Central SoMa Area Plan

2013-06-20 · 1 comments · no positions recorded

John Elberling · spoken · 2013-06-20 · —

Office Development; Tedone Deanna Gage, Council of Community Housing – Commercial Displacement.

2015-06-25 · 5 comments · no positions recorded

Anthony Verkemp · spoken · 2015-06-25 · —

Old Mint

Mike Buhler · spoken · 2015-06-25 · —

Old Mint

Angelica Cabande · spoken · 2015-06-25 · neutral

Central SOMA Plan

Donald Desmuth · spoken · 2015-06-25 · neutral

Central SOMA Plan

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2015-06-25 · —

Plan study process

2015-12-10 · 4 comments · no positions recorded

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2015-12-10 · neutral

Planning procedures, more work is needed at the Planning Department level

Diana Reise · spoken · 2015-12-10 · neutral

Throwing money at statement of considerations

Joseph Smooke · spoken · 2015-12-10 · neutral

Alternative community vision be implemented =John Elberling – Community benefits

Peter Cohen · spoken · 2015-12-10 · neutral

Scrutinizing fees, local affordable housing, phasing

2016-08-11 · 11 comments · no positions recorded

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2016-08-11 · neutral

Central SOMA plans, transit

John Elberling · spoken · 2016-08-11 · neutral

Arts community in SOMA, PDRA

Kathy Delucca · spoken · 2016-08-11 · neutral

Walk SF

Chris Dorazo · spoken · 2016-08-11 · neutral

Plan suggestions

Erika Markinovich · spoken · 2016-08-11 · neutral

Public lands, quality of life

Angelica Cabande · spoken · 2016-08-11 · neutral

SOM CAM recommendations

Moe Jameel · spoken · 2016-08-11 · neutral

Services

Gerald Yu · spoken · 2016-08-11 · neutral

Video

Maverick Ruis · spoken · 2016-08-11 · neutral

Suggestions (M) Speaker – Below market rate units

David Brettlinger · spoken · 2016-08-11 · neutral

Recreation

Cynthia Gomez · spoken · 2016-08-11 · neutral

Hotel projects

2017-01-26 · 6 comments · no positions recorded

John Schwarky · spoken · 2017-01-26 · neutral

Jobs-housing balance

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2017-01-26 · neutral

No bitch clause

Corey Smith · spoken · 2017-01-26 · neutral

Issues and concerns

Cynthia Gomez · spoken · 2017-01-26 · neutral

Displacement of SROP residents, family friendly housing

Richard Drury · spoken · 2017-01-26 · neutral

Mid-rise alternative Arthur Meader – No project alternative

Mike Farrow · spoken · 2017-01-26 · neutral

6 th Street Margarita Bratkova – Traffic, highrise versus mid-rise alternatives John Elberling – Public services analysis Alice Light – Impacts of proposed changes conveyed graphically Dennis Renae – Construction negative impacts, safety

2017-07-27 · 16 comments · 11 / 0

Tin Chin · spoken · 2017-07-27 · support

BART support

Carol Shannon · spoken · 2017-07-27 · support

Levels of fees

John Elberling · spoken · 2017-07-27 · neutral

Mixed review (TODCO)

Corey Smith · spoken · 2017-07-27 · support

Support

Alice Rogers · spoken · 2017-07-27 · support

Congestion issues

Lisa Yumamoto · spoken · 2017-07-27 · support

Support for guidelines

Michael Terriot · spoken · 2017-07-27 · support

Support

Grace Siu · spoken · 2017-07-27 · neutral

Flower Mart

Ilene Tillman · spoken · 2017-07-27 · neutral

Homeless impacts in SOMA

Laura Clark · spoken · 2017-07-27 · neutral

Jobs, housing balance

Mike Grisso · spoken · 2017-07-27 · support

Public benefits

Amy Chan · spoken · 2017-07-27 · support

MOHCD plan efforts

Lisa Pagan · spoken · 2017-07-27 · support

OEWD plan efforts

Tom Hirschfeld · spoken · 2017-07-27 · support

Add more housing

Sara White · spoken · 2017-07-27 · support

Involvement

Susan Segee · spoken · 2017-07-27 · neutral

no text recorded

2017-08-31 · 8 comments · 3 / 0

Alex Lansberg · spoken · 2017-08-31 · neutral

Community benefit

Jane Wike · spoken · 2017-08-31 · neutral

Open Space Speaker – Arts condition

Angelica Cobande · spoken · 2017-08-31 · support

Community development

Valerie Lee · spoken · 2017-08-31 · support

725 Bryant Street, support for rezoning

Abraham Pinostian · spoken · 2017-08-31 · neutral

SALI Zoning negative impacts Scott Feaney – Opposition, housing element

Mike Farrow · spoken · 2017-08-31 · neutral

559 6 th Street – Flower Market

Richard Drury · spoken · 2017-08-31 · neutral

Mid-rise alternative Gina Carriage - Opposed to the high rise plan, support for mid-rise plan Nora Hurley – Support for mid-rise plan

Corey Smith · spoken · 2017-08-31 · support

Support for the plan, proposed amendment John Elberling – TODCO plan

2017-11-30 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Michael Verity · email · 2017-11-30 · oppose · source packet

RE: Request: YIMBY/SF BARF Letter Opposing Central SoMa Plan
Thank you, Jonas. I very much appreciate your assistance. While I was able to access the correspondence from August 31,2017 (http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/20170831_Correspondence1%20(E-mails).pdf), YIMBY Action<U+2019>s Executive Director sent the letter as a PDF attachment, which I do not see included in the correspondence from that meeting. Could the attached document have been uploaded to an… show more

2017-12-07 · 3 comments · 0 / 3

Michael Verity · email · 2017-12-07 · oppose · source packet

Request: YIMBY/SF BARF Letter Opposing Central SoMa Plan
Dear Mr. Ionin: On behalf of Reuben, Junius & Rose, I would like to request a copy of the letter that the YIMBY/SF BARF group submitted to the San Francisco Planning Commission in either August or September of this year regarding their opposition to the Central SoMa Plan. Please let me know if you are unable to forward a copy of their letter. Thank you very m… show more

Michael Verity · email · 2017-12-07 · oppose · source packet

RE: Request: YIMBY/SF BARF Letter Opposing Central SoMa Plan
Thank you, Jonas. I very much appreciate your assistance. While I was able to access the correspondence from August 31,2017 (http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/20170831_Correspondence1%20(E- mails).pdf), YIMBY Action<U+2019>s Executive Director sent the letter as a PDF attachment, which I do not see included in the correspondence from that meeting. Could the attached document have been uploaded to a… show more

Michael Verity · email · 2017-12-07 · oppose · source packet

RE: Request: YIMBY/SF BARF Letter Opposing Central SoMa Plan
Dear Jonas: Thank you again for directing me to the proper place to find the YIMBY Action letter, which states their opposition to the Central SoMa Plan, to the Planning Commission. I was wondering if you or anyone at your office has located the PDF attachment of the YIMBY Action letter that was not included in the correspondence section of the website from August 31st. I realize that you are very busy, and … show more

2018-02-01 · 26 comments · 5 / 1

Rachel Astemosa · spoken · 2018-02-01 · oppose

Filipino SOMA Complex

Peter Cohen · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Jobs-housing fit

Kevin Burke · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Jobs-housing, commuters

Fernando Marti · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Jobs-housing balance

Paul Wermer · email · 2018-02-01 · support · source packet

Feb 1 Agenda Item aa, 2011.1356MTZU CENTRAL SOMA PLAN
Dear Planning Commissioners: As you consider the Central SOMA Plan informational presentation on February 2, I urge you to actively support funding for San Francisco's Old Mint. Mike Buhler's comments on the historic significance of the Mint, and the importance of San Francisco's accepting responsibility for this beautiful City property make my comments on these topics redundant. What I will say is tha… show more

Anthea Hartig · spoken · 2018-02-01 · support

Public engagement process

Katherine Petrin · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

US Mint

Corey Smith · spoken · 2018-02-01 · support

Support

Steve Vettel · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

WMOO Zoning District Todd David Jobs housing near transit, up zone for affordable housing

Matt Haney · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Feedback student enrollment from this neighborhood

Mario Yedidia · spoken · 2018-02-01 · support

The kind of jobs

Jim Warshell · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Old US Mint

Tony Robles · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

True community input, affordable housing

Deni Leonard · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Old US Mint

Laura Clark · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Jobs and housing imbalance

Mike Buhler · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Future of the Mint, community cultural commons

David Wu · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Rising real estate prices

Wilma Parker · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Old US Mint

John Elberling · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Community Advisory Board

Courtney Damkroger · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Old US Mint

Carol Shannon · spoken · 2018-02-01 · support

Bond funding deadline

Gina Cariaga · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Midrise height limits

Misha Olivas · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

United Playas

Connie Ford · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Good jobs for all

Mario Demura · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

Filipino's in SOMA, just plan for all

Erin Reese · spoken · 2018-02-01 · neutral

no text recorded

2018-03-01 · 34 comments · 9 / 4

Mike Grisso · spoken · 2018-03-01 · support

Flower Market

Sonja Trauss · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Housing

Ray Martin · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

What kind of jobs and what kind of housing

Connie Ford · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Jobs for Justice

Carlos Ortega · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Flower Market

Steven Buss · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Housing

Star Child · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Move housing

Tim Jan · spoken · 2018-03-01 · support

BART's role

Katherine Petrin · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Old Mint

Alice Rogers · spoken · 2018-03-01 · support

Support

Dennis Hong · email · 2018-03-01 · support · source packet

Re: Central SOMA Plan/s2011.1356M, 2011.1356T, 2011.1356Z meeting for March 1, 2018
Hello folks, please delete the last part of this email. It was not intended to be part of this SOMA email. Sorry. Dennis On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:41 PM, Dennis Hong [email removed]> wrote: Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners, My name is Dennis Hong and a resident of this city for 70+ years. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these three above - Plans. I'm in full suppo… Hello folks, please delete the last part of this email. It was not intended to be part of this SOMA email. Sorry. Dennis On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:41 PM, Dennis Hong [email removed]> wrote: Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners, My name is Dennis Hong and a resident of this city for 70+ years. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these three above - Plans. I'm in full support of these Plan's. I have reviewed these document/s and do not see any need to change it. The Central SOMA Plan document has been in the works for a while now and it looks like the Plan/s have also gained support from the community. As usual The Planning Department has done another great job with this process/Document. With all that said, can I have your support come this Thursday, March 1, 2018 to Initiate this plan/s and to schedule a public meeting soon so it can be implemented? I also feel that this straight forward Document/Plan/s will help the City/Planners, the Sponsors/Developers in expediting their Project thru the process and without further delays. In addition to this it helps educate both the community and opponents understand all the who's, what's and why's. Finally, in my opinion our city is losing way too projects to other Cities because our process is too timely. In addition to this I also feel this Document will help guide with the EIR process. As usual, if anyone has any question/s to my rambling email, please feel free to contact me at [email removed] with your question/s. Hope this helps, look forward to tomorrows meeting. Best, Dennis Another one of the SF Planning Departments ______ and an important Plan which can help guide the City, Sponsor/Developers thru the Planning process to help expedite their plans/project in a timely fashion. ejprojects and hope it works. I'm a long time resident of this wonderful City 70+ years. I'm in full support of this project! Years ago, my dad had a business partner that he worked with in the Mission District. As a young lad I used to take Muni from Chinatown/North Beach all the way to 16th and Mission- weekly to visit his business partner. I sort of miss those old trips. To kill some time, I would venture outside that 16th and Mission business shop to take advantage of the Mission District. OK with that said here are my rambling comments and views to this project: 1. The sponsor and design team did an excellent job by extending the roof to include a wonderful roof garden. It looks like the sponsor has met with the community to address some the CEQA issues. Even though most of them have been Mitigated. A lot of emphasizes was placed on the use of the "best practice". All to often this does not work well and needs better monitoring with; pedestrian and vehicle traffic control, construction dust, debris and etc.. It's a difficult one and has been done with great success. 2. In the final plan/s can the city, developer and BART work possibly on adding any additional protection over the entry and exits to the two BART stations to protect if from the weather. Now would be a perfect time to do this since the Northeast BART Plaza would be disrupted during the construction of this project? Only that BART mentions all to often the weather and the homeless seem to play havoc and it does a lot of damage to the exterior escalators in the open area's. The design of a overhead (canopy-?) can also be designed to secure it after hours, vs securing it at the bottom. 3. Part of this already congested Mission district could face major issues during construction: A. Traffic and pedestrian safety controls need to be enforced both during construction and after the project is finished. B. What parking provisions will be provided for the construction workers? C. These two BART stations get used a lot and must be considered during construction- protecting the commuters and etc.. D. Vision 0 and bike lanes should to be considered. E. How are the construction staging areas being implemented and controlled - staging of equipment, materials and etc.. 4. Both the SF Planning Department and the Sponsor has done a great job with this document (DEIR). 5. Additional attention needs to focus on protection and needs of the nearby elementary school. Especially during construction working hours. All to often the "Best Practices do not work well". The demo will create possibly wind blown dust in to the play yards and nearby restaurants. Construction vehicles with the already congested traffic needs traffic control officers, signs, toxic dust from the demo needs to be controlled. 6. Communications and meetings with the neighborhood would go a long way and will be time worth spent. Informing the neighborhood residents, the school, business' with the project time lines, what is happening and etc..A POC Person of Contact with a number would help. (Bi-lingual would go a long way) 7. CEQA does not require a "Visual Simulation" but add's to the credibility of what is expected. This projects figures does a great job with this presentation. 8. Assuming that the garage entry and exit is off Capp Street - Are there and additional traffic controls (speed humps, raised pathways) for the near by School Playground and can the drawings show this entry/exit more clearly if it is off of Capp Street? 9. What provisions are there for any displaced and return of any residents and merchants if displaced for this project. 10. Can there be a chart that shows what is required of the sponsor for housing and what the sponsor is proving? 11. Could the developer/sponsor provide a few more three and four bedroom units than proposed? At a quick glance of the drawings/charts; there are eleven each three bedrooms and two four bedroom units vs the description/s one four bedroom under Residential on page 2-31. Again, just minor details. What is a "micro unit"? 12. As I see it, affordable housing should include more families units - minimum of three and four bedrooms, this is a good step towards the Mayors housing plan but needs a few more. 13. Will any of the comments made at the Planning Commission's meeting of June 9th, 2016 be included in the RTC to the DEIR, as these were excellent comments? 14. In addition to this project and other on going major projects at the same as this project is under construction, can these project time lines (dates) be added to Table 4.A-1 - page 4.A-5? 15. Who will maintain the streetscape, trees? 16. Will some of the selected plant material/trees survive - i.e some of the Palms in the city are not doing well and are causing root issues to the sidewalks? 17. The roof gardens take full advantage of the excellent weather in this Mission area. - Nice job with the proposed roof gardens. 18. Architecturally speaking, a nice job with the design, colors and materials of this project. With all that said, I realize some of these issues may had already been vented at various meetings but I think these issues still needs to be included in the final EIR as a RTC. Please require the RTC to consider these concerns. I look forward to the RTC document. Thanks again for providing me the opportunity to submit comments on this DEIR. If you have any questions regarding these comments you may contact me at [email removed] Sincerely, Dennisshow more

Gina Gomez · spoken · 2018-03-01 · support

Support, new Flower Mart

Laura Clark · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Housing

Claire Mobley · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Maintenance and programming

Kristy Wong · spoken · 2018-03-01 · support

Issues and concerns

Jane Kim · spoken · 2018-03-01 · support

Comments, recognitions, support improvement, production opportunities

John Elberling · spoken · 2018-03-01 · oppose

TODCO, organized oppositions

Samantha Myer · spoken · 2018-03-01 · oppose

TODCO, organized oppositions

Joyce Lee · spoken · 2018-03-01 · oppose

TODCO, organized oppositions

Carla Laurel · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

We Are SOMA, organized oppositions

Doug Chermack · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Central SOMA Neighbors, support for mid-rise alternative

Tony Robles · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Issues and concerns

Michael Mansanni · spoken · 2018-03-01 · support

Flower Market move to the piers, ingress and egress

Rob Chewbata · spoken · 2018-03-01 · support

Oldest tenants of Flower Market

Heather Phillips · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

SOMA school

David Wu · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Equitable development

Raymond Castillo · spoken · 2018-03-01 · oppose

Support We Are SOMA, eviction and displacement

Eugene Olejo · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Issues and concerns

T.J. Bassal · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Technology jobs

Misha Olivas · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

We Are SOMA

Laurel Anne Winsler · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Issues and concerns

Patrick Powell · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Issues and concerns

Alex Lansberg · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

Grandfathering, labor standards

Todd Mavis · spoken · 2018-03-01 · neutral

no text recorded

2018-03-08 · 2 comments · 0 / 2

Council Of Community Housing Organizations · email · 2018-03-08 · oppose · source packet

Central SOMA Plan
Dear Commissioners: Our apologies, but we will probably not be able to attend today's Planning Commission. Attached and below are our comments re the Central SOMA Plan housing allocations and our Jobs-Housing Fit Analysis. As the Planning Commission begins the process of considering the proposal for Central SOMA, we believe it is very important to evaluate the Jobs-Housing <U+201C>Fit<U+201D> <… Dear Commissioners: Our apologies, but we will probably not be able to attend today's Planning Commission. Attached and below are our comments re the Central SOMA Plan housing allocations and our Jobs-Housing Fit Analysis. As the Planning Commission begins the process of considering the proposal for Central SOMA, we believe it is very important to evaluate the Jobs-Housing <U+201C>Fit<U+201D> <U+2013> that is, the extent to which the proposed housing, both the total amount and the affordability levels, will match the jobs that the proposed commercial development will create. And, to the extent that this housing need is not met within the Plan, the pressure that this demand will place on existing residents and communities within the South of Market neighborhood. The Planning Department projects that 7,060 housing units will be built in the Central SOMA Plan Area by 2040 (staff letter to Commission dated Dec 7, 2017). This estimate is based on available soft sites plus state density bonus plus some land dedication from commercial parcels. Some of the 100% affordable housing sites would be located not in the Plan Area, but in the broader South of Market neighborhood, in sites that MOHCD would have to acquire. A breakdown of the Dec 7, 2017 letter estimates: 4,360 market-rate units 1,040 inclusionary units (19% of 5,430 units built by private developers) 1,630 in 100% affordable buildings (approx. 15-20 sites with 80-110 units avg.) 7,060 total units Planning staff assumes that most of the development in the Plan Area will be commercial development (from email communication with Steve Wertheim 2-23-2018): 6 million sq. ft. office and tech space 1 million sq. ft. PDR/light industrial and arts activities 1.5 million sq. ft. retail, restaurant, and hotel/visitor services 8.5 million square feet of new commercial space This amount of commercial space would create close to 35,000 new jobs, depending on the future density of office and the split of office and non-office jobs. Using an assumption of 1.27 workers per household, that job creation is equivalent to almost 30,000 total new households. Putting these two data points side by side <U+2013> 30,000 new workforce households and 7,060 housing units <U+2013> reveals a troubling mismatch. The Planning Department<U+2019>s housing proposal assumes that only about a quarter of the overall housing need created by the Plan will be accommodated by the Plan. The remainder of new workers will be left to find housing either elsewhere in the city or elsewhere in the Bay Area region. Planning staff<U+2019>s response has been that the city already has a pipeline of 22,000 entitled units throughout the city (or 38,000 if you count the major long-term master plans), that may someday accommodate this need throughout the City. Even if the Commission agrees that relying on prospective housing development elsewhere in San Francisco and the region to accommodate three-quarters of the workforce households created by the Central SOMA Plan is good policy or that it is realistic that the timing of such housing will be built in relation to the Central SOMA buildout, the realistic likely outcome is that a substantial number of the 30,000 new households will be looking for housing within the existing community of the South of Market area, in proximity to their jobs. With such a dramatic imbalance of housing compared to jobs in the Central SOMA Plan, this will greatly exacerbate SOMA<U+2019>s displacement crisis and evictions epidemic, as new workers who cannot find new housing will push out existing lower income households. We, along with the We Are SOMA Coalition, recommend that the plan include strategies and funding priorities to protect existing tenants and acquire vulnerable rent-controlled and SRO buildings for preservation as permanent affordable housing. This preservation strategy should be aimed at SOMA households earning up to 90% of median income ($72,000-$104,000/yr). This is not a strategy for accommodating growth but rather to provide stability to the existing community and mitigate the impacts of the tremendous expected job growth. The situation for low and moderate-wage workers in these new jobs created by the Central SOMA Plan commercial development is especially dire. We can estimate the percentage of these households that are low-income, moderate-income, and higher income with a Jobs- Housing Fit analysis, by comparing the jobs categories to wage data published by the California EDD. Attached is our Jobs-Housing Fit Analysis for Central SOMA. Generally, even with an office-heavy mix, up to 55% of the new household growth, or close to 15,000 households, will be in the low to moderate-income categories. Even more will not be able to afford market-rate housing, given today<U+2019>s hyper-expensive SOMA housing market. Planning staff proposes only about 17% of those needed 15,000 affordable units within the Plan Area and in the broader SOMA neighborhood, leaving the Central SOMA Plan short approximately 13,000 affordable units of the need created by the Plan<U+2019>s buildout. The current pipeline of entitled affordable units FOR THE ENTIRE CITY is only 3,092 affordable units from very-low to moderate-income. We recommend that the Plan commit to at least 50% of all housing be affordable for low and moderate-income households up to 120% of median income, in order to achieve a truer <U+201C>fit<U+201D> between new worker household incomes and the housing provided through the Plan. Finding sites to build the Plan<U+2019>s affordable housing is a big challenge, given the incredible rise in land prices. In its research for the City<U+2019>s recent Inclusionary Housing policy update, the Office of the Controller identified a 350% increase in the price of unentitled land over the last five years. This kind of land inflation is likely to be exacerbated by the upzoning of the Central SOMA Plan. Even with its low numbers of committed affordable housing, the Planning Department<U+2019>s estimate of 1,630 affordable units would require the acquisition of 15-20 sites for development. We recommend a land acquisition and banking strategy in order to get ahead of the land speculation that will be spurred by the upzonings. This can be linked to land dedications as part of any development being able to take advantage of greater heights, density or FAR. Creating moderate-income housing is also a big challenge, and can be best accommodated through inclusionary policies, as was done when the city<U+2019>s inclusionary housing policy was expanded to include middle-income households. The Plan assumes that the Citywide baseline inclusionary housing percentage will be the only one that will be applicable for the Plan Area, whether or not the site has received an upzoning. The Central SOMA Plan in fact envisions major upzonings, which confer significant value on those sites that can be recaptured for a higher affordable housing requirement. The recently adopted <U+201C>HomeSF<U+201D> local density bonus program is a fresh example of how such upzoning/value capture works <U+2013> the Inclusionary was increased to 30% in exchange for additional height and increased density and other development incentives. Only requiring the standard baseline Inclusionary is otherwise akin to a giveaway of the value being conferred by the City through the Central SOMA Plan. Moreover, while the Plan does not prohibit a fee-out option, the Planning staff<U+2019>s numbers seem to assume that almost all developers will provide onsite units, which is very unrealistic. We, along with the We Are SOMA Coalition, recommend raising the inclusionary percentage for those residential developments taking advantage of increased heights and densities. This should be based on financial feasibility and a value capture analysis of the upzoning. We believe the City<U+2019>s Planning Department should commit to actually analyze the housing impacts, by wage level, by performing a transparent and replicable Jobs-Housing Fit analysis for all new multi-acre projects (and cumulatively for the sum of all projects in the City). We believe this kind of Jobs-Housing-Fit analysis should be a prerequisite for Planning Commission discussions on development and Area Plan approvals. Failing to link commercial development to housing need will continue to exacerbate our jobs-housing imbalance, worsen our housing crisis, and increase pressure on our existing communities. We look forward to continued dialogue, and would be happy to meet with Commissioners and Planning staff regarding the development of an appropriate Jobs-Housing Fit methodology. Sincerely, Peter Cohen and Fernando Mart Co-directors, Council of Community Housing Organizations CENTRAL SOMA JOBS-HOUSING FIT Total commercial s.f. of the project 8,500,000 s.f. Worker Density - Office 200 s.f./worker Worker Density - Restaurant & Retail 368 s.f./worker Worker Density <U+2013> PDR/Arts 597 s.f./worker Total jobs created: 35,751 workers Workers/Household Assumption: 1.27 workers/HH Total demand for units: 28,150 households Very Low-Income Households 5,523 VLI units 20% Low-Income Households 4,321 LI Units 15% Moderate-Income 5,712 Mod Units 20% Total demand for affordable units: 15,548 Afford. units Affordable housing balance: 55% Actual units proposed: 7,060 units Proposal compared to total demand: 25% of need Actual affordable units proposed (38%): 2,670 affordable Proposal compared to affordable demand: 17% of need Council of Community Housing Organizations Celebrating 40 years as the voice of San Francisco's affordable housing movement 325 Clementina Street, San Francisco 94103 [phone removed] office www.sfccho.orgshow more

Gina Cariaga · email · 2018-03-08 · oppose · source packet

Central SOMA Neighbors 5-min Video Presentation - Mar 1 Planning Commission Hearing
To: Commission President Rich Hillis Planning Commissioners Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary John Rahaim, Planning Director Steve Wertheim, Central SoMa Plan Project Manager Supervisor Jane Kim On behalf of Central SOMA Neighbors, I apologize for holding up today's Planning Department hearing due to technical difficulties with our video presentation. This was our first attempt to use a video pre… show more

2018-03-15 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Steven (25) X4902 Vettel · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

Central SOMA Plan: March 22 hearing
Jonas, attached find a letter from me to the Planning Commission commenting on several elements of the Code amendments implementing the Central SOMA Plan, focused on several Code provisions that I believe would unduly (and for the most part unintentionally) constrain housing production in the plan area and that the Commission should consider amending. Please add this letter to the Commission packet for the March 22 … show more

2018-03-22 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Gotham Guy · email · 2018-03-22 · oppose · source packet

URGENT! District 6 Needs YOU Now!
Dear Mr. Ionin, I have always admired your tenacity, leadership and public service. Like most in my District 6, we are happy having you and your Planning Commission colleagues represent our City. I am reaching out to you on behalf of my fellow Central South of Market residents. They represent renters, homeowners, small business owners, tech/medical folks, PDR [production, distribution and repair] employees/proprieto… Dear Mr. Ionin, I have always admired your tenacity, leadership and public service. Like most in my District 6, we are happy having you and your Planning Commission colleagues represent our City. I am reaching out to you on behalf of my fellow Central South of Market residents. They represent renters, homeowners, small business owners, tech/medical folks, PDR [production, distribution and repair] employees/proprietors and regular visitors of all ages and ethnicities. Like most SF residents, we work long hours and have little time to keep up with the City<U+2019>s dynamic politics and convoluted legislative proceedings. Today we are all apprehensive about a runaway train heading directly at us called the Central SoMa Plan [PLAN]. We want to share with you a Reduced-Height Alternative Plan created by a legal team and panel of expert consultants you are likely familiar with. This alternative plan is the result of a legal brief that was initially created for our Central SoMa neighbors. It is called the Mid-Rise Alternative Plan, or Mid-Rise Alternative. We want the Planning Commission to review and adopt our Mid-Rise Alternative Plan instead of the Planning Department<U+2019>s radical High-Rise Plan [PLAN]. Except for a few details, our alternative plan is identical to the Central Corridor Plan which was introduced in 2011. The Mid-Rise Alternative would allow for a dramatic increase in residential and office development in the area, while still maintaining building heights of 130 feet or less [with some exceptions in the block bounded by I-80 and Folsom, and Second and Third Streets] thus retaining a pedestrian scale, livability, access to light, air and open space, and creating a family-friendly neighborhood. By contrast, the High-Rise alternative (identified simply as the <U+201C>Plan<U+201D> in the DEIR, would create vastly higher building heights of up to 350 feet, which would be out-of-scale with a mixed-use residential neighborhood, casting shadows, blocking views, creating wind tunnels and essentially transforming the neighborhood into a second financial district. As longtime residents of Central SoMa, we urge the Planning Commission to adopt the Mid-Rise Alternative since it protects neighborhood character, while allowing for almost as much job growth and housing as the High-Rise Alternative. We are dedicated to preserving and enhancing the unique character of Central SoMa and want to preserve and enhance the character of our community with its diversity of buildings and architecture. We want to make Central SoMa a more livable, mixed-use and pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. We don<U+2019>t want to sacrifice livability. Residents need access to light, air, parks, and public open spaces. We want to ensure the area is affordable and accessible, with the right balance of housing, office space and retail. You might be wondering why we are reaching out to you and not our own District 6 Supervisor Jane Kim. Up until early 2017 she supported our Mid-Rise Alternative Plan [Central Corridor Plan] and adamantly opposed the dramatic height increases proposed in the initial 2013 version and the dramatically-revised 2016 Central SoMa Plan introduced to the public. She often visited our residential building near AT&T Park to address our concerns about the new Warriors project, etc. After one of our recent gatherings I specifically asked her about her thoughts on Tishman Speyer<U+2019>s proposed 655 Fourth project on the corner of 4th and Townsend. She was clearly opposed to its size and scale and assured me it would not happen during her watch. She could still effectively negotiate public benefits packages [affordable housing] with developers and avoid these dramatically disproportionate height increases. This morning, March 16, 2018, Jane Kim stated her opposition to Senate Bill 827 and told the crowd of prospective mayoral voters, <U+201C>We are not against housing, this is not the right way to build.<U+201D> Yet she is throwing her District 6 constituents under the bus. We truly feel betrayed. For those of us who reside within blocks of South of Market<U+2019>s busiest, most congested and chaotic intersections, 4th/Townsend, the 655 Fourth project has become the face of what the PLAN will do to our low/mid-rise community. This project includes two massive 400-foot towers and 907 [market-rate > luxury] condominium units. Only 50% of the building<U+2019>s units will receive on-site parking, therefore approximately 450 units will not receive on-parking! I have been witnessing an alarming increase in pedestrian injury accidents at this intersection, particularly during morning and evening weekdays. Seeing cyclists and kids on scooters hurt by buses and ride-sharing vehicles happens often. Once we combine Giants<U+2019> games, the imminent Warriors<U+2019> arena, new Uber and Dropbox offices and a USF expansion, it is unsustainable <U+2013> and that is without the PLAN! The public benefits<U+2019> packages developers want in exchange for 300-foot and 400-foot height increases, simply doesn<U+2019>t add up. The PLAN, if adopted, would also allow similarly tall structures to populate and flood the blocks bordering this project. Everyone worries that this will become the new normal. My friends in Potrero Hill, for example, are afraid that this will creep into other districts in the City. Suddenly Senator Wiener<U+2019>s legislation gets traction. Aaron, we want to nip it in the bud here, and now. My neighbors are very much in favor of development and planning for sustainable growth that preserves the character of what this neighborhood is becoming - a mixed-use residential neighborhood where businesses of varied sizes and types can thrive; where people have an opportunity to live in an environmentally sustainable manner; and where the unique existing historic architectural resources are retained and renewed. However, the type of development outlined in the current Plan will ruin the current transformation of this neighborhood. Rather than developing into high density residential and mixed-use neighborhood stretching from Mission Bay to downtown, the current plan proposes to cut the Central SoMa neighborhood off from the neighborhoods to the south and essentially isolate it. Ours will create a family-friendly environment with access to light and air. It will create less traffic congestion, and therefore less air pollution and related health effects, and less traffic-related pedestrian injuries. It will allow buildings to exceed 130-feet [within the block bounded by I-80 and Folsom, and Second and Third Streets <U+2013> which is closer to the Transbay Terminal and downtown. It would also encourage public transportation]. The Mid-Rise Alternative allows as much growth as the High-Rise Alternative. The Initial Study for the Central SoMa Plan revealed that the Mid-Rise Alternative is projected to add 52,300 new jobs by 2040, while the High-Rise option is projected to add 56,400 new jobs. The difference in the additional population increments is even smaller, 22,700 versus 23,400 (a 3% difference). Although the DEIR presents slightly different projections, there is still only a 12-14% difference between the Reduced Height Alternative and the PLAN (population growth of 21,900 versus 25,500; job growth of 55,800 versus 63,600). (DEIR p. VI-2, VI-16, IV-6). Thus, the Mid-Rise Alternative would achieve about 90% of the jobs and housing growth proposed in the PLAN, while maintaining the character of Central SoMa as a mid-rise community with access to light and air, avoiding wind-tunnels, and promoting a more family-friendly environment. It is important to note that in 2013, when the Plan was known as the Central Corridor Plan, the Planning Department<U+2019>s staff articulated the right reasons for supporting the Mid-Rise Alternative. The Central Corridor Plan stated: <U+201C>While in some areas the Plan proposes to allow buildings to rise above the 85-foot base height (generally to 130 feet), these upper stories would be required to set back by at least 15 feet to maintain the perception of the lower street wall. This scale is also consistent with both the traditional form and character of Central SoMa<U+2019>s significant commercial and industrial buildings as well as aligning with the desire for larger floorplate, open floorplan, mid-rise buildings most desired by contemporary new economy companies. The predominant character of SoMa as a mid-rise district should be retained, and the presence of high-rises reduced by limiting their distribution and bulk. The South of Market sits at a critical location in the city<U+2019>s landscape. SoMa is a large expanse of flat land at the center of the east side of the City, sitting as an important balance and counterpoint to the dramatic hills that surround it, including the man-made <U+201C>hill<U+201D> of the downtown high-rise district, creating a dramatic amphitheater. With relatively low buildings in comparison to the hills and high-rises around it, the South of Market allows expansive and cherished views to extend across it to and from the surrounding hills, districts and the major features of the region beyond. To preserve this essential characteristic and preserve views across the area, height limits taller than 130 feet are generally kept to the portion closer to downtown in the block bounded by I-80 and Folsom, and Second and Third Streets. Because the number of potential buildings taller than 130 feet is limited to strategic locations adjacent to downtown and the imminent Transbay Terminal, these buildings will be prominent from all directions and serve as local landmarks.<U+201D> Everyone agrees that the predominant character of Central SoMa as a midrise district should be retained. The Mid-Rise Alternative creates an urban neighborhood <U+201C>that has a pleasing, but not overwhelming sense of enclosure and intimacy.<U+201D> Yet, the most recent DEIR Eliminates the Mid-Rise Option that was Favored by the Central Corridor Plan. As stated earlier, several organizations opposed to the Planning Department<U+2019>s radically revised [2016] PLAN, have hired legal experts and consultants to specifically review the DEIR now being used by the Planning Department to fast track their PLAN though City Hall. All these experts concur that the DEIR contains numerous errors and omissions that preclude accurate analysis of the PLAN. Therefore, the DEIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project<U+2019>s impacts. We also kindly request that the City address these shortcomings in a revised draft environmental impact report (<U+201C>RDEIR<U+201D>) and recirculate the RDEIR prior to considering approval of the PLAN. Their studies and analyses are described in detail below. I have highlighted key points using bold and underlined fonts. As I<U+2019>ve mentioned earlier, I am a voice and point person for my Central SoMa neighbors, friends and colleagues. I felt it is important to present our concerns and case to you directly. I will explain later why we need your help and how we have been frequently and intentionally misled and misinformed by the Planning Department. Everything I am presenting to you has been done on my own time and dime. I apologize in advance for syntax errors, duplicate details, etc. Please note I will attach all the expert<U+2019>s supporting reports, graphs, tables, etc. in a separate email. The PLAN would fundamentally transform the Central SoMa area. It would quadruple, not triple, the resident population of the area from a current population of 12,000 [realistically it is 10,000] to 37,5003 -- an increase of 25,500 additional residents. It would more than double employment in the area from a current level of 45,600 jobs to 109,200 -- an increase of 63,600 additional jobs. However, in late 2016, without explanation, the City drastically altered the plan, eliminating 11 blocks at the north from Folsom to Market (with a narrow exception from Fifth to Sixth Street). Critically, at the same time the City dropped the Mid-Rise option and included only the High-Rise option in the analysis. The Mid-Rise Option was relegated to a small section at the back of the alternatives analysis of the DEIR and renamed the <U+201C>Reduced- Height Alternative.<U+201D> The City strategically released the radical new PLAN<U+2019>s DEIR during the holiday rush on December 14, 2016. SoMa is among the most ethnically and economically diverse neighborhoods in the City. The neighborhood faces extreme environmental challenges. The San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH) stated in a 2012 report: Central SoMa has some of the poorest air quality in the City. Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease hospitalizations are approximately twice as high in Central SoMa as in the rest of the City. Our neighborhood has one of the highest incidences of pedestrian injuries in the City. As DPH stated, <U+201C>The incidence of severe injuries and deaths related to collisions between vehicles and pedestrians, cyclists, and other vehicles is amongst the highest in the City. The situation for pedestrians is especially troubling, as the average annual number of pedestrian injuries and fatalities per 100 road miles is six times higher in Central SoMa compared to the City as a whole. Central SoMa has had a severe lack of open space and parks. The same DPH report stated: The Central SoMa area has a poor public infrastructure, with few public health facilities, parks and open space. While Central SoMa is a robust, ethnically and economically diverse community, it also faces serious challenges in terms of a lack of open space, high levels of pollution, pedestrian safety and extreme traffic congestion. Solving these problems is the key to making the neighborhood livable and family friendly. Very little of this critical baseline information is included in the DEIR, making the document inadequate as a public information document. City Staff Refused to Grant an Extension of the Comment Period Despite Massive Project Revisions and Two Federal Holidays. For years City staff led the public to believe that the project was as described in the Initial Study. The 2013 Central Corridor plan document strongly favored the Mid-Rise Alternative over the High-Rise Alternative, and described a project extending all the way to Market Street. Yet on December 14, 2016, the City released the DEIR for a short 60-day comment period, for the first time unveiling the very different Project in the DEIR. CEQA does not countenance such <U+201C>bait-and-switch<U+201D> tactics which serve only to confuse and mislead the public and short- circuit the public process embodied in CEQA. The PLAN will have Significant Adverse Traffic Impacts that are not Disclosed or Analyzed in the DEIR. The Plan will place thousands of cars each day into an area that already has unacceptable levels of traffic congestion. At rush hour, traffic is at a standstill in the Plan area. The Plan will add over 63,000 new jobs and 25,000 new residents to the area <U+2013> more than doubling the number of jobs and tripling the number of residents in the area. While many of these workers and residents may take public transit, there can be no dispute that many will drive cars, thereby adding to already unacceptable levels of traffic. The DEIR skims this obvious fact and makes the weak conclusion that the Plan will have less than significant traffic impacts. This conclusion simply fails the straight-face test. Anyone who has spent any time on roadways in this area will recognize that tripling the population of the area will have significant traffic impacts. [Newer studies project the population will quadruple.] The PLAN will also allow similarly tall, dense structures to be built within blocks of it. Once we combine Giants<U+2019> games, the new Golden State Warriors<U+2019> Arena traffic, new Uber and Dropbox offices and the nearby University of San Francisco expansion, it is unsustainable. The Traffic Analysis Fails to Analyze Cumulative Impacts. Air Quality Baseline Analysis is Inadequate because it uses an erroneous baseline. The DEIR fails to disclose that the San Francisco Department of Public Health has determined Plan area has among the worst air quality in the City, due primarily to extreme traffic congestion. Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease hospitalizations are approximately twice as high in Central SoMa as in the rest of the City. Almost the entire Plan area is in an Air Pollution Exposure Zone (APEZ), meaning that airborne cancer risks exceed 100 per million. The DEIR Contains Inadequate Air Pollution Mitigation and Alternatives. DEIR Improperly Relies on Deferred Air Mitigation. CEQA requires mitigation measures to be clearly set forth in the EIR so that the public may analyze them and their adequacy. The Plan will have Significant Adverse Visual Impacts that are not Disclosed or Analyzed in the DEIR. The Plan will have significant adverse visual impacts because it conflicts with height and bulk prevailing in the area. The PLAN is inconsistent with the Urban Design Element of the General Plan, which states that [Policy 3.5] Relate the height of buildings to important attributes of the city pattern and to the height and character of existing development; and [Policy 3.6] Relate the bulk of buildings to the prevailing scale of development to avoid an overwhelming or dominating appearance in new construction. The Plan allows buildings of 350 feet or more in an area that the City admits is a mid-rise neighborhood. This is not only inconsistent with the General Plan, but also with the Plan<U+2019>s own Goal to <U+201C>Reinforce the character of Central SoMa as a mid-rise district with tangible urban rooms.<U+2019> The Central Corridor Plan also stated: <U+201C>The mid-rise heights set by the plan provide for the same, and in some cases even more, density that would be provided with taller buildings. The large floor-plates possible on large development sites, combined with heights ranging from 8 to 12 stories, enables a significant amount of density. Conversely, the combination of necessary bulk limitations, tower separation requirements for high rise buildings and the realities of designing elegant tall buildings that maximize light, air and views to both tenants and the neighborhood, limits the amount of incremental additional development possible with a tower prototype. For instance, on a 100,000 square foot site, a mid-rise building at 130 feet in height would yield more development space than two 200-foot towers constructed above an 85-foot base on the same site.<U+201D> Having made these statements in the Central Corridor Plan, the City cannot not simply <U+201C>un- ring the bell.<U+201D> The DEIR<U+2019>s conclusion that the Plan has no significant visual impacts is arbitrary and capricious and ignore the conflicts with the General Plan. By allowing very tall buildings throughout the Plan area, the Plan conflicts with the Urban Design Element, and creates a significant aesthetic impact on the neighborhood. This impact must be disclosed and mitigated in a revised DEIR. The most obvious was to reduce this impact is for the City to adopt the Reduced Height (Mid-Rise) alternatives. The Plan will have Significant Adverse Growth-Inducing Impacts that are Inadequately Analyzed in the DEIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d). While growth inducing impacts of a project need not be labeled as adverse, the secondary impacts of growth (e.g., traffic, air pollution, etc.) may be significant and adverse. In such cases, the secondary impacts of growth inducement must be disclosed as significant secondary or indirect impacts of the project. The analysis required is similar in some respects to the analysis required to analyze impacts associated with population and housing. The DEIR<U+2019>s Analysis of Population, Employment and Housing Impacts is Inadequate. The additional of 25,000 new residents and 63,000 jobs will certainly increase need for a full range of services including schools, day care, police, fire, medical, etc. The Plan will have Significant Adverse Open Space Impacts that are not Disclosed or Analyzed in the DEIR. The DEIR admits that the Plan area suffers from an extreme lack of open space. South Park is the only Rec and Park property in the Plan area. (DEIR, p. II-31). However, the Plan creates little open space. Worse, it degrades existing open space areas by casting shadows on existing parks and POPOS throughout the Plan area, in violation of the General Plan. The Plan will have Significant Adverse Shadow Impacts that are not Disclosed or Analyzed in the DEIR. The DEIR erroneously concludes that the Plan does not have significant shadow impacts. (DEIR, p. IV.H-21). This finding ignores the PLAN<U+2019>s inconsistency with the General Plan. The DEIR admits that the PLAN will create new shadows on several parks under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department, including South Park, Victoria Manalo Draves Park and Gene Friend Recreation Center, as well as several public open spaces. (DEIR, p. III-11). For example, the DEIR admits that the Plan will create new shadows on the only Rec & Park property in the Plan area, South Park, and <U+201C>could increase shadow on portions of South Park during early morning and late afternoon hours from the spring equinox to the fall equinox (March through September). (DEIR, p. IV.H-35). In other words, the Plan will cast shadows on South Park for half of the year! Given these conflicts with the General Plan, the DEIR<U+2019>s finding that the Plan has no significant shadow impacts is arbitrary and capricious. The Reduced Height Alternative would reduce this impact and is feasible and would achieve all project goals. The Plan will have Significant Adverse Pedestrian Safety Impacts that are not Disclosed or Analyzed in the DEIR. The Plan would quadruple/triple the population and number of jobs in the Plan area, adding 25,000 new residents and 63,000 new jobs. This increase alone will increase the number of vehicles and pedestrians in the area, directly increasing the number of conflicts leading to pedestrian safety issues (accidents). The DEIR fails to analyze the already severe pedestrian safety problem in the area that forms the CEQA baseline. The neighborhood has one of the highest incidences of pedestrian injuries in the City. As DPH stated, <U+201C>The incidence of severe injuries and deaths related to collisions between vehicles and pedestrians, cyclists, and other vehicles is amongst the highest in the City. The situation for pedestrians is especially troubling, as the average annual number of pedestrian injuries and fatalities per 100 road miles is six times higher in the Plan area compared to the City as a whole. Tripling/quadrupling the number of pedestrians and increasing the number of vehicles will clearly increase pedestrian injuries. The Plan will have Significant Adverse Displacement Impacts that are not Disclosed or Analyzed in the DEIR. The Plan is likely to result in the displacement of large numbers of low and moderate-income residents of the Plan area. These residents will be forced to move elsewhere, perhaps replacing short current commutes with long commutes to distant suburbs. This is an environmental impact that must be analyzed under CEQA. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Mitigate Significant Adverse Impacts to Public Transit. The DEIR admits that the Plan would have significant and unavoidable impacts to public transit, and that <U+201C>substantial increase in transit demand that would not be accommodated by local transit capacity.<U+201D> (DEIR, p. IV.D-43). Despite admitting this impact, the DEIR improperly defers mitigation. DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Cumulative Impacts. The DEIR has a patently inadequate cumulative impact section because it fails to consider the Plan<U+2019>s impacts together with 70-100 other significant projects currently underway and in the pipeline, including the new Warriors Arena, USF expansion, new Uber and Dropbox offices, etc. Clearly, the Plan<U+2019>s impacts will be much more significant when viewed together with these other projects. Cumulatively considerable<U+2019> means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.<U+201D> Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact. The DEIR alternatives analysis is legally deficient. It fails to acknowledge that the Reduced Height Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. The Reduced Height Alternative would reduce almost all the PLAN<U+2019>s significant impacts while still achieving all the Plan<U+2019>s objectives. It is therefore the environmentally superior alternative. <U+201C>An EIR<U+2019>s discussion of alternatives must contain analysis sufficient to allow informed decision making and include <U+201C>detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.<U+201D> One of CEQA<U+2019>s fundamental requirements is that the DEIR must identify the <U+201C>environmentally superior alternative,<U+201D> and require implementation of that alternative unless it is infeasible. A <U+201C>feasible<U+201D> alternative is one that is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period while considering economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. The lead agency is required to select the environmentally preferable alternative unless it is infeasible. As explained by the Supreme Court, an environmentally superior alternative may not be rejected simply because it is more expensive or less profitable: <U+201C>The fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project.<U+201D> Therefore, a revised Draft EIR must be produced and recirculated for public comment. The current DEIR is so fundamentally and basically inadequate, that recirculation of a new draft EIR will be required to allow the public to meaningfully review and comment on the proposed project. The revised draft EIR should identify the Reduced Height (Mid-Rise) Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative and consider it the equivalent of the current PLAN which was done in the Central Corridor Plan. Most of us in Central SoMa have been strategically kept in the dark for years. It is a concerted effort by the Planning Department and the developers who will profit the most from the PLAN. Beginning in 2013 and accelerating in 2016, the Planning Department has not been reasonably notifying us about key hearings, community outreach meetings, etc. For the past month the PLAN<U+2019>s Project Manager, Steve Wertheim, has said a key Planning Commission Hearing is scheduled for Thursday, March 29, 2018. He emailed everyone on his official Central SoMa Plan newsletter this past Wednesday, March 14, 2018 to tell us that the Planning Commission could legally act on the Central Soma Plan as soon as March 29, 2018. He followed it up the next day with the following email message: <U+201C>Correction: In yesterday's email we noted that the Planning Commission could legally act on the Central Soma Plan as soon as March 29th. That was a mistake - they cannot act until they certify the Environmental Impact Report, which could not occur before April 12, 2018. We apologize for the mistake. But importantly, there will not be a hearing on Central SoMa at the Planning Commission on March 29th. This is important to note for those of you who received the written notice where it conveys that the hearing would occur on March 29th or thereafter. Also, related to the Environmental Impact Report, the expected release date of the Response to Comments is March 28th. We will make sure to send out an email as soon as the information is available.<U+201D> Respectfully, Steve Inaccurate information and omitted details like Steve<U+2019>s above has happened for years with regularity. Developers also employ the same savvy strategies. When Tishman Speyer had a 3- month window to invite us to a public/community informational meeting for their 655 Fourth project, they chose Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM. They notified us about this meeting on 12/12/2017 via postcard. They could have held it in October instead of one week before the holiday hiatus. They had a window of times to choose from: 6:00PM <U+2013> 9:00 PM. They opted for the peak evening commute. The meeting was poorly attended, but this was NOT an isolated event. <U+201C>Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process.<U+201D> By dramatically altering the Central Corridor Plan after years of public review, and suddenly presenting the radically new Central SoMa Plan mid-December and refusing to extend the public comment period, the City has and continues to mislead and silence the public. Jonas, thank you for your time and consideration. Please help those of us who reside in this PLAN<U+2019>s path and don<U+2019>t have the voice and influence to change its outcome. Share this with your colleagues on the Planning Commission. It is urgent we reach them directly and consider adopting our Mid-Rise Alternative Plan for all the reasons I outlined above. Please feel free to contact me anytime. My name is Mark Solo. My mobile is [phone removed] and email [email removed]. Sincerely, Mark Soloshow more

2018-04-12 · 13 comments · 7 / 4

Toyer Grear · email · 2018-04-12 · oppose · source packet

Withdrawal of Application for Organized Opposition
Dear President Hillis, Planning Commissioners, and Commission Secretary Ionin, Attached please find correspondence written on behalf of the Central SoMa Neighbors (CSN) to withdraw our request an Organized Opposition presentation concerning the Environmental Impact Report (<U+201C>EIR<U+201D>) for the Central SoMa Plan, scheduled to be considered at the Planning Commission<U+2019>s meeting of Apri… show more

Laura Clark · spoken · 2018-04-12 · oppose

West side, high property values

John Elberling · spoken · 2018-04-12 · oppose

Employment plans

Cynthia G<U+00F3>mez · email · 2018-04-12 · support · source packet

Draft policy statement regarding Central SOMA plan
(Re-sent with mild edits.) Dear Commissioners, At the last Planning Commission meeting regarding Central SOMA, there was discussion of some sort of policy position that could be added to the Plan or that the Commission could sign on to, setting a tone for the priorities guiding development of commercial projects under the Plan. I'm attaching here a proposed policy statement and would invite your feedback. … show more

Steve Lau · spoken · 2018-04-12 · support

Flower Mart, Main site Eileen Tillman

Scott Feeney · spoken · 2018-04-12 · support

Housing amendments

David Wu · spoken · 2018-04-12 · oppose

More public input, site acquisition

Mike Grisso · spoken · 2018-04-12 · support

Flower Mart

Amish Gould · spoken · 2018-04-12 · support

Flower Mart, Main site Laurel Winsler– Flower Mart Speaker – Flower Mart

Andrew Junius · spoken · 2018-04-12 · neutral

TDM Program grandfathering provision

Chloe Angelis · spoken · 2018-04-12 · neutral

Flower Mart, key sites exceptions

Todd Mavis · spoken · 2018-04-12 · support

Central SOMA

Brook Olivera · spoken · 2018-04-12 · support

Community engagement of the park

2018-05-10 · 30 comments · 11 / 10

Patricia Delgado · email · 2018-05-10 · support · source packet

Planning Commission Hearing, May 10, 2018, Agenda Item 14a (2011.1356E)
Dear Commissioners, As an advocate for Open Space in San Francisco, I want to add my support to ensure that our San Francisco Recreation & Parks Department (<U+201C>Rec and Park<U+201D>) has a strong voice in any decision made under the Central SOMA Plan, including the priority order of allocation of funds as they accrue. The incredible opportunity to increase open space and recreational opportuni… show more

Amy Chan · spoken · 2018-05-10 · neutral

Responses to questions

Christine Linnenbach · spoken · 2018-05-10 · support

Thank you

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2018-05-10 · oppose

Housing sustainability district – Notice

Diane Ruiz · spoken · 2018-05-10 · oppose

Gentrification inequality

David Wu · spoken · 2018-05-10 · oppose

Recommendation to protect existing community

Joseph Smooke · spoken · 2018-05-10 · oppose

Impact fees

Mike Grisso · spoken · 2018-05-10 · support

Support

John Kevlin · spoken · 2018-05-10 · support

Technical issues

Corey Smith · spoken · 2018-05-10 · support

Support

Rohan Kattouw · spoken · 2018-05-10 · neutral

Upzone the west side

Brittany Grey · spoken · 2018-05-10 · oppose

Water

Crispy Luppino · spoken · 2018-05-10 · support

Flower Market

Kevin Ortiz · spoken · 2018-05-10 · neutral

Pro development, pro affordable housing

Laura Clark · spoken · 2018-05-10 · neutral

Jobs and housing

Scott Feeney · spoken · 2018-05-10 · neutral

Housing

Sharon Sherburn-Zimmer · spoken · 2018-05-10 · oppose

Disaster for tenant mass displacement

Todd Mavis · spoken · 2018-05-10 · support

Public schools

Steven Buss · spoken · 2018-05-10 · support

More housing

Richard Drury · spoken · 2018-05-10 · oppose

Mid-rise alternative defects in the EIR

Yi Wen · spoken · 2018-05-10 · support

Biking and transit

Ligia Montano · spoken · 2018-05-10 · oppose

Gentrification

Ian Fregosi · spoken · 2018-05-10 · neutral

Jobs housing imbalance, no public school

Steve Vettel · spoken · 2018-05-10 · neutral

Housing sustainability district

Cynthia Gomez · spoken · 2018-05-10 · neutral

Proactive steps to protect tenants

Alex Lansberg · spoken · 2018-05-10 · support

Jobs housing

Denise Louie · spoken · 2018-05-10 · oppose

Decline in my quality of life environment

Katherine Petrin · spoken · 2018-05-10 · support

Old Mint feeling

Brett Gladstone · spoken · 2018-05-10 · neutral

TDR's

Tony Robles · spoken · 2018-05-10 · oppose

Eviction, displacement

2018-05-17 · 3 comments · 3 / 0

Zahra Kelly · email · 2018-05-17 · support · source packet

In Support of Central SoMa Plan
Dear Commissioners - We at Nature in the City (NTC) are very excited to see Central SoMa Plan being considered for adoption today. Our organization supports and works on many initiatives around sustainable development, open space preservation and restoration, and restoration of wild lands of San Francisco. We at NTC are impressed with the planning of Central SoMa towards realizing a sustainable and resilient neigh… show more

Ancel Martinez · email · 2018-05-17 · support · source packet

Central SoMa Plan
May 8 2018 Reference: Project Name: Central SoMa Plan Implementation Program Hearing Date: May 10, 2018 Record Number: 2011.1356EMTZU Via Email: [email removed] To: The San Francisco San Francisco Planning Commission As an advocate for Open Space in San Francisco, I want to insure that our Rec & Park Department has a strong voice in any decisions made under the Central SOMA Plan, including the priority… show more

Kristy Wang · email · 2018-05-17 · support · source packet

SPUR Supports the Central SoMa Plan
Dear Planning Commissioners: With the delayed start time, it looks like I will be unable to stay for the Central SoMa items today. I think I have spoken here on enough occasions for you to know that SPUR supports the Central SoMa Plan, as we have since before the Central Corridor Plan was even an official plan, but I wanted to weigh in one more time. We encourage you to certify the EIR and recommend approval of … Dear Planning Commissioners: With the delayed start time, it looks like I will be unable to stay for the Central SoMa items today. I think I have spoken here on enough occasions for you to know that SPUR supports the Central SoMa Plan, as we have since before the Central Corridor Plan was even an official plan, but I wanted to weigh in one more time. We encourage you to certify the EIR and recommend approval of the plan and all the associated implementing legislation and general plan amendments, etc. We<U+2019>re also really pleased to see the use of AB 73 to create a housing sustainability district that will help bring the housing to fruition more quickly. This plan is really a groundbreaking plan for several reasons. 1. The plan is adding capacity for jobs in the one place in the region where people really take transit in significant numbers. 2. The plan is adding much-needed housing capacity at a time when it has become more commonly understood that we have a housing shortage. Dense, transit-oriented infill housing is appropriate in a place like Central SoMa, and this plan provides significant opportunity for more housing at all income levels to be built. 3. This plan carefully considers how to retain and enhance the things we like about SoMa <U+2014> the mix of uses and some of the funkiness that comes with that <U+2014> and transform the things we don<U+2019>t<U+2014> like the dangerous streetscapes for people who are walking and biking in this neighborhood. 4. Once implemented the plan will create an unprecedented amount of community benefits. SPUR has certainly been a cautionary voice in favor of financial feasibility and moderation but if/when projects are able to move forward, this plan will enable extraordinary things to occur in this neighborhood that will make it a better place for all. 5. Over the time that this plan has been underway, sustainability has been integrated throughout the plan for the neighborhood in a way that has not been done before, including new development with 100% GHG free electricity and envisioning a neighborhood that is greener and cleaner for everyone who lives, works and visits here. We appreciate that the plan looks both at what Central SoMa needs as a neighborhood as well as how it fits into the city and can contribute to the broader solutions San Francisco needs. This plan tries to address both the needs we have right now and the needs we see in the future <U+2014> and it's therefore urgent that the plan move forward now in order to help realize some of the significant public benefits that are envisioned. We appreciate all the work that the planning commission and city staff (particularly Steve Wertheim) have put into this plan over the years. We look forward to this plan coming to fruition...and supporting the city<U+2019>s next neighborhood plan! Best, Kristy Kristy Wang, LEED AP Community Planning Policy Director SPUR <U+2022> Ideas + Action for a Better City [phone removed] [phone removed] m [email removed] SPUR | Facebook | Twitter | Join | Get Newsletters Join us this summer for the SPUR Member Parties! Reserve your spot today >>show more

2018-09-06 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2018-09-06 · support

Further continuance

2018-09-13 · 1 comments · no positions recorded

Fernando Marti · spoken · 2018-09-13 · —

Housing Sustainability District

2018-09-27 · 12 comments · 3 / 0

Dan Frattin · spoken · 2018-09-27 · neutral

Flower Mart

Caroline Chase · spoken · 2018-09-27 · neutral

Proposed amendments

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2018-09-27 · neutral

Proposed amendments

Fernando Marti · spoken · 2018-09-27 · neutral

Proposed amendments

Jim Warshell · spoken · 2018-09-27 · neutral

Old Mint

Katherine Petrin · spoken · 2018-09-27 · neutral

Old Mint

Corey Smith · spoken · 2018-09-27 · support

Support

Erica Martinovich · spoken · 2018-09-27 · neutral

New residential development

John Wood · spoken · 2018-09-27 · neutral

Proposed amendments

Kristy Wong · spoken · 2018-09-27 · support

Support

Francisco D'Acosta · spoken · 2018-09-27 · neutral

Do the right thing

Jane Kim · spoken · 2018-09-27 · support

Opening remarks

2019-05-09 · 1 comments · no positions recorded

David Woo · spoken · 2019-05-09 · neutral

Open space

2019-06-06 · 3 comments · 2 / 0

John Elberling · spoken · 2019-06-06 · support

TODCO Central SoMa Community Plan

Henry Karnilowicz · email · 2019-06-06 · support · source packet

598 Brannan Project
Dear Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, Attached is our letter in support of the 598 Brannan Street project. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Kind regards, Henry Karnilowicz Vice President SomBa (South Of Market Business Association) 615 7th Street San Francisco, CA 94103-4910 [phone removed] cell [phone removed] fax

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2019-06-06 · neutral

Jobs – Housing Linkage fee

2020-09-17 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Daniel Frattin · email · 2020-09-17 · oppose · source packet

Re: Central SoMa Code Clean-Up Legislation (Planning Case No. 2011.1356PCA-02)
Dear President Koppel & Commissioners, Our office represents Fifth & Folsom, LLC, the sponsor of a residential project at 300 5th St. I am writing to request that you continue the Central SoMa Clean-Up legislation that will come before the Commission this Thursday (Case No. 2011.1356PCA-02), because it reduces residential development capacity on certain parcels in conflict with the Housing Crisis Act of 201… show more

Central SoMa Area Plan

Hearings

Comments by hearing (184)