by their certificate of octant -- of occupancy. it certainly is a better marker of how we're doing, because we -- the things we know -- you may entirely project, and it may or may not go through. it is a good marker of where we're going, but it is not absolute. we are exploring whether a better provision of information might be to provide to all three categories, although the housing element of limitation measure did just look at comparing apples to apples and billing attachments. that is a basic summary of what we're going to do. i would be happy to answer questions or hear any feedback " if you feel that it meets your needs in terms of getting you the information just a you know how we are doing. thanks. commissioner moore: could you comment on the request made by brad hall -- paul anbout the

dashboard? >> unfortunately, i am unaware of his comments, as they were not directed towards me, but if he could relate those to me, i would be happy to comment. this is in effect the dashboard. that is just a name some people have arrived on and taken to. we are calling it the residential pipeline form because the information is drawn from our quarterly pipeline report, and it is a more accurate way of describing what it is. >> i believe this is essentially capture when you have asked for. the goal was to give you with each project a fairly simple overview, and then the quarterly report gives you the more detailed overview. i do not remember the detail, but i believe it is what he was after. commissioner moore: if i interpreted it correctly, that he is more about what is being built rather than what is entitled.

we are in a very unusual time where entitlements themselves do not give a very good pace of what we're doing. >> with that, the second table that i put up, and we can discuss this a little more next week -- we can certainly explore replacing this table with something that meets the direct housing element obligation with something that provides a broader perspective on how we are doing with housing construction units. commissioner sugaya: there was a piece in the paper within the last week or so about a day area community who was up said with, i believe, this very thing -- was upset with, i believe, this very thing. if this is set somehow up through the state, can they

really escape the obligation for housing? >> not really. you are absolutely right. they have a little bit of an adult, which i will describe officially, but the way it works is you are supposed to be able to demonstrate to the state how yo zoning to meet your regional housing needs allocation through your housing element -- they have a little bit of an out. they certify your housing element, and you can then access and number of grants or other programs the city has available for people who met that threshold. there is an out, and i will give you a note of that puts it in a little more detail.

it allows jurisdictions to withdraw from the process and thereby propose their own regional housing needs allocation. the state will determine whether that meets buster -- muster. they have to report back to the state and will be held to a pretty high bar. commissioner sugaya: if you are not certified, there's less opportunity for grants and other kinds of amenities? >> that is absolutely right. that is why your adoption last spring was so wonderful. we are already reaping the benefits of that with some proposals regarding forward. commissioner antonino: thank you for your report. i was encouraged to hear that there is more emphasis on smart growth, and i remember the other cycle, 20032007, and it is encouraging to see that it is

beginning to try to have cities to have not purchase abated or willfully do not have any or very little affordable housing -- their needs have been raised in those areas consistent with the jobs that are created in their areas, and likewise, hours have been moved more towards the moderate income area where, unfortunately, we are not doing very well yet, but perhaps, the rebound in building that has begun this year will translate into more housing in that area and more housing in general. i think it is very well done. commissioner wu: i also want to thank you for your report. i have a question -- i believe he clarified this. particularly for the moderate income category, it is only counting bmr's and units like that. >> that is correct. the only thing that will show up

in this table are things that are permanent subsidized through the city or some other mechanism. an important thing to note, which i noted in the middle but did not clarify -- rental units often in the city -- it totally depends, but oftentimes, rental units provided can meet our modern income needs, but because we do not have tracking of those trends, we cannot be sure they will stay this way. commissioner wu: i just wanted to flag the lightly -- likely, that percentage will always be low. and then the other question i wanted to ask is whether or not -- in six months or a year, i assume we will continually refine it, but there may be a desire to city and it's entitled in the last year, but i think we are not sure yet because we have not really used it as a tool. >> i think that is a perfectly appropriate thing. one other thing i might mention

is that what we are looking at now is the allocation from 2007 through 2014. we will be coming forward with a new allocation sometime within the next year, and i will be giving you more information in the iowa your packets as we move forward. commissioner wu: ok, thank you. commissioner miguel: i think i remember the article you were talking about, which dealt with the article of northern california bay area communities that had not updated their housing element with the general plan for some time, although it is required technically by the state every five years. some of the communities where as much as 15 years behind. there was a particular mention,

i believe, of menlo park in that article, which was sort of forced into suddenly allocating for lower income where they had not before. the last year or two years ago, the city of alameda also got stuck, so it is very interesting the way some of our sister communities in the bay area refuse to handle the subject. >> i think it is worth noting, too, that while the chart does not -- while we never get to 100% of our goals, we are doing far better, and these are good examples of that. we have a way to go, but compared to many of our partner cities, we are doing very well.

commissioner antonino: i think it was instructive that commissioner wu brought up the issue of rental housing rates that in itself is not designated affordable housing because it is not designed to permanently be, but there are issues in the last few years, particularly where prices had fallen, where home ownership or for sale units were actually selling for lower than would have been the case for the affordable bmr unit because of the market. we have no way to really capture those, but i see a lot of these different projects that are currently or have been for sale with the sale prices are less than would be the bmr price. it is good we are aware of where those are and we will try to note how many of those exist and where the prices are. it is a change in price, of

course, but it is interesting that that is also out there. commissioner moore: i believe the general plan and housing update development are not just date but federal law because if you want to qualify for any federal grants in housing, your housing elements have to be up to date. >> that may be correct. i am not sure. commissioner fong: is their public comment on this item? -- is there public comment on this item? seeing none. >> thank you, commissioners. we can move forward on your calendar to your 15-minute general public comment category where members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission with the exception of agenda items, which may not be addressed under this

category but only at the time they are reached on category -- on a calendar. for this category, each member of the public may address you for up to three minutes each, keeping in mind that the entire category has a 50-minute time limit. commissioner fong: ok. [reading names] >> i have an overhead. i am year to question the integrity of the reports submitted to you by the environmental plans associates and their sponsors and consultants. i am not here to comment on whether replacing the grass field is the cure for childhood obesity or which will ultimately provoke migration of families from san francisco or which is more extensive, trendy, or

popular. to me, these issues pale in comparison to the serious risk of exposing children to a toxic stew of future health complications. i am here to advocate a fundamental commitment to the children who will be most affected by these and to the parents who are blindly trusting in the determination of these reports. it is not necessary that we be convinced that every child will definitely develop cancer or develop neurological symptoms from lead poisoning or develop chemical sensitivities or mercury poisoning or arsenic poisoning or any of the other potential allergens and afflictions that can arise from exposure to these -- and the excuse me, whoever has the phone on, can you -- thank you. >> these reports and submit it recorded additions and, as unmistakably show that these very significant potential impact exists. i submit that closing our eyes

to the serious consequences will not make the magically disappear. the findings of these reports plainly lacks integrity. they are not just incorrect, but also wrong and lately misleading -- blatantly misleading. we are asking of this commission to not just cross your fingers like the recreation and parks commission has done and wish and hope and pray that the consequences will somehow disappear and go away. we asked at the very least that this commission not hide disinformation and the findings of deceptive reports, but act according to the scientific and medical facts -- week asked -- we ask at the very least that this commission not hide this information. >> again, i express

appreciation to the director and others who worked so hard on an alternative for this project that the developer was proposing.

it probably never occurred to them that it was going to be a problem. it is just an action, but that is not the case here. ofthere is an article coming out about all the horrible precedent that it would ensue with other developers of this was allowed to happen. if we had contracts for demolition, with building will be safe that might be

architecturally significant or historically significant or contribute to the neighborhood? if you are sort of held, locked in order to let anything happen, you have to agree to demolition. there are a number of projects that had been approved. one of them was even going around asking. i am in the business of conflict resolution. you have to look to people's needs. the methodist church needs to be paid. they do not need demolition.

one person needs demolition. they do not know how to extract themselves from that. they did not know the funding could be available, that there were people who actually were capable of it. we can help them discover this if i could actually go and talk with them also. litigators had told them not to talk to anybody, so to a certain extent, that was what was happening. you have to try to get beyond the litigators and talk to the people who have the interest about what their interests are. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i represent a small, small business holding company. i think i would also like to talk about 1601 market, but most of all, i think you have made progress on improving projects that add value to our city. first of all, the general public.

second, the developer, whoever is working on the project, and then something that represents architectural value in the city. i was on clay street yesterday, going to visit a friend of mine, and i walked up the street, and looked to my right, and i see, for the sake of non- differentiation, market rate apartment, market may apartment, market rate apartment -- a market rate apartment. finally, i come to this beautiful church. spanish style, the stucvco, bell -- stucco, bell tower. it is to that it is in despair. they're people sleeping on the steps. i think if we do see a better product for the church, we will look to see value in this building, and a few years out, no one will be able to differentiate this market rate

condo that was built in 2014 compared to a church that really embodies san francisco, especially spanish style, 100 years from now. i really hope that you guys disapprove this project. thank you. commissioner fong: is there any additional general public comment? >> i want to talk to you guys about residential conversions from two units to a home with the underground. i was right. i've looked up the codes, and in the general plan, it says when you are measuring a building, you have to base your representation on the existing square foot of the unit, which is included inside the outside walls. when you go to the 2010 thing about demolition of a unit and replacing it, it says it has to

replace 2/3 of the existing square footage. if you look at the master plan, you look at this, they correlate with each other. the department is taking a lot of discretion on this in allowing the kitchen the units to be expanded outside of the existing square footage, and it simply does not follow the codes. this is a citywide issue, not just a global one, and something needs to be done concerning where you are going on this. the other thing, too, is i am seeing a trend of this third unit being used as an au paur unit, not being rented out to the public. this is something we need to consider in the long run. we have to see if it will be for a single-family home with an au

pair for keeping some part of commercial rentals. this is up to you. every time you take away a unit, you take away housing. it is a humpty dumpty effect, and rental housing is being lost to throughout the city. i want you to be well aware that this happened. i will read it to you what was said during the first speech -- i have been very concerned about this artificial grass. there's no drainage. if anybody is sick or has an infection, they get cut, another person passes afterwards with a cut and lands on but space, there's no place to go but inside that wound. and it is not being drained. you could double that she should consider what the long traffic -- ramifications are.

-- you should consider what the long-term rabbit -- ramifications are. [bell rings] you can go to the sacred home trust. they have wonderful ways of converting churches to housing. it is one of the finest meetings i ever went to in salt lake city, and it is on the web now. you should see some of the conversions, and also look at holy cross in our city. [bell rings] thank you. commissioner fong: for those of you standing around the door, there are plenty of seats in the room, and you create a fire hazard by doing that. >> good afternoon. my name is paul warmer. i was coming to you to express a concern or ask for help. this comes from my history in graduate school where i was living in a small unit. it worked because i had a large

campus close by. i had in-building services and storage. and i was very close to a park. so it really was possible to live in a very small unit, but that is because of the land use conditions associated with it. my understanding is planning has determined that supervisor wiener's proposal to redefined the efficiency unit in a way that reduces the size and puts an absolute limit of two occupants -- planning said this really does not affect land use and we do not need to consider how this will affect land use. and when i think of all of the ways that living in a small unit requires you to make use of outside resources, to me, that is a land use impact. i really wish planning would take a look at it and understand what the impacts would be, not only in outside services, but also, how many families in san

francisco are now living in, granted, far less than optimal conditions, as single parents with two kids -- are they now going to be restricted with where they can live, even in a large efficiency because this legislation caps it at two? what the impacts of that on social service agency in trying to provide transition housing for homeless, people trying to make it at home but on a limited budget? i think these things need to be looked at. it is not a dbi task to assess that. i believe that is something for the planning department. thank you. >> is there additional general public comment? >> commissioners, seeing none, we can move on. you're now at your regular calendar that begins with item number 10. case number 2011.1401m.

2012 community safety element. >> good afternoon. planning department staff. we are here to request your approval to amend the community safety element of the general plan. i will provide a very brief overview of the element that the proposed changes since the initiation hearing. following my presentation, a leisure from the department of emergency management will provide an update on the community engagement program under way in her department. as a quick reminder, the element is an important element of the general plan as it sets an overall framework to guide the city's actions in preparation for response to and recovery from a major disaster. the element establishes policies and programs to protect san francisco from risks associated with natural and man-made disasters. actions and programs will be carried out through a number of other city plans and programs, which we discussed at the initiation hearing on may 17,

including the hazard mitigation plan, initiatives, and recommendations developed. we are proposing to update this element for a few reasons. first, the current element was last adopted in 1997. since this time, are thinking around disasters has evolved and we have learned a lot further -- from other cities. and this effort is in close collaboration with other cities to create a framework for community resilience and to establish policies to protect and died at the city's actions for response and recovery from major disaster. and having an updated element inches of this city is well- stated -- well-suited for recovery. four categories. mitigation, preparing this, response, recovery, reconstruction. and an overview were presented at the initiation hearing. if you have specific -- specific

questions, ianswer them. there are very minor changes that have been made since the initiation hearing. and this is to address your comments as well as comments from other agencies. these changes have been incorporated into the draft before you ask exhibita. the changes fall into three categories. first, updated language for programs. second, minor map changes. third, some policy updates. one goal of the updated to incorporate information on current programs dealing with disaster preparedness, recovery, and response. since this document was released, we received comments from other city agencies with more updated information about their programs. we have incorporated that. this includes the earthquakes of the implementation program, which is a next step of capss. updated the information about the neighborhood emergency response team at known as nert. i apologize for t the typo.

we headed the committee engagement program, which is a program of the department of emergency management, and the it to sf, which was created to give an opportunity for individuals and organizations to make donations to a group of city programs, and this includes the san francisco disaster recovery fund. we have added maps 6, which is in the 1997 element. it is making sure that it is in this current draft. and also updating maps two and three with more current data. finally, the policy changes that have been incorporated are to address both yours and agency comments, including policy 3.4. this includes the vendors for medical and shelter supplies. also, a reference under policy

4.9 to include social media in part of the strategy and reconstruction process. last, we have been asked by the department of emergency management to remove the last paragraph under policy 2.7 as fire suppression and fired reporting are not appropriate activities for the nert team. the department recommends approval of this amendment of the general plan, and i am going to turn the presentation over to alicia johnson, and i am happy to answer questions following her presentation. >> good afternoon. i represent the department of emergency management here in san francisco. lilly asked me to speak a few moments about our community engagement program. this is essentially how we reach out to the public and to support organizations torepared wi t