Forbid any new parking in dense transitrich areas of that great city on the notion that 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, lets please have more below market rate. Yes, lets have it on site. But please lets dont compromise safety of the seats. Lets dont compromise the performance and the attractiveness of transit as we make the neighborhood more dense. Again, ill remind you that last year the board of supervisors adopted home sf, wonderful. Were 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. Ive 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 dont support the legislation in its current form and i want to refer you to an email 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. Its 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, ive attended countless meetings on this issue and i dont 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 anybodys 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 youve 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, ive 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 inplay 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 dont forget about the regulation of t. N. C. , the wind impacks on biasles and the ecommerce 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 im here, but i suspect youre 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 were 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 transitrich neighborhood does not disparately impact the traffic and congestion that were 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 dont want to say a few ne no, maam 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 onsite Affordable Housing. I do agree that when you do 100 Affordable Housing it doesnt pencil to do parking and many of our Affordable Housing households dont 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 dont imagine many projects would be able to meet this. For 1 oak, they didnt provide any onsite 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. Id 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 email 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. Ill 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 its 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 were working with the Mayors 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 todays hearing is focused on the plans 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 were 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 longterm maintenance of this neighborhood, whether it is in cleanup, 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 lowIncome Housing and todays 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 longterm 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 mirs office and Community Housing or ive 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, ill 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 didnt see the october 23rd hearing, the plans vision is to create a sustainable neighborhood and sustainably economically, socially and environmentally. Our philosophy is to keep whats great and to fix whats 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 whats great even while were fixing whats not. Before going into supervises of Public Benefit, id 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 oneonone 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, theres 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 selfsufficient in meeting many of the neighborhoods in the neighborhood. Id 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 doesnt pass. The plan passes, its over 2 million, which is four times mo than if the plan doesnt 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 citys general funds and a general sense t timeframe is about a 25year plan period. We also present less time. Im not going to go into great detail in this table and the next page today because im goinging to do all the specifics in a moment. So i wont 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 youll see here, theres 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 id like to discuss is transit. Central soma is already one of the most transitrich 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 twotoone 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, weve been working in close coordination bart whos interested in upgrading standard capacity and starting the study of a second transrail crossing. The next topic wed like to discuss is transportation, distribution and repair. P. D. R. P. D. R. Is crucial and needed for the city. It has highpaying jobs and Creative Advancement for opportunities for people without a fouryear 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 whats great and fix whats 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, wed 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 Bene