element update of the general plan and consideration of adopting a resolution amending to the general plan. >> good afternoon. i am here to present the last two items on your calendar. with great pleasure i am here tonight discussing the housing element update. there are a key actions before you. the first action would be to adopt ceqa findings related to the eir that you just certified. the second would be adopting the

draft ordinance amending the general plan for the housing element. the case report that we circulated to you all last week has a few minor changes that we recommend for amendment. i think that sarah handed out a few things that i will talk about in my presentation. first, i wanted to spend time talking about the planning process we have been up to today. i have done this presentation a couple of times. the project manager for this, myself, and art director, and others have been hosting some workshops. we have been working hard with community groups.

this is a variety of public objectives. we started with the community advisory committees. we had one from each district. after 13 meetings, we had a lot of information and a lot of work. we had two major suggestions that i want to call out. one was the consideration of the affordability of moderate income

and extremely low income houses. that is a completely separate issue that we heard again and again. the second significant contribution was saying in addition to the report, we also want you to report on three different policy issues. the first was maintaining a diverse neighborhood characters. the second was balancing housing development and the community infrastructure. the third was prioritizing sustainable development. in addition to all municipalities in the states developing the objectives, this covers these topic areas. we had 30 community meetings following that and produced two drafts previously to trying to get all the various community

concerns inc. and community comments. we have continued to receive public comment up until today on all the traps. the third draft was published in the fall of 2010. this was the subject of two hearings before you and our directing posted -- our director posted two workshops on the content as well. the draft before you has 13 objectives and 67 policies and by and large most of the comments we are receiving are on three or four of these policies. there are varying opinions, there is a lot of community support and concern. i wanted to spend a couple of

time reviewing the comments we have received and what our thoughts are. the first is that we have noticed that there is some inaccurate 2009 housing element has never been in any other version. we think there is some work on our part to get to the bottom of that. there is also -- i guess one of the main things i've learned in my 2 1/2 years working on this is that words have a lot of connotations for people. we are experiencing a lot of that. a lot of misinterpretation or different understandings about what the document is trying to do. so i just want to be really clear that it is a policy document. it doesn't change zoning or

development capacity. it doesn't entitle projects and it doesn't encourage density in the city, changes in density anywhere in the city. density is one of the key issues we have got an lot of comments on. it is often misunderstood. if you happen to know this, one of the things the plan would do was a little more density on the western side of san francisco, which isn't anywhere in the document. i think that was summarized from perhaps a lot of the sources including a community member who was quoted as saying the element would allow increased density along bus lines. there are a couple of policies. 110, which talks about supporting housing near transit lines. it doesn't say anything about increased density and it doesn't call for it in any particular

location so i just wanted to make that really clear. on policy 110. this is sort of getting back to that idea of balancing a lot of different opinions. we have gotten comments that say this -- this policy is encouraging too much growth in too many places and other comments that say this policy feels sort of limiting because what it is actually saying is support for transit-oriented projects that are within the existed zoning, let's go beyond the existing zoning, others are saying and reading it feeling like it is calling for taller buildings and increased parking. it doesn't do that. it just says support housing. my colleagues will be able to rely on this policy to support any housing projects consistent with the existing zoning and near transit. there is also a few comments we

had that quoted transit village or -- sorry, transit village or bulk for density. those ideas are not actually anywhere in the 2009 housing element. another focus has been on the policy 1.6, which references r.h. 1 and r.h. 2. we have been working really hard to get the language right to articulate what we're intending here and there is a proposed amendment in your case report that we're recommending you adopt that helps clarify. the department is isn't proposing to change r.h. 1 or r.h. 2. we're proposing to support the existing pattern within r.h. 1 and r.h. 2, which is to say look at the buildings in that

neighborhood and support height and bulk that are consistent with the buildings that are already there. and we have done a little tweaking on the words to try and really make that clear. we changed, i think, prevailing to exissing. but there is a policy -- existing. there is a policy that indicates any changes like density change or secondary units would only be achieved through a community-based planning process. so that is something that i think reflects our work program and how we have always worked and how we intend to work moving forward. i think that leads me to one of the last policy issues that has community comment on both sides. that's our reliance on the community-based planning process. some commentors have felt that we are perhaps overly reliant on the community-based planning process, potentially crippling some efforts that could be done without that.

we feel like the policy 1.4 before you, which talks about the community-based planning process, the steps involved including direction from you, direction from the board of supervisors and working strongly with the community is the mode we would take for larger land use considerations. anything considered density or secondry units. and other folks really wanted to see the words supported rather than community-based. we think community-based most clearly represents our current practices and processes. those that you have seen through eastern nakeds, market -- eastern neighborhoods, markets, balboa park. commissioner olague mentioned some issues about families and seniors and we wanted to make sure these groups are really

prioritized in the housing development. there is a lot of work to be done in terms of securing affordable housing for these groups. commissioner antonini pointed out there is a lot of older housing stock and he wanted us to really articulate and point out that the housing element supports both the preservation and improvement of these housing yunts. that language is reflected in the 2009 draft before you. we also received comments from commissioner moore since the last hearing on the design, air and noise issues and how they should be included in the community planning process so i wanted to make it clear. something that the housing element policies do and yes. those are the considerations that are called out in both how we amend the general plan and the planning code.

so i kind of did this a little bit out of order, but we do have two sets of amendments. the second set sarah just circulated for you. one part of the housing element process is getting them to support and approve our housing element and we have received preliminary approval from h.c.d. if we make the amendments that are in that handout that i have put -- just handed to you. i think there are additional copies on the table to the left for the public. i can quickly run through them. essentially, the bulk of these amendments are to part one, which is the needs analysis and data section. so none of these really, a changed policies or programs. the first three points all clarify some methodology that we have done and used to talk about vacant land and what might happen on it. how mixed use districts operate.

how much housing is in a mixed use district. and sort of -- and how -- how many projects we anticipate will be rehabbed or improved over the coming planning period. points four and five talk about some of our existing conditions and programs in terms of environmental conditions, brownfields where we have them, where we -- what we're doing with greenhouse gas and how we are impacting impact fees are currently operating and then the last three are some little tweaks to implementation measures to really make sure that we're abiding with the state law that we're required to. if you have any questions on those, i'm happy to walk through them in more detail and then as i said, your case report includes a few proposed recommended changes for some of the policy language, which i'm happy to walk through in more detail also, if you would like.

in addition to that, if the commission could propose additional recommendations and i think that is it for now. staff will be here for questions. >> public comment? kathy divencizi, bernie choden, sarah karlinsky, tip. >> kathy vivenvenzi. the commission should eliminate the changed language and the map of proposed rapid bus lines from the revised new policy 1.10 and reinstate the lang wooverpblg prior 12.1 defining major transit lines along bart stations and light rail which is subjected to environmental

review. it stated in r.h. 1 and the density limits should be to maintain public and 11.3 saying that existing residential neighborhoods should uphold the existing zoning of the area. they clearly promote secondary units and additional units. there hasn't been any explanation as to why this change was made at the last minute after the public comment period was over. the draft also admits there is. 56 throo units in the pipeline which is 26,000 more than the city's share. beyond that, additional capacity for more units in underdeveloped sites and new area planning processes would add another

27,800. the existing capacity of. 117,000 units is far in excess of what is needed to meet the rhna goals. 39,000 units can be constructed in areas already approved. the city chose the areas because those were the areas with the developers were choosing to build. i would also like to object to this new language we need additional time to look at these new -- there are some new development issues here, this third draft and obviously h.c.d. as looked at this, so this has been involved in the works for a while. we had no notice it wasn't on the website. also i would like to tell wlue the court of appeals said about this document. it may technically be true but the housing element is not linked to any specific rezoning,

it is not completely unconnected to future development. the housing element identifies areas for potential development, encouragings quoment development in neighborhood areas and patterns of crux. it does all of -- of construction. it does all of those things. it is a very important document. the massive increase capacity called for by these general plan amendments which is the constitution for future development is far in excess of anything needed to satisfy the rhna. >> thank you. >> and over time -- >> i'm sorry, linda, yeah. thank you. >> i'm kathy. could i just finish -- >> you have submitted that to us in writing, i believe. everyone has three minutes to speak. so we kind of expect everyone to keep to those three minutes and you went a little over.

beyond that, we can't do that. thank you. >> if we can hear from the next speaker, please. >> as i have said -- you can't implement it. you can't litigate it and i have laid before you specific quotations for the state's code that says in effect policies must be implementable. the language is very specific. with regard to vacant land. to code is very clear. it says that you vacant land. you must have a five-year exit plan. as to means, resources and programs, to make those

available. just listing vacant land is so much garbage. that land must be controllable in order to make it obtainable. if you don't have no means, you don't have a code. there are therefore, this is not simply a guideline. at your convenience. it is the circumstances by which housing is contained in the study. you have already approved three major projects which will add 100,000 people or more to the city. the indication that there is no increase indicated in your background, this, again, so much garbage. it is a lie. we'll see you in court. there is your language. did you read it? is there any way to protect this?

five-year plan. resources. the same way you indicated institutions with so-called money without -- mandate they implement it. pie in the sky. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is sarah karlinsky with the san francisco planning and urban research association. it is a pleasure to be here tonight to talk about the housing element. i'm hoping the last time i'll be talking about the housing element for the next five years. i was a member of the community advisory body and as a member of the community advisory body, i sat through multiple meetings with a variety of different stake holders and there are a

lot of different values that people held at the table. they were not always in -- thank you. in conformity with one another. the housing element reflects the variety of different values. in fact, they are right in the front of the document. therefore, prioritize permanently affordable housing, recognize and preserve neighborhood character, cultivate the city as a sustainable model of development. so there is -- there are a variety of different values and sometimes they are in conflict and sometimes they are not. i do want to say that nowhere in this document is there any language that supports a zoning near transit. that is absolutely correct. there is nothing in this document that actually makes that point so i just want to point that out to you. in our letter, we talked a bit about policy 1.4 of the housing element.

which discusses suring community-based planning processes and changes to land use controls and we absolutely agree that is how we should be doing neighborhood planning. we participated in all the better neighborhood plans and eastern neighborhood plans and we believe that is absolutely how community planning should be done. we have some concern about one sentence in that -- under that policy, which is zoning changes that involve several parcel or blocks should always involve significant community outreach and the paragraph after that goes on to define in great detail what a community-based processing is, one required to be initiated by the board of supervisors with the district supervisor and the adoption of the planning department and other agency work programs. it is very thorough. that's what it absolutely should be for that neighborhood planning process. however we have some concerns that including parcels, just,

you know, several parcels it is a baseline for what we know to be an incredibly lengthy and expensive planning process is somewhat problematic. we have suggested language in our letter that would read zoning changes that involve several parcel or blocks should always involve significant community outreach. additionally, zoning changes should always be made as part of a community-based planning process. that is our suggestion. thank you very much for your consideration. >> good evening commissioners. tim colin on behalf of the housing administration. i would like to demend planning staff for their heroic work. it has been going on almost three years. the task of threading the needle and finding -- on the

contentious issues right now. it is relatively rare that you get a chance to look at an advisory document that raises so much contention and raises the temperatures of so many people. and as far as i can tell, in our friends at coalition san francisco neighborhoods received the housing neighborhood as a document to prevent change, specifically this would be no more height, no more density and if possible, more parking. we would disagree with this. this us, that -- they missed the mark. our view on what a successful housing element would do would be to give us some help on making housing more affordable to improve the affordability of housing in san francisco, which is terrible right now, second, it should provide us an environmental guideline to reduce our carbon footprint, how to address the sfal challenge of our time, which is global climate change and enact sb 75

and the third thing it should do is provide for density equity and recognize that as an established san francisco policy that all the neighborhoods with equal and have to contribute their fair share of density. new density is not something that only happens east of twin peaks. everyone should require it and it is not fair if it doesn't. finally, this housing element, i think it is two years late. it had auld community hearings and outreach it could possibly do. it is time to move it on. we had one problem with it. sarah alluded to it earlier. it is appropriate for large projects. where we're nervous is when you say a few or several parcels, that could be something very small and saying community-based planning for that is -- the practical cal quivelepts of saying well, let's take a decade. if it has to require approval by

the board of supervisors, our experience in the last many years is that these efforts take a decade. we think you can come up with something that will find a solution to this but it is time to move it along. i hope you'll adopt it. thank you. >> thank you. jason henderson, mark solomon and linda chapman. whatever order. >> i have an overhead. can we get the overhead, please? thank you. i wanted to make a comment here about the previous speaker who was talking about densification of the city. here is his home. as you can see, it is a single-family home. two parking spaces there. a beautiful view out of the hillings right? so we're not seeing any densification happening here. in the paper this morning he was quoted talking about nimbies. here is his backyard. it is a nice backyard. i don't have a backyard that

big. it is much bigger than my house. he is being paid by developers to create the illusion of some sort of broad coalition demanding more housing. now i take issue to the chair with what commissioner borden said here, that we need to get the talent in this room to figure out how to accommodate future growth without trashing the transit system. that's the task here. and just saying, oh, growth is going to be coming, waving our hands is not going to cut it because that is going actually trash sb 75 and demolish ab 72 and leave more people in their cars and go against all of these things we say we want. you can't come at us with 2/3 of a solution with the other third demolishing. the leadership in this world and the talent in this room is enough to do it if we can escape

regulatory capture. we need to have community-based planning. whenever there is an inkling of its they stay no, we're not going to hit the developers. rincon hill, all of a sudden we put that community first and sucked the money from the fund. when it comes time to making community first, we do that. what we needs to happen is before get into this stuff is to have everyone at the table irspebtive of being onboard with the program and let the cards feal fall where they may. this apartment could not even tolerate a dissenting view coming out of the western task force. it could not even allow that to be heard hear here as if mere utter resistance would be shut down at the various stages . it is a problem. i got the sierra club to say they had concerns about

entitling new t.o.d. with current levels of parking near freeway ramps. i think you guys need to amend this to say it has to have significantly less, and i don't want a particular number. one to one parking. we need to be having point one to one. if we do that, we'll end up with more people in their cars, more trips and more greenhouse gases. but we'll have some rich developers. thank you. >> jason henderson. i let mark go first so he would not show you guys my house. and i don't have a parking space. i can assure you. so i was on the community advisory board for 2 1/2 years and so i've been following the housing element and you know one thing that i have taken away