those that have money, and those that do not. i do not want a techno cracked. someone that knows the planning code, and good at urban design,

that is not what we need. we need 70 that's going to lead this city into the future. who knows a lot, but also. lastly we need to director that's going to come out swinging at sacramento. sacramento is pulling ship on us, because they say we are not doing things that palo alto, or some other city is, and we are like the little kids that have to stay after school because so-and-so passed a note and it was not us, but we are going to be penalized. i want a director that stands up for san francisco. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner koppel? >> i will try to follow that. good speech, commissioner richards. first and foremost i would like to see a director that can very clearly relate to the past, the present on the future of san francisco. we do have a definite past that

is dwindling away from us. also, the same time i would like to see us focus a lot more on our current residence as opposed to our potential future residents. a lot of my friends and people i know, and the public come to me with the same comments week after week. another large concern of mine and ours is what we're doing doing about climate change. i think an emergency is a very understated word, one that could come to something being this catastrophe oriented. i think more planning on more foresight is definitely a need. just so we can all feel safe about where we live, and work. that will entail a lot of other work, within the city, the word is decarbonization. were going to look at making our transit fleets, and our downtown buildings more efficient. those are the highest producers of these greenhouse gases. what is it going to take, it's

not going to be an easy undertaking for all of these downtown office buildings to get rid of their natural gas, electrifies much as possible. put more car chargers in the parking lots and whatnot. that needs to be steered in the right direction to give us the most effective outcome. also, i want a new director to prioritize displacement and displacement of all income levels, all of us are potentially facing displacement. if you live in the city, and if you work in the city, i don't want you to leave the city. i want you to stay here, keep working here, keep spending your money here. that goes for all income levels. we still haven't really seen any movements on middle income housing. i understand it is not subsidized. we've got to get creative and make something happen. we've got items on here later today, that has to do with, you know, creating less displacement for people, with jobs.

that is the thing that is heading in the right direction addressing our massive middle-class displacement. also something i think all of us might mention is better coordination between the other departments. even having joint hearings with certain departments, we are not walking out of here feeling like we got a lot accomplished sometimes. if one or two people could make it a lot easier for us to communicate better, and get more results, we will be happier and you guys will. >> thank you. commissioner trent 24? >> -- fung? >> i would stress that we move as soon as possible. having gone through this process in terms of hiring a department head. before we know it, february will be here. as an example, we looked at a rough schedule between now and february. were probably looking at a month

to take care of finalizing the qualifications. another month just to be able to send it out to those of interest, whether it is professional associations or individuals. another month or to hold, then a month to do the negotiations. by that time were already in february. i recommend perhaps as a starting.-- starting point, we ask of the assistance of a to provide us with two things. one is the current job qualification statement on file. secondly to develop a more detailed schedule for when things need to be done by this commission. and then go through either a

participatory process as we develop the qualifications and the schedules, but to be able to move on it expeditiously. time will be short. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner moore? >> what do we look for in the future planning director? may acknowledge everything you said. i could restate everything and say yes, yes, yes, thank you for using inspiring words and compassion to be here and having prepared profound statements which i think is important to what we are looking at. i'm going to pick up on a couple because they strongly resonate with me. what is extremely important to me is something, somebody, who has -- who is creative and a visionary. we need somebody who is secured with his stand in the profession, the basic understanding of what is required here. we do not want this to be a

training for a resume of the future, a legacy project on its own for new plans and ideas are being thrown around to make something bigger, without really understanding, starting where we start and where we stand. i've got to say that, because that is the very beginning. the next thing they are looking for is indeed a leader. somebody secure about himself, who is humbling. who is trustworthy, and who understands a participatory process. participatory in the city means a lot of things. that means being engaged with the communities and the voices of the neighborhood which are the essence of good planning in the city. being in sync with the historic preservation community. something this commission has asked for again, and again. there are only so many hours where many of the things that this commission holds hi have just not been attended to in the

past few years. we want somebody who understands urban design and historic preservation and who understands the issue of equity and let me just say the issue of equity. overall, i think, someone who is fully rounded and in my own personal list of priorities, i would like to say i would look for a woman director, and preferably somebody of minority background. >> thank you, commissioner. i heard several themes in the presentation, of the public. i want to thank everyone for taking the time, and the energy to come and engage in this process.

to my fellow commissioners for being so thoughtful, and carrying about this process. one of the over arching themes that i heard was about personal qualities, of the director that we are looking for. i heard folks say that they wanted her to have great love for san francisco. i'm going to underscore that. i would personally like someone who knows where little hollywood is, where jordan park is, and, you know, who is the head of the block club there. that is really important. also a love of racial justice, someone who is a futurist, who understands the moment we are at. and then i also heard the theme of the knowledge, that this person needs to have. i heard folks talk about historic preservation, and architecture, in the sense of

the fabric of our city, and how we need to preserve it. also the interaction that planning has with other departments, particularly the department of building inspection. while i heard folks talk about not wanting a techno-crat, consistently i heard folks say that they wanted somebody who could work within the framework and know what moves what we do. lastly, i also heard folks talk about efficiency, transparency, process. and the access of the public to the process. to me that spells out somebody who has good leadership, and management skills to make sure that the staff of the department has the tools that they need to support the community, and what we do. i think those were the overarching themes.

i did take a lot of notes, which i will be putting together. commissioner fung, to your comments, we have been working with hr department on i had promised the hr department that we would move forward with a lot of these comments to them, before that job is posted. we will work rapidly, director john ramm is exiting in february, we would like there to be a little bit of an overlap. commissioner fung, did you have further comments? >> yeah, i would like to have us confirm some of the points have gone over in terms of the schedule. i think rather than to belabor this, every week, and not have milestones things gets us in trouble.

i would like to see a schedule from hr, detailed schedule. if they have preliminary thoughts on where they would put notice of this out too, that would just help us as we look at this process. >> just to clarify, our city attorney did send a memo last week, which i think we all have read about what the charge is of this commission. i believe it is the other way around. it is not hr that will be leading, it will be us. >> i wasn't referring to that. let me restate it. hr is just a resource for us. they have a lot of experience, we utilize their capabilities tremendously. it is not my intent to let them run with us, they can be a resource for us. >> yes.

we will be the body that will be selecting the candidates, interviewing the candidates, and forwarding the top three to the mayor. that is what is stipulated in the charter. it will be up to us, in closed session, to do that. we will schedule it. we are not going to do that right this second, but we will do it in the next couple of weeks. any other commissioner comments? it is not an action item. thank you everybody who came and gave their comments. >> very good commissioners. we can move onto department matters, item seven, directors announcements. >> good afternoon, downside cider with staff sitting in today, at this hearing for director ram. just a very briefly about something that we touched on earlier in the hearing.

a different change, that of commissioner hillis. i want to acknowledge his service. acknowledge his support for staff. his respect for the professional planning products that we produce at the department, and wish him luck. thank you. >> item eight, review of past events of the board of supervisors, board of appeals in the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon commissioners, aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs. we held a hearing on the state of the restaurant industry in san francisco. it was called by supervisor fewer. representatives from the golden gate restaurant association, the treasurer's office, and planning all gave presentations on what has been done to improve the restaurant permitting process

and recommendations for further improvements. planning's part, we talked about the tran11 restaurant rationalization ordinance, approved web-based tools, elimination of neighborhood notifications and a dedicated liaison between planning and o ew d. removing notification mr neighborhoods to shorten the approval process. issues raised by the restaurant businesses, at the hearing, included long and costly permitting process, homeless and drug activity, street cleanliness and affordable housing for the workforce. the hearing concluded with a supervisor dedicating themselves to continuing the conversation in order to look at ways to reduce the barriers for the restaurants and to find new ways to help existing restaurants same business. the hearing was continued to the

call of the chair. at the full board, there was one item, which is the long-term parking and overnight camping in vehicles, on san jose avenue, and that passed its first read. that is all they have for you today. >> thank you, sir. >> the board of appeals did meet, but nothing to report from there. the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday, there's nothing to report from there. the exception that the mayor has submitted two names to replace historic preservation commissioners, before the rules committee last week and were the full board agenda, this past tuesday. however, those nominations will continue to next week. that will place us under general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction

of the commission, except agenda items. with respect to the agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. we just have one speaker card. >> anyone else that wishes to come up for public comment, please do so. >> hello. i want to talk about 1433 diamond, which i mentioned in a 2015 memo of projects that i felt were definitions, but they were alterations. it is our h: zoning. here is the price history, going to give it to you. it started, they've asked below a million, they got 1 million for it, they did the work, it was three-point something. there were no demo calculations. i look at the building department records, there were no demo calculations.

this was 2013-2014, at that time the department had trouble, i have been told, having demo calculations. let me show you the photo real quick. if you go online you can see the house is pretty nice, and did not really need to much. at least by my standards. by most people's standards. there it is. some got underway. these are all from google earth. there it is. here is a photo that i took, which first alerted me to it. i took that in early 2014. here it is when it was done, and sulfur for three-point something. and it was recently sold for four-point something. what is my point? my point is, it is rh-1. hypothetically, someone can come tear this down without administrative approval. i think the value for the rh-1

needs to be done away with. i gave a commissioner richards and president melger were not here. here's a copy for you to have. i also think that there needs to be an adjustment in the values of the demo calculations. i would just leave it at that. here some background on it, on that property. thank you very much. >> heuer time is running. >> i'm sorry. good afternoon, i am carolyn kennedy. i'm here to comment on sb-330

which commissioner richards already mentioned. one of several housing bills approved by the state legislature earlier this month. this bill, sponsored by senators , mandates many elements in the planning process and forces by right approval for many projects. it has been amended many times. i have given up on trying to read it, and understand it. your work here looks like, you know, planning for dummies, so clear, so understandable when compared to the state legislature and the bills. it is unbelievable. i am asking you to help us understand what this means for the city of san francisco? i've had to appeal on planning of projects, that have been proposed. i have worked with other neighbors who have wanted to help shape a project where there is elements that are impacting them personally. i know you see these every week, and i appreciate the time you take to listen to these, and

resolve them. if we are subject to very mandatory deadlines and no slippage, we will not be able to, i think, achieve the compromises and changes that are so desperately needed when these projects come forward. there is a lot of other things that i believe impact san francisco that are going to be higher value impacts, and have more systemic changes in our city. i'm not going to go into them. this bill is beyond me, and that scares me. i would ask you to have planning update what they have done. they do excellent work and we would love to see, and i will eagerly await reading this impact of sb-330. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i have handouts. i am here ask the officers to please set the hearing date at november 21. if you have the advanced calendar, which i had, it shows planning november 7. a lot of cases on it already. staff has told me they are going to put it on the seventh. but, we have never had an honest hearing on the academy of art. we have had academy of art hearings, particularly at the planning commission level. they never filed a master plan. they were required to do so. now that hillis is off the

commission, we have two planning commissioners who sat through the e.i.r. on the academy of art. commissioners moore and commissioner richards. the rest of you came on to have a bunch of other hearings. we have five new hearings, five new commissioners. the planning director -- the planning commission should respect to the public enough. there has been no hearings, no outreach at all, for the impaired length of this project coming through. here is my own list of when the academy of arts starts. they have 43 sites right now. the overhead is really screwed up, it doesn't show the entire page. but, they have been required to

file the institutional master plan in 1991 every single housing building has been acquired after they were required to file. the planning department staff has not had the hearings that you had. you conducted hearings for central soma, 3333 california. you conducted them for all of the sites -- [inaudible] you have another case coming up today. i am asking for a couple of things. one, set the date at november 21. two, require every report to be available in month in advance. there is thousands of pages of documents, and even commissioners have not seen them. three, staff reports, three weeks in advance. it is respectful of the public,

what is happening above the academy of arts, dealing with. [inaudible] we need a hearing that basically allows the public. [bell ringing] to speak. i have written comments for the record that ask that they be submitted to the mayor. i wish i was more coherent. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i just want to follow-up on actually this state bills issue. because i am not aware of precisely what the charge that

commissioner richards submitted. i do want to say that we have had prior conversations, but we are very concerned about what impact bills 330 are going to have it in our community stabilization programs. we know 330 disrupts two of our mission action plans 2020 stabilization programs, in the way we currently conduct business, often working with meetings, or for example we know it disrupts the way, that quatro build out their design guidelines coming through. for the new cultural expansion, is now disrupted and needs to have an entirely different framework. but we would ask of the commission is can we please have a charge forward to make sure we are iodine things that are also specifically, and immediately, disruptive. the department is putting in a plan. that is only the mission, right? i don't know how many things are disrupted in other neighborhoods.

can we put a charge in place that we are assessing quickly, and put equitable discretion back in place in different areas. we know you are going to have less say some of these bills start to roll through. is there still a mechanism that puts back in place, the equitable discretion. maybe starting with our community stabilization programs a quick action plan so we don't lose ground while we shift gears. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i echo carolyn kennedy's concerns about sb-330 which is on the governor's desk. especially in concerning the impacts to tenants. what i read is that tenants will be asked to leave six months prior to the developer beginning a project. they will have very little

relocation benefits. they will be allowed to return, whenever that will be at a so-called affordable rate. i would like to know more about the impacts. this seems like a recipe for tenant displacement. >> thank you. next speaker, please. with that, public comment is next -- now close. commissioner richards? >> two things. an issue just came up again, and yet again another house. we still do not have a definition on demolition. going on public record to request supervisor mandleman to do controls to stop -- [inaudible] we need to have everyone of those come here. i am so sick of seeing this. two, sb-330 passed by one vote. it's at the governor's desk.

why am concerned about how it affects tenants, as we have become the backup rent board here. when landlords want to use constructions to update tenants. we actually stop them. these are the kinds of things that i need in terms of the actual impact of what this bill does. not skipping five hearings, we don't have any discretion anymore, planning commission, to do the right thing. >> thank you, commissioner moore >> i have a question for the city attorney. you don't have to answer, if it's too provocative. we see a lot of actions from the federal government, towards the state of california, and towards states in the united states. my question is, is any city entertaining or discussing with each other, including sacramento

>> kate stacy from the city attorney's office. commissioner moore, you are aware that our office has worked independently, and with many other cities and counties in the country to sue the federal government on various programs that have been initiated. i can't comment on whether we are considering suing the state, but the city has certainly done that, in the distant past. >> the reason why i am asking, if some of the consequences of sb-330 are indeed coming down in a way that the public fears, that may be an interpretation and i think the city cares. for that reason it is a self protective measure that some cities may have to consider that kind of step. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, briefly on the point of sb-330, commissioner richard you mentioned earlier in the hearing, that there was a

report on that and what it would mean for san francisco sometime time ago. there haven't been complex amendments to that. we are in the process of updating that memo with something that will hopefully provide greater clarity for all of us on what sb-330 will mean and how it will impact review for the city. >> thank you, mr. snyder. >> if there's nothing further, we can move on to your regular calendar for item nine 2019-003627pca, for the south of market planning community advisory committee. these are planning code and administrate of code amendments. [please stand by]

>> the south of market planning community advising community and amend provisions for the citizens advisory committee. we have engaged both the

soma stabilization fund as well as the eastern neighborhood in several meetings and received their input to make sure their voices were heard throughout the entire process. we work closely with planning as well to consider the amendments before you today. since the current sitting members were closest to the issues within their respective grants we will incorporate their feedback as we move forward. we honor those amendments and believe the version before you incorporates that feedback. some proposed modifications raised by planning in the composition of the membership regarding residency status and seat requirements were addressed and will be incorporated with the planning department. thank you so much. >> thank you. i have a couple slides to guide

us through the legislation. the first is looking at the map of the existing jurisdiction of the eastern neighborhoods cac. this is five area plans comprised of these neighborhoods 2200-acres, and, of course, is the location of a very significant portion of the new development in the city. i should also mention separate from that, we have a soma stabilization cac and to remind you that cac is charged with helping to program funds from the soma stabilization fund. this was created as part of the hill plan to specifically address or mitigate impacts of that high residential density on the neighboring soma neighborhood. the cacs would be divided in

two. the new cac has jurisdiction over soma with the three area plans in that. the eastern neighborhood's jurisdiction would be reduced geographically to the mission showplace and the central waterfront plans. i have the next couple charts i won't go into every single cell in these charts. i will provide overview and highlight the aspects of these different cacs. south of market it would be 11 members, of which seven would be appointed by supervisor and nominated by the district 6 supervisor. the legislation requires some more specificity as into areas of expertise. there are seven areas required.

planning has suggestions on amending the ordinance before you. i will go over that at the end of my presentation. the supervisor's office is in support of those changes. the revenue for the new cac they would prioritize projects from revenue from the eastern neighborhood fee for that portion from south of market, but also they would have a couple new sources available to them for project identification, specifically the new central soma infrastructure fee and the community finance district taxes also created from the central soma plan. as such, some of the types of infrastructure projects to prioritize would include those always coming to you and reporting on the other area plans do, but would also have additional types of projects in which they could identify

projects for in the areas including cultural and historic preservation and environmental stability and resilience. the duty would be similar to eastern neighborhoods. this does enumerate some of the duty to provide input on proposals private and city owned. they could provide input on open space. they would also, of course, have a hand in helping coordinate with the soma stabilization cac since they have similar geographic boundaries. the eastern neighborhood cac would remain as it is. the membership would beeryduced from -- reduced from 19 to 11 members. it would have the same duties to

help program projects for impact fee spending. this legislation does include text amendments proposed by the cac members just regarding sort of the how their recommendations are provided to the city and to epic and how they would be reflected back, also a little bit more expanded jurisdiction over in kind monitoring as well. the soma stabilization cac would similarly remain as it is. it would include seven members, expertise would be expanded to include a member with expertise in youth organizations. because funds from the central soma community facility fee, which is a new fee created along with the cfd revenue would be

provided for input on how to spend and per the central soma public benefits program. some duties would be expanded to provide input on possible infrastructure projects around the community facilities they would have a more formal relationship with those agencies and coordination with the newly created soma cac. this concludes my presentation along with myself and abbey, josh is here to answer any questions about central soma along with claudine, the mayor's office of housing and community development staff and staffs the soma stabilization cac. thank you very much. >> i see supervisor haney here. did you want to say a few words? okay. we will open up this item for

public comment. i don't have any speaker cards, but please come on up. >> afternoon, we have been waiting down the hall. i am john. funny wrapping up the central soma plan. it is a year after you voted to send it out. we are now getting through the important details, and the cac is one of them. you may be aware we are wrapping up the legal matters right now this week actually. i think, you know, we are in the final phase of getting this altogether, and this the cac is an important community public process component we always wanted supervisor kim introduced it and they have been supportive

and worked hard to get it to here. in case you are wondering how the two different cacs work. stabilization fund is a grant-making body working with mocd with the stabilization fund that came from the hill. based on that re-zoning over 10 years ago. that grant making and monitoring responsibility takes work and is very important. they largely focus on human services in the neighborhood. the new cac will be the classic planning focused type body planning and development issues. it is monitored. i had experience with the redevelopment project area committees which had a comparable role. south of market provided constructive engagement with the then redevelopment agency for

the south of market redevelopment area. i think that the two are definitely will be closely related but have very distinctive roles, and each one will be a full-time job. i certainly hope -- the amendments proposed are good. they are practical amendments to make things work better. we definitely urge you to proceed to support this today, and the board will finish the job next month. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners and future supervisors. i am allen simpson, the current chair of the soma stabilization fund cac, and i have had the honor to serve for a little over eight or nine years now. i want to talk about the

accomplishments of the cac. i am proud of our community and community process. we have gotten a lot done in the 13 years since the stabilization fund was created. as you know it was created to represent the voices of our south of market families, residents, nonprofit organizations, cultural workers in making decisions how we spend the funds to make sure that we do remain in this community that we are deeply rooted in. highlights of our work include seed funding for bishop housing project which to this date placed more than 400 households in homes. we piloted the first small size acquisition project and save would a couple of families there that were living in a house that was about to get evicted.

we funded development of a new child care center at transbay terminal. we had funding to create and to administer the soma community action grants, which are these amazing mini grants that our neighborhoods can actually apply for to really create and nurture our cohesiveness in our community through different events. we also had seed planting money for the cultural district. then also, the acquisition of the building for united players clubhouse. we are so happy to help them find a home and own their place and their stake in the neighborhood. we introduced and funded a trauma system over