may hear the comments from the housing density changes in the rh1 and other zoning district. adapting the 2009 element helps with the neighborhood character by not calling for changes in the rh1 or other zoning districts. instead the housing element talks about the tools that can be used to address residential regulations such a secondary unit and density and parking projects. the changes are for neighborhood support and other policies advise those must be consistent with the neighborhood characters. there were responds regarding rh1 and other zoning districts

and that is in our pact packet. we recommend a resolution adapting the 2009 element confirms our dedication to meeting california housing particularly as it pertains to the housing needs at all levels and it continues our eligibility for the requests for the affordable housing requests. thank you for your consideration and staff is available for questions >> thank you. okay. let's open this up for public comment for. i have one speaker card.

>> so soon thank you speaking for san francisco storm. first of all, i'd like to indirect you to the submission by catherine in response to the state court of appeals not the supreme court but the higher court the city advance alternative scenarios problematic scenarios that can deal with the mandate as to need, cost and diversity of the housing population which this department has described is 80 percent of the citizens of this city that are go forward in the process before you. i have submitted and i again will submit on february 18th a relevant very detailed significant set of alternatives

that have not been commented upon regard our finding and this is not proper in this state. i refer you to particularly to the states rather the city's obligation of the necessary tools to do a proper analysis in confirming it review to the free market into the mist of the thought oversupply of high-end you housing with 50 thousand high-end housing that's before you have you have raised the inatlantic costs of public goods that mandated the public needs of this city and raised the cost of land and services and the ability to mitigate in an earthquake disaster of high proposition in advance that

could occur by federal analysis within 6 years it's not there. and this is means you preceded no bad faith. the state allows a certain tolerance an interpretation of state laws you've aviating exceed that and therefore i put before you have 2 chose one you can anticipate an appeal to the state appeal that allows you to look at other scenarios that is not contained in the process through other means other venues that obviously the faith less continue or stop those proceedings and start through the required and continue

through an effective or objective venue and the a lot things you've received >> thank you. any is there any public comment. >> good afternoon. i'm kathy rep san franciscans for liveable neighborhoods on behalf of that group we objective to the certification of the final eir and prop the sequa finding and the adaptation of the recommendation and the reading is set forth in our comment and another letter before i get to those reading why the findings are inclusivey this is you're only chance to change the language because under the charter you accepted it 0 to the board of supervisors they can acknowledge vote yes or no on

the packet so, please consider the alternatives signatures eliminating japantown from policy 102 and the projection in the eir you're going to make 25 thousand more units so 25 you don't need japantown and there's no plans to expending expand the capacity. also in policy 1 that .2 not unlimited planning but add a sentence the limitations shall be limited in the plans otherwise you have no transparency and this is optional through the planning period 2014. also policy 1.2 text should be should be changed not only for

the height and bulky have this language if you should say in rh1 and two the density limits as well as the bulk patterns should be maintained. as to policy 1.4 initiating the plans precedes through the budgetary process when a process you should change that language to say the process should be initialed by the publicly notice of the planning commission that discloses the planning process and that it decedents the scope and the notice of the proposed initiation should be mailed to each organization. and the next policy should be changed to state that new

developments are allocations in cc&rs should i'd like to turn in the letter for example, the reduced land use certification still fails to state the - >> thank you your time is up. >> may i hand you my letter and have a copy stamped received by any chance. thank you very much here's the original copy >> thank you is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm rose jordan park improvement association i want to repeat with more

emphasis on the fact that the 2009 housing element maybe afforded more public input but the input sometimes is sometimes is staged speak for itself in organization areas so the wording that katherine expressed that needs to be changed the in housing element as she provided to i have the semiimplied version that will be passed out madam secretary some things are dollary but the board of supervisors is only an up and down vote and it's important this language gets put in for the neighborhoods. thank you >> thank you is there any additional public comment?

>> good afternoon. i'm robert president of the marilyn park neighborhood. i support the last two speakers and with respect to the park being an rh1 zoned the policy should be changed for the rh1 and two as well as the bulk patterns should maintain the neighborhood character and the final eir doesn't contain those. this will have an impact on the rh1 and two neighborhoods from the policy language that supports more than one or two units from the rh1 or two parcel >> thank you. >> thank you is there any

public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm karen i'm also a member of the mary lemon park improvement club i support the prior speaker. thank you >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> i've got a count down oh, well. good afternoon, commissioners jude berkowitz coalition for the san francisco neighborhoods under policy 102 japantown should be deleted and the response to comments admits on

with the completion of the ethics strategies there's no plans to increase the housing capacity in japantown. the final eir didn't accurately consider this feasible alternative and area plans should be limited to the areas of the 2009 to the 2014 underlines that are objectives the following statements should be added quote notwithstanding the for going the area and community plans shall be limited to those areas specifically identified in policy 1.2 unquote the final eir doesn't consider the feasible alternative. policy 102 text should be changed to state in areas in

revolver and two the density limit heights should be maintained and the final eir didn't accurately consider this feasible alternative. the second to last sentence in policy 11.2 text relating recommending to cc&rs should be stating that new additions to existing structures in neighborhoods that have neighborhood specific cc&rs and design guidelines should conform with the cc&rs guidelines and quote the analysis is still lacking factual support and evades the comments based on the 1990 element that district groekt growth for transit and

expected to capitalized. the revised alternative analysis failed to explain the growth that under alternative a is relating it's period throughout the city. both those elements were also subject to all area plans. thank you. appreciate our time >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm sarah. i'm the deputy director of spur. it's nice to see you but not nice to see you on this item. i was a nebraska member of the affiliation person committee that your staff discussed earlier we met i don't remember what you said 2009 when we started. so it's been many, many, many years we've been having a dialog

will be the housing element the 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 essal