Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20180207

668 through 678 page street. A condominium conversion subdivision and it is proposed to continue wants to march 8, 2018. Item two, case number 2016oo5617drp at 1439 through 1441 south bend s. Avenue. Ditz cession narrow view is proposed to continuance until march 15, 2018. Item three, at 775 geary street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance until march 22, 2018. And item four for case number 2016o31394dprm, this is a mandatory discretionary review. It is proposed for an indefinite nit continuance. I have no other items proposed for continuance and no speaker cards. All right. Thank you, john. Sorry. Any Public Comment on the items being proposed for a continue sfwhans sighing none, well close Public Comment. Commissioner koppel . Move to continue items one through four to the dates spes fid. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue, items s proposed [roll call] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 50. And places under your consent calendar for item five, case number excuse me, all matters must adhere under constituted consent calendar are expected to be routine. There will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests. In which event the matter shall be removed and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item five, case number 2017o41313cua 1390 market street. I have no speaker cards. Any Public Comment on 1390 market . Raoet seeing none, well close Public Comment. Commissioner koppel . Move to approve item number five. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that notion approve item five under your consent calendar [roll call] excellent. That motion passes unanimously 60 and places under us under item six, commission minutes. Any Public Comment . Closed. Koppel . Move to adopt minutes from january 11 and 18. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt the mince for january 11, and january 18, 2018 [roll call] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 60 and places us on item seven. Commission comment and questions. Commissioner richards . One quick one. I know i asked anne ma riz rogers to do a kind of whatif on sba27 and how it applis to San Francisco. But after looking at some of the comment on social media, i think understanding it on the accountability act and the other things really is really gets to the matter because it may be in and of itself sba27 does one thing, but when you combine it with all these other bills that hem the city in, it could be a whole different day after, if it does pass. But if you could do that in your analysis. Yes. We are nearly complete with a memo that does talk about not only a27 but the kind of cascades effects that would happen with the state density bonus. That is the draft memo that we have. We could add housing accountability perhaps and get that to you business next weeks packet. Thank you very much. Seeing no other comments, commissioners, that will place us excuse me k. I must have an old agenda. Item eight, right . Yes. Item eight, the action item list. I think thats me. [laughter] commissioners, we wanted to just give you a brief update. I dont know if you have a copy of your action item list handy. I hope some of you do. But i thought we would give you a quick update and not necessarily go line by line, but hit the highlights of what were work on on the action item list. If you recall, the list is organized such that the items that have been accomplished or at least under way are in grey. They are greyed out on the list. And then we have i dont know, jonah, maybe theres not copies for them today. But we had organized the requests based on topic areas. So, i thought i might highlight some of the topic areas that we could talk about tonight. So, first of all, there was a request to theres been a request several times made about gas stations and laundromats and kind of looking at the existing survey of gas stations and laundromats. We actually do have the information for gas stations. The latest count that we are aware of for number of active gas stations in the city is 72. We have as i said, well get that to you in a map form. Laundromat, were having a he can harder getting the information. But we think we might be able to get that through the department of Public Health who keeps track of those. So were search for that right now. Searching for that right now. A couple of other comment. And i think this came up earlier in discussion. I wanted you wanted to tuns status of the preservation element of the general plan. It has been delayed. But were now in the final stages of creating the latest draft, the final draft i should say, in moving into Environmental Review. So the goal is to get the Environmental Review complete of that elements by the end of this year so that we can bring it to you for action early in 2019. And staff so far is on track to do that. So, hopefully that will be coming to you shortly in draft form. With respect to there was a priority templarly on car ownership rates and that whole issue of car owner sh ifm and whos owning the number of cars in the city. We are going to be coming to you in late this month actually on the 22nd with a hearing on connect s. F. T citys long range general Transportation Plan and that data will be part of that presentation. So in about three weeks, you should be getting information about that issue. With respect to let me see here. With respect to retail discussion, there is a lot of discussion that has been happening here at the commission and the rest of the city lately about retail activities and doing more work and research on retail and weve been doing a lot of work with oewd on this topic and there is a number of things going on. One is that oewd has hired a strategic economicks to do a study of retail across the city. That swork scheduled to be presented by oewd to the commission on february 22. And it is anticipated that well turn the ideas from the study into legislative changes. I dont know fully what those are at this point. But we will make some legislative proposals to you in the next three to four months. We also will be looking to make changes potentially to the c3r district, that is the core of the Retail District downtown. As you recall, there is a increasing number of proposals to convert upper floors into nonretail use. Well be looking at that and bringing you potential changes there. And then were also looking at were working with the new Organization Called the east cut c. B. D. , the Community Benefit district downtown on sort of design and activation plan for that area, which obviously includes retail in that equation. So, there is a number of activities happening on the retail front and the first step in that process will be for you to hear from the consultants and oewd on the retail study, which is scheduled for three weeks from today. With respect to there is a cluster of reactions related to educational institutions and i. M. P. S. We had an initial hearing maybe three months ago. Looking at where the i. M. P. Concept came from and what we have we have not scheduled any specific activities beyond that at this point so i would ask you all to think about what specifically we might do on that fronltz. The the issue with the i. M. P. S is, in my mind, is simply that to make substantive changes to the i. M. P. Process would require would likely require legislation. And my only concern there is that there was, just to get to the i. M. P. Ordinance that we had today took several years of work. So, i want to make sure that were thinking through what is potential, and im happy to do the same, of course, thinking through what is potentially out there that we could embrace and change in the short run, if anything, that would change the i. M. P. Process and im happy to have more discussion about that. And then finally, the whole question of there were several action items you requested us to look at with respect to live, work and compliance issues. We are we are trying to do that. The Code Enforcement staff, we did an initial review of records. But found that we werent really we didnt have the records necessarily to accurately look at what is going on there. And that part of the problem is a data problem and part of it is a staffing problem at this point. What were going to do as the administrator gets staffed up on the Code Enforcement side is the constructively worked buildings and then review them against notices of special restrictions and conditions of approval. It will have to be done on an address by address basis. It will take a little time to do, but were prepared to do that as soon as we get staff dump on the Code Enforcement team. So that is a rough update of some of the key items on the action list. Happy to have more discussion on this and thoughts about any of these items, particularly the i. M. P. Issue. Thank you. Commissioner rich ardss . I really want to say thanks for going over this. It gives credibility to the fact that were making progress, even though were not aware of that. To the live loft one, i added that back in 2015 and the reason was we had the legalization of some a result of a filing that were 26 different units. Different liveworkloss and what happened out of the legalization effort for those is we got 2. Some million in fees that we otherwise would not have gotten. So just rule of thumb, they were half compliant and half not compliant. Even if that comply half does hold, there is about 100 million on the table in fee that could be connected if we sought to [inaudible]. We could make them dwellings. That is the impetus behind that. Commissioner moore . On the i. M. P. , it would be great to expand it with the discussion of Student Housing as enrollment really is going up. We need to kind of balance that with Student Housing becoming more available and howl they look at that as a policy issue. See nothing further comments, item nine, directors announcements. Commissioners, the only announcement i have today is to ask Annemarie Rogers to make a quick statement with respect to the issue that was raised. I think in last weeks hearing about the potential scems between the citys response to read our numbers versus those that the state has been publishing and annamarie and staff are looking that the and she wanted to give you an update on that. Good afternoon, commissioners. We did speak with the Public Comment earp from the hack the Housing Action coalition after the Commission Hearing and set up a meeting on monday to go through their concerns in detail. In looking at the data with them and talking through the issues, they were most concerned with a report that is a result of an ordinance from i believe 2011. In which the board was sponsored by supervisor alogi. The Planning Commissioner wanted to see regular updates to the Housing Production numbers tan way the ordinance was enacted, was written, it requires a comparison between numbers that are not equivalent to arena numbers. All the numbers in the report are accurate and when we first started making this report, it was a long, detailed report in comparison with discussion. Over time, the commission has asked that we pare it down to a simplified table and it is this simplified table that the hack got our attention, may be being misuseds and misunderstood by some people. For that reason, were in the process of proposing a new format to this commission, which we hope to bring to you in next weeks pocket and we ask for your guidance and hopefully your buyin that we change the formula of the report slightly to avoid misinterpretation but comply with the law that we must comply with. Great. Thanks. So, well talk more about it excuse me next hearing . Yes. Are we going to have it as an agdized item . Yeah. We have to, to have a discussion about it. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. Very good, commissioners. Item 10, review of past event at the board of supervisor, board of appeals. There was no Historic Preservation Commission Hearing yesterday. Good afternoon. Aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs. First on the land use agenda was the Mayors Office voted to add the amendments to the ordinance which included the inclusionary from 18 to 23 and requiring four carshare spaces. Because these amendments have not yet been drafted and are suck stan tiff amendments, the item had to be continued to one week to february 5. Next on the agenda was supervisor p esskins ordinance to amend the inclusionary Housing Programme to bring a local programme into greater come baselines state law. Also known as the palmer fix. This commission heard this item on january 11 of this year and voted unanimously to approve the amendment. At the land use hearing there was no Public Comment and no significant comments or questions from the committee members. The item was forwarded to the full board with the positive recommendation. At the full board this week, the definition of article eight correction ordinance and commercial street Transit District ordinance all passed through second read. And thats all i have for you today. All right. Thank you. Any questions . Seeing none, we can move on to general Public Comment. Very good. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission exempt agenda items w. Respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. I have no speaker cards. Good afternoon. Todd david on behalf of San Francisco Housing Action coalition. I want to thank director rahm, emily rogers for meeting with us on monday. I feel like perhaps i owe them a lick of an apology for last week, that i was kind of worked up and i, in no way, felt that they were purposely misleading anybody. I was very, very frustrated. I felt that these numbers were being misused. So i just wanted to get to the bottom of that. So, sorry if that if it felt like i was directing anger at the department. That was not my intent. I think thats how it came across. I apologize for that. What annemarie talked about is a great step in the right direction. Im really excited about seeing what the expanded day as the will look like. You know, so i also want to be very clear that i that the department was not putting out incorrect data. It was the labelling of the data was a little bit confusing. Right . So, what the number was, was that it was read the numbers, plus entitlements, right . So thats where the discrepancy was. And i think that we can look at Something Like the shipyard. Right . Like the those units are entitled, we dont know when theyre going to get built. So, including those types of units as part of our arena numbers gives perhapss a false indication as to where we are from a actual meeting our housing needs. I think it was very smart that california does not count entitlements to its rena numbers, just the building of actual units. Im sure people can have different opinions on that. But that was where the discrepancy occurred. So, we are officially at 50 , i think approximately 50 , if not right on the nose, of our market rate in this cycle. In this rena cycle. The number and the department does report that in one of the reports. That number and the other things just to be clear, there are four rena buckets. Very low income, low income, moderate and above moderate. So hopefully well be able to get all of this data resolved and actually will be able to do when we say a specific name, rena, well be talk about rena. When we talk about rena plus entitlements, then well be talking about rena plus entitlements. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional general Public Comments . Hi. My welcome. My name is Chris Gardiner and i was reading the action items that are on your docket and i was wondering what the the us the of us is one that you commissioner moore had put in on june 15 of 2015, which was to discuss residential Design Guidelines with jeff jocelyn and the other one was you, commissioner richards, for december 11, 2014 which was to discuss the residential Design Guidelines. So im kind of wondering what the status of that is and why those meetings perhaps have not been schedule or did not happen or happened and didnt get logged in. Right. So we cant have a dialogue here. But somebody may ask the director about that. [laughter] director . Director . The commission has had several public hearings on Design Guidelines in the last two years and there have been several there have been numerous meetings with the community about the Design Guidelines in the neighbourhoods. The goal is to complete the current round of guidelines and the second phase is the residential Design Guidelines. It has been discussed probably half a dozen times or more. We had a recent informational hearing on it. Ok. Perhaps it just wasnt entered into the action items . Well, because the discussions that we have recently had that sort of put this on hold in regard to the urban Design Guidelines so once that task has been completed, i think theyre going to take up the residential Design Guidelines, as i believe right. So these dates are on hold until that happens . Thats right. Ok. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional general Public Comment<\/a> on the items being proposed for a continue sfwhans sighing none, well close Public Comment<\/a>. Commissioner koppel . Move to continue items one through four to the dates spes fid. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue, items s proposed [roll call] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 50. And places under your consent calendar for item five, case number excuse me, all matters must adhere under constituted consent calendar are expected to be routine. There will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests. In which event the matter shall be removed and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item five, case number 2017o41313cua 1390 market street. I have no speaker cards. Any Public Comment<\/a> on 1390 market . Raoet seeing none, well close Public Comment<\/a>. Commissioner koppel . Move to approve item number five. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that notion approve item five under your consent calendar [roll call] excellent. That motion passes unanimously 60 and places under us under item six, commission minutes. Any Public Comment<\/a> . Closed. Koppel . Move to adopt minutes from january 11 and 18. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt the mince for january 11, and january 18, 2018 [roll call] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 60 and places us on item seven. Commission comment and questions. Commissioner richards . One quick one. I know i asked anne ma riz rogers to do a kind of whatif on sba27 and how it applis to San Francisco<\/a>. But after looking at some of the comment on social media, i think understanding it on the accountability act and the other things really is really gets to the matter because it may be in and of itself sba27 does one thing, but when you combine it with all these other bills that hem the city in, it could be a whole different day after, if it does pass. But if you could do that in your analysis. Yes. We are nearly complete with a memo that does talk about not only a27 but the kind of cascades effects that would happen with the state density bonus. That is the draft memo that we have. We could add housing accountability perhaps and get that to you business next weeks packet. Thank you very much. Seeing no other comments, commissioners, that will place us excuse me k. I must have an old agenda. Item eight, right . Yes. Item eight, the action item list. I think thats me. [laughter] commissioners, we wanted to just give you a brief update. I dont know if you have a copy of your action item list handy. I hope some of you do. But i thought we would give you a quick update and not necessarily go line by line, but hit the highlights of what were work on on the action item list. If you recall, the list is organized such that the items that have been accomplished or at least under way are in grey. They are greyed out on the list. And then we have i dont know, jonah, maybe theres not copies for them today. But we had organized the requests based on topic areas. So, i thought i might highlight some of the topic areas that we could talk about tonight. So, first of all, there was a request to theres been a request several times made about gas stations and laundromats and kind of looking at the existing survey of gas stations and laundromats. We actually do have the information for gas stations. The latest count that we are aware of for number of active gas stations in the city is 72. We have as i said, well get that to you in a map form. Laundromat, were having a he can harder getting the information. But we think we might be able to get that through the department of Public Health<\/a> who keeps track of those. So were search for that right now. Searching for that right now. A couple of other comment. And i think this came up earlier in discussion. I wanted you wanted to tuns status of the preservation element of the general plan. It has been delayed. But were now in the final stages of creating the latest draft, the final draft i should say, in moving into Environmental Review<\/a>. So the goal is to get the Environmental Review<\/a> complete of that elements by the end of this year so that we can bring it to you for action early in 2019. And staff so far is on track to do that. So, hopefully that will be coming to you shortly in draft form. With respect to there was a priority templarly on car ownership rates and that whole issue of car owner sh ifm and whos owning the number of cars in the city. We are going to be coming to you in late this month actually on the 22nd with a hearing on connect s. F. T citys long range general Transportation Plan<\/a> and that data will be part of that presentation. So in about three weeks, you should be getting information about that issue. With respect to let me see here. With respect to retail discussion, there is a lot of discussion that has been happening here at the commission and the rest of the city lately about retail activities and doing more work and research on retail and weve been doing a lot of work with oewd on this topic and there is a number of things going on. One is that oewd has hired a strategic economicks to do a study of retail across the city. That swork scheduled to be presented by oewd to the commission on february 22. And it is anticipated that well turn the ideas from the study into legislative changes. I dont know fully what those are at this point. But we will make some legislative proposals to you in the next three to four months. We also will be looking to make changes potentially to the c3r district, that is the core of the Retail District<\/a> downtown. As you recall, there is a increasing number of proposals to convert upper floors into nonretail use. Well be looking at that and bringing you potential changes there. And then were also looking at were working with the new Organization Called<\/a> the east cut c. B. D. , the Community Benefit<\/a> district downtown on sort of design and activation plan for that area, which obviously includes retail in that equation. So, there is a number of activities happening on the retail front and the first step in that process will be for you to hear from the consultants and oewd on the retail study, which is scheduled for three weeks from today. With respect to there is a cluster of reactions related to educational institutions and i. M. P. S. We had an initial hearing maybe three months ago. Looking at where the i. M. P. Concept came from and what we have we have not scheduled any specific activities beyond that at this point so i would ask you all to think about what specifically we might do on that fronltz. The the issue with the i. M. P. S is, in my mind, is simply that to make substantive changes to the i. M. P. Process would require would likely require legislation. And my only concern there is that there was, just to get to the i. M. P. Ordinance that we had today took several years of work. So, i want to make sure that were thinking through what is potential, and im happy to do the same, of course, thinking through what is potentially out there that we could embrace and change in the short run, if anything, that would change the i. M. P. Process and im happy to have more discussion about that. And then finally, the whole question of there were several action items you requested us to look at with respect to live, work and compliance issues. We are we are trying to do that. The Code Enforcement<\/a> staff, we did an initial review of records. But found that we werent really we didnt have the records necessarily to accurately look at what is going on there. And that part of the problem is a data problem and part of it is a staffing problem at this point. What were going to do as the administrator gets staffed up on the Code Enforcement<\/a> side is the constructively worked buildings and then review them against notices of special restrictions and conditions of approval. It will have to be done on an address by address basis. It will take a little time to do, but were prepared to do that as soon as we get staff dump on the Code Enforcement<\/a> team. So that is a rough update of some of the key items on the action list. Happy to have more discussion on this and thoughts about any of these items, particularly the i. M. P. Issue. Thank you. Commissioner rich ardss . I really want to say thanks for going over this. It gives credibility to the fact that were making progress, even though were not aware of that. To the live loft one, i added that back in 2015 and the reason was we had the legalization of some a result of a filing that were 26 different units. Different liveworkloss and what happened out of the legalization effort for those is we got 2. Some million in fees that we otherwise would not have gotten. So just rule of thumb, they were half compliant and half not compliant. Even if that comply half does hold, there is about 100 million on the table in fee that could be connected if we sought to [inaudible]. We could make them dwellings. That is the impetus behind that. Commissioner moore . On the i. M. P. , it would be great to expand it with the discussion of Student Housing<\/a> as enrollment really is going up. We need to kind of balance that with Student Housing<\/a> becoming more available and howl they look at that as a policy issue. See nothing further comments, item nine, directors announcements. Commissioners, the only announcement i have today is to ask Annemarie Rogers<\/a> to make a quick statement with respect to the issue that was raised. I think in last weeks hearing about the potential scems between the citys response to read our numbers versus those that the state has been publishing and annamarie and staff are looking that the and she wanted to give you an update on that. Good afternoon, commissioners. We did speak with the Public Comment<\/a> earp from the hack the Housing Action<\/a> coalition after the Commission Hearing<\/a> and set up a meeting on monday to go through their concerns in detail. In looking at the data with them and talking through the issues, they were most concerned with a report that is a result of an ordinance from i believe 2011. In which the board was sponsored by supervisor alogi. The Planning Commission<\/a>er wanted to see regular updates to the Housing Production<\/a> numbers tan way the ordinance was enacted, was written, it requires a comparison between numbers that are not equivalent to arena numbers. All the numbers in the report are accurate and when we first started making this report, it was a long, detailed report in comparison with discussion. Over time, the commission has asked that we pare it down to a simplified table and it is this simplified table that the hack got our attention, may be being misuseds and misunderstood by some people. For that reason, were in the process of proposing a new format to this commission, which we hope to bring to you in next weeks pocket and we ask for your guidance and hopefully your buyin that we change the formula of the report slightly to avoid misinterpretation but comply with the law that we must comply with. Great. Thanks. So, well talk more about it excuse me next hearing . Yes. Are we going to have it as an agdized item . Yeah. We have to, to have a discussion about it. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. Very good, commissioners. Item 10, review of past event at the board of supervisor, board of appeals. There was no Historic Preservation<\/a> Commission Hearing<\/a> yesterday. Good afternoon. Aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs. First on the land use agenda was the Mayors Office<\/a> voted to add the amendments to the ordinance which included the inclusionary from 18 to 23 and requiring four carshare spaces. Because these amendments have not yet been drafted and are suck stan tiff amendments, the item had to be continued to one week to february 5. Next on the agenda was supervisor p esskins ordinance to amend the inclusionary Housing Programme<\/a> to bring a local programme into greater come baselines state law. Also known as the palmer fix. This commission heard this item on january 11 of this year and voted unanimously to approve the amendment. At the land use hearing there was no Public Comment<\/a> and no significant comments or questions from the committee members. The item was forwarded to the full board with the positive recommendation. At the full board this week, the definition of article eight correction ordinance and commercial street Transit District<\/a> ordinance all passed through second read. And thats all i have for you today. All right. Thank you. Any questions . Seeing none, we can move on to general Public Comment<\/a>. Very good. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission exempt agenda items w. Respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. I have no speaker cards. Good afternoon. Todd david on behalf of San Francisco<\/a> Housing Action<\/a> coalition. I want to thank director rahm, emily rogers for meeting with us on monday. I feel like perhaps i owe them a lick of an apology for last week, that i was kind of worked up and i, in no way, felt that they were purposely misleading anybody. I was very, very frustrated. I felt that these numbers were being misused. So i just wanted to get to the bottom of that. So, sorry if that if it felt like i was directing anger at the department. That was not my intent. I think thats how it came across. I apologize for that. What annemarie talked about is a great step in the right direction. Im really excited about seeing what the expanded day as the will look like. You know, so i also want to be very clear that i that the department was not putting out incorrect data. It was the labelling of the data was a little bit confusing. Right . So, what the number was, was that it was read the numbers, plus entitlements, right . So thats where the discrepancy was. And i think that we can look at Something Like<\/a> the shipyard. Right . Like the those units are entitled, we dont know when theyre going to get built. So, including those types of units as part of our arena numbers gives perhapss a false indication as to where we are from a actual meeting our housing needs. I think it was very smart that california does not count entitlements to its rena numbers, just the building of actual units. Im sure people can have different opinions on that. But that was where the discrepancy occurred. So, we are officially at 50 , i think approximately 50 , if not right on the nose, of our market rate in this cycle. In this rena cycle. The number and the department does report that in one of the reports. That number and the other things just to be clear, there are four rena buckets. Very low income, low income, moderate and above moderate. So hopefully well be able to get all of this data resolved and actually will be able to do when we say a specific name, rena, well be talk about rena. When we talk about rena plus entitlements, then well be talking about rena plus entitlements. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional general Public Comment<\/a>s . Hi. My welcome. My name is Chris Gardiner<\/a> and i was reading the action items that are on your docket and i was wondering what the the us the of us is one that you commissioner moore had put in on june 15 of 2015, which was to discuss residential Design Guidelines<\/a> with jeff jocelyn and the other one was you, commissioner richards, for december 11, 2014 which was to discuss the residential Design Guidelines<\/a>. So im kind of wondering what the status of that is and why those meetings perhaps have not been schedule or did not happen or happened and didnt get logged in. Right. So we cant have a dialogue here. But somebody may ask the director about that. [laughter] director . Director . The commission has had several public hearings on Design Guidelines<\/a> in the last two years and there have been several there have been numerous meetings with the community about the Design Guidelines<\/a> in the neighbourhoods. The goal is to complete the current round of guidelines and the second phase is the residential Design Guidelines<\/a>. It has been discussed probably half a dozen times or more. We had a recent informational hearing on it. Ok. Perhaps it just wasnt entered into the action items . Well, because the discussions that we have recently had that sort of put this on hold in regard to the urban Design Guidelines<\/a> so once that task has been completed, i think theyre going to take up the residential Design Guidelines<\/a>, as i believe right. So these dates are on hold until that happens . Thats right. Ok. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional general Public Comment<\/a> . If there is others that would like to speak, please line up on the screen side of the room. Thanks. Corey smith speaking on behalf of myself. One of the things regarding the mayors race that weve all really been pushing for and trying to get folks to talk about is the late mayors executive directive to build 5,000 units every single year going forward. I, for one, am very excited that what people consider the four major candidates have all publicly commited to reissuing that executive directive. I think that is a good direction for the city. And i want to encourage everybody on this commission, as leaders in terms of Housing Production<\/a> as well as everybody in the room that pays attention to this stuff. We have a goal and its completely meaningless unless we have a plan to get there. Theress a significant pentserage of affordable units building all over the city, getting supportive Homeless Housing<\/a> units built. Making sure we have equity and transitorient. Its complicate, i know. I just dont want us to be losing the momentum collectively as a city because were going through a little bit of chaos in room 200. And so whatever anybody can do to continue advancing the details of those conversations to make sure were being very intelligent and thoughtful in terms of house we go about doing that, i think is a good thing. And hopefully it leads us to a better place and more affordable city. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Peter cohen, Community Council<\/a> housing organisations. I will i will echo and say i like what corey smith said from the hack. This is the third round of process improvements and we very much want to see that execktive directive continue to be put into practice as well. Just catching up on is a little troubling. There seems to be some i have the overhead. Some consternation about the departments quarterly data reporting as the residential pipeline report. And im assuming that theyre talking about this particular document. Which tends to run two, sometimes three quarters behind. This has been part of your standard reporting for the last, i think, two years. The commission, i think in my experience, has found it quite useful. If there is some confusion about the difference between built units and entitled units, that should be clarified. Substantively theres no problem in recognizing the role that this commission plays, which is entitling development is being distinctly different in what builders do in Building Permits<\/a> and building those units. Theyre two very Different Things<\/a> but critical to understanding patterns and also understanding our decisionmaking and our policies. So, i just want to emphasize that if you are looking to reformat the information, to not discount the importance of looking at your entitlements record as well as the build. Id just like to point out, irrespective if you parcel those out or not, we v unfortunately, a real imbalance in what were seeing for middle income and low housing income to our market rate. I dont think anyone can deny that, whether you look at it for built units or entitle units. That is the crux of our policy problem and different folks have Different Solutions<\/a> of that. I think this Quarterly Report<\/a> has been helpful reminder to all of us about trying to figure out ways to have all of those categoriess be moving at the same pace. And i think theres a lot of value. So hopefully we dont upset the apple cart here. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Laura clark, m. B. Action. First off, i do want to talk about the rena numbers that we just had some back and forth about, that the 200 plus number is misleading. And i think that it is fair to say that it is not our arena number, it is not our rena goal. And we can talk about it as a way of measuring how we are getting close to our entitled projects and foe cushion on how we speed up the postentitlement projects but statistics can be misleading and i would say that we have legislated into existence a misleading statistic. Because we are not building a lot of the housing that this body is entitled and i think that there have been announcements that the body of dissatisfaction with the fact that some of the things that have been permitted are not being built. And so if we want to have statistics that get us an accurate idea of what is really happening, it would be a good idea to know what our actual rena number is, not a statistic that is not that. We can keep all the statistics we want, but lets make sure we know what they all mean. I also wanted to talk about something that happened. A project sponsor reached out to me to say that someone who was a Planning Department<\/a> staff, who is working with them, said dont contact your local m. B. S. The Planning Commission<\/a>ers cant stand them. [laughter] and, you know, i i get it, i guess. You know, im a loud person. I represent a lot of loud and angry people. But i had trouble imagining that coming dpraosz any other loud, obnoxious group at city hall. I had trouble imagining that anyone would say that. I mean, San Francisco<\/a> is loud and obnoxious. Im in good company. [laughter] i really just wanted to understand and open a dialogue between each one of you to sort of help you understand who we are and what were about because weve grown a lot in the past four years. Weve gone from a handful of angry millenials to a army of angry millenials and that deserves to be recognized by each and every one of you and having that passed down through the department so that they, frankly, respect us. We are individuals who live in the community. M. B. Action has over 1,000 members in the bay area. We have helped pass statewide legislation. We are endorsing candidates and moving the ball. And i dont really you know, you donts have to agree with us, but you have to recognize that were your neighbours and upset about the situation and we have every right to be. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Clark. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, mary gallagher. I wrote you an email last week on the Work Programme<\/a> and budget. Thaulz to the director for his quick reply. When i read it, i realised im not effectively communicating the point i want to make so im here today in person to do that. So, you know, the grants Work Programme<\/a> is set by the time the money is award. You can, however, identify Work Programme<\/a>s for future funding cycles for which grant money might be sought. There is a lot of transportation money out there which could be solicited to support the second part of a study is on your idea to prohibltz parking. For fee, it is important to nose that they can be expended on things like procedures and computer systems. But these things absolutely need explicit goals and deadlines. If goals arent exmy explicit and no one is held attainable they wont be met. For fee, i think it is also important to have the metrics the director mentioned in front of you. Its important to nose that around the beginning of the newsome administration, almost 80 of permits were initially looked at within five days of intake. Versus now the average permit sits two to three months before the first planner looks at it. Metrics allow you to see problems in the feebased Work Programme<\/a>. For general fund money, i think it is important for you to know it is in this area where you have the most control. I suggest asking for concise list of all possible general funded Work Programme<\/a>s that include everything that the department wants to do. Everything that you want to do. Everything that we the public want to do and then whitle them down in a public hearing. Where things stand now is the department pretty much tells you earlier in the year what the general fund Work Programme<\/a>s are going to be and by this budget has funded them. My key point here is this this is public money and it is under your authority. Im asking you to discuss what general fund Work Programme<\/a> efforts should be considered. Im asking you to solicit public input and select the projects you believe should be funded and how they should be funded. In my opinion, your ideas about parking prohibition for new projects in some locations a great idea. Its going to lower housing costs while promoting our transitfirst policy, but it does need a planning study. If you are looking to make your mark on this city through policy, i think this is the way to do it. But, again, if it doesnt get exmy sitly adopted by the budget process, if it doesnt have timespecific goals, it is not going to get done. Likewise, the publics call to write more planning protections into the planning code has to be addressed. Were in a crisis situation. If we dont address this issue, were telling tenants automatic over this city that new housing being built is more important than the familis who live in existing housing now. This makes no sense and is contrary to the general plan. Likewise, enforcement efforts, likewise preservation efforts. To date n my view, the budget has been presented largely removed from the Work Programme<\/a> it funds. Setting the Work Programme<\/a> can be one of the most important things you do. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, commissioners. In early december, the San Francisco<\/a> department of building inspection received a permit application to demolish a home at 49 hospital kins street. Hopkins street. A 1935 modern residence east of twin peaks that was designed by richard notra. But there was a problem with the application. The house had been torn down two months earlier. All that remained of the white two story redwood and concrete block home was a garage door and frame. Those are not my words. This is Opening Statement<\/a> of j. K. Denines article published on january 6ment yes, the permit for demolition was filed pos posthumously after the house was demolished. If this is not an admission to illegal demolition, what is . I suppose asking when a authorization hearing will be scheduled is a rhetorical question. But it is a demolition without permit and as such should be subject to the penalties stated in the Building Code<\/a>. That is either a fiveyear moratorium on building or building a house that was the exact same Square Footage<\/a> before it was demolished. Illegally. That will be 927 square feet. I made these points at the big hearing of january 17, but i was told that the matter is now in the hands of the Planning Department<\/a>. So they passed the buck. And sure enough, the plans for a new 3500 square foot luxury home are currently under review at the Planning Department<\/a> as though nothing happened. Commissioners, we do that you knows imposing penalties of the Building Code<\/a> penalties, actually, is not the responsibility of the Planning Department<\/a> or the planners. But does actually think it is right to allow this developer to continue business as usual with impunity . Limiting the size of the replacement building is indeed in your power. You do have the discretion to require plans to be scaled back to the predemolition size of 927 square feet. If the Building Department<\/a> chooses not uphold the law of the land, you certainly can. I should also mention that the issues we raised at that big hearing are not unique to the Building Department<\/a>. Some of them pertain as much to the Planning Department<\/a> and those serial violators that keep violating the planning code. That is why we ask you to hold a planning Commission Hearing<\/a> on the issues of inaccurate plans, serial permiting, work without permit, including illegal demolitions and work beyond the scope of permits. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional general Public Comment<\/a> . Seeing none, well close Public Comment<\/a> confirm commissioner rich ardss . One quick question for the drekz to. On the 49 hopkins, did it come back to demolish it . Is it going to come back to us . I i i honestly dont remember. Ill find out. It would still have to come back to you, i think, to legalize what to attempt to legalize what happened. It sounded like the zoning commissioner approved it. I honestly dont know. Commissioners if there is nothing wrong we can move on to item 11, 2011. 1356mtzu, the central somma plan. This is an informational presentation and Commission President<\/a> you have recognized two organized oppositions. Good afternoon, commissioners. Emily rogers, Planning Department<\/a> staff. The purpose of todays hearing is to bring you up to speed since your last hearing on this project in august of last year. And also to discuss a very important thing the timeline for initiation. I wanted to make some preamble remarks before the project manager spoke because this spronls inherently important to the department as well as to the city. In our Work Programme<\/a>, we have identified this as one of the seven priority projects that were focusing on in our Work Programme<\/a>. And weve picked this one because it has so much to offer to the city. With over six million square feet of office, 7,000 Housing Units<\/a> and 2 billion worth of benefits, there is a lot at stake. And as important as it is to have housing near transsit, it is even more important to have jobs located near transit. And thats with whats at the heart of this programme. In particular, we are obviouslily going through a very tumultuous time in the city. And with an important plan like this on the table, we think there is no better time from leadership from the Planning Commission<\/a> than now. So, thank you very much. Heres steve. Thank you, Planning Commission<\/a>ers. Steve worthham, Planning Department<\/a> staff and project manager for the central somma plan. This is our 11th hearing on the central soma plan. Just saying. And this is the first time weve been here since august 31 of last year. So as annemarie said, it is our job to catch up on all the things that have happened since then. Briefly, a refresher on the plan. Our plans vision is straight forward to have a sustainable neighbourhood, economically, socially and environmentally. Our philosophy is to keep whats great and fix whats not. There is a lot of great thing about central soma. The people in the neighbourhood are amazing. There is a diversity of residents and jobs and cultures. Its a great location between downtown and mission bay. Theres a unique mix of buildings and uses. Theres so many organisations on the ground today already doing great work in the neighbourhood. There are a lot of things that arent so great about the neighbourhood, though. The rent is too high, the air quality is not too great, there is a distinct lack of greenery and open space. The streets are particularly challenging to walk down, to cross, to bike. Theyre quite dangerous. We have a threeprong strategy to address this through the plan. The sf irs to accommodate demand for new Development Business<\/a> removing some of the industriallyprotected zoning south of the freeway and increasing heights where appropriate. The second to leverage all that new demand coming into the bay area for over 2 billion in Public Benefits<\/a>. And the third is to make sure that change must represent and enhance the neighbourhoods character. Right . We want to keep whats great while fixing whats not. Since the last time we saw you, weve been busy. All right . So weve been working on the responsive comment and the Environmental Impact<\/a> report. Weve been providing all the legislative pieces, including Public Benefits<\/a> package. The plan, finishing the central soma plan, writing the planning code. Writing the administrative code. Doing the map amendments and weve had a lot of meetings. We met twice at the board of supervisors, land use and Transportation Committee<\/a>. We met with the Capital Planning<\/a> committee. And theyre looking at the initial designs for our new park and we had a ton of informal meetings with Community Members<\/a> and other decision makers. In terms of next steps, in two weeks time, we hope to produce a legislative package, including all the things that i just referred to. That means heading towards a march 1 initiation at your discretion of the plan. That would kick off a 20day notice period. During that time, we release the responsive comments for te. I. R. , were scheduled for march 21 to go to he is ticketer Preservation Committee<\/a> to initiate their portion of the plan which is the designation of new landmarks and buildings of significance, article 10 and 11. And also for them to provide their review of the plan to report back to this commission. The soonest we could come back to start adoption hearings is march 212. March 22. There is a discussion about having another informational hearing at the land use and Transportation Committee<\/a> and final, of course, well continue meeting with the relevant stakeholders over this period of time. Lets move on to recent input and information for your consideration. Again, this is meant to be a summary of what weve heard and what has happened since last we were here. Lets start with the big picture, which is as annemarie mentioned, this plan has a really strong foundation. It has been developed over many years of Community Engagement<\/a> and listening. Obviously the passing of mayor lee in december was incredibly tragic and has led to up heaval in the city and created uncertainty with the mayoral race. That said, these plan go deeper than the shifting sands. As we move through the adoption process, were looking forward to working with you to make this plan as solid as possible so its something that we pass along to the board of supervisors that were all extremely proud of. Next lets talk about housing, which is obviously at the forefront of the conversation in the city and throughout the state. There are five different threads of conversation cutinger at once so ill walk you through each one. The first topic to discuss the potential to increase the overall number of units. We heard from both supervisor kim and the desire for more housing in the planned area. Specifically we heard from supervisor kims office that she was interested in making sure that the state density bonus would amile here and we have confirmation from the city that that would be the case. As such, we incorporated these units into our plan assumption, although these units were studied in our a. I. R. Because of the high assumptions around the number of ewe nates that we built. Theres also about 500, 525 more units than we otherwise would have expected to occur. And if theyre built, the Public Benefits<\/a> package would swell by 100 million, which is good news. It should be noted that the e. I. R. Has additional head room for about 1,000 units. So, any proposals above this would basically send the e. S i. R. Back to the drawing board w. That in mind, weve had another strategy that we heard several time froms the Housing Action<\/a> coalition to net more units t. From 30,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet. That would allow projects in this size to be housingoriented rather than jobsor cented. It could capture two sides and up to potentially 500 more units. The second topic is the potential to exp e diet production of units t. Two things that have occurred since last we met could help in this regard. The first is the passage at the state level of ab73. It allows any jurisdiction in the state to create areas where housing would be ministerially approved and bypass ceqa if the project sponsors agree to pay prevailing wages for the projects construction. Its of interest to both supervisor kim and the Mayors Office<\/a> and were looking into how and if such a promise county mremented in central soma. The second thaning occurred is following the mayors execkive directive. Acquiring the approval process before and after entitlement. The third top sick the continued concern over the housingjobs relationship, particularly the ratio of jobs to housing in central soma. We presented to the supervisors a similar version of the presentation we gave you last summer. Discuss central somas role in the largest city, the citywide and regional context for housing and jobs. Why we think putting the jobs on top of transit is a really smart strategy and all the ways the city and state are working to address the housing crisis. Supervisor peskin expressed concerns about the potential pace of Office Growth<\/a> relative to housing growth and it was interested in discussing the potential of metring the creation of jobs this. Concern was particularly salient because at the time there was a june election that would have enabled the central soma Office Projects<\/a> to move ahead at a faster pace. This potential measure is now not moving forward for june and may not occur at all. Without it, prop m would continue to metre the growth of office space to lessen the million square feet citywide. It creates demand for about 3,000 new units and weve been building 3,000 to 5,000 units every year for several years. There seems to be a good balance moving forward. The next top sick about clarifying the percentage of Affordable Housing<\/a>. We talked about how it would yield 45 of units relative to low and moderate san franciscans. Most of these units would be for lowincome residents, making up to 60 of the income. Powers to be expected in the housing crisis. We heard from some members of the community that the percentage could be higher and more should be done for middle Income Housing<\/a> and central soma should make sure it has 33 approval Housing Units<\/a>. The same time in the last year weve seen a reduction in new housing applications while prices are record high which makes us concerned about the faoebltz of building new housing projects under the existing burdens and makes us this i that if we want more Affordable Housing<\/a> it can come off the back of other benefits. The final housing top sick identifying the sites and vocation sites for 100 affordable units. At the first board hearing, supervisor kim talked about the concern of faorzable housing. The city has identified sites for half of the expected 2700 affordable units. However, between the first and second board hearings, we worked closely with the community of development. And at the second hearing we reported out that we believe that there is sufficient land to identify sites and that as soon as funds become available, the Mayors Office<\/a> will work proactively to acquire them. We share the same conversations with members of community and ask them specifically to help us prioritize sites for both acquisition for development and acquisition of existing use that we can convert to 100 Affordable Housing<\/a>. If you have any questions on that, my colleague amy chan is here. The next topic thats come up a lot is Public Benefits<\/a>. Lets start with our newly proposed strategy of funding cultural programming. As we discussed at our last hearing with you, we learned last sumer that there is a potential through our Community Facilities<\/a> district to fund social and cultural programming. This was really exciting to all of us, and myself particularly because of our philosophy to keep whats great. Theres opportunity to fund them is just really a great idea. Not surprisingly t community agreed and so did supervisor kims office. Weve come up with costs and considerations for decisionmakers. Things that we heard from these hearings and private meetings about what people would like to see include funding to support the neighbourhood cultural districts, including the lgbt communities, Tenant Services<\/a> including legal support, funding for bessie carmichael, the only public squaol in soma, funding for Small Businesses<\/a> and operations and maintenance of the neighbourhood and new open space. Our work is to continue over the planned adoption to come one a definitive package to bring before you. We also heard input on what we previously posed including the expenditure of the 2 billion Public Benefits<\/a> package. For example, supervisor kim and some Community Members<\/a> expressed interest in understanding the sequence and delivery of our complete streets. Weve been working with m. T. A. Who recently released a strategy document that speaks to that. We heard from members of the community, a desire to ensure the affordability of p. D. R. Space. It is worth knowing that the plan requires all the performance and community as part of proposition x so developers can choose to make it affordable in return for reduced Square Footage<\/a> requirements. Supervisor kim and members of the public expressed enthusiasm for the environmenttal Sustainable Strategies<\/a> in regards to air quality. We also heard from supervisor kim and some Community Members<\/a> concern over whether the plan should include 20 million toward rehabilitation for the old mint and recently started receiving letters from the community in support of this expenditure. Weve been in talk with specialized labour requiring good labour for all the jobs which goes back to the ab73 legislation and approval for new hotels and for this weve been working with the office of Workforce Development<\/a> and staff. Weve had more discussionings about the governance structures that will oversee the plan. Supervisor kim has expressed interest in spliting the neighbourhood into two of which the three soma area plans would be one c. A. C. Which would oversee the capital aspects of the plan. And could be combined with a soma stabilization c. A. C. To support social and cultural programming. In terms of citys oversight, weve been in numerous conversations with our colleagues that implement our capital plan to make sure that the plan to vet the plan and make sure that they feel it is implementable and we specifically focus on how to implement the Community Facilities<\/a> district to make sure that sinces the board has to adopt that we can do so in keeping with the timing of the plan itself. Our final topic is around development and exaction. Weve been talking with the Development Community<\/a> throughout our time here. About their expect fees, tax and requirements. Not surprisingly, weve heard complaints about the amount that were asking for. As we previously discussed, our attendance is at that sweet spot where projects are economically feasible and the city maximizes its benefits. Our proposal is based on an Economic Analysis<\/a> conducted in 2015 so we could present a Public Benefits<\/a> package in 2016. The concern that we heard is that since 2015, rents have been stable but Construction Costs<\/a> have gone up substantially and thus, some projects may no longer be financially feasible and lead to less Overall Development<\/a> and less Public Benefits<\/a>. Were currently working to ascertain the ramification of lowering exactions and i wanted to flag for this group that we may recommend tightening our belts a little bit and having less Public Benefits<\/a> with the recognition that doing so enables projects to be built. If anything, you have to have the public projects to get the benefits and well continue to have this conversation. But were concerned that if we try to raise the amount of exactio ns, that we have less overall benefits. We continued working with individual projects so theyre ready to go when the plan is passed. A couple of things to note about that, we heard from some homeowners for the desire for lower heights on a couple of parcels in the vicinity so far their homes. Particularly from residents of the blue near 2nd and fullsome street and we heard from the Mayors Office<\/a> of Community Development<\/a> and the project at 5th and howard that any additional slippage of the planned schedule would seriously endanger those 200 units rehinds on tax credits that would disappear if the project is not under construction by the end of 2019. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. [laughter] im looking forward to the Community Input<\/a> today and your input. And im here, obviously, to answer any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you, steve. So, weve got two groups who have asked us for organized opposition. Toddco and we are central soma. John, do you want to start . And i will remind those groups that we need three members of your organized opposition to speak during the 10 minutes. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im Samantha Myer<\/a> with todd dco. Thank you for your time today. Our toddco group has spearheaded the Market Community<\/a> planning since 1980. We have been work on this alternative central Soma Community<\/a> plan since the process began eight years ago. Today we would like to present this video, our overall vision for a genuinely diverse and inclusive 21st century somma neighbourhood and community. [inaudible] as a downtown expansion. To start with, six years ago the new bay bridge freeway split our neighbourhood in half and its ugliness still divides us socially and blights us environmentally today. 50 years ago, San Francisco<\/a> City Planners<\/a> targeted south of market for redevelopment to become a new centre, the heart of the citys tourist industry. A skid row neighbourhood was bulldozed and 4,000 people lost their homes. Everywhere else, the empty old warehouses and workshops, the funky roominging houses and flats became homes for artists. Filipino immigrants and Small Businesses<\/a> of every discretion. South of market became a potpourri of humanity, activities and [inaudible]. Then, 20 years ago, now recristened soma, south of market became the focus of San Francisco<\/a>s emerging new tech industry. Droets first in south park and now today everywhere. Todays atmosphere of 21st century innovation and creativity is rejao uf nating. Rejuvenating. But this lifestyle can be superficial and its social impacts can be high and human impacts terribly hard. Today there are no more empty warehouses and no more funky flats and most of those artist and immigrants and many of those Small Businesses<\/a> are gone. Soma is homogenized. Its all about to rent. The cost of space, cost of space, cost of life. What the market will bear today is more than what our neighbourhood and longtime communities can afford to pay. The City Planners<\/a> say theres nothing they can do about this. That these changes are inevitable. The central soma plan they propose now if fatalistically assumes that. But we know that is wrong. Well have to reinvents our central soma neighbourhood, that is true. But its Foundation Wont<\/a> be a subway or the Office Towers<\/a> or the luxury planners. The foundation will be on something much, much more important than those traditional city planning tools. That foundation will be Genuine Community<\/a> building and real neighbourhood diversity. Invest 350 million to improve Community Recreation<\/a> centres, neighbourhood parks and a new i4680 freeway echo district. Our neighbourhood has park, and recreation centres today and needs Parking Spaces<\/a> of several kinds. A dog run, tot lots and a new public swimming pool. And the ugly i80 freeway could be transformed as overpasses could be decorated. Street level parking lots and overgrown landscaping could become sculpt. Chure gardens. Community event spaces, small, natural habitat, a new urban echo dlaikt remains the heart of south of market. Fortunately the citys central soma plan does include setting automatic new Community Facilities<\/a> district to pay for all of these thing, funded by a tax on future new development. We with just dmaoeds make sure that happens. 5 billion of new development to include a portable housing site, new neighbourhoods parks and shops and affordable space for artist and Small Businesses<\/a>. Because of the new central subway, the citys central soma plan will let developers build at least a half dozen big new office buildings. Five million square feet in total on 20 acres of neighbourhood land. Theres plenty of room in these future projects for what our neighbourhood needs, too new Affordable Housing<\/a> sites, affordable space for Artist Studio<\/a> and businesses of all kinds, especially the historic flower market. And theres room, too, for safety in neighbourhood parks and local food markets. We need to make sure that all this happens. Build a Permanent Foundation<\/a> of stewardship. Genuine neighbourhoods dont somehow magically keep themselves going. It takes people who care residence denlszes, business people, shop owners. It takes Community Groups<\/a> and organisations. It takes time and energy. And financial support. It takes every generation. It takes many, many years. Somas longtime Filipino Community<\/a> and its historic gay lesbian, sexual, Transgender Community<\/a> will also be lost to escalating rents and Property Values<\/a> unless there is direct civic intervention to maintain the community assets, their Small Businesses<\/a> and traditions. Well funded Cultural Heritage<\/a> districts are needed for both to provide a Stable Foundation<\/a> for their few. And overall we need to establish a new south of Market Community<\/a> Advisory Committee<\/a> that will make sure all the promises of the central soma plan are actually built by the developers and actually implemented by the responsible city agencies. We need to make sure that this, too, really happens. 50,000 soma residents in 30 years. 30 years ago, south of market was an entirely lowincome community with only about 10,000 residents. But since then, thousands of new market rate Housing Units<\/a> have been built here and except for the six s. R. O. S and the apartment buildings on the alleys have almost all been gentrified. Today about 25,000 people live in south of market. Unfortunately several thousand affordable Housing Units<\/a> were also built in the last 50 years, too. We have built almost 1,000 ourselves. So somas lowincome population has actually helped steady thanks to that. But if soma is to continue to be a genuine, diverse, mixedincome neighbourhood, and the targets of homeless residents are ever to find a place to live, it will take thousands more affordable Housing Units<\/a> in future years. In 2014, city voters set a goal that 50 of all future housing built in the city should be Affordable Housing<\/a> of some kind. Including notforprofit subz dieed housing, renovated s. R. O. S and inclusionary Affordable Housing<\/a> and new market rate projects. This will include middleIncome Housing<\/a> as well as lower Income Housing<\/a>. But the fed proposed central soma plan falls far short of that 50 goal. It only proposes that 33 of all future use soma housing will be affordable. That is not enough. If soma doesnt achieve the 50 goal, theres no hope that the r els that the rest of San Francisco<\/a> ever request. It will take direct city intervention to acquire those sources and hundreds of millions of city sources to build them and development of middle Income Housing<\/a>. The missing mid is vital to maintain the social and cultural diversity. Otherwise, we may back very divided societies of just the welltodo and the poor. We cant let that happen. South of markets location next to an everexpanding downtown San Francisco<\/a> is both a terrible curse and great blessing. That market growth,","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia800109.us.archive.org\/28\/items\/SFGTV_20180207_080000_Government_Access_Programming\/SFGTV_20180207_080000_Government_Access_Programming.thumbs\/SFGTV_20180207_080000_Government_Access_Programming_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240630T12:35:10+00:00"}