>> commissioner antonini and i want to thank staff for an excellent job that is a revised element you know not a full new element but i've been through this process twice before i think that the presentation you gave us was probably the best i've seen as far as an overview of what's going to happen in the future in previous elements a tentedcy to because the statistics on the city 57 or 10 years ago your forwarded looking and projecting the populations and projecting jobs 24 is very important because what we must do is try to address not only the situation today but what that's going to be in the future and people will continue to move here it's a it's a 12kw50ish8 place we need to address not

only the population today by the population in the future and identify them and try to build where we can courage that's just for the public those are guidelines those are things that state general plan policies but don't not deal with any particular projects they does not dictate you know approvals or disapprovals of projects and to some of the discussion that's gone on by not building more market rate housing we only make the situation worse because there's more competition for what's here we opg those people are coming to san francisco people want to be here and drive up prices of what exists we've got to continue to build as much

housing as possible and certainly the market rate housing helps it takes stress off the existing stock a couple of questions for staff i was looking at the section on meeting affordability goals and the number given to san francisco looks at accurate based on we've we've built, however, those counties don't make sense coming from alameda and santa clara county for that a while beyond how santa clara got income restricted housing i see a lot of single-family homes out in the dublin area some of the cities are getting criticism from a back and the state for not building affordable housing so i'm wondering how they got 65 percent of meeting their goals or had a very allow goal.

>> your last statement will the local might be the case the percentages repealed in the map on the presentation is a percentage of that 60 percent affordable target that's required by marina and that's why other than that i don't have an answer. >> i would be skeptic all of 98 for the same reason typically those counties have not built housing relative to san francisco that builds a lot of housing and part of the market rate housing is less expensive in those counties it will qualify. >> unfortunately ervin scrawled all the country side by dublin but that's the bad news it is

using upland that could be open space but the good news it is providing housing for people and probably found a way to build single-family home for sale homes that are satisfying their goals if we can few and far between if the a way we'll put a dent in our needs thank you very much for the interesting and i'm happy to move to initiate the housing element. >> thank you very much. >> and set the hearing date. >> well, i think february 5th is what staff wants it goes to the board of supervisors and tyler they'll be more hearings we have to allow ourselves time before that date. >> commissioner moore. >> with the caveat with the addendum is issued two weeks

ahead of time as comments from the commissioners i'm thinking it is a timely and presenting process i have questions they deal with our ability to fully understand the shift in the definition of residential that's occurred between the last housing element and what we're looking at in the update the shift in defining lauld of residential is challenged by the way the airbnb legislation which was approved indeed alternates that definition and in the best of our world as the rest of the state uses a slightly he independence i hope what we're doing is indeed fully understand

in its consequences by the city attorney who advise the dependent on those matters but i would be interested in the details if they're coming through the in trailing legislation to be issued by supervisor kim's office with early march i'll provide a caution since the department will be spending a lot of resources to update this element we're not taking step 2 before one including checking what the definition of residential could not read and ultimately a linear update commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much a you couple of things real quick i definitely support initially user initiating that item when i started to read the housing element i thought it was like a

lot of the general plan they say so much they say nothing they're all very good policies and objectives by what the teeth of the actual implementation i started reading it and came to something i wanted to mention i don't know we're going to get in the 2014 housing element but maybe talk about the implementation program my first comment and we'll see if any relatives in actually looking at how things are worded when i read through the implementation of the policies and objectives i noted there were a number of places where the program or the implementation policy was to have some sort of monitoring program there was no conclusion to the policies i'll give you an example i was reading just now

there's one that or not now it says that planning shall monitor the housing provision with the inclusionary provision and the evaluation method even if the prelims this housing plan has a plan and ends with a plan to date, no middle-income unit have been built interests a lot of areas where effort and energy it's a expended in terms of the monitoring program but no conclusion to the implementation program of what happens if we don't do it there's areas where there are policies that the planning department says they'll investigate so it says you know we'll look at a community planning process in a couple of different areas for a certain

action and no elevation of when will we determine if that happens or other areas we'll suggest legislation on a certain area or develop a program no conclusion how to see how we do that i'd like to see more teeth in the housing element or whether in a particular document will those programs themselves or the policies themselves i'm going to start looking for if the staff or the executive order says we're going to implement a program to help with you know design of units for you know inclusionary housing i want to see what happens if we don't do that what's the mechanism to check and the next thing a couple policies i understand that we added some

policies around displacement i know they are come automobile the element didn't change the law in and of itself but determined the road map that formed the lens for the projects that come before us but one thing i've noticed about displacement theres sort of a token element about diversity in the city i want to see more implementation programs it speak not only to displacement of people having housing by maintaining the diversity in the city that's one area i didn't see implementing programs and i sort of that caught my eye when i look at the spifshgz around ethnicity but the fact of the

matter the only population that as declined is african-american everyone else has percentages of population overall those sectors of the population are maintaining their numbers in the city except african-american so when i look at what's the implementing programs to maintain diversity in the city that in and of itself the african-americans were the population that's declining i see nothing but lots of implementation i'd like to see a discussion around that and whether it means it is strengthening the policy language in the housing element and coming up with implementing the programs as we go on and fourth what's going to work that's something i'd like to see and i sort of had that same feeling not as strong around families san francisco has the

lowest percentage around the united states but that means that is the lens through which we look to create family sized units we have a small percentage of the population that has families with children you know let alone with families with more than one child nairts what's the incentive to build the units for that population that's already here with the need you've got a target population not there i want to see you know a little bit stronger language in the policy around increasing the population of families in the city because then they will have a need that co-sponsor ponds to the need for them those are my comments other than that hats off to the staff i know that i've said that a lot in the 6 or seven months in the

commission i'll echo commissioner antonini's comments i love it forward-looking rather than saying in san francisco in 2000 and definitely hats off on the work of the staff. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess just a couple of comments thank you very much for the hard work i have to don't a deeper look at this i need to schedule some time first on process 2009 there was a neighborhood involvement on the process 2014 there wasn't what went into the decision having the neighborhood groups represented? a christen dave i want to explain our outreach process just so i know the housing element is generally a

big undertaking in 2009 we spent a year with the public starting with the advisory committee which had people to represent each community and community meetings in over thirty community groups the document before i is basically that same document with in his opinion and tucks that was adapted in 2011 and here we are 3 years later the document stand strong i know there was comments about neighborhood character unique to san francisco is around character and that has 9 policies that are craft by the neighborhood groups through the community advisors body in the meetings the feeling was this element the theme of this element is not changes to the existing neighborhood but around solving how to achieve the

affordability component that's where the energy was focused on that point we reached irritate to stakeholders that were focused on that that was our outreach approach. >> that's great one of the interesting things i have a a little bit which a disconnect here the dir comments i sent in yesterday, i started to pull information from the federal reserve and some of the statistics i was really surprised here we are in 2015 and 25 thousand people left san francisco that made less than $35,000 and yet more people moved in and where 33 are they going to live i was shocked

people that moved in not making that much money 2 hundred thousand people in the next decade i'm seeing our share is 28 thousand unit it's a disconnect versus the number of units how is that distributed by in case level i have to read it more i want to mayor u make sure it addresses the housing crisis and the policies are good i'd like to see those policies translate into things we can put into our heads to further the objectives that's it i support the motion. >> was that a second. >> director ram. >> thanks i want to thank everyone from their comments and the members of the public i think we're generally there's harder anyone in the room that

disagrees but the vast majority from the public and commission are issues not to be addressed in the housing element but how we implement it and how much displacement and affordable housing is addressed to be honest we should move forward with the policies and so i would suggest that we do perhaps a bio annual update we have to do an annual update on how the starter of housing acd housing and agency development and how we're doing i significantly suggest we semi annually come to the commission and give that report it is look this is the issue of our time no in question but

changing a policy statement in the housing element is not going to change whether or not we get the affordable housing but where the funding is coming from and get the programs with specific programs that are in place i suggest we come to you more regularly to update you on the production. >> commissioner richards. >> i think i mentioned this when we complete mr. kelly i'm shocked we have a high vacancy rate if we have a policy to bring those units into the market it will make a significant dent in the market the short-term rental might be x baiting it but it's striking 9.3 percent of vacancy rate. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much just for to commissioner richards i agree with you and

it's funny i actually. >> is a percentage of the vacancy rate before anything called airbnb or we're aware of any of those that has to do with second homes it was on the ballot there's that issue that is related to short-term rentals so thank you director ram i agree definitely semiannual the reason i brought it up this is a housing policy that can get lost when we talk about and there's a

scheduled adaptation meeting assuming it is scheduled commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 15 for the next case at 340 bryant street an office he development authorization

good afternoon, commissioners erica jackson you have a request to allocate 5 hundred thousand jooet secret plus through an authorization at bryant street the project is located south of market neighborhood within a mixed use office zoning district bound by rim con alley and other locations the square feet lot has approximately, six 2 thousand 50 feet it was industrial, however, the building was vacate since 2013, the total request secret represents four percentage of the small cap office space since the publication the department received one letter of support that's being passed out to you

now the proposal with standard conditions that the project is consistent with the zoning district it's a designed to courage the office unit as well as the small-scale art facilities and permits office use the project is located out of the selma plan and not subject to the pdr xheshgs the project represents the allocation of approximately 4 percent of the small cap office space for allocation it retains the pdr space on the ground floor of the building approximately 16 thousand 5 hundred square feet that project will appraise fees that will benefit the city and is in compliance that concludes my presentation. >> project sponsor please. >> good afternoon john with

rubens and rose on behalf of the project sponsor this proposes the conversion at bryant street with the ground floor as pdr use there's obviously been a significant incision. >> i'm sorry that's distracting agency heck thank you. >> sorry. >> go ahead. >> there's a lot of decision regarding the pdr conversion in the eastern neighborhoods i want to make clear about what zoning restrictions apply the city-state site a mixed use it is principally permits to the prop m allocation and the eastern silver sub plan also courageous the office use in the district the property is not subject to pdr restrictions there's a number out there isle you've got the s l i to protect

against housing and office development and the pdrs are allowed you've got 63 reading street another office conversion they were coming before you seeking an exception and this is not 63 reading no restriction or expectations there's pdr zoning sdriksz districts that are expressly to prevent the pdr only some are permitted and again, an accepted that's the pen trees building i think that most are well aware we're not seeking an expectation we were an office principally permitted district and san francisco historic preservation commission has infected or the sponsor of

the moratorium of the central plan area this project is no the in the central selma area the second zone highly produced area is no subject to pdr measures we've benefit lvns to the commission very careful and the developing censures skefrnz of the commission as a result we're maintaining a ground floor of pdr as part of the project that's 14 thousand 5 hundred square feet of pdr square space swore been working to identify the pdr tenants it is not easy but we did identify two, that will occupy the balance of the space the first one is an electronic car charging company they work with retailers and malls and local governments to

small electric cars stations for free getting paid by the advertising on the car and they'll be conducting those on site and have a schoerl showroom to represent tare products and the rest of the space will be right now, we're working with a wine wholesaler that will be connecting the wine industry and the commercial storage of wine for over flow and possible educational opportunity for folks in winemaking i also want to mention that keeping the ground floor on pdr this brings up it outside of the large allocation for prop m so this project will not be taking office that's it space that's obviously visa expensive and as

major projects come your way i do want to speak to the previous tenants in the building that's been brought up by folks the project sponsor is sensitive to their needs and generous all tenants received 8 months of the project sponsors intentions to renovate the building most were allowed to stay throughout the period of this notice period the project sponsor loud other tenants to leave their leases early without punishment or keeping on the hook for rent and also there's an a significant amount of unpaid back rent the sponsors forgave and illustrating that you've got a in front of you sdais their

concerns this is a legal change of use all impact fees are going to be paid n this includes all the eastern neighborhood fees over $800,000 will be paid no new contradiction the fees will apply and this brings the building in consistent with the planning code so one of the other things and that's been brought up the issue of permitting in this building so i wish mr. sanchez we are here this is stripping not that uncommon south of market and the eastern neighborhoods before the eastern neighborhoods plan was adapted in 2009 much of that was m zion p that allowed everything so the old sty industrial district so

what happened, you have a lot of old industrial buildings where back when there was innovate as much pressure it was not on the radar the tenants would move in if it says projecting office they allowed for the tenant improvements to take place this is a greater concern we're looking at the permits a legal change of use hadn't necessarily happened even if it is an office notice all over it i've gotten calls from people saying oh, it's an office building no, it's at complex analysis that the zoning administrator does to see if there's an existing legal use this has to show proposed office use and it's designed by planning and most of the time

has plans that show where the office space is in the building it's a technical analysis there are buildings owners that are not sophisticated or savvy to the process this is not the exception 24 is how it came up we're looking at the building others were looking at the building and they've looked you know they've talked to someone that's been there before and there are office permits so what we did was filled the environmental operation getting this in line with the code and maintaining the ground floor as pdr i wanted to speak briefing to the continuance issue this project has now been subject to 3 notices over the 13