could it be that when you have all of the units on site, maybe we can look at the nexus between some of these conditional decisions and how we can gain a greater affordability in that process. maybe we can put language around looking at developing housing and conditional uses, maybe there'll be language around how we use the trade for affordable housing. i think that is the thing. the idea that i thought of, affordable for more parking spaces, the overall parking limits. density bonuses. you know how we have the x zoning. you only get the

additional 15 feet if you do affordable housing. it is something we can at least say is a priority. i think maybe spelling out ideas like that. i don't know the implications, but if we put that out there, we can start working on directions. commissioner antonini: a couple of things, and i have a question on timing. a distinction needs to be made on transit first being discouraging auto use and using transit as opposed to not allowing residential parking. it will either be on the street or in a garage. they are two different things and the elements should be geared toward the

discouragement of using the autos, but allowing them to have a place to put cars. and a question about density, i think it was raised somewhere. we want to hear a little bit more about what that really means. we are talking general terms, and i think it was said that where area plans call for, a lot of neighborhoods would be fearful that all of a sudden, they would find out it has four dwelling units next door instead of two. part of the density does not necessarily help the property values if it ceases to be a single family homes. the final thing is the emphasis, two things quickly. affordability is very important.

but what i hear a lot of from people is not the price, but the junk that is being sold for the price. the condition of housing, they can go someplace out of san francisco and for the same price by something in better shape. a lot of our housing stock has deteriorated over the years. i think that is more of an issue for a lot of people than the actual price, not that we don't want to try to keep the prices down. we want to make sure that what we are preserving or building is good quality. i have a question about the timing she brought up about having the time for comments and responses on the latest version. what is the time frame? will there be time for the public?

maybe you can answer that about their concern. are they going to have time to respond? >> as we heard comments last night, there might be a set of changes we want to take -- and make so that we get something you are all comfortable with approving a. it is the recommendation that we hold -- we have given another month until we are requesting adoption on march 24. it is the staff recommendation that we hold to that time line. we are one of the few cities listed on the web site as out of compliance. it makes it eligible for funding, one of the things that just came by my desk is the

housing related parks program that allowed us to get funding, which is one of the parks we will be constructing in the eastern neighborhoods that we were able to apply for several years ago. if we don't have an adopted housing element, we will not be eligible to apply for it or other funds. i might turn the question over to doug. i am not as attuned to what affordable housing funds are out there, but that is why we want to see this adopted as soon as possible. commissioner antonini: i welcome your comments, but i think the point is that the adoption of approved housing elements, there are more than just housing grants that are tied to it.

there are all sorts of grants like infrastructure and redevelopment activity. we are required to have an approving -- approved housing element. >> i would just say that when we started this housing element, i was in the third grade. the idea that we need more time is, frankly, insulting. the amount of parsing that is going on is not reasonable. i have been in government for five years and i have never seen the the amount of exaggeration and associated with a document like i have seen this one. out of respect to all of you, this is a policy guide. it is not dakota.

the attempt to conflate these things and act as if the world is coming to an end because of this document, to may, is everything that is wrong with working in california. i would urge you to move this thing forward. it is a complete waste of time to be spending any more time on parsing five words at a time on this document. that is the reason why i am not participating in most of the conversations about it. i have had it. i don't understand how we're sitting here and pretending the difference between a kleenex and tissue. they are the same. move on. my parents had tissue, i think it's a kleenex. commissioner antonini: they said they can send comments and, and

they will be looked at. and that's all. >> at some point, you have to this is not much of an action document. it is a place mat. president olaguecommissioner moo be mediators here. anybody else out there, they are an incredibly generous person. if there is any discussion he need have, use the next few weeks in order to have that discussion. this has been around for a long time. if there is anything urgent in your mind, why didn't you, earlier? there were some very powerful

comments being made, and i have to ask you if you take responsibility to talk and get your last bit in so that you're comfortable they were being heard. >> i have some comments to make. i can write them down. just to give you a sense of where they're at, i think some of the comments of mr. brooks are very important. i have always been perplexed by issues that are supposedly green issues and how they intersect or don't with transit oriented development as it relates to parking or transportation, if it is through the housing element or someplace else, i think that conversation needs to happen. i did not see language here that relates to shelters. until we come up with something

that really is going to house homeless people, we will continue to have people that are facing struggles and economic challenges. i think there needs to be some examination unhook of what the shelter use means. especially now that we have laws in place that are so draconian, it might lead to where people that don't have a place to stay go. there is the issue of keeping shelters open, operational costs. keeping shelters open during the day, that kind of thing so that people have a place to go. that is kind of a complicated issue, and i will defer those types of questions to the coalition on homelessness and folks like that.

i notice that there is a lot of language in here that relates to families who are working families. they generally earn less per capita, but require larger housing units. i think it is a question that needs to be looked at a little bit more. what is the income level of some of these families? is there any language that insurers -- not ensures, but keeping htem i - them in san francisco. some families in the '90s, it might be considered the development pressures for lack of a better word. those types of things, they were renters that had to leave the

city. sometimes condominium conversions, those types of issues that came up. demolitions, speculation. it pushed a lot of families that i was familiar with out of the city. it wasn't about parking. it was about affordability and access to affordable family housing, but some of that. i know is kind of disturbing, and there is no language for this, really. every year, there seems to be a lower number of african- americans that live in san francisco. i don't know what we do about that, really. i am curious to know what some of the issues that are forcing the population out or why they are choosing not to be here. it is a complicated issue.

>> we have done a certain amount of work on this. i am sure we can get you a copy. it is a very interesting thing. it is very upsetting. it is very complicated. it is disproportionately middle- class african-americans. we will give you a copy. commissioner moore: i read -- president olague: i realize that. ultimately, we start to look at some of these projects as they relate to the needs that have been established. and the reports would be good for us to keep track of. i don't know if that has to do with the housing element in directly. there are a few other things

like seniors. i know the population is going to go, according to the housing element draft, 60 years and older will be 30% by 2013. i am wondering what are the demographics. where do they live, what are the needs going to beat in the next few years? i have been looking at aging, and it is interesting to note that there will be an aging population in san francisco. i remember reading somewhere that it would be a higher percentage of aging population compared to some of the other major cities in california. i think there is certain preparation and mindful is that we need to have when it comes to looking at that issue or we will not be prepared for that.

there is some language in here that addresses that. but i will look at that a little bit more closely. that is kind of the gist of what i was thinking about. i think other folks raised the issue on density. there might be a few more comments that i might add to it. commissioner moore: i only have one question. you mentioned that the basis of your study relies on the previous and not the current census. are you going to a least find a way of comparing trends one with the other? there are many very basic assumptions.

there is a huge shakeup in all areas of the population part -- partially based on the economy. are you very quickly analyzing anything that is very different? >> as you know, the long form of the census was eliminated. they have been using the survey that was more of an estimate and the data is not really the best where we have been getting bits and pieces of it. at this point, we are figuring out what the data is. there are 10 questions that were

done last year. the data will be released either made or late march, and we are hoping to be quickly able to read this and provide information to not just the commissioners, but also the board of supervisors. we are expecting a that the count may not be the best. we want to react as quickly as we can to correct the estimates. and we do not expect to have the information and ready before the march 24 hearing. i guess that is my response to that. commissioner moore: but you will be writing some kind of summary or synopsis?

>> it will be based on the american community survey. it will be around the end of march. or maybe april. commissioner moore: i am comfortable with you just explain that. president olague: looking at the overcrowded households, the information that you gave us, there are some responses here, but that is the kind of thing that i want to take another peek at. i would like to see the demographic shift in places like the mission, the filipino populations, and other parts of the city. i look forward to seeing those numbers. i think that is it. >> the motion on the floor is for initiation. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye.

commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner moore: aye. president olague: aye. >> the item is passed. your ad general public comment. -- you're at general public comment. >> i'm eric brooks with the sustainable green party working group. the three members of the public that are at home watching this on tv, i like to clarify. commissioner sugaya said earlier, what happened to hydrogen? it is not really fuel. you take either methane or water, those are the main substances. and you use electricity to

divide that methane or water into the component parts to you get hydrogen as part of it for what you would call fuel. it is better to create that situation in the first place where you are splitting the water or the methane. it is better to look at hydrogen because it is called a hydrogen sell as a storage device or a battery. you are losing some of the energy. the only time you would want to use hydrogen to power the vehicles is when you want to make sure that a vehicle is reliable like a fire truck or an ambulance.

and you will get a lot more efficiency. if you are splitting ethane, it does not do a lot of improvement on that either. i know is the end day, it is a little wonky, but people should know that. president olague: any additional public comment? commissioner sugaya: thanks, i really don't care. [laughter] president olague: general public comment is closed and the meeting is adjourned.

hey, yo, check out this chef, right? right? that's so gay. that's really gay. dude, look at those pants. please don't say that. what? don't say that something is gay when you mean that something is dumb or stupid. it's insulting. it's like if i thought this pepper shaker was stupid, and i said, "man, this pepper shaker is so 16-year-old boy with a cheesy mustache." just saying.

>> i have been a cable car grip for 21 years. i am a third generation. my grand farther and my dad worked over in green division for 27. i guess you could say it's blood. >> come on in. have a seat. hold on. i like it because i am standing up. i am outside without a roof over my head and i see all

kinds of people. >> you catch up to people you know from the past. you know. went to school with. people that you work with at other jobs. military or something. kind of weird. it's a small word, you be. like i said, what do people do when they come to san francisco? they ride a cable car. >> california line starts in the financial district. people are coming down knobbhill. the cable car picks people up. takes them to work. >> there still is no other device to conquer these hills better than a cable car. nobody wanted to live up here because you had to climb up here. with the invention of the cable

car, these hills became accessible. he watched horses be dragged to death. cable cars were invent in san francisco to solve the problem with it's unique, vertically challenged terrain. we are still using cars a century old >> the old cable car is the most unique thing, it's still going. it was a good design by then and is still now. if we don't do something now. it's going to be worse later. >> the cable cars are built the same as they were in the late 1800's. we use a modern machinery.

we haven't changed a thing. it's just how we get there. >> it's a time consuming job. we go for the quality rather than the production. we take pride in our work and it shows in the end product. >> the california line is mostly locals. the commuters in the morning, i see a lot of the same people. we don't have as tourists. we are coming up to street