new policies for short-term rentals and we've addressed new implementation around the volume and the null prop k to achieve 1/3rd of affordable housing in the districts those changes reflect the housing legislation through the public process at the initiation hearing hearing we've provided a chart on housing including the reports to the confirmation housing implementation staff can provide the commission information and many of the information is on the website monitoring the area plan going forward we ask the department ask the commission recommend the adaptation of

resolution to amend the housing element as the city's housing element the document it staff circulated oils the upgraded changes to the commissioners as well as the correction of errors staff asked to add the following laundering whereas all the changes in the e rot sheet e rot one calculated it the february 5th hearing be incorporated into the update in conclusion a document housing element continues our eligibility for infrastructure fund and in addition it allows the staff to continue with the housing goals and tanya will like to make comments thank you for your time and consideration and staff is available for questions. >> good afternoon commissioner

president fong and members of the commission tanya with the planning division the planning department has determined that the 2014 housing element will not add any increases for the implementations of considerably issues identified in the 2004 and 5 eir for 2014 and ann is available and associated with the prelims of housing element had been substantially the same as the 2009 element and no supplemental is required therefore the department has pursued an element ceqa alex section provides for the. >> of an addendum not to provide supplemental irs and certified eir as articulated

throughout our addendum it will contain the objectives and policies and measures that could affect the environment those are the policies that direct the city and increase the decency for certain types of projects and the residential building and promote energy efficient development and neighborhood services and along transit recites puc like the 2009 element the 2014 didn't propose any projects or zoning changes and no zoning changes are required under state law because we meet the housing meetings needs or the housing element morph is n it does mother add more housing policies the 2014 housing element low

instead provide general direction for the housing and if it is in response to the emphasis an that affordability the 5 policies added for the 2014 housing element will not be expected to build 0 any impact in the f e r and the - next i'd like to respond to public comments the department has received on the agenda here are some comments from kathy friend our department the two are dated in 2015 this is the city's reliance on the f dir for the housing element addendum ems in defenseless of 2014 the report denied a champion to the 2004 and 9 eir petitioners in our case appealed

the denial to the koirl that is still pending we're preceding with our own risk the questions should be directed to the city attorney and this is the city failed to put together the ceqa appeal and katherine pointed out out this section the code applies only to the modified project under the category assumption and section 1932 does noted talk about the environmental staff report the correct section for the 2014 housing element is 31.19 b it states the environmental review was it modified on the basis of

the environmental review officer determines it is therefore to be in writing and no further evaluation shall be required her next comment they disagreed throughout the addendum that this will not generate new housing, however the city has the captain to meet the target without the need to rebltd build it will occur today without any policy changes does the 2014 housing element increase the policy but instead influences the affordable housing in her february figured out she's men's is the city should have followed the ceqa guidelines that doesn't require the use of a eir the planning department approached the effort

of 2014 housing element as a minor update and not a project crossing the environmental agency determined that the updates to the housing element were not a separate project the housing element the current housing element is the 2009 tempting element was approved in june 2, 0152 months ago the housing element are required to be updated the updates to the 2009 housing element while we're calling the housing element by name the 2018 it is just a minor update to the housing element of the general plan in terms of what they call the housing element is the same staff is recommending we continue merely updated policies out of 72 policies total and the

implementation measures are met approximately one hundred and 10 measures total the project sponsor is the same and the purposes are the same, i.e., to provide therefore that's not new had therefore approved 7 months ago the guidelines don't debate but a seven months integral didn't require therefore the use of under the ceqa guidelines is appropriate here section 15164 allows an addendum to be used but those are changes don't require the supplemental or subsequent eir next the appellant talks about the

complaint and we see no severe impacts discussed in the eir nor evidence presented to the effects that in conclusions reached in the addendum it is to have a participation process and this is necessary in addition the department provided ms. it stevenson the 2005 and 9 element of the eir and the 2014 housing emit both of which have been available finally a letter from mr. aaron good man provides comments on the pipeline ratio of affordable housing and affordability and the need for affordable housing mr. goodman argues that the spaces should not be included phenomenon the land his comments are non-payable for

the accuracy of the ceqa housing review therefore no fallout analysis is provide this concludes my peculiar and my colleagues are here to answer your questions. >> thank you. >> opening it up for public comment katherine and others (calling names). >> commissioner president fong and fell commissioners i'm kathy representing san franciscans for liveable neighborhoods which has owned in the written submissions i've presented already to the proposed approval or recommendation of approved of the 2014 housing element and

it's resilience on the final eir for the san francisco 2004 and 9 housing element or any recertification thereof only the reliance that is not documents value it of the conclusions in the eir is being considered by the california court of appeals and the city will be ordered to file it's brief tomorrow to supplementally environmental review can be ordered by the court as to the position of the housing elements that's been carried over to the 2014 elements so the allegation in the addendum that no supplemental environmental review is required is premature and incorrect on appeal before and that is not unusual in these types of cases was of the standard of review in the

procedures before ceqa determination such as this also we place in the record two entire certified records to the supplemental ceqa administration of record those are to the first summarization i'll police vehicle make clear to be put and e-mailed to the commission concert under the charter section 4.15 the charter recommended to the board of supervisors for approval or rejection so the board must make the final determination whether those amendments are to be adapted and the term in our proposed resolution is inaccurate as a 2014 of the charter controls provisions of planning code section and i note you're in fact sending the matter to the board of supervisors nor the for the final determination so the

2014 will not be adapted today, the legal effect off our action to recommend adaptation to the board of supervisors which must make a determination before the approval is final also the final eir for the pages we've objective to the inaccurate characterization and the substantial evidence does not support the addendum for the impacts there was no evidence sited in the amounted to support in conclusion of changed policies and i did ask to review the policies in the addendum for the eir for the 2018 analysis i guess that concludes the time for me. >> thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you i'm berry narnd i'm other than the board of san francisco tomorrow i wish to indicate that we ask katherine has done submitted alternatives as mandated by the court and ignored by this body a body that's creates the housing element as a guideline rather than a policy directed intended to be enforced by programs and means and resources neither has been addressed department and hud have indicated that to 90 percent of all housing needs to be made affordable and is not indicated to be so while the means directed to the hoifrgz element that must be part of the housing element means and resources are

required civil rights of this communities have been violated under the federal venue that's with regard health and welfare and safety we're in seismic city the underlined sovereign rights of in addition, the board has considered the housing or land prices of housing have b have become inelastic it's a federal right to make the housing land available and affordable this is well beyond our expertise and obviously your intent we'll receive a new venue. >> hello, i'm christie wong the policy director for spur thank

you for the opportunity to talk about it this we commend the staff and support of the recommendation of the draft to allow the mayor's office of housing initiative to be implemented our city is a attracting jobs and resources and opportunities the city needs to produce between 4 and 6,000 unit to catch up with our deficit we can and should do more a few thoughts we start with neighborhood planning it is progressing the neighborhood plan that are currently producing the vast majority of housing there's only one plan in process the central selma plan to expend the plan of the community and two make it easier for homeowners to add this is a top priority and and she is

doing an excellent job moving forward in the planning department itself has exciting efforts fleeing underway 3 launch the experiments to help with the housing currently our housing is not good and we need to focus on more housing like student housing and another housing four reject the miss guided idea of metering it is a strategy we believe it is better to maximize the affordable units to come up with as much as affordable housing there is nothing to domain to a ratio that matches the affordable housing the only outcome to put additional pressure on the housing for those not licking enough to have housing 5 fix the process one of the

facts it is so expensive and richie to get housing san francisco has not zoning this should be a major focus on the housing policy the city's efforts have been heroic we urge you to continue the hard discussions of how san francisco, california welcome newcomers and take care of existing residents thank you. >> good afternoon i don't have 15 pages for you to read dear commissioners projects completed in the neighborhood have been met and exceeded the allocation rfp n a number but the 2014 housing element this number is around thirty thousand it is only for new units and not for

counting existing units which one builds new units to be inhabited by humans the 2014 housing element as written has not takes into account the change of the land lay today but based on teetered off on the housing element it is clear that the city has changed since the last element was written we allow additional housing to be built without looking at want specific zoning this change can reasonable tissue more people to get rent and in some cases there are even incentives for people to build to not pay taxes or fees open space is gradually disappearing in our front yards

and backyards a major portion of variances is requesting rear yard open space because people want to expand the building to the rear the front yard and rear yard have not been surveyed which teetered off the building the carbon as an environmental review has not been studied in the 2014 this may be detrimental and applied citywide when are there are more places in the city urban and in the 2014 housing element the current accuracy since 5 years ago or 10 years ago has not been completed with or without knowing what one has that is accurate and complete one can't say what the impact will be nor the unsurveyed areas

planning should ask for money, money to get a citywide survey on the emphasis of the city thank you copies for you here. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon excuse me. thank you good afternoon. my name is a arrow the chair for the neighborhood land use committee this is will the housing element for example, if you were all commissioners were positions you would take a hypocritical and say duo no harm well-being commissioner, i hope you take this oath do no harm unfortunately, the harm has started and looking forward you need to stop it and decrease it and get serious about the

housing element now the planning department told you the secretary that the new housing element is just a tweak of the old one well has the old one been successful and has the policies and implements program - taken advantage has it identified the problems and has it solved the problem well i hope we all agree we have a serious problem so obviously the old housing element is not working so why do we tweak it here's a major rewrite i think that you know if the housing element is a serious piece of policy we can't ignore that it is a failure and needs to be we rewritten in total

now for example dr. ann then when he's working as a dentist and sees a cavity i'm sure he's going to stop it and in the same sense in our housing policy we have a decay and need to work on it and be serious i think that tweaking it is is major mistake there are many things wrong f it doesn't concern the impact of the a lot of the buildings going on and address the transit issues we have right now this is a serious problem we have now and looking forward to the growth it is even worse that's not been addressed the water the water shorthand we have a major water storage or shortage that's not being

addressed we have a major conservatism process that will demand more the bottom line i don't have much time the city has become the city of the rich and poor the housing element does not address how to solve this issue i think you need to address this return to the planning department for a new one. >> is there any additional public comment? >> hi, i'm michael blossoming an engineer working in the city i will go in richmond and commute into the city daily to work here person that went before me mentions is as housing in the city grows it will stress the transport i'm stressing more by not living in the city and commuting i just like to reiterate some of the comments made earlier we need to find ways to maximize the new units

to build in the city the storage is such a crisis we need to find ways to solve that without finding ways to incentivize now building and allowing for smaller units in housing thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners tim collin on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition first of all, i want to commend the staff for bringing this it has to pass state funding is did not seeing for the third or fourth time it has an element of a family reunion familiar faces are here our friends from c s f and having lubricate the same

evidence and the same reports that discover a dangerous dangerous plot the housing document is such a accommodated down document for understandably to get it approved to the board of supervisors it's is it fair to say we're risking having it not truly reflecting the challenges we've got to be aggressive about building and using land 24ri7b8 and the neighborhood we have lots of wonderful neighborhood they're part of the city a navel experience to have the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods come and say we've been thinking about it and, yes there's a problem and here's what we can do to solve it but the problem is that 80 percent of the

development on 20 percent of the land their widely held perspectives that all the folks have to have all the housing we're running out of time we're going to think about ways that have been mentioned micro unit and secondary units try things try them out and see if at the work middle-class housing is going to hurt us and neighborhood plans we had a lunchtime session we get the legitimacy or change and after central selma i'm not sure what's coming after that and not sure if small plans maybe look at the entities to scale to the challenges we've we're facing i

urge you to take only on ambitious planning i urge you to take a look at this thank you. >> good afternoon again peter cowen counseling organizations first, the punch line we're satisfied with the policies and procedures and prelims measures that are in the update and we have worked quite a bit is staff given several suggestions and in some shape or form incorporated including an important measure around the data reporting i've this i would have that earlier, you have the capacity i think we're there and happy to report that and i know there are folks who find the housing element nor friendly and i know from an important lens we support it is

a good radio road map the hard part the housing and planning level that's fin we can do this as a high-level policy i want to emphasize of the short-term rentals we have a new prelims writer the stronger that can be the better it's doesn't no critique no suggestion language but as i said earlier this is a difficult thing to implement and the stronger our implementation measure in the housing element the better for you what i found very interesting is to hear really the kind of litany from our spur representative i'm not here to agree with the hawk or the spur on the housing element but to hear kind of yes, ma'am fascinating made we need 5 thousand dollars a year that's noted what the housing element

says you need 5 thousands elements a year in fact, 60 percent of the housing that we're supposed to be prouts in the kindly is below market 60 percent not 5 thousand a year rejectingly but 5 thousand to low income and middle-income units we only produce will 25 percent housing below market in the last cycle so we draw firmly with spur that is about throwing more housing what kind of housing and who it is serving that's what the heirs element is for if you take it at that level there's smart policies that could be