as was already mentioned the plan will quadruple the benefits so $2.2 billion during the plans build out which is anticipated at 25 years. in addition, the gross would raise $1 billion in additional general fund taxes. this is an estimate that's based on the best information available but the actual amounts raised would depend on the timing and extent of the development projects. here over the next few slides are the public benefits that can be funded by the plan. this list was developed through a process working extensively with our partner agencies, policymakers and the community. the public benefits package is non binding. actual expenditures are subject to board approval and this is all-out lined in the implementation program document. as was mentioned half of the revenues will go towards affordable housing to reach our goal of 33% affordable units and 500 million for transit. we'll fund $185 million for parks and rec facilities for both exiting and new facilities. $180 million will go towards building and preserving p.d.r. space to ensure no net loss, due to the plan. $110 millio

the plan before you is the result of a lot of people thinking. t's jump in with an overview with our plan manager, lisa chen. she's joined by josh witski. >> thank you, supervisors, thank you, anne-marie, i'm lisa chen with the planning department. if i could pull up the slides, please. we're very pleased to be here, as anne-marie said, after nearly eight years of work and work with the community and city partners, today's hearing, you have several items in front of you. there are administrative code section 35 amendments related to nuisance complaints against pdr uses which are intended to protect the valued businesses as the neighborhood grows. there are admin codes, this is a technical amendment related to the proposed special tax district which is expected to generate $316 million to fund community benefits. as has been mentioned, technically both the planning code and admin code are before you today, but we will be focusing on the admin code sections as the other portions are intended to be heard at land use. today's presentation will include

as was already mentioned the plan will quadruple the benefits so $2.2 billion during the plans build out which is anticipated at 25 years. in addition, the gross would raise $1 billion in additional general fund taxes. this is an estimate that's based on the best information available but the actual amounts raised would depend on the timing and extent of the development projects. here over the next few slides are the public benefits that can be funded by the plan. this list was developed through a process working extensively with our partner agencies, policymakers and the community. the public benefits

i want to say that we're strongly supportive of the plan with the changes recommended to you by the planning commission and with that said there are a few additional changes that are necessary to accommodate the unique needs of the flower market project and the wholesale flower component of it in particular. parking, first of all. right now the plan has parking maximums that limit the wholesale flower market to 67 parking spaces and that's less than half of the flower market's current parking and well under the 150 spaces that kilray is to provide in the new project. it's been suggested that additional parking might be provided through a trailing site amendment but it prolongs uncertainty for the flower market tenants about an issue that is really central to the project. and it adds to the workload for the city staff that said that a change would prolong the schedule for the project consideration for approval. so you have delay and uncertainty and on the other the legislation before you has exceptions that are available only for key sites like the flower market. i urge the board to take the

realm plan. the commission last heard and was provided an update on this plan in november of 2016. the plan is in the final stages of being adopted. it's a plan that's an interagency project that will get public investment, streetscape and investments project in the central waterfront. working off of the 2008 eastern neighborhoods plan. the plan incorporates and leverages waterfront parks and public realm improvements that have been advanced by the port including the blue greenway design guidelines, pier 70, parks and open spaces including the crane cove park, and the forest city development project. the planning process included a significant amount of community outreach, which robin and sean will go through, and included the identification of nine projects to develop conceptual plans for, two of which are on port property, including 24th street east of illinois street and warm water cove park. both robin and sean will provide an overview of the plan and where it stands today, and we're all availabl

certainly, the american plan was implemented in u.s. erritors and really anywhere the -- territories and anywhere the u.s. had power. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. >> did everyone hear that? >> imposing decency. it's a really great book, really important book. >> and we're going to end over here. >> hi, thanks. it's been wonderful hearing you. very interesting story. i just wanted to comment because i worked in public health for 30 years, but i also was so intrigued by what you talked about, because i didn't become an academic, but i did my dissertation on the history of a boston hospital, and it reminded me -- i got to look at all this great stuff, and i looked at the early records of the outdoor department. >> 1910. >> outpatient department. and the biggest diagnosis was stds, which isn't surprising. you know, i think a lot of this is sort of a complex interplay of forces. waves of southern eastern european influences and people of other backgrounds. eleanor roosevelt because she and many upper class women, you know, they started nursin

the octavia plan in 2005 and serving on that c.a.c. in 2014 when i assumed the commission -- being a commissioner. prior to that, i was in tech for 30 years. on the 30th day of my career, i left and did something fun. the last four years, i've been on the planning commission. i tell people, never before have i worked so hard, made so little money, but had so much fun, being a planning commissioner, and i seek your reappointment today. one of the things -- i had some reflection on this. i work with all sides, neighborhood groups, community groups, developers, mayor's office, supervisors, in fact, after this meeting, i will be sitting down with the mayor's office of housing, ken rich to go over the india basin project that we'll hear tomorrow at the commission. i tend to balance out the needs and am collaborative, but when i believe in something, i stay firm to that. a couple of things that happened recently, we have a historic resource in the gay and lesbian community that was going to be demolished and worked to delaying the certificati

items 6 through 8. >> ordinance amending the general plan by adding the central sfarkt area plan on the western portion by 6th street, on the eastern portion by second street, on the northern portion by the downtown plan area and on the southern portion by townsend street. land use, index and the east soma and west area plans and making appropriate findings. item number 7 is ordinance amending the zoning man of the planning code to create the central south of market special use district and making other amendments to the height bulk district map and making appropriate findings. item number 8, ordinance amending the business and tax regulations of the central smarth housing sustainability district. >> supervisor kim: thank you, chair tang, i will be extremely brief because of some procedural issues we are actually not going to be hearing this item today, but will be hearing it next monday, july 16, because it's been agendaized we do have to allow time for members of the public to speak. for those who did not come, we did ask people not to speak, because we're not truly hearing the item,

to the marshall plan and leave it at that. eventually my fellow economists started taking over the debate. it were much more skeptical and started running simulations and that just led them to be rather baffled because things that they were looking for didn't seem to be there. for example, was it that the marshall plan allowed these country to import much more than it would otherwise because they had no dollars in gold anymore, and he found the effect was positive but way too small to explain this. was it that government spending went up and that these countries couldn't have afforded this government spending without the marshall aid? government spending as a percentage of output over the marshall years decline in europe so that wasn't the explanation. understand last week you a wonderful speaker here, a good friend of mine who's was writta thigh boots book called the tyranny of metrics. one of the things that jerry argues is that often the things that are most important are impossible to quantify, and when we can't quantify ca

so that was the whirlwind plan overview. i'm going to highlight the key areas where the plan has changed since it was last heard at land use and transportation committee. they fall into three catagories. jobs housing balance. public benefits package and development requirements. under jobs housing balance, we've heard a lot under this area. we've heard a desire to maximize housing production. especially affordable units. we heard we should streamline the production process and the review process as much as possible. and that we should protect and produce affordable housing early on in the plan through aggressive site acquisition. in response, we've made changes to the plan. we have modified the zoning to add 20% more units up to the maximum allowed in the e.i.r. of 8300 and we have explored room on top of that as will be discussed later. we have developed the housing sustainability district to streamline housing production. we've worked with some of the key sites that are planning to dedicate land for affordable housing and w

on the left side is the stadium plan. you can see how the stadium took up the bulk of the southern portion of the site, and then, there 's a commercia framing it, with residential development, the yellow, mainly in the north. the nonstadium really just fills in where the stadium was with mainly low to middensity housing along with more commercial. now for what is proposed. you can see how the street grid has been changed which more closely matches the historic -- existing historic grid that's out there today. the southern part of the shipyard now has a greater mix of uses, integrating both residential and commercial uses. the legend may be hard to see but the purple denotes the residential uses, and the red shows the locations of the artist complex. that new vision required some adjustments to the redevelopment plan. first, the names of the district -- first, the names of the different districts in the phase two are being opted to matched designed urban design vision. the developer wanted to create a more diverse mix of co

there's been an entire reorganization of the planning code. and so the amendments i'm introducing today literally just put our legislation in the proper sections now given that change in the planning code. so i won't have any further comments on that, but it's really a technical change. if we can adopt the amendments, i would like to send it to the full board as a committee report. questions, comments? seeing none, we'll open it up to public comment. members of the public? mr. carnolowicz? >> good afternoon. i'm president of the san francisco council of district association. this is great legislation. thank you, supervisor tang and supervisor safai. we're having a hard time these days with on-line shopping and then the storefronts that don't generate the foot traffic it would like to have for shops and so forth. i'm speaking on behalf of the council. we don't vote on this. i did contact bill barnacle and grace from excelsier and they're very supportive of the legislation and urge you to pass it. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any othe

under the eastern soma plan. the e.i.r. does not address the lack of affordability of housing incentivized by the plan and social economic makeup of new residents that will result. it does not provide any studies or figures to support the claim that new developments will drive down housing costs. as it continues, what affects development would have is a matter of controversy and that the influx of real estate investment and higher income, residents may increase gentrification and displacement of households being a negative outcome. further study must be done to affect new housing development on housing prices if the plan is serious about its commitment to maintain diversity of residents. and it does not assess the displacement of nonprofit organizations. commercial rents will be more expensive, place be nonprofits at risk. low income and immigrants rely on them. without the organizations, soma residents will be further at risk for displacement. displacement results in environmental impact. the e.i.r. is deficient in that it

she is he is the senior plan checker at the building department and, and we reviewed our plans with markls and he looked at ab009 application to specific windows, and he looked at the structural planning, the headers, to make sure that the headers are the right size, and then he suggeste d that inspector and engineer to be present when these windows are going to be installed to make sure that they are having the right header size and also the opening, so that is what is required. he agreed with the sprinklers would be additional permit and to be done at the time that we are doing the windows. [bell ringing] basically we followed the meeti ng and updated the plans with accurate scope of work. plans appear to meet building and planning building codes. i have asked the plan checker, and i think they have a lot of knowledge, but unfortunately i don't think that come back [bell ringing] this meet it is requirements. we have done a number of these and i can give you a certain page that says okay, 20% this and 10% this. i wasn't able to get a clear answer but i met with the plan checker four or

in england in the 1860s, the victorians introduced the english plan and the american plan was a way of setting itself apart. the distinctiveness was to put control in the hands of public health officials as opposed to the police. in practice it didn't work but that was the unique characteristic of the american plan. >> this is a general question. this story reeks of general conspiracies him from the highest level to the lowest level but when you go through your list of people who reported and how long it lasted, do you recognize this as a program that was paved with good intentions and then once it hits the road, people start to use their biases and it turns into something it wasn't meant to be? do you recognize this as being, wasn't executed in the way it was supposed to be executed and that was purposeful? how do you feel about bees? how do you feel about what it's meant to do versus how it was executed? >> i spent a lot of time going through the personal papers and diaries, letters of the people who ran the american plan and i can tell you these were not disney villains. they were n

and we don't want the plan to langui languish. we want it to be a center of community and historic resources. so let's get the full funding and see what we can do about that. thank you so much. >> supervisor tang: seeing no further public comment, through the chair, i would like to ask that we close public comment on the items. public comment is closed for items 7-11. >> supervisor kim: there's a series of amendments that i have stated on the record. i also want to add that sara dennis phillips is here to answer any questions. a couple of things i want to note in regards to public comment that was made. there is an ordinance that is being drafted by supervisor sandra fewer on the right of first purchase that came up at public comment earlier. there have been meetings where we have discussed accusation. i'm not sure if i should ask ms. chan to speak to that, but if you could speak to how much money is available. you don't have to come up now. i will good through a series of responses. i wanted to note that we have not added any addi

and the planning department -- our planner with advice from the z.a. wanted this to be treated as a single project, especially because there had been planning comment and the resolution of the decks was part of this major alteration. if we were to separate out this corrective action, access to the existing roof deck with a new stair would require a variance which is an appealable entitlement action. the original d.r. filer, who is the complainant has used every device in the book from d.r. to filing building complaints, to delaying hearings, to filing letters of determination, to appealing their own letters of determination, to delay the process. and this has come at extreme expense both to the property owners emotionally and financially. and we want this to be treated as a single project, such that we're not dealing with a notice of violation and then dealing with additional series of d.r.'s and appeals. because though it could lead to a speedy resolution of the complaint, it gives more devices and more process at the finger tips of the complainant to

without the plans, it's really hard for us. we're not in a position to review them because they are the property of the property owner. we don't have them yet, so unless they voluntarily come back to d.b.i. and review the plans, they would have to be asked to do that. that was discussed, by the way, with mr. paul and d.b.i. i let him know that a couple of days after the last hearing. >> isn't it possible that a change of use, in this case, from a retail store to a youth center may be a change in occupancy because a youth center may be an assembly possibly? >> i did check that, and according to the file permit, it's an existing b occupancy, and the proposed is a b occupancy. i think the only thing is that the seismic work that's being done in occupation of a future soft story -- it is a corner building. corner buildings, as we know are vulnerable in earthquakes. we think that it will eventually get to these types of buildings as mr. boskovich said, so at that point, it would become mandatory seismic work. so -- but at this point,

i look forward to working with our colleagues and the planning department staff in the mayor's office on figuring out other ways we can make our planning approval process easier for people. >> thank you. >> thank you madam chair. supervisor peskin, i appreciate the forthrightness and the willingness to work with us going forward. i think we accomplished pretty much where we have consent of 80% of what we are trying to do in this. i think there is an agreement now that they're still more work to be done. we can have a conversation very similar to what we've done when he rolled up our sleeves on other issues. the idea of having conversation about a mandatory preapplication hearing, as it pertains to the seamless -- famous or infamous pop outs. we can continue to have the conversation because the idea of streamlining and notification can be compatible. i appreciate your commitment to work with us on that. we will continue to work this and work with the planning department. thank you for your time that the planning department staff is put in on this along with the city attorney. this proc

one of the plans that i appreciated for its thoroughness was, for example, the rincon hill plan, which the current planning commission, many times, finds itself discussing exactions and exemptions to a really good plan, and good plans are there to give guidance over time to area that's need to be built out, but they don't need exactions or exemptions while they're being implemented. we have the same thing, and anybody that is here from the variety of neighborhoods, we have a number of very, very good plans, except we have to fight each time for these plans to be recognized and be the guiding documents in order to implement these plans over time. mission way is one of the them. i think while the idea of putting ucsf has a research institution into mission bay was a great idea, unfortunately i'm going to be very critical, and i'm going to say, and i've said it before, it is turning into little more than a suburban office park. >> supervisor safai: right. >> commissioner moore: that is my biggest criticism. the only thing -- and i want to say something positive -- is adding the warriors s

the planning commission, i believe, was 100% in support, in fact, they wanted us to expand it beyond neighborhood commercial districts. so we feel it's a good piece of legislation at the right time. we feel that it will encourage small businesses to get into this line of work. this is a pathway to restaurants and small businesses to get off the ground. they don't have to worry about overhead. they can prepare their food and use that facility on a rental basis. so we're super excited about this. it's a way to expand and enhance existing businesses and businesses that want to get into the catering business in san francisco colleagues, i ask for your support. anyone from the planning department? >> supervisor tang: yes. we have geno from the planning department. >> good afternoon, supervisors. gina saulsiton. it would allow catering as an accessory use under certain conditions. as it stands now, catering use is not permitted september to be an accessory use. catering must also provide products for retail sales. this would allow educacatering without the retail sale requirement under the

plan. historically this has been lower than the a.c.a. plan and national limits. so if we were to anchor it to this standard, it provides protection for employees from the rising costs, and also for employers and brokers to plan for subsequent years. so, for example, for -- for 2018 currently, the state benchmark for this level is $7,000. nationally, the a.c.a. allows for a plan to hit $7,850. next year, the national a.c.a. limit would be $7,900, and if we peg it to this benchmark, it would cap the a.c.a. allowable limit at $7,550. we don't know what 2020 is, that will be available spring 2019, but we expect this relationship to hold as it usually has. the third standard is -- allows a medical deductible of $2,000, and employers must cover all the actual expenditures that count towards this. especially with the rising cost of health care, this is something that the work group agreed to maintain, so employers will still cover the costs of any expenditures that count towards this, but we -- but the only change would be to clarify some of that language to reduce confu

three years ago when the planning commission produced an a.d.u. manual, the options for a.d.u.s in single-family homes were limited and unattractive. the following year, california legislature enacted legislation mandating a wider range of practical options. sadly, san francisco failed to comply with state law. ordinance 95-17 announced the purpose of complying the state law. but, in fact, made no meaningful concession to the law. the a.d.u. manual was not revised. i must call your attention to the fact that the city attorney put its stamp of approval on ordinance 95-17. i have sent to you a memo by way of an email before this meeting showing that the ordinance is, in fact, widely in conflict with state law. now amending the san francisco ordinance to comply with state law is only a first step. but the city attorney's position on ordinance 95-17 unfortunately bars the way to taking this first steptoe ward an effective a.d.u. ordinance and manual. as a lawyer, i would hope that this problem could be resolved by amicable discussion and the city attor

the plans adopted by strategy and other plans like green connection. and we've looked at potential growth areas in communities, parks, schools, and the caltrans station. and make sure the connection to the destinations to the waterfront and throughout the future growth areas are well connected. we set up networks of public realm that needs to be prioritized. and this diagram became the basis for developing future guidelines. we started in 2015 and concluded in 2018 when we published the public review draft of the planned document. we had public meetings and we had supervisor cohen coming to the workshops and thank you to the community for their input and observed our planning development process. we also visited many existing neighborhood organizations and institutions regular meetings to give presentations and feedback and those are listed on the bottom of the page. it shows an example of our projects for asbury park. there are many priorities projects and each had its -- conducted the outreach for the project. and, of course, that was one of the high

we don't have the space for common areas. planning department requires the common areas, so a lot of times, the only place to put them is on roofs, so now, we have occupied roofs. where else? the commentary for the building code, which we use a lot to try to decipher meetings behind this stuff. in 2012, also part of your package there -- let me find it. the commentary for 2012 for permits quite sometime ago under high-rise buildings says that, first of all, the code provision is that -- or the definition of a high-rise building located more than 75 feet above the lowest level of vehicle access, but determining what qualifies as a high-rise building is a fairly unique measurement of height and is not based on the definition of building height. the critical measurement is from the lowest ground location where a fire department will be able to set its firefighting equipment to the floor -- floor level of occupied floors, including any occupied roof. they included it back then as shown in a figure, and then, it has the figure below and in

the compatible. it is not good planning. the ecosystem that one of the people mentioned, it is a place that we want to create restaurants and everything that is in that plan. >> commissioner richards: are any developments in the southern waterfront -- if you looked a the planning and developments from mission bay all the way down. i'm not sure what area it covers. what actually looks like the plan calls for. what areas? >> i worked on mission bay pier 70 up to shipyard. all those areas. we have the master plan for that. i was here supporting pier 70. i was here supporting work space, everything. have you ever seen that plan? director has the plan. >> commissioner richards: if you move around and keep going south in candlestick point, 120 and 1 foot buildings buildings -- 14t building. >> if you look at the candlestick where the stadium used to be and you look at the area, they came out here. that is not the same place. it cannot introduce those kind of elements. not everywhere in san francisco is the same. even though we cann

but i think as the board knows that the planning department did support this. i did grant the variance that was previously appealed to this board, but i'd like to offer some clarification on a few points in the draft findings in. item four and eight and actually all the discussion tonight, there's reference to nonconforming structures, and technically, in section 1 # 8, we use the -- section 188, technically, we use the term noncomplying structures. those are noncomplying structures when they don't comply with the set back requirements of the planning code. there was some reference by the permit holder to the housing accountability act, and i think you're able -- deputy city attorney can address those issues, but it's generally my understanding under the housing accountability act that a project must be code compliant. it did not, and they did seek a variance, which they did uphold by default. also, just as an observation having come before the board and dealing with variances and dealing with discretionary reviews in similar cases, i would say that an action on