households. we can say that san francisco is number one in terms of units that are affordable to low- income households. because we are number one. just to remind the commissioners of two articles that the planning department faces, which tracks housing production. this is a very simplified development path of projects that are entitled, authorized to come into construction. construction happens, and then they are completed when the department of buildings certifies the projects as complete. the planning department tracks development projects from application filing through construction in its quarterly pipeline report. we started publishing this report as early as 2006, but we have only produced a quarterly in the last two years. this report covers all

development projects, both residential and commercial, and it is available online. it is one of our more popular reports, and whenever we are late, people do call us. once the project is complete, the planning department tracks net additions to the city's housing stock and its annual housing inventory. the report has been in existence since 1967, and the 2011 housing inventory which comes out next month will be the 42nd in the series. again, this is the housing inventory that provides the basis for the annual rhna reporting is required by the state. we realize, too, that these publications can be better summarized to provide the commission with concise information that will be meaningful in terms of how the numbers fit within the rhna allocation targets.

in fact, we submitted a quarterly report to the commission sometime in august last year. unfortunately, due to the untimely death of a staff member, we were not able to resume this practice. we expect to submit the quarterly summary for the first quarter of 2012 next month. this report is in the same vein of the dashboard reported currently called for in the legislation. the planning department is also working on incorporating this report, this table, and project reports that would be submitted for commission review, and commissioners should expect to see this addition shortly. this concludes my presentation, and i am available to respond to commissioner questions. thank you. commissioner wu: commissioners, i think we will take public

comment on this item first. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: thank you. that was a great report, and i read most of this. on the table that is in our memo that he issued, it notes that between 2007 and 2011, we produced somewhere in the neighborhood of 7826 units in the over 120% ami -- in our men know that you issued. that represents 95% of the target. -- in the memo that you issued. there is a different percentage being thrown around, which is 154%. that is the number i keep remembering. it is used also in the paper, in the "bay guardian," i believe,

in a recent article on the exodus to oakland and other cities. >> that could be from 1999 through 2006 cycle. last year, we were about 115%. however, for 2011, production was quite low, and this is something you will hear in the next presentation on the housing inventory. there were only 418 units produced in 2011, so we were not able to catch up when the new additional -- with the new additional requirement. commissioner sugaya:commissionek you very much for the information and for the reports. earlier in your presentation, you made a comment and i was unable to get it done quickly

enough regarding the mayor's office of housing numbers. >> oh, the report that we submitted is constrained by the format that is required. it asks us how many units in did you build or did you permit to be built by income category. so we just talked about what is constructed. there are various programs that the mayor's office of housing implements that support affordable housing, either through rental assistance, which the hcd does not ask -- there are some home buyers programs, for example, that the hcd does not ask in this accounting, but we are able to report that in

the implementing program. commissioner miguel: ok, and your other reports to include that? >> yes. commissioner miguel: i appreciated the comparison to other major cities and states. is there any comparison at that can be made to other jurisdictions in the bay area? because they actually give us these high numbers. >> yes, we could do that, but we thought that perhaps having the larger cities which would be more comparable -- commissioner miguel: no, i appreciate that. my question is as to the -- and not accuracy, but as to the effectiveness, i guess one could say, of the abag figures to see how close other jurisdictions that receive figures from the same abag jurisdiction are doing and compare as to those. we would appreciate that.

we often say they are way off, but we have no statistical means of dealing with that. >> we could do that. it would be dependent -- if the jurisdictions have actually submitted the reports. commissioner miguel: of course. i am not trying to make a lot of extra work for you. it is the only way we have of evaluating abag. >> we could do that, sir. commissioner antonini: well, thank you. the distinction which you pointed out which is important is we are really measuring new housing or net new housing construction as opposed to new methods to make it more affordable which is led moh does and other agencies to do. but i think it would be helpful in perhaps addressing the shortfall in middle income families, because we heard last week about a possible idea of a downpayment assistance where we made housing affordable to a much larger group by the down

payment assistance, and you know, this might, even though it is not per se new housing, it might make it -- incentivized builders to be able to build housing. it would be remarkable to people at more modest income levels with this kind of a program and others. the other thing i talked about earlier was the idea of building -- making the subsidy lower, so the builder can build more units at a lower price if they do not have to subsidize so deeply. so if they were required to build perhaps 20% or 25% or even 30% of their products at an affordable level but much higher ami, then that might help to address this shortfall than even the 100, 120, 150, even though that is above technically

the affordable level, it is a level of the shortfall between what people make. they cannot afford market rate, but they are making too much to qualify for an affordable. that is really interesting, and i think that concept is a good one. another one that might be useful is using large or mixed use properties to be able to, as a product of that, put more money in towards affordable housing. again, it is not the production, which is really what we're talking about. one difficulty we have -- we are a city and county. we're also a very build-out environment. to compare this to other counties with in the bay area, we're at a disadvantage because we only have so much land. many of these counties, although they may be reticent to do so, have land available to build new housing and we have to sort of build vertically in most instances. i think all these reports are county reports, not city reports. >> no, they are all the

jurisdictions, so cities and counties. commissioner antonini: so you can get us both. that will be interesting to see. in terms of counties, we are in a little bit of a different situation. also, it is always good to know that, of course, even as we exceed the guidelines for market rate housing, we have to remember that this housing also contributes to funds towards the building of housing at different income levels, inflationary housing. so that is important to realize, that we are gaining something, not just a market rate unit, but we're gaining money towards meeting these other goals. because nothing gets built without funding, and especially without redevelopment it'll be even more difficult. so we will have to be a lot more innovative. thank you for your report. i guess we will get the traditional one in the next few months with all the other details. thanks.

commissioner borden: yes, i want to thank you for this report. i think it is very useful and something the public likes having to miss seeing the information about how we're dealing with this. it is very interesting giving that other areas in the bay area have chosen to pull out of this process. some have decided not to meet the totals and wants to not be involved with aye. -- with abag. i thought it was funny that with marin, he said they might build affordable housing on a site. but it shows a larger issue around affordability in the bay area. i had a couple questions about the actual implementation progress report. i remember that under an objective one, we have to identify and make available for development adequate sides to meet the city's housing needs,

especially permanently affordable. in we talk about surplus property and that sort of stuff. i'd love to talk more about what we're doing in those areas. at one point we did adopt a policy that you were putting in one reason housing developments, how they applied to the targets and goals. but i have not seen that in a while. i remember when you first started doing that. i have not seen that done. so i do not know if it is done consistently within our report. obviously today we only have one project with about 15 units, so that will not have a huge impact on the total that we have here. but i just know it has not been as consistent. so maybe we can make sure it is done more consistently in the report. >> this is what it teresa was talking about. we are preparing a template that was the recommendation of the housing element that would actually include of that --

include that with all of your case reports. it is actually the legislation that supervisor olague and others before this week, actually asking us to put that in as well. commissioner borden: ok. another question i had in looking at those lists. a lot of reference to redevelopment. do we need to actually substantively change anything in the housing element or the plans because redevelopment does not exist anymore? >> actually, with regards to reporting, i think we can amend it within our report to the hcd. but as far as amending the housing element to reflect that, i think -- i do not think that will be happening. the next cycle is coming up. in fact, the process has started this year. i believe that the commissioners

will eventually be hearing more about this as it proceeds. commissioner borden: just because a lot of our implementation is, you know, many of what we talk about -- obviously this is a bigger conversation about creating affordable housing, but a lot of our implementation settles around references about redevelopment. i think it would be interesting to have a discussion about how we are dealing with that. i know the agency has a very different function and role, and we're talking about these infrastructure finance districts. i know at some point we will have a full hearing about that, but it will be interesting talking about that in the larger context for some of our implementation for arena goals. i saw that on the objective 5, number 45, there was a mention of working with nonprofit housing developers to develop a one-stop center for all affordable housing opportunities. you said it was online in 2010.

i was wondering, just a little more about that in the status of that. >> i am afraid i am not the person who would know more about it. the implementation group would be the more appropriate staff. so what we could do is perhaps arrange for a short-term memo to be sent. commissioner borden: yeah, i think that would be interesting. >> the memo would probably address other concerns that commissioners have raised. commissioner borden: i thought it was interesting that under objective 7, talking about secure funding which will obviously fall into the area of redevelopment. but i know that the board recently had a hearing about inclusion very housing, but i also saw including annually updating the nexus feasibility

analysis as appropriate. i was wondering what was going on with that. we have threshold levels is that in various annual plans and across the city. how do you do that process of evaluating when we changed the percentage? >> we are actually in the process of updating several of the nexuses. we have to under state law. we are in the process of doing that. what occurs to me is that what might be timely is a win in the mayor's housing trust fund comes up with this proposal for replacing and redevelopment funds, which i believe there deadline is early june, we would have a hearing at the commission after that to address some of these issues and talk about the results of their recommendations. commissioner borden: ok. under objective 9, most of these deal with -- this is to protect affordability units at risk, being referred it to market rate

housing. my concern is how, if we thought about how we would deal with this category of units, which primarily the redevelopment agency seems, based upon the implementation, they were the primary agency that we would work with to work with those being displaced or losing section 8 subsidies. i know some of it has to do with the housing authority as well. i guess i do not understand enough about how that all works together. >> we can get back to you on that. commissioner borden: ok. what i thought was really interesting, my last item on the implementation -- sorry to go on. is this ensures streamline get a thorough and transparent decision making process. we have we're conditional use is required, we should provide clear conditions for deliberation. i do not know if we ever had a conversation about this.

i know we do not actually provide clear guidance. i think with developers, we would like to see onsite, affordable, and we often talk about less parking, but i think maybe that is something we should discuss among the commission about just common conditions that we're looking for with housing projects. because if it helps to encourage people to do onsite or whatever it might be, maybe we can get more of what we want that after people have already designed a project and it is hard to ask them to add things at the end. just kind of a note to have time to talk about that. thank you. commissioner moore: thank you for the clarity of your report and the timeliness of bringing it forward. i would like to add one question and make it brief. when we compare other cities, aside from the fact that commissioner antonini mention we are living with land scarcity, i

would be interested to see in which intensity ranges other communities are best addressing affordable housing and in what construction types of they are building. i think that is a piece of information which would be very, very valuable for us to have, because we are in a way comparing apples to oranges. certain construction types are less expensive to build, and we might not have the site sizes or the ability to quite replicate that. it would be additional information, not to exempt ourselves from trying harder but to better understand the of how to best target sites and development types in particular parts of the city to be the future larger affordable housing project sites. i think it would help clarify things from the get go and be more in target with setting our goals. thank you.

>> thank you. i took some time also to watch the monday land-use hearing. i saw that one of the recommendations from the audit was a around the more comprehensive information for the planning department, more reporting, so this is definitely in line with that. i am encouraged to hear that the quarterly reports will be resuming and there'll be some sort of dashboard or more information. maybe after we use it for while we will have a discussion about how do we use it. so that may be part of this hearing that you are referencing, director rahaim. i want to remind depths of what -- remind us of what ami means. it is always helpful. for myself to remember, 100% of median for a family of two, which i believe is the average in the city, is at $82,000 per

year. so when we say housing for middle income or moderate income, everybody has a different idea of what that means. for me, for a family of two, for me, it is actually still fairly low. so it is not necessarily what he may think of colloquially as a moderate income. that is it for me. at this time, we will take general public, and -- general public comment. >> just a moment. >> thank you. >> thank you. and you are correct.

at this time we will have our 15 minute general public comment category where members of the public may address this commission on items of interest to the public that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the planning commission, with the exception of the agenda items which may not be addressed during this category but only at the time their calendar. e-mail address the commission for up to three minutes each. keeping in mind that the entire category has a 15-minute time limit. i have one speaker card. >> catherine howard. >> good afternoon, commissioners. sf ocean edge. i am here to address the draft environmental impact report for the beach chalet athletic field contract. it will change the western edge of golden gate park and ocean beach.

it will move over 7 acres of natural living grass and topsoil and install over 7 acres of are the -- artificial turf. gravel, plastic grass, and waste. this is an area larger than candlestick park. the ottoman society has described this as the environmental equivalent of paving over the western end of golden gate park. the index of 60 ft. stadium lights that will tower over the trees and shine down on the ocean beach. this is 150,000 watts of light lighted from sunset to 10:00 p.m. 365 days a year. we will lose over 55 trees, part of the park's natural wind breaks. it will cost $9 million to $12 million. it can be done for $1 million to $2 million. there are concerns to the negative impacts on this project on ocean beach. at two others which will submit to you, a total of nine pages of commons.

they recommend the eir consider a regional range of alternatives with associated mitigation measures, including innovative -- renovating other fields not adjacent to ocean beach. improving the beach chalet fields without the lighting. rescheduling games earlier in the day to receive the desired total hours of play and other recommendations. in other areas, they said the national parks service is concerned that increased nighttime use could impact ocean beach resources. "we encourage the environmental impact report to treat dark night skies as a unique resource in in barnacle setting of the project." "when urban areas interface with natural habitat areas, the value of breeding and winter habitat to native species may be diminished by increased levels of elimination at night." "shore birds and sea birds with my great and forage into the vicinity of ocean beach are known to be sensitive to

artificial light which can affect their behavior. birds resting or foraging on the beach could be affecting by the lights at the athletic fields." i encourage you to review these letters in light of the fact that the report will be out in early may. other comments are included. [bell rings] our organization supports active recreation and park land, and we have a win-win solution, to renovate the beach chalet filled with natural grass and no sports funding. to use the remainder of the money for other fields and parks, providing recreation opportunities for youth oliver san francisco. we feel that preserving the golden gate park's woodland and habitats is important to future generations. >> thank you. any further comment? public comment?

>> good afternoon. that report was interesting. it seems like there appears to be a lot more affordable housing being built than i thought there was. i wonder if an update could also provide information in regards to what percent of the new construction will be affordable to san francisco residence. previously, it was reported only 9% to 11% of san francisco residents could afford the new constructed buildings or units. so if possible to have that update or have that included in future reports. another issue of like to ask is concerning the commission's policy in regards to items which

are continued or are proposed for a continuance and voted on to be continued to a certain date and if that could be changed, you know, without any other further notice. for example, there was an item in last week's agenda. there were, i think, four items proposed for a continuance. and it was voted by the commission, agreeing to continue all of them to the proposed dates. and here on this week's item calendar, one of the items that was proposed for a continuance to next week, april 19, i find it on this week's calendar. i do not know what the policy is. maybe the policy is to accept that. but in regards to public trust,

you know, it makes the public wonder what is going on in. the commission voted to continue one week. and the next week, you put it on the agenda even though it was proposed for a continuance to the following week. i do not quite understand that, and i do not know what the policy is. but i think the public must wonder what the policy is, and i do not think that is a good way to gain public trust. so thank you for considering that in responding. [bell rings] >> thank you. >> this is item number 12. >> commissioners, if i may, and staff might want to, when they come, to address this further, but it is my understanding that when you initially heard this item in march, you continued it in phases.

phase two was continued to last week. that phase two is continued to april 19. phase three was continued today. and today's item is scheduled to go forward. so i know it is the same general topic, but you continued it in phases. phase two was continued to april 5, which has now been continued to april 19, and it will bril 1. phase three was continued to today, and it will be heard today. i hope that clears that up. >> thank you. >> with that, commissioners, if there is no other general public comment or question, we can move forward on your calendar. commissioners, we will go back to item number four, which was on the consent calendar, and you have move did