the san francisco planning commission this is the regular meeting for i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president hillis commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner melgar and commissioner moore we do expect commissioner vice president richards and commissioner johnson to arrive shortly commissioners oh, there you are commissioners, the first item on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item one 615 bayshore boulevard

conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to march 16 number two, medical cannabis dispensaries proposed for continuance september 14, 2017. affordable housing program continued from regular meeting of september 15, 2016 - proposed for indefinite continuance. as is number 4, 590 leland avenue continued from january 12, 2017 - proposed for indefinite continuance. i have no other items proposed for continuance and there are no speaker cards. >> any members of the public want to comment on the items proposed for continuance hearing none public comment is closed. commissioner fong second thank you, commissioners to continue matters as proposed commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president

richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and commissioners under our consent calendar this matter constitutes a consent calendar connecting may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 5611 2nd street - east side of 2nd street, between brannan and townsend streets. conditional use authorization there are no speaker cards. >> thank you joan jonas members of the public that wants to remove this item from the consent calendar seeing none, public comment is closed. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to approve under content commissioner fong

commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places under commission matters item 6 consideration of items proposed for continuance. consideration of draft minutes for 2017. >> my any public comment on item the draft minutes seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> move to approve second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places us on item 7 commissioners questioning. >> we apprehensions mentioned this to staff around ab 35

supervisor scott weiner's to take away local control from the municipalities or localities don't meet their housing goals and ask for a staff member if this moves forward there will be hearings 2 has legs with the impact to san francisco. >> thank you commissioner koppel. >> yeah. good afternoon, everybody i attended a press event on tuesday at the recently completed rockwell on pine street that project was approved by this commission in may 2014200 and 16 condo building the event resolved around the legislation supervisor tang was in support to make new developments more electrical vehicle ready and so basically,

what they're saying is that the infrastructure if planned out beforehand more easily and cheaper installed live in the forefront as opposed to to after the fact and all the parking spaces are having not been sold and the spaces that are electrical vehicle ready have been purchased by people that didn't have electrical vehicles but were planning in the future and legislative aide to possibly seeing the future for electrical vehicles structure. >> thank you any other commissioner comments jonas call the next item 8 director's announcements. >> thank you joan's and govern i want to call your attention a

memo ceqa recommended to parking and vehicles miles traveled and since we prepared this in response to requests looking at alternatives and environmental documents related to reduce parking or no parking alternatives we wanted to kind of summarize where the department work particularly with respect to ceqa with respect to the parking and issues as you recall. >> number of years ago removed parking as an impact in and of itself and more recently changed our analysis to be around vehicles miles traveled rather than los so i'll encourage you to take into account this and happy to have more discussions if necessary hearing about this issue in the future thank you. >> thank you. >> we can move on. >> item 9 review of past

events. >> good afternoon aaron starr manager, legislative affairs is this week's land use heard the upper market market to the nct sponsored by supervisor sheehy this be ordinance proposed to rezone the properties on the corner of market from upper market to nct as well as clarify that all properties within the upper market are subject to the affordable fee commissioners you may recall you initiated that and had action on september 29th of last year and recommended approval with modifications and the modification to insure that the property within the upper market nct are subject to the market octavia at the land use committee no public comment and the committee members didn't discuss the committee voted to remedy the ordinance to the full board and staff tenant the small

business commission to present the proposed change to the commerce that removes provisions for restaurant concentration at the hearing that was no public comment and the community had questions about the proposal but stated in support for the reinforcing and clarifying the policy document not an implementation the committee voted to recommend approval for the full board to the land use committee next week at the full board this week supervisor president london breed's ordinance that requires new hotels and motels near the place of entertainment passed the second reading and the arcades in the sli passed the first reading the various ordinances that deal with the inclusionary housing reminded for the project on 950 market street passed the first reading and supervisor

tang's worse than baby diaper changing co-sponsored by supervisor sheehy and others passed the first reading that appeal for the mass approval on alhambra street was withdrawn and lastly the board heard the appeal off the significant management planned eir one of the two appellants withdrew their appeal on the wetlands soil discussed with the board members is on program verse project level review and rec and park use of pesticides mirena burns provided helpful information on the level of environmental review and rec and park clarified with the natural resources was .0 pound per acre the board members concerned was alleviated and the board of supervisors voted to up to date the planned eir on a 9 to one

vote supervisor kim absent and supervisor yee dissenting saw protons problems with the pesticides one introduction that was proposed and it is the inclusionary housing fee and requirement which easements section 415 of the planning code and sponsored by supervisor kim and supervisor peskin that concludes my report. >> thank you mr. starr. any questions >> thank you dollars apparently no. you report from the board of appeals and the holiness meet yesterday and had registry applications with the bakery commissioners that places us on general public comment comment not to exceed 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public may address the commission to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda

items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. i have two speaker cards. >> thanks. (calling names) >> good afternoon residents of san francisco and this morning he read the article in the examiner on the states our housing crisis is a moral crisis that is true, however, going over those 5 questions here's my rebuttal the first question did it focus on meeting the preying housing in the minds e needs people that don't have a home or low income people's are paying their income

to housing the most pressing needs for the housing of young 0 people in the city the ami and with a nexus kushl serving those who make minimum wage $13 an hour the poor are - number 2, does that that create families minimum wage housing didn't create jobs or demand to move into a neighborhood jobs are created by companies and those jobs create demand to live in the area number 3, does that require community to take responsibility for making their housing assessable to people at various income levels especially the workers that is not the job of homeowners in the community or homeowners the homeowners have not a right to block the young people from living in the apartments the state law

requires for generations we must abide by the sf.gov does it protect the natural beauty of the climatic change grossly affordability is a problem but urban is a - does if allow the existing resident to remain in their community new apartment in any neighborhood keeps the current resident from being gentrified turning your attention. >> thank you. i have an additional speaker card ms. swedish and i'm reaping i'm a resident of the city and county of san francisco i've lived here my whole life my family in i city for over one hundred and thirty years on one project in

bernal heights where i live which we've made a complaint to the planning commission and about the project as it's going i am and my wife with the owners of the property that adjoins right down the hill from the project we live on 312 we've lived there since 1989. the owner about two years ago the owner of that home jesse garcia passed away the property fell into disrepair his family lived there since 19 thirty so his sons and daughters sold it in a local developer flipper named shoks a s h o k g u g r a l are purchased the property as

part alter reality group the gentleman is a serial perpetrator even if fraud i have copies in my package of complaints brought against the gentleman by the california real estate board in 2011 where they charged him with multiple counts of fraud which each of the allegations that were alleged were true by him himself he surrounded his licenses as a result and we look forward to having probation officer property remodeled and redeveloped next to us we were happy this was going to happen we found out this person purchased that and was behind the reality perhaps was a battle this man the development he has

attempted to do and continues to do against the rules of permit department of building inspection permits limited plans, and permits that were issued his behavior concerning the property on 310 needs to be reviewed ♪ context with him the seller real estate defraud the work started on one 15 and beyond permitted in the last foe weeks the gentleman added an unpermitted top floor to that unit if we live in cottages that were made for like librarians or teachers a but has a view of the city it is worth tons of money more than i purchased that for i have a copy of the photographs

of what he's done outside the department department and hear here for the boards shall i hand you, you those things okay >> our particular file. >> thank you. >> this particular project has been red-tagged twice in the last 2016 and you know this particular project has we've made a complaint again to the code compliant in the city for a directors hearing come up soon i believe because of those repeated violations and the

current problem we have that referral got happened last week on february 27th. >> the photo that i printed and showed the color photo that the top floor it is widely out of proposition not property and the neighborhood in the block itself this top floor was sweet spot to be dormers and was never part of new particular plan presented to the dbi and never approved we're ourselves had to foil a lawsuit to deal with the project in damage to our home and our neighbors to the top of hill joined us in the lawsuit the gentleman entered a contract within days of signing those contracts blow through them

we didn't have the access to our shared property line done ask our permission maybe two minutes. >> sir, your time is up. >> thank you, very much. we have the materials ms. swedish. >> good afternoon, commissioners i was here a few weeks and show you this project on 13 no 1295 sanchez i i can't remember this is what i 0 showed you on the beginning of february now the other day march first happy march by the way, so this is the house originally and actually, i saw someone filed a complaint wasn't me by the way, someone did

again on the original 311 no demo i know things have changed with the new staff be handouts they're great but still an issue. >> thank you, ms. swishing is there any additional general public comment? >> public comment is closed. >> mr. traffic hill the neighbors filed a discretionary review that is something you might want to look at and have that come before us as well in conjunction with the apartment. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to to your regular calendar item 10 eastbound that job-housing balance trends. informational presentation. >> no they're here. >> okay. >> good afternoon chris in planning i am here to introduce

this item this is an informational presentation briefly by the san francisco public works public utilities commission about their sewer system improvement program the department roll in this program is limited to conducting the california environmental quality act process we have already completed environmental review story the infrastructure projects with that program this last fall we completed a negative declaration for one of the water treatment plan with the project and on your advanced calendar for june 1st, the draft eir for the bio solids and more projects that puc will provide an overview for you in their presentation so with that, i like to introduce karen who is

the program director for the wastewater enterprises puc. >> thanks, chris. >> good afternoon commissioner president hillis and commissioners director rahaim thank you so much for 53 me on the calendar i'm karen the wastewater enterprise program director for the sfpuc and today i'll give you an overview of the program bring up did slide this is agree selection of sewer improvements over the next two million years to upgrade our system. >> sfgov go to the - thanks. >> you may be familiar puc is responsible for 24/7 utilities water and power that i'll be focusing on the sewer side today first of all, we have a combined sincere system in san francisco serves san francisco 49 square

miles we treat the wastewater and water - this is a red line that runs from north to south on the map and basically differences this into two grave bodily injury based i think and the bay side within the areas sewage and tunnels and box that convey such business by gravity to the storage boxes shown in the dark rectangle that - we have 30 treatment plant the baby is oceanside by the do zoo it started at 1993 - and then our largest plant and much of the work in the improvement program will be at the southwest plant operating since 1952 and treats 80 percent of the city's

services at the northeast a wet weather oceanside are all weather plants operating in dry days and turned on in rainy periods of time picture this is a shot of of what an of the transport storage boxes with the driving this is below the street that holed up to two hundred gallons during a period we have challenges with the environmental justice and discharges but the ones on the chart is the infrastructure that matches the infrastructure it is old that is a shot of a lateral that failed in the 1800s that was our system has not been schematicly upgraded so our improvement program has 3

tenants gray we will be looking at to renovate, upgrade our treatment and pump stations and schematic and reliability we'd like be building green infrastructure chris mentioned some projects underway that addressed the local run off have to remove the water from the system we want to keep things clean as possible pursue our program is really dictated by comprehensive levels of service we're established by the commission and those were directed in an area the first one for rieblth and resiliency and making sure we are able to accommodate climatic change and adapt for the future and all the facilities have residential and commercial neighbors the opportunity the community aspects of the environmental, sustainability and benefits to the impacted neighborhoods

this is a shot of our schedule thirty year program to date we've within authorized for phase one that will represent $2009 billion and the subsequent phases will be going to the commission to look to authors those to 2018 and the second phase and the phase three. >> if we look at what your department will be helping but us with this table shows all the phase one projects are anticipated to have negative declaration or irments we approved the list we have 70 projects on the slide but the top treatment project and chris mentioned we did get the first negative declaration and thrilled that was a new years eve gift the next big project in

the program is the bio project we we're expected to is the draft eir published in may and to the bottom part of chart projects for the rainfall it is a tool we're developing with noah to have better information about the short-terms storms in the city and at the green infrastructure and the improvement project which will be an environmental review a tunnel if mission creek to another creek currently in construction several green structure out the door we wanted to build and monitor how well, they performed throughout the city we're building one in each of the 8 sheds shown here is the future of southeast plant highlighted in green at the - the new has to do with head works i want to

give you a little bit of background about the projects the green that works that is for all the flows enter the plant does an important tree treatment job moves obstacles bricks and two by for us and sand makes and its way to the plant it causes the damage and the capacity in the final spot so the digesters the plant itself was built in the early 50s the location is at evans a busy corridor so we want our new facility to look nice and be something to be a place a designation so our project team is working with the department of public works and this represents the concept that has been approved through phase one and to the commission for phase two in june now to the bio project

there is a great deal of urgency to get this project done numbers that come in and speak on a regular basis this project will be rebuilding the handling side half of the plant the new facilities are in blue and located on the central shop and decommissions at the plant site awhile ear building this over the next several years needs the existing facility operating in parallel the red lines shows you where the facility it from you look at this this is the digester those were as far from the residential properties as possible the train tracks are raised so visibly will not be within the sight of residents and at a distance a energy

recovery building on the asphalt site and maintenance buildings will be built along that cuts into the middle this is a list of features of the new facility reducing facilities jofrts from the to 5 this facility collects the biproduct and reviews that 40s probation officer power the plant that is wonderful and we'll be increasing the level of treatments, of course, critical to this facility is the reduction of order to no odors are beyond the plant and like our head project is working hand in hand with the arts commission and the design review that is a facility that has a lot of attention and wants to build it so all are looking at one integrated campus to continuity between the

facilities the new facility will include the research and odor technologies as well as the educational plaza we are considering how we bring the core groups through here if so part of the education for youth and our design strategy included the structures to house equipment and citing the project away from residents and collecting the low emission technology we do an extensive amount of the community outreach much more exists over 1y06789 people are attend tours of this facility and this is walking on a bike in a kayak or looking at the green infrastructure this is important we want people to connect the water bodies with the go back we're doing clean power wastewater and stormwater so this is some of the different

facilities and the way we help people i'm i left my heart in san francisco i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. we may open up for public comment so there's is there any public comment on item seeing none, public comment is closed. any commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner moore. >> the most pressing question is that funding for the facilities has in the past had not been jointly fund by the federal government and the epa what are your predictions of that based on the changes in - d.c. >> so how we fund capital projects now is typically with revenue bonds financed or paid for by rates but have been pursuing state resolving loan funds a program that is administrative code by

the u.s. epa we're seeking the low interest fund and working closely where the state epa to maximize the amount unfortunately a lot of the projects that are concurring in the state of california will be competitive but we'll be pursuing those i believe at the time of the last bond sadly 3.5 or 6 percent and the state resolving loan fund is half of that that would be wonderful for repairs we'll continue to pursue that and pursue grants but i don't - at this time we're not seeing any federal fund but working with our folks in d.c. and trying to have some of the infrastructure investments go to wastewater not just bridges. >> second part of my question had you pull up one of the illustration will you show the public component of your plan

is. >> can i return to the slide as we could a center a printout that's part of the problem thank you. >> bear with me. >> that was pretty much at the end the second to the last slide i think. >> it is i'll use the mouse our intent - coming in if jerold this is a public gathering area what we tried to do is take people through the process that it flows where that

flow emergencies and the liquid treatment and over to the solid handling so we'll be - looking at that open area there is green technology that will be demonstrating there green an infrastructure and cross over jerold towards flagrant here is the energy recovery facility another excellent opportunity for education for youth and all residents of san francisco how energy is generated and power using methane. >> the reason i'm asking for the commission the community has been very weary about those changes that started years ago discusses the size of facility and they're looking for public component and there are tours that are accompanied by a public component by which has space to

use for community purposes without necessarily being on the tour that is basically the reason for my question. >> the southeast community facility that is used for education and presentations. >> so that will be continued to ago used. >> we're looking at potentially building a new facility and discussions about the programming of that and some partnership had been concurring and put that in a family-friendly location. >> it is an excited idea we're looking at for the public component so keep us posted we'll appreciate that. >> it is absolutely a way for employees some people on the bucket list want to come to our plant (laughter). >> thank you it is excited and glad thank you commissioner koppel. >> thank you go to the spks

sfpuc i'm glad we are investing in the sewer and power to for the city to survive the arteries that how we live and you know, i take it seriously and i think we all do too. >> one question on obviously it is a dense part of city in primarily in industrial on one side but there are you know residential fairly quick are those facilities built to accommodate they're with the residential adjacent. >> where the digesters are currently 25 feet from the people homes and decks we're replacing it is setback in an industrial area to be as far away from homes as possible but the area is changing over

residential. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess we hear from people who say wow. the city is at its capacity in housing and infrastructure when you look at what the plan is she outlined for us at what point are we full up or this plan with another one million residents or so forking working for the structure. >> we track with the city planning snibz this is 5 i think two million 3, 4, 5 of the population so as the wastewater we definitely are interested in what the population projections look like what our youth has gone down but the loading to the plant will go up as we get more residents.

>> that's all much. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to to item 11 you job-housing balance trends. presentation. >> josh with the planning department staff this is the second in a series to provide the key trend for the housing and outcomes as and resolve over

the past thirty years since the downtown area plan and initiation to how we change relative to the city we hope that information will be useful and opening in the future decision making the first presentation last april focused on trend in the number and inflated jobs and changes in the office market and an update on the program today we'll change our focus to focus on relationship between jobs and housing in particular how we planned important introducing housing relative to the office of economic workforce development and jobs and changes in outcomes and community patterns and looking at the evolving state and regional framework in context for land use mr. haney and the consideration of the 3wr50der conversation for housing balance

that last question is come up fairly recently at the planning commission i know that commissioner vice president richards has brought that up on multiple up occasions as we look at the plans with the central soma and other projects on the southern bay front with the housing and job components and, of course, in the context of the citywide and the regional is important to understanding how the plans fit in i hope the presentation provides that xhektsz for you i'd like to acknowledge the work of my colleagues (calling names) joining me and did a lot of the work for the presentation. >> so just a quick recap from last time san francisco as well as the nation as a whole is a shift in the fundamental office space the bay area has outperformed the job growth in san francisco go recently 1urgd

ahead of us we 4r5ugd behind a while and a reason for the job growth that is important to note a good share was recovered of the recession from the previous years and rebounded past the heights and important that the office market and the preferences for work locations for this has created a lot of demand in san francisco and demand is creating pressures on more price sensitive jobs so moving on to the housing so the downtown area plan is starting recognized the lengthy job growth and need for more housing it set a modest year-end goal we're producing one thousand units of housing citywide and plastic identified a number

of neighborhoods areas around the previousy of the downtown we should target so people can walk to their jobs and the planning department has been successfully kicking off and adopting the plans over the last 10 years with van ness and transbay and market octavia and south of market eastern neighborhoods plan and the result of that is fairly 13wu78 we've built over approximately 40 thousand housing units in the immediately janitor to the downtown in the last thirty years and 70 percent and 59 percent of the housing since 19 pio and 40 percent of pipeline is in that concentrated area though if you deduct the shipyard and treasure island we're at 75 percent of the pipeline still in the downtown and adjacent areas

so each new job creates a - we've nationally and locally i'm not sure we have more workers per household back in 1970 it was true one job for one units of housing but much greater changes in the workforce and rapid changes we have more workers per household than we did then in t 1985 one .3 workers per households this is true across the country one job is three quarters of housing unit somewhere how much will end up in san francisco this i'll touch on in a minute 45 percent of the workers has been the case for thirty years that means but that the 4 housing units will be demand by each job in the city

san francisco as grown with residents and housing in the last thirty years 22 percent more jobs and 22 percent more residents but we've only increased the housing supply by 17 percent and in the recent years new jobs have grown faster because of recession it is important to note that the job marketed is more voluntary ill than the population and the housing stock in general housing production kicks up when the jobs are gregariously but a lag between the employment peaks and what the housing peaks that is generally a couple of years when the employment peaks then the housing production we're now where the housing you production has been ramped up in an

economic boom typically, it crests on the down swing in terms of wages there has substantial growth in highway wage other persons in san francisco 21 percent of all our jobs we consider high wage earners over one earns and 40 percent of area medium income this is double since 1990 but half jobs with low and middle jokes but household how that is 2r5i8g9d into household and at present 50 percent or over 50 percent of our worker households not household that live in the city but workers live in the household as a household all of the workers 50 percent live in high income households half felt high-end have no high earns their made up of middle age

workers they create high income households because more workers per household the result over one and 50 thousand more worker households that we need to house in the bay the the result as the housing production has not kept up half of the back and forth's a market-rate housing the housing prices have increased out dictated our wage and income growth the up shot of that dynamic we're housing a higher percentage of high income workers than the other household and we're consulting more of our middle-income households and lower worker households that is a dynamic metric because of the housing tribulation e production

but the increased everything else in the city important that we underscore that because people high income workers a president to live in the city than the 1990s and 80s with respect choosing to live in suburbans and east bay we have an "x" days of population and those workers want to live in the east bay and people want to live in the city we're not seeing the undergoing we're rapidly population is in washington, d.c. that is close to san francisco's growth and bottomed out around 1980s around the region though housing production has not been reflected this boom over the last few decades san francisco is the only part of regional that produced more housing than the previous decade on the charts a they've regional crashed over the several decades

and less housing regionally than the previous decade around the inner bay region we're producing more housing but the rest of region is producing less housing if you look at the question of job housing balance san francisco is sort of in the has produced housing and jobs in about the same percentages as other peer city seattle and new york and boston has produced more housing but producing around the rank of 1.6 housing in the last ifd i 35 years the region we have a high jobs per housing ratio compared to other regions if you look at new york or seattle they have more housing per jobs as we do and important along with boston and

new york have seen drastically wage increases but other regions have not as fast in outcome and again san francisco again it is a out liar in the trend regional we have lowered the jobs housing balance over the last 35 years product more housing and jobs where in 1980 every other community in the inner bay has not in the last 31 years and produced far more jobs san mateo has added housing over the last 35 years and santa clara is close to two we have products more jobs we've improved but as a region that is ultimately the dynamic it is driving the housing market so, so where do san francisco workers live and work those are questions we get asked and this

has not fundamentally changes over the last 35 years the percentage of san francisco residents that work in the city has declined from ti to 77 percent that change primarily happened in 1990s we started it to house more out commuters to the santa clara county but we have grown in terms of the san francisco workers who live in the city of 2 thousand more than in 1990 pr so of the growth we've within growing disproportionately in out community based on the housing production and the percentage of san francisco workers who live in the city increased around the low to mid 50 percent it flux waits about a job from the early 60s had bart opened workers fled

the city to start living on the east bay we went from about 66 of the workers to 55 percent of the workers so in terms of the overall commute we'll have a net commute of 45 percent 200 thousand workers but importantly the distribution has changed be net exporter to santa clara county so more santa clara workers and you can see the balance of san mateo has changed we are still net import of workers from santa clara county but interesting marin housing as employment in marin is there. >> jobs housing balance more broadly what's the deal you know

this term is thrown around what scales it is meaningful at and ultimately this is not a question of mission creek and other plans it is not a site of neighborhoods scale question a regional question it is based on the literature and the academics the notion of the this from the job and places that people live and political jurisdictional boundary where the boundary are good o dpa play into the equation we're - and so we've listed those in the residential neighborhood and some neighborhoods have a higher concentration of jobs like the neighborhood level more jobs than housing but that is not ultimately what is important it

is important a lot recent studies have shown for example, the likelihood of people driving thought regional transportation people are much more sensitive to making connections and walking and biking then on the home end you can ride our bike and drive to the - but you know not make a transportation connection or do all those sorts of things that drives the transit ridership and the performance if we let jobs fall over the region and don't take the regional and put our jobs there we'll not be successful and this is for the mixed use neighborhood their - people have to satisfy their walkable where they live that's

the reason people want to live in the city because those he kinds of environments are not created as they are in san francisco planned area the regional plan is encouraging undergoing an update for later this year this is the second round of the regional plan it is driven by our state law 375 driven made up we reduce the nevada's through the land use transportation plan that time around that the plan will seek to house all the workers in the region in the nine county areas where we don't have silicon valley and that's the broad housing balance this is a regional of 1.3 jobs her household and the focus of the plan is contrasting growth near the stations to have a top

priority station for other benefits so the plan proposes that of the 8 housing unit and 20 thousand households should be in the 3 big cities oakland and san francisco and - of the jobs about 43 percent should be in the 3 big cities not been san francisco versus san jose and oakland where we can have a sustainable regional for san francisco the projections allocation is one and 38 thousand household by 2030 that is three hundred and 35 thousand resident and workers and 20090 thousand jobs between 2010 and

2040 and a fwhooigd part was the recession recovery we will continue to reduce the jobs in the city about 1.7 now we add those numbers of households and jobs over the next three i 25 years we'll be at 1.5 one .66 we've we've got a lot more work to do to reduce the housing capacity and over the laced 10 years i've been with the depth 15 years and in the last 10 to 15 years to our area plans and added 65 thousand housing units capacity the current plan adds 11 thousand one and we could add a couple of more in the coming are year or two and adapted as the city citywide policy that adds the housing capita through

the adu program and added close or two million thousand units of capacity and it is important that we have policies and programs that are looking at adding additional housing so all told we have zoned capacity if you include all the plans i've proposed for one and 40 house housing units that is conveniently a sliver more than the regional plan by w8 /* w7 but it is important to note that actually on balancing we have reduced the jobs over the last 25 years ways adapted those plans by the shipyard and other plans that reduced the job

capacity in market octavia from office to housing that is in between 15 and two million thousand job capacity the eastern neighborhoods and the related plans from the end zones if allows the job from the you can umu - so it's been a watch overall since the delta but been shifting the jobs around from the eastern block from the transit that's the right way to go so we have another one and 80 thousand jobs if we adapt it in - in the city in into custody what those plans will accommodate again we'll continue to lower the jobs so one .66

from we were before which is sort of moving in the right direction and work with the regional partners to make sure are they're doing did same thing to conclude takeaways san francisco is kind of been constant and approved this balance over the last thirty years we need to work with the regional partners to make sure that is required more workers per household and generally higher earning households that people want to live in the city to produce the high levels to reduce the housing often the housing stock to accommodate growth and lastly the balance is a broader question not a eastern neighborhoods plan but it is broader than the city than the regional we have a lot of data

and have a lot more we didn't show you i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you josh. >> we will open up for public comment. >> jonas my speaker card. >> please line up on the screen side of the room. yeah. go ahead and approach the. >> good afternoon excuse me - i'm ken the planning director the you met adrenalin thank you josh for the comprehensive work on the study not only for san francisco but for the region as it turn outs as josh described the updated plan 2040 is slated for adoption we're set up for summer but focused on the jobs housing balance as you may know is a simple challenge in the

region i think that is important to note a couple of things from a regional perspective the neighborhood plans have been advanced in san francisco over the years but fundamental for the priority approach as well as the neighborhood plans advanced around the region focusing on mixed use development serves by transit is central this the success of the plan we recognize often feel like how much more can the city take on and a lot of pressures from different decorations no place in the region a better fit for mick joejz near transit in san francisco and the other major cities in addition to that i as you can see over time regionally the effect of not doing that much of the region for two or three decades and pesticide the

isolated jobs locates office centers not well-served by transit not close to housing we're now trying to get out from underneath that and including the silicon valley plan take a step in the right direction so we thank you for work we know that is not easy and appreciate partnering with the city of san francisco. >> thank you >> next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners my name is scott i'm here not a professional i apologize if this is unpolished i'm here on behalf of a group of as follows concerned about the jobs housing balance in particular in the central soma this was in part designed to defend did concerns

in my group supports making better use of this area in the central subway and the changes and the overview goal to make san francisco a place where we can accommodate the needs for more office space and need to be building housing for the workers and if you look at various like large development plans and area plans pled recently, we have a pattern of creating plans or large project that create more new jobs than homes and not just the ones close to transit hubs we see that in the hunters point shipyard we say jobs are not balanced to central soma in the large pier 70 the potential for anywhere from 2 to 11 times as many new jobs and new homes that development is a place not especially convenient

to work to caltrans i don't know that - so we kind of want this pattern of adding more jobs and homes to the stock and while there is a lot of valid points that josh made i don't think we can consider the statistics as an answer to the jobs to housing in central soma i want to make the point that josh mentioned that a lot of people prefer to live in urban that is why we have a housing affordability issue housing makes sense more than office but a lot of people in the outlying neighborhood want to be in the city if we can afford 2 we need to be creating a lot of housing in the central and the central soma plan in

particular given we have a housing shortage we should create a one home important one job in that plan so thank you for hearing any thoughts. >> thank you, mr. smith. >> good afternoon, commissioners corey smith on behalf of the housing coalition. first and foremost thank you for the detailed and robust report i'm not smart enough to digest that i'll come back i want to show a couple of pieces from the bay council specifics around 2015. >> you'll not be able to hook up your laptop but if you put it on the cam. >> can i have the overhead,

please? what this is a percentage change of the population density increases around the bay area and the giant enclosing blog of dark red the sacramento and to modesto this is where a lot of people are moving at it up to this point in time and then this resulted it massive people consulting daily from the area to the bay area urban core we talk about go regionaltion and control and figure out how exactly we manage all that stuff and so as leadership in the city and i hope continued leadership around the bay area how do we stop talking about that and do something about it because i'm a

fan of jobs i think with all the problems we have generating revenue good jobs are the way to do it how to figure out to keep the jobs here at the same time not just exporting all the residents plowing in the middle of the valencia so those people can live somewhere i guess that is my question how do we take action and get everyone on the same page not an area regiontion this is an issue i certainly want to do everything i can. >> good afternoon. depending on with the san francisco

the we'll create in brisbane it is a horrible culture that was developed over the past thirty years not regional coming to san francisco for the housing solution that is not appropriate as just not fair and didn't hold entity we need to come up with a pier system between all planning department and the municipality between san jose and san rose to address housing shortage and which in the region is maybe only 5 stories tall for the apartments for the jobs creating enticing them to move to the bay area from other parts of country and world we need to think about a

regional dynamic cooperation a because you know housing that is delayed i'm sorry housing that is denied by palo alto it housing be denied for younger folks and the poor thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon the regional planning director for spur an organization for the 3 central cities the bay area at the regional scale and presented before this committee in a long time but for the future of downtown san francisco but for the future oakland and san jose i come to this with a question what makes sense from a regional scale we want to make a couple off points even though the issues you've heard about and

the farmland that is in the silver valencia those are the major crisis when we think about jobs, jobs is actually something we need to think about critically where we go from a regional scale in fact, the most o most logical places are in the rich transit core particularly like downtown san francisco and around where we've invested million dollars of dollars in transit 0 when we think about when we look at san francisco this is the place in the region where you margarita more than 50 or 60 powers arriving without on automobile that is unique you don't see that in other parts of bay area with an exception of around san bernardino and employers that run large transportation demand management downtown san francisco and the surrounding areas are the place that capture the jobs without

people driving their automobiles a couple of quick data points you'll see the picture 80 percent of jobs are half-mile from the rail station that's why people take the public transportation most is away from the rail when we look at the last four or five years and josh talked about the shift interest urban courses 3 million squeegees around the rail over a couple of years you know what, more $3 million in santa clara and one and a half million dollar in mountain view more than one half from regional rails so we're not getting the employment around rail and in fact, san francisco becomes the best place to do that that's the regional picture i wanted to give and two other quick points

one is that jobs housing balance and josh was talking about this needs to be thought of not just a neighborhood thing but the last one the question of housing, housing is an issue throughout the city and not adding one place not at that point we have to look at where it is overall with that, thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. >> next speaker, please. >> mr. welch. >> sfgov go to - >> two headlines cavin welch clearing house those are two headlines from last week that seem to be a counter point to the gentleman's

report and my basic question why are all the hairs on fire about this we have the highest rental costs in the world in the world the fourth highest congested city in the world and in fact, the report if you look at am/pm commute peaks we're the most congested city in the world we should look at the tone first of all, this is inaccurate with enumerating the jobs and housing first of all, staying with the 2016 projection on office development it is overly optimistic what the needs for new space are in fact, christen points out there is a 9 million

square feet surplus of office space why are we build for an office workforce that will not grow in fact, the demand for office space is down not from 2016, and, secondly, the eradication of this dpors corporate and short-term rentals and institutional conversion is that 5 thousand units it counts $5,000.0 units of live workspace ace housing not even the planning code counts them as housing i think that overstates the amount of housing for permanent residents and understates the conversion to non-residential but more importantly that ignores the 9 had hundred pound gesture rely in the closet in the bay area

plan why we enforce the plan is beyond me that basically says that san francisco will take months of new growth and housing and jobs because remember those are suburban dominated agencies abag and mtc they don't want growth they'll put in in oakland and san francisco and san jose because our transit and the mtc you turned around and adopts the thing called focused government audit & oversight that designates 87 percent of the future transit investments in existing systems that is to say 55 percent in the existing transit system and 32 percent in the existing road system that is an odd thing to do to say we're going to grow

but we're not going to invest in a transit system. >> sir, your time is up. >> restaurant workers local 2 our union 7 years ago 60 percent of members who workers e worked in san francisco lived in city two years ago that was 55 percent and last month under 55 percent in a 7 year 10 percent drop in the number of members that live and work in the city you know hospitality is a $9 billion industry here our city invests and in all this discussion i want to see the nuance about the affordability for housing we're creating hotel workers.

>> many of the policies that we sit down for office workers do work for the hospitality industry and likewise i want to underscore there with respect to the affordability of the housing before in central soma or citywide we got to reject the idea this simply building new united brings down the cost of housing in vancouver where the production of housing units far out paced the employment and hotels are driven out of the city 10 thousand vacant unit one of the most expensive and despite the will arranged construction the point of city close to 15 percent last year to try to cool down the market and let the worker people back into the city in the analysis in go central soma and project by project as we look at new

projects and evaluate what kinds of jobs into the city that is crucial we got to make sure that not only are the living wage jobs but make sure there is a corresponding amount of affordable housing that suits the people in these positions. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> sue hester i would like to thank josh inform propelling this discussion the discussion has long been in the city and the downtown area plan didn't come out of thin a 10 year battle at the planning commission from the community to the effort production housing and transit it wasn't from the planning department and you all need to recognize

that so out of that came a lot of the steps that are listed in josh's report there be some things that need to be said you're the witnesses of struggle from the youth of low income you see them every week and people are extremely concerned about been driving i driven out of the city one of the things that jumped out at me how prop 13 the jobs housing balance plan, which the relocating people say oh, that should be concentrated in san jose and san francisco and oakland what's the big drivers of development in the region that dumped their housing demand on city's currently 10 and

mountain view and the park because it is easy for them to put their people an google buses and dump them on san francisco and the city applauds that the mayor's office has press conferences wanting to do that we have a major problem i refer you to what was just said by local 2 they were part of coalition in the 80s they were a huge part of it labor unions depends upon workers in the city they having 0 get on the buses or get in the cars this is a a death to the workforce and a debt to the city one of the things duo i don't hear there should be zero residential parking for all downtown you

confused u including market octavia and van ness you'll have projects coming to you 15 housing unit mission and 15 hundred market all the central soma plan you've already had massive units units of permanent housing in massive units on van ness it will be consistent the developers accent control their values by pushing parking but we have to go back to thinking about what we're doing and telling the planning commission should be pruning back to the tech industry do not put the - >> thank you. is there any additional public comment that wants to testify on this item seeing none, public comment is closed. and recognize commissioner koppel. >> yeah. thanks again josh for the report the gentleman i think read my

mind a little bit shared concerned with a couple of concerns or commissioners saying how many of the retained are working in silicon valley for the closet neighborhoods e neighbors is there a dialogue or any way to help out due to the closeness it caltrans. >> there is ongoing dialogue both informal and formal and hearings from the board of supervisors on brisbane brisbanes planning commission voted to accept the plan not including housing by the city council in brisbane has not endorsed that but i will say not just brisbane that is, of course, the issue there are other community in particular in the south bay that we've been working on i testified in mountain view despite them moving with 10 thousand housing

units and interesting enough the ininhabit factor 0 on the east side of 101 and the transportation access is really poor it is a mitigating factor how many units to connecting that development to the caltrain's station there is definitely regional dialogue my colleague have talked about that with the abag and trying to gave me at a regional level and frankly a mixed bag some communities are moving forward and some are not. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess thank you sir, i was blown away by your report so many data like mr. smith my head is spinning it confirms what i already know about san francisco being at at

least housing you, you know other workers i'll get into later but confirms my worst fear i'll call that an awakening from jobs housing and balance from 1.73 to 1.66 we'll have high rents and carries housing for decades and that's not a green increase i'll give myself and staff to support that the only i see locals li ñ.fym?úíkb"#s/g +g:ry