i believe that this is not a good faith document as specified by the state in terms of what needs to be done. here it is -- it is a set of our comments, if you would take it that we submitted repeatedly which is not noted or commented upon at all. it is not noted or commented on at all. it deals specifically with the question of mitigation. we have terrible needs during the coming depression that is going to get deeper. we have resources, shortages before and more so come up. we have not looked into the expediency and ness di of the means and resources to make it so. a definition of a policy is -- is an administrative directive intended to be enforced. that's a definition it is not something to encourage or

comfort willie whatever. that's merely an intrinsib document to the way things have been done. it is not legal. you need to come up with specific litigation in the documents which i have previously given to you. we needed a evaluation of past performance. it is not there. how did our previous actions and propose -- proposals worked. that's required by state law. insufficient data, in terms of diversity of need that we need to address now and into the future, projected. h.d.d. requires that. i wrote that law. mitigation. i just indicated to you, it is totally lacking. how do we make it work? we don't want to encourage, we want to make it work. and the politician of that belong in the board of supervisors, not you.

you are empowered and by your oath of office to come up with an objective professional proceedings. this is not been done. that is not a good thing. finally you haven't loaned inside safety and numerous other things. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. member of the park improvement association. i'm going to read this quickly. the draft june 2010 housing element should have over arching policies that maintain the character of the residently zoned neighborhoods and the neighborhoods of historic merit, but it is the opposite. one two and three zones shouldn't be upzoned. long established neighborhoods have distinct historic carkte which will be forever changed and it will increase density and eliminate heightened parking restrictions that go against the

1990 resident policies. it is this neighborhood character and support that is critical to be left in the housing element policies. the current iterations do not oppose proposition m policies. objective 11 should read maintain the diverse and distinct characters of the neighborhoods, rather than start with recognizing and supports and promote, which suggests alterations that would destroy existing neighborhood character. the draft 2010 housing element waters down the importance of the neighborhood voice and tries to amy the same criteria across diverse and union -- unique areas. and the letter to the community advisory board states that it does not undermine efforts or suggest guidelines or neighborhood ccr's. it directs them. it directs changes and opens a door to green light them in the design guidelines to increase

density. in fact the section that covers policy 1.4, stating insure neighborhoods with community planning processes are used to generate changes to land use controls. it states such plaps can be used to target growth strategically to increase development close to transit and other areas as appropriate. it states that the housing element does not create change to development potential at any location in the city, but it direct the change. some areas have traditionally been denser than other areas because of the history of settlements. people chose to live in denser areas because the sparser areas of the city does not enjoy better weather and nearby amenities. part of the charm of the city is having it left with less dense development. some of the areas with more open space would not be considered best use of land but that's part of the character of the neighborhood. why would the housing element push increased density if the city when it is not needed based on existing number of units in

the pine lye -- pipeline that should be completed. it is more than met with existing units in this pipeline without even upzoning any district. the housing element also does not take into accounts the other policy documents within its own department and potential conflicts with them let alone with the other city agencies policies. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm president of the community association. i like to read parts of this letter. originally coming to the association urges the planning commission to reject the 2009 housing element.

the housing elements intentions are to create transit villages, allowing the transit quarters or to intensify the quashes. but it fails to recognize certain factors. the most important factor, the first step is that -- for smart growth you need an efficient effective and a reliable transit system. without it, smart growth is really not smart growth, taking the unique biking and hiking and using car share are good ideas. unfortunately, it does not work for many individuals, for example the families with children, who have many chores, shoving and medical. at the school -- after the school activities and meetings, another example would be seniors and others with fiscal limitations and of course, supervisors, and commissioners and the city's staffers who cannot depend on muni who must have a reserved parking space

around city hall and other places. actions speak louder than words. advocates strongest support concept of intensification of the transit corridors. they, and -- they're not willing to compromise away to a translator: it is more dependable. michael a renowned planner, he had published in a chronicle, november 23rd 2004 that the city completely misunderstands the history and research of transit based housing as quell as the process of community building. mr. burn i think it goes on further, that the concept is scale. there's not one for density, error the appropriate density depends on scale of the surrounding neighborhoods. transit villages respect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, especially that of

the character fert -- supported by existing residents. going on, san francisco -- already has wonderful villages which are fragile and can be -- can be destroyed by large scale development. think of san francisco neighborhoods like more very welly and richmond and west portal and castro and the marina, those are examples. the housing element, ignores the character. it -- it seeks to squeeze persons into these neighborhoods often into -- into hard configurations and against neighborhood opposition. now -- now, i know that -- i need to 0 to submit comments, regarding the housing element, there's several things we oppose. one is policy 1.4, that should not be changed. neighborhoods support it, the planning process is critical. number two 1.5. and understand it has been removed, i'll go past that. number three, policy 10.2 do not

weaken d.r. there's a policy 11.4, retain this -- retain this policy. please do not be ward 3.3. thank you. >> good evening commissioners, my name is sara, i'm deputy director of f.e.r. aftera member of the body to the housing development. i encourage you to ask that the third draft reincorporate some of the smart growth that the first draft that were exercised in the most recent draft. as you can see from the list of public -- comments, henderson who is representing district five and eight and one have all

expressed concerns about the current document as that that -- as has the housing collision and the golden gate heights neighborhood association. tim and i are here today. everybody else is exhausted with the process. but -- we'll make our cases if we can. >> page three of the housing element outlines the core values of the housing element. first to prioritize permanently affordable housing. second to recognize and preserve neighborhood character. third to integrate housing jobs and transportation and infrastructure. four to cultivate the city as a sustainable model of development. we agree with all of those values and feel that they could be supported -- supported in a well crafted housing element. unfortunately we feel that the current draft of the housing element strips away its -- much of the the support for number three and number four. we ask that that language be reinstated in keeping with the letter on july 28th, 2010. specifically, we ask that policy 1.5 be reinstated.

the very one that other speakers were talking about. the one that says support new housing projects and cites them located near transit lines. that doesn't say anything about increasing density. it is a very mild statement, just to support new producing prodgeets on sites located close to transit lines. some of the language i thought was incredibly clear. it is not any -- any line anywhere in the city. it is our major, major transit corridor on page 14, some of the stricken language refers to bart's heavy rail hines, meaning metro's system. and muni's major article teerl lines. i think -- i think one of the best examples of -- of what we're talking about is -- with the market octavia plan, where you had a neighborhood plan there included voices, both from the neighborhood, from -- from the city and from the regional level coming together, talking about what should be done and in a neighborhood. and the result was, upzoning

along the major corridor and then a downzoning in a protection of the -- of the -- of the more fine grain residential neighborhoods nearby. so, that is a type of planning that i think that the housing ought to be supported, it is the type of planning we have done before. it is the type of planning we should be proud of and moving forward. as a number of other comments i don't have time to go through. they're in the letter and i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. thank you. >> >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm tim colon and run the housing action coalition. we applaud the work that the planning staff has done on this. i'm -- in particular convening the citizen's advisory board to get input. we were pretty disappointed in the current draft of the housing element. we thought those june 2009 one was much stronger and we feel that -- that the current draft

is sort of marching away from the values that -- that were in the first draft and that we support. we believe thisee that successful housing element is going to -- to achieve three very important civic goals, the first is enhancing housing affordability in a city where this is becoming an increasingly scarce commodity. we feel that actions taken that impede building housing work against this. we're concerned about the the current draft. second, given the enormous environmental challenges we face, we think that the housing element should guide us in making better hand use choices. and paramount to this is bringing housing and jobs in to closer proximity in way that is favor -- increasing use of transit and reducing our carbon footprint. it is simply not possible to do this without thoughtfully increasing the height and density in all of the areas of our city that can accommodate it. it is our view that there is probably not a single

neighborhood in san francisco that couldn't make a small -- modest but meaningful contribution in this regard. this leads to the third point that we think about a successful housing element. density equity should be explicitly promoted in city planning as a simple fairness issue. it is well known that there are some folks that continue to view the neighborhoods as exempt from accepting new development because of perceived risk to their quality of life and character can. other neighborhoods are required to september far more than their fair share. it is important that the housing element should not be seen as applying only to already densely developed neighborhoods east of twin peeks. we think that the current draft tends to err on that side. there are changes that were made and i could do go them. if you could do one thing, it would be reinstate policy 1.5. that's supporting housing

projects on sites that are located close to major transit lines. for us, we routinely disappointed in the removal of that as it is hard to imagine a statement removing that that is -- is a more direct negation of the intent of sb 5e. and supporting transit and other development is one of the most fundamental tools we could do to reduce the m.t. and promote the goals of this land mark legislation six p 3w5e. this should be -- this should be an explicit value of the housing element. and then -- on the question of there was 11.4 prom poting -- promote egg neighborhood character is undeniably an important value. we feel it is abused in certain instances. the older draft is better. [no audio] >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm kathy, first i would like to

say that the revised language in the second draft calling for a -- for neighborhood supported community planning processes is a step in the right direction. it should not retained, people who live in or own property in a neighborhood have an interest in maintaining neighborhood character. validation of their role is the only way to achieve the goal of the priority planning principle passed in proposition m and codified in the planning code that neighborhood character be maintained. organizations dominated by the building industry for profit or nonprofit do not have an interest in maintaining neighborhood character. they have their own agenda. also, to make the housing element consistent with proposition m, objective 11 should be changed to state to maintain instead of merely support and respect the diverse and distinct character of san francisco's neighborhoods. the court of appeals decision

that led to the e.i.r. recognized that the word respect is a downfrayed from language calling for maintaining neighborhood character. the calling for a neighborhood liberal initiative should state that it would not support ballot initiatives because the planning department should not engage in political activity related to ballot initiatives. in addition this draft is incomplete and it lacks the work programs, the section where the work programs are supposed to appear as blank. that is supposed to indicate the area slated for development. in this regard, for a letter dated by september 9th, the state department housing and community development which reviewed this june 2010 draft has -- demanded further information and stated that this draft is not yet adequate.

and specifically, they stated that -- while the element and attachment d 3 lists sites by parcel number and site zone and capacity, it should list sites by plan area or other designations guiding zoning implementation and development. attach. d 3 was not included in any copy of this draft of the housing element, or in the e.i.r. apen diss. it was not provided to the community advisory body. and i see no justification for the failure to provide this key appendix which specifies the parcel and capacity of each parcel, from the community advisory group or the public. in fact it warrants opening the community advisory body process and the e.i.r. process to permit comments on this document and all of the further information that is requested by the state. and lastly -- this is the

foundational document the from which all rezonings are flow and its importance cannot be minimized. >> few comments and maybe questions. i guess the first one is in regards to the density question which has been raised and we're goc back and forth on that. as a -- you know, are -- a resident of the west side i can accept the fact there are place that is we could selectively add dense they on the west side where it is appropriate to help with our problem with housing of course. there would be solutions. we also have to be careful to preserve diversity of density in san francisco. oftentimes we drive most productive citizens, particularly those with families to san mateo county or playerin because of inadequate family housing.

we want to make sure that we preserve those neighborhoods and that housing we do have -- we should probably be looking at there whole diversity of density type issue on a seven county basis and see well everybody should share in it too. not just san francisco but we're looking at our county specifically. i appreciate the charts that you gave us. they were very interesting as far as housing production and you know we certainly got to work on the middle housing which of course is the subject of discussion for most of the nine years i have bine on the planning commission. maybe we're moving in that direction, i have some ideas. and i don't see a problem with over 100% of market rate. the more you produce the better. you get tax revenues you gets people here rather than somewhere else and you get money toward affordable housing. the problem is not what you produce but what you don't produce. i think that's something we got to work on. we got a couple of kind of unique problems in san francisco. one is we have a high percentage

of historically seismicly compromised dysfunctional housing in parts of the city. we have to somehow incentivize the recon fig ration and improvement of these properties. i think if we could figure out a way to trade the -- trade these for new affordable units, i think we can come up with a solution that might help the middle income problem. that may be a legislative thing, we -- they can't do that in the planning element, but i think we have to emphasize the fact that -- we -- we can't -- we aren't going to be able to meet our housing needs by, unless we solve this problem. and the other problem we have is we have a huge work force here. dive verse work force and unlike places like new york which has five burrows and places with --like henderson and other auksrilly housing around this, we're focusinging on just the city and county of fran san francisco. i think we have to look at the regional solution and the the

lands that the city and county owns and santa clara county and alameda county and san mateo county, working with those counties as a way to meet some of our housing problems, you know, i received something recently about u some housing and units in san mateo for 975,000. a block from bart. i mean now, this is the transit village concept that would work. it would work in some places in san francisco but it works in a lot of misss in other areas. so i think we have to -- you know be aware of those things and work in conjunction with other counties to figure out how to meet our regional housing needs. those are my main things. as i say, i think we have to also have an equal emphasis on home ownership, i know we have always -- the housing element has always spoken given, given a consideration or a heaning towards rental housing on the assumption that it is more

affordable. i'm not sure in the long run if that's the case. if anybody that bought a house 20, 0 years ago and made the down payments and payments and their payments are still the same, and they own it outright where they have small payments, certainly it is a testament to the affordability of ownership where appropriate. it is not the only way rental is really important too. but i think we have to -- we have to look at affordable solutions on both sides. so those are the main things that -- at this time. i think you're doing a really good job dealing with some really difficult problems. thank you >> commissioner olague. >> yeah. >> i have my notes. well, one of the -- one of the other issues that i was wondering a bit about and what is -- and what is the rehab, the acquisition we have. i didn't see much in here but

listen. >> this draft. draft two does have a policy on the rehas been. >> i left my pact at home. my packet at home. >> the chart. >> also to the chart again. i must have overlooked it. the new policy on acquisition rehab in draft two, is policy 3.2. promotes housing acquisition and rehabilitation. to protect affordability for existing occupants. >> okay. >> i don't know if you had specific questions or -- >> it got lost in the draft one and draft two. >> i think it is important to emphasize that. >> sure great. >> i guess the other thing is -- that many of the -- of the members of the cab approach -- many of us on the commission and i received letters from jason

henderson and -- and talked to other members and many of them did seem to -- did teem to be dispointed in the second draft and felt that it really wasn't in this -- in the spirit of the original you know consensus, or whatever they -- they arrived at. at some point, i was wondering if i guess right now my concern has to deal a bit with the process. so, i was wondering if -- if any kind of after the second draft came, through, if the cab was approached again to get some kind of a poll, or some kind of a sense from them what they thought about some of these -- these changes because i'm hearing a loot of the same issues that were raised by -- spur and hack around like 1.5 and some of these other issues. so, i just was -- i know we have people also -- that represent

some of the neighborhoods in the west side that share, maybe have very kind of -- what is the word i'm looking for? kind of differing maybe -- maybe -- what is the word? goals is for the what i'm looking for but values. that's not even quite right. but -- so i don't know how we get to a place where -- where there's the more healthy consensus around -- around language that we could adopt that would -- be in the spirit of some of these ideas around flked -- density is not the word i want to use. that tends. i think you're right, sometimes the language gets a little bit -- >> planries. >> yeah. then we get caught up in this real uncomfortable place. i think there has to be work

done with both of those -- interests to see if we could get to a place where there is -- there might be more comfortable language that -- that would you know be in the spirit of what everyone was trying to achieve in the -- in the cab. i know there's a cab, i know there's other groups on the west side that might you know -- i've met. i have one set of one meeting with, for both -- where they were present and represented. it just seems like we're going to have do a lot more work before we could get to a place where -- this document is -- is at a place where it is going to be adopted. i realize we have certain mandates from the state that are connected to fundings. i know there's -- a desire on -- on yetch's part to see this. ultimately -- ultimately adopted

and i think -- but it has to be at a level that -- that where there's some comfort on both sides with -- without -- you know, i don't know how we get there. i would like to hear more from some of the other. i'm hearing both -- not deep satisfaction on either side. i'm stuck in the process of how do we get there, and i don't know whether that means having more -- more meetings with -- whether it is ultimate thely that we have to rely on this form to try to get to a place we could adopt language that might be more comfortable for everyone. but i'm not sure how we get there. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i was going to say something else, but commissioner olague triggered smk in my 0 mind. it is the city's document -- the

board of supervisors will have toultly adopt it. but, you know, we're in the front line. from that regard, i think -- we're not going to make everybody happy. we didn't -- it is -- looking at the eastern neighborhoods and market octavia and the process in japantown. you know, not -- we're not going to satisfy everybody and we're not going to -- make policies and goals and objectives that would make everybody happy. perhaps part of it, i think -- maybe what -- what commissioner olague is searching for is maybe some kind -- i think people have a discomfort because they're not quite sure how it -- it might be physically manifested so to speak in their areas. so maybe there might be some work -- i know that the general plan is a little different than neighborhood plans and that kind of stuff. but maybe some examples