majority of the people on that particular commission are not here anywhere they're not in the room. i think the reason why we're simile exhausted we negotiated this housing element death. i was here in 2011 i don't like everything in the housing element but doesn't sue the city to get everything. it's very, very unfortunate to use the law in this manner and it's upsetting to me i find is incredibly upsetting i am here to talk about the housing element i urge you to adapt it and not change a single word and certificate the eir.

i'm happy to talk about the process. thank you is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> yeah. a few things i think we're considering those things altogether i understand. >> commissioners all 3 items are here i recommend you certificate the eir separately. >> i think we've seen this and file number gotten it today from citywide planning that deals with the changes that were brought by the legal action and argues why the present plan is not inclusivey and why alternatives are being presented

and why some of those alternatives are being rejected. the answers to the questions that were raised by the action and why we're actually hear and my one complaint i wish this would have happened a few years ago this is the cross-examination of why we're here and it's important we take the time to deal with those various things i feel those questions have been considered. so that deals with the environmental part of it i think has been answered, however, i'm in sympathy with some of the comments i agree entirely because much of what happened here is the retained from rh1 and two neighborhoods have been upset because they think changes

are being allowed to their neighborhoods it can change the density within the neighborhoods the single-family homes could be changed they're making a good point and the speakers addressed some of the concerns i have. one of the concern is who is the community the people who are here the most often or really the residents of particular areas so the idea of having a careful process by which would have been be now and then and approved for example, the in-law unit for those who have cc&rs it

short circuits the process because people in the neighborhoods are they're because they want to be in single-family unit they don't want in law units. so density limits should be maintained in the past throughout the city we had density limits that told how many unites in a certain place and this has come from the neighborhood planning process i don't favor it in some areas it may be appropriate but in longs established neighborhoods this is a threat to the neighborhood by allowing invariable density and it's almost they have to have regulations in place to stop this from happening or we're going to allow to happen. the housing element needs more

specific language to insure that people living in the particular zoning districts they'll not be allowed to have a quick process by which the density could be increased in their districts i would be in favor of the things proposed the housing elements. i think that's really important and some of the language in here i don't necessarily agree with they're talking about mergers and talking about controlled mergers, you know, but mergers often create a more 23ri7b8 housing for families although it says expect when it creates a - it makes it more possible to have larger families. and the other thing they say

which i don't agree with single-family construction didn't contribute to meeting the needs of middle income hours so we only have thirty percent of the single-family 23 we build for single-familys it wouldn't wow. wouldn't with a premium of demand they're saying go we shouldn't build them they're not affordable they're only unaffordable if a they're not built. those are some of the highlights >> thank you. >> i'd like to add a few comments on on the eir on the analysis of alternatives the

revisions have is shown the work the city needs to show in terms of the conditions of the process or community meetings i think there is a place for community meetings on all projects but they've been outside the elements thought and is elements is a guiding element on balance not to every single point. there's an important place for community input on a larger parcel or area plan but they should happen when those come forward. commissioner moore >> i believe that the document has come a long way from where it was the communities comments

have on incorporated and san francisco board of supervisors land use & economic development committee found the implications of the alternatives and in a readable and understandable something resonates by the public comments i would be concerned that under policy 12 japantown should be deleted because it kind of flying in the face of what we spent quite a bit of time on. if you are pulling in policy at this level is there anything i'm sorry, i think the processes should be consistent with each other you don't spend a lot of time on one thing and then contradict user. that hold on the issue of rh1 and two, that issue is greatly

discussed in both situations in assessor units in sdmez district and came up with the legalization of in law units and questions are flagged until their expressed in all areas where it applies this particular document will guide because that is the offer arching policy of the in which people refer to the other one is the legislation that occurs in supervisor wiener's proposal applies to the specific area of the city. so i think this document would be the one it consistently has all the elements under 0 one umbrella it's taken the locating time but reflects on the actions that happen in the meantime. so what is surprising i'm

unaware of it until it was mentioned a few minutes this approval will not be reconsidered modified by the board of supervisors that is only an up and down vote. that's why i believe we're obligated to very careful listen to the channels the public is propose. those changes are not deal killers i'm not not naive. they're reasonable questions within the public purview to require certainty of actions and since the planning in san francisco has been how do i say that - time consuming and sometimes i'm trying to be positive i'm trying (laughter) purify it's been time consuming

and thorough that's said positively and i believe those questions reflect that particular attitude and i'm prepared to support those modifications and that's the only way to do it find the common place ground and we consider some version of the accepting some of the modifications >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. o'connor makes some good points throughout this entire discussion that's gone on for months we hear the responses we hear the common theme in most of the letters there's an attack on rh1 and two neighborhood we're insured by planning in most of the documents we're not changing the zoning, however, the zoning becomes de facto

changed; right when we have the legalization of in law units throughout the entire city not in the case of supervisor wiener's in the supervisorial addict an overarching law some are protected by cc&rs. i realized this is not a code but an overarching thing i would be supportive of speaking to the need of rh1 and two areas density limits as well as height and bulk, you know, it would, part of the prevailing neighborhood character. we should look at those in terms of the housing element that is what the element should speak to

rather than changing go this without the public process with each the districts that are effected. that is something i'll prop i don't know if the other commissioners feel like that and commissioner hillis >> yeah. after reading the housing element i know it does a lot of the balancing people are talking about. it's not an attack on rh1 or two in most instances it's talked about maintaining the character in height and bulk patterns in rh1 and two this document does a good job in doing that you can point to certain elements and want to slant it to the other side but, you know, it's a well-balanced document i'd be

supportive of the document as is >> director ram. >> thank you one thing i'll point out. >> couple of things as ms. mohan pointed out no where in the document does it say we're proposing the rh1 or two neighborhoods it's not in here and clearly there are fear morning to be going on. the second thing under policy 1.2 staff can correct me if i am wrong but there are a list of plans underway japantown was underway but now completed so the commission want to delete the japantown terms it. with respect to the cc&rs those are private agreements commissioner it's not possible for the city to refer to a private document as guiding the

city policy cc&rs are private eardrums between owners we can't use that so we encourage you not to make that change >> thank you if i could ask a followup question. on the larger question of housing there are a number of housing coming up on your calendar. i can on may 15th there's an informational item i believe it's about an update to the executive diversify on, on the may calendar i wanted to have you explain that one >> the 2013 housing inventory is the annual report we look back to title and permit projects essentially a year snapshot of what happens in 2013

with housing at various income levels. the may i'm sorry 15 calendar item is with respect to the mayors directive on housing and how we're fulfilling that >> i believe one of the pieces in 2009 element is around the residential pipeline or the summary so you wanted to make sure we're fulfilling that requirement or desire commissioner hillis. >> i'd like to move item 11 certify it for the 2005 element. >> second. >> commissioner borden. >> i was going to say i'm fine if you want to move forward with the motion of the eir we'll talk

about we'll be moving the document including the japantown. deleting the word from there otherwise i'm glad that director ram clarified this document is not planning code is a higher arching policy with the city and every time we approve any projects there's the housing and recreation and customers elements there's all those elements their kind of the high-minded utopian view their conflicting in what they say with each other and you can take bits and pieces to justify or not justify approving the promotions. we hold onto not that the words don't matter they do but we hold on two tithe not realizing inhollering you're trying to

include everything were going to have conflicts. i want to put that out there. there's no zoning in this document the policy document so there's no way to change or go through the processes of the neighborhood or start a community process without a formal process happening initiated through the planning code. so i wanted to clarify that or a elective process to do a major rezoning thank you very much >> commissioner moore. director ram i have a question under number 5 the written comments submitted how you distinguish between cc&rs and neighborhoods specific guidelines. cc&rs are basically a private matter, however, neighborhood

specific guidelines there are quite a few of the guidelines in the city but older neighborhoods have collective ideas of what the changes in the neighborhood refer to how you distinguish between them and you have it's not a cc&rs specific guidelines they're not the same >> i agree commissioner our right to make that distinction the guidelines with one or two exceptions are not adapted their internal to the neighborhood. there are one or two exceptions but for the guidelines association they're effective the same and cc&r but private documents. and that puts me on the slippery scoping slope because the neighborhood don't spend a lot of time carefully crafting and

be proactive of how to move and if we categorically say those guidelines don't matter we're basically questioning our own ways of how we look at the cc&r and drs or the cu in front of the of us and define the ideas to governor how those neighborhoods moved. i find that strange we agree in those cases they've used the neighborhood specific guidelines as a guide for us to make decisions >> i'm simply saying where respect to referring to the documents there's nothing to prevent you, we bring the guidelines to you and we will continue to do that there is nothing that says you can't it

is only referring to the policy document. >> if i can add the defamation of the process there's a formal process for the neighborhood to submit it to neighborhoods have the opportunity to raise their internal workings rgz to a higher level. >> i appreciate that in explaining but i want to see a footnote the way it's currently if i understand it doesn't seem 0 acknowledge there's reference to the established neighborhood plans. it's so abstract it pretends there's north america no past they're not law in themselves as a guide they should be referenced in order to be

acknowledged they're there. and that might not be exactly under item six as a footnote i'll appreciate a reference to the guiding ideas. i'm not sorry the city attorney wants to weigh in on this this is an idea or not >> deputy city attorney i was in the position that i didn't get enough copies to understand this but i'll remind the commission this is a high-level plan and document if there's a process for on the planning department to adapt the neighborhood guidelines that maybe a more appropriate level than incorporating them into the general plan to make the plan

consistency finding in determining whether or not the projects are consistent. so let me take a look at at it but i generally agree with the director >> maybe staff can explain what is the process by which a neighborhood could submit their internal workinging documents or where to find the information. >> i wanted to say that there's a description that calls out i'll read the sentence in the middle of the last paragraph the planning staff for the reference for the individual community efforts that support the principles such as the neighborhood covenants restrictions and there's a reference in the policy to the documents existing we're not able as a city to enforcing them

without finding what's in there. they have a history of having all kinds of ideas if the neighborhood wants to take the work i don't know the exact process but i believe there's a formal submitting process on the website once our staff reviews is we work with the community to talk about which part the city can take on >> my appreciate that you saying that with the reference it alludes me, i.e., greatly appreciated you're reading them. >> director ram. >> i want to talk about the issue of the commission approval vs. the general plan elements where respect to ail general plan elements the commission has the authority on the language. the board only paralyze up and down the board can't change the

language only say yes or no >> commissioner hillis. >> so i'd like to move items 12 a and b for the sequa finding. >> we still have a motion heading on the floor inform the environmental impact report i appreciate that (laughter). >> call the question commissioners dollars commissioners. commissioner hillis arrest commissioner moore and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. you can now take up items 12 a and b >> i'd like to move those and adapt the general plan for the 2009 housing element with the

deletion of japantown. >> commissioner antonini. >> i think as part of our action do we have to resend an action to approve this so there's an order we have to follow that's one of my comments. >> yes. deputy city attorney susan knowles that's in our adaptation. >> that's in commissioner hillis motion. >> yeah. included in the motion before you. >> just a few things first time i want to know when we're going to start element 13 perhaps we can improve the language in my opinion i'll tell you one of the reasons i don't generally support some of the language there's a sxhant reference to

the affordable housing that's i think a miss statement i don't think rental housing is more affordable if someone is able to buy a home it's a great edge against inflation and despite rent control in san francisco you're at the mercy of rising that rents so we should be silent upon a preference for either ownership or rental tenants that's one thing we're not going to get it changed today probably. we're in a unique situation being a sfoif sunday ring with the harmonies of liberty; by water. we need more emphasis on the workforce because most couldn't have land for people to live in

various community san francisco is pretty much being treated like every other couldn't so we're unique we have to address the housing needs of our workforce not only our present residents and often we use the figures that are dated we look at the data that's a few years behind the situation and when income levels it up u come up citywide we need new figures to base our housing on. this is reason 3 i have concerned with this i think affordable housing is important but the definition of affordable t is one hundred and 20 percent of medium income and below. unfortunately, many of our

middle-class families can't afford housing so this didn't address their concerns it's not concerned affordable housing if it's above the one hundred and 20 percentage. so this shouldn't be restricted it should be affordable in general terms not tied a formula. those are some of the things i'd like to see it changed maybe the next time the element comes up i'm not sure i can be supportive of this one oar commissioners there's a motion on the floor striking the term japantown. commissioner antonini.

no arrest commissioner antonini and commissioner moore and commissioner fong. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to one with commissioner antonini voting against. commissioners that places you on item 13. formula retail controls today and tomorrow this is an informational