the first paragraph that says, "while the building would substantially alter the visual character of the project site and appeared to be considerably larger than the one- and two- story buildings adjacent to it," that is a prelude to blocking scenic views. if you take that statement, where they're talking about something different than views, i think he would have to possibly change the conclusion with respect to the visual impact. i like to have that reexamined and responsive document. lastly, this is on page 442, i would like to support the planning staff's conclusion about the historic resource, the historic significance of this building, which is in my view

the correct interpretation of the materials that were submitted. i believe by the eir consultant. the conclusion reached by planning staff i think is, in my opinion, the correct one in the face of a different conclusion reached by the consultants that prepared the historic resources. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i would agree with the historic preservation commission, the information on the preservation alternatives. i think for disclosure, it is interesting to see how these fit into our thinking and it also shows to the public in perpetuity why it is done. just matching and if it -- just mentioning it is not enough to do so. i'm interested in having more on the individuals, but the

building itself does not warrant preservation. i think the history of the people had something to do with a history of the city in the last 40 years. i would like to see more details and more archival information available about that. it will not matter at the moment, but in the future it will. vice president olague: that corresponds with the first point of those comments. i support those as well. there should be a mitigation measures included. president miguel: i agree with the hbc's comments, and with a certain extent to commissioner moore and sugaya, without going into details. parking is not a ceqa item, per se, and as far as the actual

building design, the lot design, the skin of the building, all of that, that is something that would come before this commission, quite obviously, during the entitlement process, and it is not part of the eir-ceqa process. ceqa says this is accurate and complete. i think we have made some comments here as to completeness, certainly, and references to its accuracy, but on the whole, at this point, i do not see anything drastically wrong with it. the items that have been mentioned are covered before we get the final document approval. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i remind the public that the comment time is open until august 10.

if there are additional comments that you wish to submit in writing or if someone has not had the opportunity to come today, please get that in by the 10th. as you know, the process will be comments and responses that will come forth, coupled with the eir, and that will make the final environmental impact report in the future. president miguel: that final document, the present draft eir plus the comments and responses document will be voted upon by this commission at that time. that time cannot be ascertained now because it would depend on the amount of time it takes for the staff to respond to all of the comments, oral and written, that were made today. so you'll have time to comment to us when this comes before us

for final acceptance, as well as further on in the process, during the actual entitlement process for the project itself. we are not at the very beginning, we are somewhere midway in the middle process. secretary avery: thank you. that concludes the public hearing on this draft document current -- on this track document. commissioners, we are going back to item number eight on your calendar, case number 2007.1275, san francisco 2009 housing element informational update on that document. president miguel: just so everyone understands they have read the agenda correctly on eight and nine, this is an

informational update at this point. you can or cannot, as you wish at the end of this agenda item, but basically, item nine as the public hearing on the draft environmental impact report. this is the prep. >> thank you. good afternoon. i am planning department's staff with a city-wide division. i have been working on the policy and objective piece of the housing aliment -- housing element. i am here to give you a quick status update on where we are since the last time we were before you and how we hope to go through the process after the e.i.r. hearing. we start the planning process for the 2009 housing element in the fall of 2008. we had a three-pronged approach. we had a community advisory body

which included 15 committee members -- 15 community members. we had about 10 meetings with them. we had stakeholder sessions with special interest groups and a round table, followed by 30 city-wide workshops, helping different communities go through the different parts of the project. following this extensive outreach, we released the first draft of the 2009 housing element update. we also held a hearing here on parts 1 and 2. during that time, after we released the document, or received a number of comments from community advisory body, yourself, and other members of the public. based on those comments, we made a revision and released a second draft of the 2009 housing element last june. that draft is available on our

website, as well as a summary of the changes for people who want to read the memo. this is covered in the draft e.i.r. in july, we also formally submitted this draft to the department of housing and community development, which is the state agency that we are required to submit this document to, and we informed them of our schedule, which is drafting the environmental impact report right now, then report by the end of this year on the adoption. we have continued to receive a lot of comments on the second draft, comments about the differences between the two, as well as general comments from folks who are newer to the process. we look forward to hearing more from folks. i know you have received a few as well. we are proposing to come back to you in late september, early

october, to have a more substantive hearing once we have more time for comments to be looked into. are there any questions? i will be here for both sessions, but otherwise i appreciate your time. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there any public comment on this precious item? -- on this preface item? >> good evening, commissioners. as you know, i email dui, two letter -- i emailed you a comment letter and i will be speaking to the latest draft of the housing element, not the eir. we have a number of pretty grave concerns with this latest draft

of the housing element. i had the pleasure of serving on the community advisory body, along with a variety of different stakeholders representing different groups, different parts of the city. we have a lot of extremely lively and productive discussions. i don't think we all agreed, but i feel that the previous draft of the housing element represented accurately the variety of the different positions that we held. i feel like the changes that we have seen in this draft of the housing element essentially strip out a lot of the smart growth aspects of the plan that were previously in there. there previously was language around supporting housing near transit nodes, there was a map of what was considered a major

transit line, there is a lot of concern particularly from folks on the west side who did not want there to be any old bus line. there was a map in the previous draft that showed the major transit lines. that has been cut out. we have a lot of concerns about that, and i don't want to go through each and every point, but i just want to let you know, the commission, that i -- and i believe you have received letters from jason henderson and joe curtain and a number of others on the commission -- that we felt the position we have at it, and particularly given this hellman -- this element, we should at least be looking forward to the next housing element, where we have to look

at transportation and land use planning. we should be for thinking. we are san francisco. we're not going to go through each and every item, but i want you to know that the things that have been taking -- taken out of this housing element are a big concern to us and we will be looking forward to that meeting that will be occurring in late september. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. >> i am bob. i had not plan on speaking on this item, but i think it is important speak at this point. i have been here 40 years, chaired the board of supervisors task force on noise control in the 1970's. i was on the advisory committee

on central embarcadero after the work wake -- after the earthquake. i was asked approximately two years ago by the mayor not to wear the hat at any particular body, including san francisco the beautiful, but try to see if we could find a way to avoid in the next door around, the 2009 housing element go around, the five years of litigation that have consumed us in the last housing element. with that in regard, we have had meetings with the head of planning, also mike cohen, and a representative from the mayor's office. that his mid going on off and on the past several months. we have come to a point with the assistance of planning that the

draft housing element which we agreed could be issued even though was a draft in june to avoid issues, to have redline. the difficulty is that spur, which i happen to think highly of in general, has generally been conceived as far too pro- growth to be healthy enough for the neighborhood characterization, as part of the 2009 housing element. my goal is simple -- to avoid another round of litigation, find a compromise of words, and avoid a citizen's initiative that would trump the work that has been done by so many people find a compromise. the changes that i believe that are referred to as a part of smart growth, just an educated guess, would be putting the

words maintained the neighborhood character as opposed to respect neighborhood character, things of that level. just a general statement of policy, there is sufficient concern by at least 14 of the neighborhood groups which stepped up to object to the 2004 housing element. unless we have something that gives more lip service -- not too smart growth, because we are beyond that idea at -- the real problem is in the early draft, the idea was not only were the major transit corridors which bore no resemblance to major transit corridors, but instead of looking for that, instead of looking at the said act -- set back, there were being put anywhere. the hope is that we will find a compromise, one that is reasonable growth and hopefully smart growth. president miguel: thank you. it is there additional public

comment on this item? >> commissioners, peter cohen. heimlich to speak here -- i am going to speak here. we were not invited and then not have a formal role in this, but we have put bought into this. all of this was prior to the april, 2010, memo. i have not look at the changes enough to know if this bill along with our thoughts, but i know they might be slightly different from what we were supportive of. the trial is supportive of the housing element. it read well. it was frankly a good policy document, the best i have seen in a long time. it was a good piece of work. the thing that i want to talk about today is how realistic

they are, and how we go from policy to what happens 24/7 in the neighborhood scale. we deal with projects, and the frustration that you will find is there is a big difference between what is reasonable policy and what happens to project levels through the process. i will talk about a few pieces of the housing element that are critical to that. we're the beneficiaries of the upper market or the market octavia plan. the boundary is not all the way there, but it will supposedly be better than others, i think we are a litmus test. issue six in this document is critical. it says maintained the date and a first character of san francisco neighborhoods, talks a lot about customized design guidelines and local characteristics. the reality is the residential

design guidelines are a fairly clumsy, one-size-fits-all tool. we've developed custom design guidelines for our neighborhood and were rejected. that sounds good but is not the way things work. issue no. 7, infrastructure and planning balance, there is no formal linkage between the entitlement process and the delivery of community benefits. no one disagrees it should happen, but the reality, as we know, the commission could approve and comments, but infrastructure committee benefits happen to other parts of the government bureaucracy and there is no link which -- there is no linkage. the third issue, equal housing opportunity, speaks to integrated housing in the neighborhood. and four generic -- unfortunately, we're not getting units on the ground in upper

market. there are no designated sites. we to see these policies have been in the real world. with that, we support the policies. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the president of the small property owners of san francisco institute, an 11-year-old organization. our members often live in the same buildings with their renters and consider the buildings their homes and their investments all in one. . the proportion of the housing element update, we have lobbied vigorously for inclusion of a simple statement of fact. housing policies adopted by the city and county of san francisco have decreased supply of rental housing in the city.

over 40,000 rental units have been removed from the market since 1998. while many of these homes have been converted to ownership status, there are still about 15,000 units that are simply held off the market by their runners. these are used as storage, guest rooms for visiting family, offices, or in the most egregious cases, in my own neighborhood, 11 blocks, there are 11 vacant units held off the market. that is just one block, residential neighborhood. my figures come from three studies sponsored by spur, the board of supervisors, and an informal poll. there are various it reasons owner stop offering rental units, but the reasons resonate with a common thread. it is almost impossible to remove a sitting record -- sitting renter long as they

have. pay their rent. should they want to remove an unruly person, a person who has violated the rules, the owner must follow an expensive an expansive course and sometimes fails. it is not unusual to pay director over $50,000 to get them to move out. we have very little control over who lives on our property once it is occupied. the rent control ordinance provides us with no additional rent to allow relatives of the renter to move into the unit up to the limit allowed by the housing code. we can raise rent only by 60% of the bay area cost of living index, which is depressed by those rent-controlled loss, -- laws. our efforts for reform have fallen on deaf ears. at the march 31 meeting in haight-ashbury, at least eight members attended. in the public at rich document,

there is no mention of any of the statements. our office hours with planning also were dismissed by planning, ignoring the basic cost and cause of the dilemma. the planning department is staffed by planners who have been trained to offer government solutions to problems and don't recognize that housing in every community and the united states should be maintained privately. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> my name is peter. i am the executive director of small planners of san francisco. i think the private sector is short changed in the housing plan. i have read the revised plan, and is mentioned from time to

time, but it is not given much coffee. i think what we need to do is find a way is enticed a private investor to invest more in the city. i, at this -- i, at this with many years of working in russia and cuba. i have seen what it is when you squeeze out the private sector and try to do everything by government means. you wind up with no housing at all. i just wanted to say i think the plan needs to stretch more. why people are leaving, why they're investing in other areas? i myself have invested in san francisco. i want have rental properties here. i am an example of the type of person who is not going to invest more in san francisco because of our onerous laws. i am not going to suggest what

the percentage should be of affordable housing units or anything like that. that is for others to figure out. but the atmosphere that private individuals have to live under in this city is not conducive to investment and it is hurting us. thank you. president miguel: thank you. it is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner olague? vice president olague: i looked to in compared the june 2009 draft and felt very satisfied. i did not think they did any changes, really. maybe if the more collaborations in some instances. my priority really has to do with how to keep and economically diverse population of san francisco. those are my priorities. any language. affordability -- and the language around affordability is important to me. i thought the first draft of

2009 was in the right track. i think the idea, i agree with a lot of the comments that were made. they are more focused or directed towards the housing element, but i think there might be some that also might be considered, as far as the draft is concerned. i support those comments that i read in spur's letter as well, and i read mr. henderson's letter. i guess i was a little disappointed that i was hearing too much, too many disappointed people, too many comments coming from people who participated in the cap who felt like -- they seemed satisfied, to me, i don't want to misquote anybody, but

they seemed disappointed with the direction of the current draft and felt their input was basically not really taken into consideration. that seemed to be a step back as a related to certain issues -- as it related to certain issues around density equity, equity issues and housing, and those types of things. maybe it will be better for me to put this in that riding rather than be labor it here, the reason being i did not bring my draft document with me, which was working on at my home. i forgot, i apologize for that, but i want to say i am concerned i am hearing from too many people involved in cap who are disappointed in the direction that the housing element new draft is taking, and i think that is cause for concern, really.

i will have another discussion separate about the draft? >> we will continue to receive comments from you and the public until the end of the summer, and we will take those and prepare a presentation for you in late september, early october. that is where we can get some resolution on the differing comments. vice president olague: great, because everyone's input should be respected. i will write some comments, also, by the end of this month. >> thank you. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i noticed the end of the comment time is the 16th, but i understand that has been extended? >> i think that is two different products. this is the policy document. we don't have a hard and fast deadline on the comment on the policy document. commissioner antonini: i think that be extended and it is

support for a couple of reasons, which may come up and the other presentation, so maybe that is appropriate. i will make some general comments. i agree with one of the speakers tonight that sometimes the problem with vacancies is serious, and is one of the unintended consequences from some of our tenancy policies in san francisco. to what extent the housing element will address this is questionable, because there may be things they're not part of the housing element, but the one thing i think is very good with this document, and i have been through the earlier one and 2003, 2004, i think this document analyzes what is desirable verses maintenance of the status quo. an earlier documents in the early part of the last decade sort of said everything said -- everything is fine, maintain everything the way it is, same percentage of rental property, same income level, same

everything across the board, and it does not speak to the fact we are losing our middle class. probably i think housing dictates population, and i think the kind of housing we have created in san francisco to some degree is causing the exodus of the middle class. families with children. and residents to stay here a long time. we tend to have a transient population in many parts of the city, people come here after college, stay for awhile, and then they leave san francisco because in many instances our housing stock does not meet their needs. that is kind of an overview, and you know all the other things in the document. i think it is 22% of the units have three or more bedrooms, and home ownership is extremely low relative to the national average and even the big cities, which are historically around