it will slow down transsit and make the streets less safe where we have high density. the same principle applies here. we really, really do want to add as much housing as we can in this part of town, especially for folks who have challenges affording market rate. that is just about everybody. so, yes, let's please have more below market rate. yes, let's have it on site. but please let's don't compromise safety of the seats. let's don't compromise the performance and the attractiveness of transit as we make the neighborhood more dense. again, i'll remind you that last year the board of supervisors adopted home sf, wonderful. we're going to incentivize developers to provide more below market rate housing in their projects. we incentivize them by offering bonuses of interest. the parking incentive is for the developer to provide less parking. if this city has a finding for the relationship between b.m.r. and parking, it is that we provide less, and not more. i urge you to send this forward but please leave the loophole out. thank you. >> thank you, mr. thornly. mr. leavitt. >> good afternoon, supervisors. robin he visit. i've lived three blocks from market and van ness for the past -- over the past 25 years. for all the reasons that mr. thornly mentioned, while i support interim controls on parking in the hub, i don't support the legislation in its current form and i want to refer you to an e-mail that i sent you in november as well as a letter i send you in november outlining all the reasons for that. simply put, less parking means less traffic and congestion. more pork parking leads to more traffic and congestion. allowing additional parking in the hub is irresponsible. it is irresponsibles to delay the thousands of muni riders who pass through the hub every day. it is irresponsible to compromise the health and safety of thousands of bicyclists, pedestrians and residents who with live, work and pass through the hub every day. it's irresponsible to tie up and delay emergency service responders in traffic. we also all pay for the congestion by the increased costs of goods and services that we all need in the city. it is irresponsible to ignore the traffic and all of its impacts and not to take steps to rein it in here. this legislation may leverage a handful of affordable units but at what cost? it potentially will unleash hundreds of more cars on to our streets creating more congestion, delays and injuries. that is irresponsible. as we saw with 1 oak, developers can always apply and his tourkically have been granted, conditional uses for excess parking. neighbors like myself, andily, jayson henderson, do not have the time and resources to fight every c.u. for additional parking. personally, i've attended countless meetings on this issue and i don't want to do it anymore. thank you. >> thank you, mr. leavitt. mr. henderson. >> thank you, supervisors. i have somebody proctoring the final exam, in case anybody's wondering. thank you, supervisor breed. thank you, supervisor kim. thank you, supervisor peskin for shuttling during this long appeal process. thank you sa maen that for all of your help on this. many people have come speak in support of both the appeal that i filed against 1 oak back in july and also in favor of interim controls on the parking. gail baw and others cannot be present this afternoon. but are in support of the interim controls as you've heard multiple times. as you heard from mr. thornly and leavitt, more cars in the hub is going to be unworkable. it is going to be a major problem. from my perspective, i've been long advocating for zero parking in places like the hub. that is preferred but it is also good public policy. however, we have to realize that there are give and take process. here we are. we need to do these interim controls so it is my understanding that this is the best we can get done to get through with this. so it -- i reluctantly support this approach that supervisor kim has put forward. i do want to point out that in hayes valley, we have lots of both in-play and proposed affordable housing projects that have zero parking and it is the zero parking that makes it work. the zero parking made s.f. jazz work, the nonprofit performing arts center. it is making family housing at what was called parcel o on fell and laguna work. so, it is a little bit confusing, but it is what it is. i also hope that out of this process we don't forget about the regulation of t.n.c., the wind impacks on biasles and the e-commerce problems that are mucking up the traffic in that part of the city. thank you. >> thank you, mr. henderson. any other members of the public who would like to speak on item number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. we did actually ask last week for planning to make some comments. that was one of things the committee -- i see mr. worth i'm here, but i suspect you're here on item number three. is there anybody from planning who want to make any comments that we discussed last week raring in ub two. >> no, not at this time, sir. but we're happy to get back to you if there is further questions posed. i apologize on our behalf. >> all right. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i want to thank you for all of your work on the appeal of 1 oak and make sure that the transit-rich neighborhood does not disparately impact the traffic and congestion that we're already seeing here in the city and also for really moving forward with pushing both the planning department and sfmta to study the impact that t.n.c. are having to the traffic mobility in this arena as well. and that is -- i don't want to say a few ne no, ma'am non, but a relatively new phenomenon that the city has not begun to address. but i do appreciate the reluctant support from some members of community to move this forward. it is incredibly important for us to incentivize our developers to build on-site affordable housing. i do agree that when you do 100% affordable housing it doesn't pencil to do parking and many of our affordable housing households don't need a car or use a car. so, with our 100% affordable housing we frequently do not include parking or a lot of parking in those units currently but it can be an incentive to encourage our developers to meet a higher threshold of doing affordable housing at 25%, which we thought was fair. i don't imagine many projects would be able to meet this. for 1 oak, they didn't provide any on-site affordable housing in. that case, i would have liked them to meet the actual ratio that was requested in this area plan. but i know that we were able to move forward with some sort of compromise on that. anyway, colleagues i ask for your support on this item, along with president breed and look forward to working with many of you here today on ensuring that we are reducing cool and vehicle usage in our district particularly in the south market and tenderloin area. thank you very much. >> thank you, supervisor kim. i'd be happy to entertain a motion to send this item to the full board as a committee report but would love mr. worthime if you can tell the appropriate colleague here last week to report in at least to this supervisor or send an e-mail to the entire board before 2:00 tomorrow with any comments that the department has as we were promised last week. with that, supervisor tang. >> all right. so, now i will make a motion on item two to send freethrower to the full board with positive recommendation as a committee report. >> thank you. we will take that item reluctantly without objection. next item, please. >> next on the agenda, item number three is a hearing on the proposed central plan including general overview, housing overview, infrastructure and public realm and community building and neighborhood stabilization. >> all right. mr. worthime, the floor is yours. i'll come get those. >> oh. did he say the floor is mine? ok. [laughter] >> supervisor kim, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin. good afternoon -- good afternoon, colleagues, again. we are now hosting our second informational hearing which will be before the planning commission in early 2018 and very shortly after the full board of supervisor, mr. worthime. this is one of largest area plans that this board will be concerning over the last couple of years. and it's important for us to dedicate a number of informational hearing items both for the sake of members of the public and also an opportunity for members of this board provide their input before this plan moves forward to the planning commission. we held a hearing on the projected plan for affordable housing. units proposed and also how we're working with the mayor's office of housing and the need to identify sites so we can achieve our goal of building 33% of affording housing as part of the central soma plan. and today's hearing is focused on the plan's proposal for community benefits and infrastructure. one of the benefits of moving forward with a large area plan is that we can have birds eye view of how we can puting to large development projects to bring forward benefits that we want to ensure that a neighborhood has as it cons to grow. these include fees that will ensure that our streets are safer pedestrians and cyclists. they ensure that as we build up and build more densely that we're setting aside land but also money to build recreational centers and open space so that workers and residents can enjoy these in their complete neighborhoods. we also wanted to ensure that the developments combined will ensure that we have enough dollars to afford diverse and middle income housing and a diverse neighborhood and we have ongoing fees that will evening sure long-term maintenance of this neighborhood, whether it is in clean-up, security, park maintenance and others. according our estimate, this proposal would raise over $2 billion in benefits. compared to only $500 million if the central soma plan does not move forward. of these -- of the $2 billion closes to $1 billion are going towards accretion of middle and low-income housing and today's hearing is to delve deeper into understanding the fees, benefits and also to have a discussion of the governance structure that would oversee these benefits in the long-term and how we as a city want to move forward with that. i want to begin with the presentation from planning. i also want to acknowledge that sarah dennis phillips is here along with dan adams and amy chan of mir's office and community housing or i've been told that they are all herement . we have the department of environment, rich chin, as we consider movinging this forward as a sustainability district. as well as carly payne, jamie parks from m.t.a. and tim chan from bart and i see tim frye from planning historic preservation is here. finally understand that we have sarah minnick from sfpc and lisa fisher overseeing the echo district. i see a lot of members of our south market community here today. thank you so much for attending. i know that the community has been hosting several meetings in terms of its vision for how we like to see the future of our neighborhood move forward as we welcome more office and residential development. so, mr. worthime. >> thank you, supervisors. steve worthime, planning department staff. the first informational hearing was on october 23rd where we talked about the overview of the plan and the job housing benefits. as the supervisor mentioned, i'll be doing the presentation today, but will be joined various members of my colleagues at the planning department and other members of regional agencies. just a reminder for those who didn't see the october 23rd hearing, the plan's vision is to create a sustainable neighborhood and sustainably economically, socially and environmentally. our philosophy is to keep what's great and to fix what's not and our strategy is threefold to accommodate demand by increasing development capacity. by liveeneding raing over $2 million in public benefits and to make sure that the change must respect and enhance the neighborhood character by keeping what's great even while we're fixing what's not. before going into supervises of public benefit, i'd like to talk about the outreach process that lead to its creation. this occurred over thousands of conversations over the last seven years. we asked people what was working in the neighborhood, what went working. we had meetings and uk whating tours and surveys. we had so many one-on-one conversations. both the community and with the city and regional agencies to understand their needs and priorities. simultaneously we are figuring out how to pay for these needs. we determined this through a financial model development. from this model, we set the requirements of that sweet spot where projects are xhukically feasible and we can maximize the benefits of community. of course if you set the fee and requirements too high, you get no development and then none of the revenue you seek. you set the fee too low, then you get the development and not the benefits to serve the growing population. fortunately in central soma, there's so much demand and so much room to grow that when we set the requirement just right, we can still establish over $2 million in public benefits and be self-sufficient in meeting many of the neighborhoods in the neighborhood. i'd like to know the numbers we present today are largely the same from the 2016 draft plan, but amended to recognize things that have volumed since then such as prop c, prop x and the state density program. here are numbers that supervisor kim just mentioned if the plan doesn't pass. the plan passes, it's over $2 million, which is four times mo than if the plan doesn't pass. and it is only from new development and only going back to the neighborhood. new development will create over $1 billion in public benefits to the city's general funds and a general sense t timeframe is about a 25-year plan period. we also present less time. i'm not going to go into great detail in this table and the next page today because i'm goinging to do all the specifics in a moment. so i won't go into this table in detail. just to mention that of the $1 billion toward affordable housing, with did sub mitt to this committee a second regarding affordable housing. and we also submited a new memo on public benefits so that people who have more questions more details, want to see more details can go into that. so as you'll see here, there's nearly $1 billion toward affordable housin half a billion dlard transit. $180 million toward distribution reduction repair. $170 million toward parks and recreation, $130 million toward complete streets, $707 million toward environmental sustainability. $60 34*8 actualeder school and child care. and there is $70 million yet to be allocated since the release of the draft plan in 2016. we have some ideas for how that can be allocated and will share that with you at the end of the hearing. the first topic i'd like to discuss is transit. central soma is already one of the most transit-rich areas in the whole region, served by bart and cal train. the new development will be benefiting from the central subway which is a great example of the city investing in transit infrastructure before development occurs. other investment includes electrification of cal train, the opening of the transbay bus terminal and enhancement to muni lines. that being said, except for affordable housing, transportation is probably the biggest issue we have in this area. and in the region. and that is why the plan still dedicates over half a billion toward transit which can leverage half a billion of state and federal funding. we identified four sources for this half a billion dollars. the eastern neighborhoods impact and a new central soma fee. the outcomes would be approximately $340 million towards local transit and $160 million to regional transit. this is basically a two-to-one ratio reflecting the new trips generated by new workers and residents. the local money is directed toward sfmta to provide service transit expansion. the regional money is controlled by the city and goes to the regional agencies. for example, we've been working in close coordination bart who's interested in upgrading standard capacity and starting the study of a second transrail crossing. the next topic we'd like to discuss is transportation, distribution and repair. p.d.r. p.d.r. is crucial and needed for the city. it has high-paying jobs and creative advancement for opportunities for people without a four-year degree and facile tates economic diversity of the city. as we know today, there are still industrial protective zoning and we know without protection from p.r. soma, a lot of this is likely to disappear. in this plan, it is an example of keep what's great and fix what's not, we hope to keep the p.d.r. in the area while amending the zoning and additional right. -- requirements on large office projects. the funding for p.d.r. would come from the fund from new development. and that represents the cost to subsidize. the result is that in these industrially protected areas, after the plan, we'd still have about the same amount of p.d.r. as we have today. approximately 900,000 square feet. the benefit is also that because this p.d.r. will be built with the projects itself, there will be no lag in delivery of this public benefit. and developers will be able to provide this public benefit in one of three ways -- by building on site, off site somewhere else or protecting other p.d.r. uses somewhere else that are a threat. in terms of p.d.r. affordability, we know it is an affordable issue and we know that rent scroll illegal in the state of california. we can incentivize it in the same way that proposition x did by allowing developers to provide less affordable housing -- excuse me, provide affordable space by providing less space of p.d.r. we have several great parks and recreation centers including south park and jean friend recreation center. that being said, overall soma is quite poorly served in regards to the rest of city. and the central soplan is an opportunity to change that to fund, build and habilitate facilities so that every kid and grown-up has access to high-quality park and recreational opportunities. they funded three sources, including funding from privately owned open spaces, the eastern neighborhoods active fee and melrose community facilities district. in terms of what that would yield, theres a whole lot of new parks and recreational opportunities. this includes there 25 million to help rebuild and expand jean friend recreation center, $5 million for victoria and jarvis park, the largest park in this part of the plan. $35 million toward a new one-acre park on the perform u.c. block. $10 million for new recreation center. $5 million for a new park on what is an overwide alley. $5 million for new recreational amenities turn freeway to leverage the new state law. and $5 million as a down payment to a new large soma park and $80 million for privately owned public open space which is the equivalent of the value of thatened la. i just want to emphasize tease are not downtown popos, these are on the ground floor and f.ly accessed and have extended hours and south of the freeway they will be open to the sky. these parks and the popos will be constructed as part of new developments and there will be no lag time when their growth, when the growth in the area and delivery of these benefits. supervise so ever? >> yes, thank you. you anticipated that i had questions on this list of items. i just wanted some clarification and also for us to do this in a public forum. one is incredibly exciting to see reconstruction expansion dollars searching through the rec center. we have limited space so one of the ways we can expand recreational areas to build up just as we have office and housing build um -- build-up. i had a few questions. one, -- well, let's start with the blocks linear park. i've seen the street rescaping designs that i've seen behind the tennis club and a new office building that tn.g. is building on brandon street. is that correct? >> sure. >> that a park -- >> well, if we do it right, it is a park. right? the alley -- most alleys in soma are 35 feet wide. for some reason the one between 3rd and 4th is 75 feet wide. that is the intend. we we're working with t.m.g. and alexandria, the developers of that tennis site to see if they would be willing to build at that park as part of their project in which case we need no allocation of funding but it is an excellent opportunity for something different in soma and we need as much open space in the neighborhood as possible. >> absolutely. i'm very open to it. i wasn't sure why this was listed because the initial designs i've seen have been additional trees on the sidewalk and to me that is not a park. so, if we're calling it a park, i really want it to be a park. so i think that is just because of the initial designs i had seen. the new freeway recreation area, is this the same as the underramp park in the transdid district? >> no. this is a new opportunity -- between 2 nd and 4th, there is a lot of bus yards. and the state legislation that recently passed gave us access to 70% off the rent of this space and makes it possible for us to program new spaces. akin to what's near our office for a few years now the skate ramp and the dog park which has transformed the experience of walking through the neighborhood and providing recreational amenities. >> great. finally, could you talk a little bit more about popos and planning vision for how to make these popos publicly accessible and really usable open space for the public? what we've seen and i think we regret some of the policis that we set in the c3 in downtown arena is that many of these popos are either inaccessible, even with the signage and certainly many members of the public aren't away that members of the public are allowed to relax there and sit there because they're indoors. so, could you talk a little bit about how you're going to ensure that these popos are open. >> we certainly internalized that critique. it is not fair to ask members of the public to go to a lobby, ask permission to go to a public space and then have to be vetted by security. that is not acceptable. right? so that is why we're proposing a totally different model where all the spaces are at the ground floor. right? they're all independently accessed from the street. they all have extended hours. so that they're available on the eveningings and the weekends when people want to recreate. they all have to be open to the sky, but we red cross these in some circumstances that, for example, for buildings along the freeway, there is no great advantage of them being open to the sky and we've seen recently built some great examle s of popos in downtown that meet all of our other criteria and are very successful within buildings. so, we want to make sure on the largest projects south of the freeway they are open to the sky. but that will be acceptable having developed inside buildings where appropriate and iting in a third option for folks who don't want to do it inside their building or not appropriate to fee out to the city. otherwise we have other money to enhance the roller -- recreational parks in the neighborhood. >> thank you. >> shall i? ok. next topic is complete street. so, as we know, soma has some of the worst streets in the city. super long blocks. they are designed for cars and trucks to move through as fast as possible but are inconvenient and unsafe for people walking, peoplic booing. the might have been ok 50 years ago but time is overdue to overhaul the streets to serve people who are walking, bicycling, taking transit. and our commitment to vision zero and transportation demand management. the soma plan says improving the area is one of our core imperatives. to be able to fund this, there's the eastern neighborhood impact fees, the pel rose community facilities district and transportation sustainability fubldses. what that gets us is fearly five miles of street improvements. this is for people walking, including vision zero type safety improvements at februarisingers, wider sidewalks and signaled crossings to make sure crossing those bikes manageable. and for people taking transit, more protected lanes and other strategies to make sure the bus moves faster. 2nd street is already under construction with sidewalks and protected bike lanes. the next one is fullsome and howard where improvements run all the way to 11th street. and the other projects will come over the next few years, recognizinging that unlike some of the benefits with the development project, lit take a few years to overall all the streets in the plan area. >> is there a reason we don't have a list of priority projects as we did for the open space? >> i -- i'll defer this question to sfmta. i feel like they internally are trying to work through all the streets. maybe jamie from parks m.t.a. could come speak to that. >> fullsome-howard i know is the big one. is it 2nd street to 11th? >> jamie parks with sfmta. so with fullsome-howard, the street scape project is currently scoped from 3rd to 11th street. we're also, per your earlier comments, looking at 2nd and 3rd as well. >> because the transbay area plan already goes to second street on both of those corridors. >> yes. and then the earlier question about how we prioritize transportation projects, and we were ensuring that the prioritis are in the plan. in terms of prioritizing our work program, we do that typically through our capital improvement program, which is a five-year program updated every two years. right now fullsome, howard, 6th and 5th are all -- are all in there from the central soma plan area. we're in the process of incorporating that area as well. we're constricted by prioritizing all streets at the same time by lack of resources and not wanting to have every single street if soma under construction at the same time as well. we're trying to balance that need with changes as quickly as possible but understanding the construction impacts. >> actually, i -- i would not expect all of the to happen at the same time. just as i wouldn't expect because the open space section had listed all of their prioritized open space needs that all of that would occur at the same time, either. it would just be nice to get a list similar to the open space list where we got where it listed jean friend and just so the community can get a sense of what sfmta is considering in how it is going to prioritize the funds, which will come in over a continuous period of time. a, not all the money is going toable there at the beginning of the plan, but we also know that we can't construct all of south of america at the same time. it will be helpful for the community to see a list of what sf -inger ta is envisioning and would prioritize the $500 million for the plan. and this allows the community to give input to sfmta and how it would like to spend the transportation dollars and within that, there will be capital improvements to public transit and others. it is not just streetscape improvements and mid block crossings. >> sure. yeah. definitely. that is something we can work with planning to put together. >> great. thank you very much. >> ok. our next topic is environmental sustainability and resilience. creating an environmentally sustainable neighborhood is one of the linchpins of central soma plan. they are changing our approach to energy, water, waste, greenery and planning for known and unknown events such as earthquakes and climate change. fortunately the city is at the cutting edge and developing requirements for energy efficiency, intelligent use of water and diverting waste from landfills. it builds on the requirements, filled in some of gaps and tries to push the envelope to transform this polluted industrial area. to do that, we've identified two funding sources, funding from the mool-roos community development. it gives us better streets to handle storm water from climate change, $20 million toward greening and air quality improvements around the freeway, $10 million for over 20 acres of rooftop green as well as solar and $10 million for more common sense projects such as reusing storm water for street cleaning rather than using drinking water as we do today. [please stand by] >> we've been working with developers to try to help them find childcare as part of their projects. next topic -- >> councillor tang: i just had a quick question. why is it that the funding for the school project, capital project will be citywide. if we're accepting the density, shouldn't this money be dedicated to our neighborhoods? >> as not a representative of the school district that accepts the money, it's a question that i can converse -- >> councillor tang: is that something that we as a board can determine? >> i actually don't know. i saw this when i was reading the report 7 the weekend and i wasn't sure if it was dill delinea delineated or not and we want families to stay here, so my hope is that it can be dedicated in the region as it is with childcare. childcare dollars will be focused in this neighborhood. >> the school's fee is charged by the school and goes to the school. we can have the conversation with the school district about their priorities, but -- >> councillor tang: i wondered if it was required to be citywide. >> we can have that discussion. it can be dedicated back to the neighborhood with the childcare money. >> councillor tang: thank you. >> yeah. the next topic is culture preservation about the buildings in the neighborhood and the people that fill them up. we have many historic building in central soma. we have the old mint, which is one of the most important, endangered buildings in the united states. there is also many important cultural -- sorry, important people in filipino and lgbtq and organizations that work on their behalf. we identified two funding sources, extension of transferrable developments rights program. the result is that we'd have $20 million to funding rehabilitation of the old mint. it's one aspect, but can help to leverage more funds. we also see that there would be $20 million to the transferrable rights and rehabilitate and maintain them. as far as funding and outcome for fiphilippinfilipino and lgb communities, we'll discuss that in a minute. and also the final bucket, job training. we have identified $20 million in a new impact fee set to the maximum amount possible and the result will be funding for facilities that serve the growing population in the neighborhood. so lets talk about emerging issues. the $70 million identified and have some up. the first, social programs to support cultural heritage and organizations on the ground doing great work in the neighborhood. i mentioned at our october 23 hearing that it may be potent l potentially possible to fund this work through our community facilities district. we need to explore the legal and policy ramifications, but the potential to do such things extends the program to the plan is personally very exciting. the second item is the need to increase operation maintenance parks and facilities, as well as rec park and others to identify the funding sources. the third is a need for neighborhood cleaning services, which identified to us from supervisor kim's office. and we'll talk about prevailing wages. we've been in conovversation wi organized labor on this and one option comes through the newly signed legislation of the state ab73, which allows cities to create sustainability districts if they're paid for the construction work. we don't really fully understand that and will continue to work with people to see if it's a viable option. that concludes my presentation. i look forward to everyone's input and we'll be happy to answer your questions. thank you. >> councillor tang: thank you. i have a few follow-up questions to the last portion of your presentation. and i know we have tim frye here to discuss historic preservation. but i want to go back to your slide on cultural preservation funding the $20 million through cfd and $20 million of tdr. could you talk a little bit about what or how that revenue is limited and what it can be spent towards? >> sure. both buckets? >> councillor tang: yes. >> we've identified it to go to the old mint. so the degree that the city is having a macro effort to understand how to fund and rehabilitate that building, here's one opportunity. the normal funding mechanism has been expended. so we're looking to have new information in that direction. >> councillor tang: that's not my question. what is the cfd funds limited to? it's not limited to the old mint. what are the other uses? >> oh, sure. environmental sustainability and parks and complete streets and a lot of things. there is the opportunity, we think, to spin it on social programs as well. for most historic buildings, the sale of transferrable development rights is the main way to find funding. we're looking to cfd to fund that. if we're expanding to social programs, we do believe cfd money can be spent on that, as i mentioned -- >> councillor tang: when did the old mint sell their tdr. >> i couldn't tell you the year. >> councillor tang: was it a long time ago? >> mid 2000s. >> 2009 or so. >> councillor tang: how much was the sale of that tdr worth? what was the value of that sale? >> i don't know, but i do know it was a low amount per square foot. i don't know the value. it maybe was $2 million. >> councillor tang: so they used that revenue to go back into the old mint already. if you are selling your tdr, you do it to plow that revenue back into the preservation of that building. >> that's correct. the mint, my understanding, is they used it for fire safety upgrades and new security. they are required -- >> councillor tang: i love california historic society and they will have a heart attack when i say this, $20 million, it's a lot of money. and it's a lot of money that is going towards a museum versus programming that will help a lot more people and i have a real hard time swallowing that much money being set aside for a museum that a lot of people will not access. i want to figure out how to make it whole, too, but in 2009, that revenue should have been utilized to upgrade the historic building. that was the appropriate use of that tdr sale. so i feel uncomfortable using $20 million of cfd funding to environmental sustainability. we have huge concerns about quality of air, which impacts all of our residents. we have huge concerns about if we have enough social programming and funds that can go to community services, and so the seismic uptick -- i don't feel comfortable with that set aside currently. and i certainly want to hear from other members of the community as well, but i'm not sure that that's going to have the biggest bang for its buck in terms of how the community will benefit from the building. that's more of a comment, mr. frye, less of a question. i guess i'm just -- i wasn't here in 2009. it's very unfortunate that the sale of the tdr was so low and didn't actually assist them in the seismic update. i want to make sure that that will happen, but i'm not sure if we want that through the central soma plan. the $20 million -- the additional $20 million of tdr that will be sold, how can that be spent? is that limited to the buildings that are selling their tdrs? >> they're currently not allowed to sell their tdr. as you have noted, they're required to spend that money on their own rehabilitation. it will be a new funding source for the neighborhood. >> councillor tang: thank you so much. i know that many members of the public are here. and so i did want to move to public comment and then i do have many more questions so i do want to appreciate our department members to be here to answer additional questions and i'm sure that questions will come up from members of the community. and i also want to recognize that along with many of our community-based organizations and affordable housing organizations and labor that's in the room and i see members of our filipino districts as well. so, mr. chair, if we can, i would like to open it up for public comment at this time. >> let's do it. so we'll open up item 3 for public comment. if you want to line up. first speaker, please. and i know that, mario, you have to get out of here in 18 minutes. go ahead and do that. go ahead, ma'am. >> i'm emma stewart. i've been a sustainability professional in the bay area and have a ph.d. from stanford in the area and sustainability program at auto desk. as we can all attest in the age of trump, action and innovation to protect our quality of life and life support systems of the planet must take place at the city and state level. indeed, san francisco has been a model for other cities in california and california has been a model for other states. both are looked to by others around the world to understand what's next. it's paramount that we commit the funds necessary to turn central soma to a laboratory within a laboratory within a laboratory. san francisco has a plan of setting ambitious targets and meeting them. few other cities i have worked for can claim that. it's not just about being a role model, but about creating tangible things. the proposed living room would generate $7.3 million in net present value stemming from 75 years of enhanced recreational, bio diversity and carbon. if that's only one of the 13 sustainability and resiliency objectives, imagine what the plan is worth in its entirety. many of the objectives are mutual and reinforcing with other goals like investments and creating safer transportation stops. both our ambition prowess will be on display this september. the eyes of the world are on the sustainability goals set by this committee. thank you it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm mario yadidia, hotel workers local 2. our union has been following the central soma plan for some kind and we have growing concerns about the jobs that will be created. at the moment, there are eight hotel projects lined up to take advantage of the soma upzoning, but not one of them has signed on to commitments ensuring that workers will have a right to organize, that these jobs will be good ones. it's being sold as a boon for jobs in san francisco. we're not short of jobs here. we're short living wage jobs that support working people. it's important that planning get right the mix of uses in central soma. unless hotel developers change course about the jobs proposing, we think it would be a mistake to loosen the tourist restrictions on tourist hotels. >> thank you, mario. next speaker. >> hi, supervisors, jane wile, again. i live in central soma. to reiterate a couple of key points. the central soma plan has three strategies accommodate growth, provide public benefits and respect and enhance the neighborhood character. "given the desirability of land, there is demand of building heights only seen in downtown, which come with benefits, but at the expense of what makes the neighborhood great. its character. central soma should not be like downtown. go 5 states offer an abundance of park and rec spaces from an area that suffers from a shortage of parks relative to the number of residents. $170 million generated is designated for park and rec space. the tenderloin and 6th street is the densest part with low income families and seniors with practically no open space. we've been begging for something small like a 1/2-acre park and we're always told there is no money. i support the $30 million to improve what we do have but wasn't to see something allocated to something in the central because we keep circling this area. the parks proposed at 5th and bryant and 11th are way too far from the people that live there now and need it. we don't want to see $80 going to pope st. that's the responsibility of the developers. the developers need to carry their part. >> thank you, ms. wile. next speaker, please. mr. lance berg. >> councillor tang: and if we can allow people to finish their sentences. >> sure. thank you. >> supervisors, i'm lance bergmann, representing the san francisco electrical contractors association. glad to see this plan moving forward and glad to see you giving it the attention it deserves. wanted to second the statements made by mario earlier about job quality and as we fast forward that we keep in mind the men and women who are going to be building it as well as staffing it and operating it. and to that point, i wanted to just speak a little bit more to mr. wartheim's discussion of prevailing wages. what i want to make sure that you all here understand is that prevailing wages is not just about wage levels. it's really a package of policies to not only provide construction workers with livable wages and protect them from competition, but it's a suite of policies to promote sustainable construction couriers and stabilize the industry. where it comes in and is valuable, is within the discussions of ab73. it gives us a roadmap for incorporating those standards into plan areas and really allowing us to take a much more active role in creating equitable infill in our communities. there's a lot of promise in the soma plan. the ballot measure that's been discussed in the media, i think, adds to that. and we look forward to working with our soma partners and everyone else and yourselves and the planning department. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm carla lavell, west bay filipino service center and the we are soma coalition. we work with over 80 youth and families daily in soma. 100% of our youth and families live in soma. the project is in the youth and family zone and i want to make sure that the existing community that lives, works, plays and goes to school in soma is prioritized. the plan brings much opportunity, but unless it's planned with community in mind can displace and hinder the community. we need to be sure that we have strong community oversight and control over the public benefits. we need to make sure that we have affordable housing for our families. many of the families we serve still live in sros. so we need to make sure that we have a range of opportunity that helps them and that he can stabilize organizations that help them to flourish as safe havens. we've served the community for 50 years and serve 100 people daily in a 1,000-square-foot space. we need to make sure that we invest in our schools. 50% of our youth are underperforming in math, science, reading, and we need to make sure that we have quality services to the school that exists. vmd also has no programming. it's great that we have something in there for them and that it's consistent with the park that was here. the central soma park, it can be extremely beneficial, especially since it's across the street from the middle school, but we need to be sure that it's for our families. project sponsors have met and we need to make sure that that conversation is ongoing and that it represents us. >> thank you, carla. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i want to say thank you to jane kim, for taking the leadership role and the work you are doing. my name is rudy corpus. i'm a violence prevention program director serving san francisco for 23 years, working with hundreds and thousands of kids i'm a native. been there all my life. 5 want to be sure as changes are are being made, want to be sure that people can weigh in and know what is good for our community. i've seen things unfold all my life in the neighborhood. i want to be sure we hold people not only accountable, but that we get equity. that's a word that's been thrown around loosely and lightly. i want to be sure also that our current people that are here working together, talking about we are soma, that we figure out the best plan for our people. we've can't have people come to our neighborhood and tell us what's best and what they feel as though how we should live and how the community should be safer. we have a comprehensive community safety plan that we and some of my brothers that live there and have been serving there, we have for safety. nobody want business, nope want to be in places that are not safe. so come see us. talk about what works. come find out what we know is best for our community. let us make sure that we weigh in. we're talking about a lot of money. we want to be sure we're incl e included in this. when i say equity, i'm not talking about equality. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm gina cariaga. i represent the central soma neighbors. i'm here to talk about concerns in the zoning between folsom and harrison. i want to remind you that this is a residential neighborhood. there are five condo buildings totalling 600 residences within a block of these high-rises. the neighbors here agree that the planning department's 2013 central soma draft was right when it said that the predominant character of soma should be retained and the presence of high-rises reduced by limiting their distribution in bulk. supervisors, it achieves under all the housing and job growth as the proposed high-rise plan, but a walkable, livable neighborhood. as you weigh community benefits against the new high-rise proposals, factor in the community benefits that our community enjoys, access to light, sky and air. minutes wind tunnels and family of friendly environment. as a property owner, as a giants' fan that walks with other giants' fans, as a tech worker that soaks up the sun while eating my lunch in the public open space, i urge you, don't trade the existing mid rise zoning for the mere promise of new community benefits. thank you for your time. >> councillor tang: thank you. >> members of the committee, good afternoon. i'm nora hurley. 631 folsom. i think it's impossible to talk about improving walkability, bike safety and welcoming atmosphere without addressing height increases along 2nd and harrison. as a long-time resident, i'm concerned that the proposed high-rise plan undermines the goal of the walkability and

Related Keywords

Stanford , California , United States , Philippines , Alexandria , Al Iskandariyah , Egypt , New Park , Pembrokeshire , United Kingdom , London , City Of , San Francisco , America , Filipino , Gail Baw , Jayson Henderson , Dan Adams , Lance Berg , Dennis Phillips , Emma Stewart , Carly Payne , Nora Hurley , Tim Frye ,