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 50%, where as only about one-third. those are just some of my comments. the other thing, and i think now have another layer to add to it, the historic layer. we have a lot of older, seismically challenged, somewhat dysfunctional housing on the east side of the city. it may look good from the

outside, but a lot of the units are now configured to meet the needs of modern needs and families, and i think we have to look at our policies and see if we need to restore some of these units to their original configurations or make them more family friendly. there are many barriers to that, and we are overburdened with smaller, undersized unit. that is kind of an overview on the general status of the housing in san francisco, to that extent. i think you are on the right track with this document, but it is a complicated document and needs to have a lot of vetting before we finalize it. i understand there might be some necessity to pass it in terms of getting funding for affordable housing. we have to be cognizant of those states, too, because that will be important, to make sure we do not hold those things up too

long. i think the vetting process is important. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: there are large amounts of units which are held empty, off the market. i feel we could ask everybody in the room how many units are held back in the neighborhoods on their street. one my own, i could probably count 20-40 within a short radius, walking distance. how we talk about growth, smart growth, when we are not enforcing existing units, intensifying the city for speculative development rather than an immediate need? and then commissioner antonini's comments on soft story and necessary rental -- i am not sure, that is a question i have,

about smart growth and sustainability, but looking at the region, i did not see the region make a contribution and smart growth and sustainability. there are a number of communities, i don't want to mention them by name, or not even allowing outside use multi unit dwellings in their communities. how does that at up -- how does that add up when we are carrying an undue burden of growth, but others have pulled up the moat? there are communities, and the director knows the ones i am talking about, that are getting away with not allowing townhomes. i am throwing that out to get a better handle on how we are meeting state requirements, and

how is everybody else when spur talks about global and regional methods of identification and how that reflects on us. those are two questions i would very much like the next draft to address, including a possible mechanism to release it in numerical handle on how many units are held off the market. president miguel: commissioner olague? vice president olague: i will make some direct statements. when it comes to the issue of density equity, i think we are in this slow economic time, so we do not see a lot of development. but i am hearing from a lot of individuals who are being displaced is there is no place for them to go. there displaced for "legal" reasons, whether it is that ellis act or owner movements. it sometimes is seniors and others who have lived in these

units for a number of years and are paying very fixed rent, and then there displaced and there is no place for them to move into. that is where sometimes i think of the issue of density equity, where in the light of the fact there is maybe a downtrend in construction, what we see it frequently is market rates. not affordable housing. affordable housing is happening at a rate that is not even match up to what has been identified as the need. we're meeting the need on middle-class housing. we're not meeting the need on middle-class housing or low- income housing either. they're still a lot of places in the city or a vulnerable population that does not have a lot of options. in many instances they are forced into single room occupancy hotels or homeless shelters or relocating to areas that are not familiar to them.

sometimes you have a vulnerable population that is being displaced, and people leave the city, does not matter what income level, if you live to the city, 40 years, and be very low income. it does not mean that you love the city any less. special consideration needs to be given to that fact, sometimes people have talked about the very controversial issues about increasing density and not height and bulk but density in areas adjacent transit corridors, including on the west side, which i don't think we should completely ignoring their. i think the whole idea of doubling up in san francisco needs to be considered throughout the city, not just on the east side. with the approval of a lot of these plans, we have seen an undue burden put on the east side when it comes to density. i am not sure all of the development that is happening in those areas is necessarily affordable.

i also think about the issue of acquisition rehab and what the city is doing. i am looking at what are the tools, what are the ideas to increase low-income or affordable housing for outside just new construction. because we cannot just rely on that for a solution to that. also, the impacts that market. housing -- that market rate housing, to look at the approval of that, and how that impacts affordability of housing in san francisco. i have said something similarly before, and i will see if i confined my notes at home. i have asked for this before, actually. the application of policies is something that has always been curious to me. i think some people -- i think it is necessary to have a housing element for a lot of reasons. i think it is important have the right language and the policies

that support the general plan and other things. i think what mr. cohen raises is interesting, because i often wonder, sometimes i see policies are used to justify some type of development rather than encourage the right kind of development. i don't mean to be critical. i just mean sometimes you see a report that says i will be general, this project, this market right project, 100 units of market rate housing, they are given to the fund -- which is important, because obviously we need an account of revenue we can generate from any development in the city. but then is sort of like, well, this is meeting some out and affordability. i guess it is in a way, but it seems sometimes it is the

stretch. sometimes i would like to see more robust reasoning in certain reports that we see here. if it is really a market rate development, how does it meet the prop m or general plan for housing policy rules? as relates to affordability? i am not sure we are clearing that, but we're getting there. i would just like the sound logic behind it. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: 1 as a question and one is a suggestion. in terms of presidio, and know it is not our land and we cannot program that, but i do not see it counted in the housing. is that because we don't have any management over and we don't bother to count that? >> if you are referring to the

data section, it should indicate the number of housing units and i can look into that. commissioner borden: it would be interesting to have that association included, because even though it is not in our jurisdiction, it is still part of the units. we could figure out ways and the future to work with presidio, if that is never possible. the other thing, when we talk about affordability, which bought about least to own. in other cities they have the least own concept -- lease to own concept. that is really common in other areas, but we never talk about it here in san francisco. this is an all policy document, but maybe we put in language about affordability and home ownership and other kinds of opportunities so we can think of other ways to incentivize those models. i think they are done

successfully in other communities and i don't know why we cannot do that. i think a lot of the discussion we heard today centers around issues related to rental policy, and might be good to have a joint meeting with the renters to discuss how they look at rental housing units and how they maintain the housing stock and those issues. they're dealing with it on the ground. but also be nice to talk to the mayor's office of housing and the agency is talking about the housing element, to figure out of the policies that we are executing in this document, how would all work together to ensure the outcome of the policies actually becomes reality. the only thing, braziel about the housing element -- the only thing controversial about the housing element, is just a document, but if we cannot do anything, it is just great words on a page and does not go anywhere.

i think that is something we should figure out in this conversation, and at least have representatives from some of the other agencies to talk about those issues. i think it is critical. in terms of the reasons, it would be interesting to see how other areas in the bay area are dealing with regional housing stock. ultimately , it sp-375 will allow these to move on, but i don't think it doesn't mean we don't do our part, it would just be interesting to know how this committees are approaching that. i think this is important because it brings back the things that matter to this city and the vitality of the city is about housing and the city and the people who could afford to be here, and you need different economic bases and different jobs and people to make the city a vibrant and thriving

city. i think whenever we can do when it thing about how this document is implemented and used in the feature to achieve that goal is really, like, a port here. president miguel: commissioner lee? commissioner lee: a couple of things. do we have that up on commissioner borden, maybe we should consider it -- compare ourselves to other counties. we take more than any other city, we take more homelessness, more homeless shelters. one of the things i want to find out, in san francisco, we have the highest percentage of subsidies of housing, to my knowledge, of any place in the united states. we have looked at red control, the amount of affordable housing, senior housing, and veterans' housing that we have in stock, i think we need to see the data. every time i think of the 555

washington, $15 million of affordable housing, and the project was killed for whatever the reasons were. i guess the key the general public has to understand is we do more than anybody else in the bay area, and i think pressure needs to be pushed by our state legislators and the assembly saying, hey, we take our fair share, none of the other bay area counties have homeless shelters. we take them. i think the key is we need to let the public know and the bay area know, when are you going to pick up the slack we have taken up? i know for a fact we have more affordable housing units in san francisco that i think the whole bay area combined. you look at marin, they don't have a lot of density or affordable housing. you