together. thank you. [applause] >> the mayor will be available for questions after, as will commissioner lamb, but that's the end of the press conference.

the commission does not colter rate disruption or outbursts plea silence your mobile devices. please state your name. i would like to take roll at this time. (roll call) we expect the commissioners to be absent today. we expect commissioner fong to

arrive shortly. without president and vice president. first order of business to elect a chair for this hearing. >> i ask commissioner hillis to step in. he has recently done it and knows how to do it. >> second. >> second on the commission to elect commissioner hillis to chair the meeting. (roll call). >> so moved. the motion passes 4-0. first on your agenda consideration of 2017-00965. condition use authorization. it is proposed to continue to february 21, 2019. 2018 at 838 grant avenue. condition use authorization

proposed to continue to march 7, 2019. to 18-13861 for the large residence zoning map amendment. propose to continue to march 7, 2019. is central soma employment plan indefinite continuance. >> item five. 1621 diamond street discretionary review withdrawn. item 16, 2018-012203 at broadway proposed to continue to march 7, 2018. i am pleased to announce item 17. 1973 broadway a discretionary review with withdraw. i have no speaker cards.

>> thank you. any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none we close public comment. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: move to continue to the proposed dates. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i was asking if we could withdraw item 12. we will hear it then continue it. >> that is fine. >> do i hear a second on that motion. >> second. four of them. thank you. on the motion to continue as proposed. commissioner hillis. (roll call). so moved. that motion passes 4-0 unanimously. placing on the consent calendar. routine by the planning commission may be acted upon by

a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the staff or the public requests. they will be considered for a future hearing. 2018. 3132 through 3140 scott street. condominium conversion. at 3535 california street. condition use authorization. i have no speaker cards. >> any public comment on the items on the consent calendar? we will close public comment. commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: move t approve item 6 and 7 with conditions. >> on that motion then to approve 6 and 7 under your consent calendars. (roll call). >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously

4-0. 8. consideration of adoption of minutes for january 17, 2019. >> any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none we will close public comment. >> commissioner moore: move to approve. >> thank you commissioners on the motion to adopt the minutes for january 17th. (roll call). >> so moved that passes unanimously 4-0. item 9. commission comments and questions. >> commissioner richards: i wish ms. rogers were back in the room. i wanted her to hear this. i don't know if you saw this on city lab it is a website blog. there is a chicago doctoral student. a new study of zoning changes in chicago finds that they lead to higher not local home prices no

discernible impact on the housing apply. a growing course makes it prices go up. it follows labellizing the codes to maybe it easier to permit taller structures will increase supply and cause prices to fall and make housing in expensive cities more affordable. it goes on further to say. a doctorial student at mit analyzed the effects of up zoning in chicago neighborhoods. it is a natural experiment. the gold standard by comparing the initial reforms in 2013 to encourage development around transit stops. sound familiar? with more aggressive set every forms from 2015 which increased incentives for taller developments. first he finds no effect from

zoning changes on housing supply on the construction of new units over five years. he acknowledges the process may take longer than five years to register. we had a housing inventory last week or the week before talking about the 70,000 unit to be constructed. 58,000 we entitled some as long as 10 years ago. instead of falling prices the study finds the opposite. housing prices rose on the parcels and projects up zoned were building sides increased. short term level impact are higher property prices but no new additional housing construction. i will be finishing up with a couple more quote the study. bear with me. this took me completely by

surprise. findings in line with my thinking in the new urban crisis he argues it is important to combat unnecessarily restrictive zoning and building codes easing codes would do little to address housing affordability and might serve to increase housing prices in the neighborhoods in question for the reason developers would use the land not for affordable housing but for luxury construction. he noted in the market in the neighborhoods for affordable housing very differently. unlikely increase in high end supply would trickle to less advantaged groups filtering. another economickist tile here cohen has argued liberalizing the codes will be more luxury

housing and more profits for landlords and developers. he emphasized liberrizing the zones will not address affordable housing for less advantaged people. that is the housing that actually we need here especially in san francisco. he pointed out the need for other programs more affordable units and rent control with up zoning. the punch line is up zoning is not a sufficient program in itself. >> thank you. i read that article, too, and the paper behind it. he notes it is good for afford ability at a reasonable level. you are looking at neighborhood level in chicago which i think

we should be leery of about supply. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: to one chair in writing with others. we need a special meeting to discuss in more detail it is hard to follow when we do not have that piece of writing in front of us. if you want to share that, that would be a great idea. >> what i would propose and i know we are talking about the budget. i would like to understand the impacts since 1990 in san francisco. i would like to understand in south of market and mission and some places what did happen just like mr. free mark did in chicago soi we could have mr. freemark did in chicago so we could have some empirical evidence in our own city. >> commissioner hillis: i think we should look at places that weren't upzoned, and see what

happened in those places. >> commissioner richards: sure, and you need to look at job growth, too. >> clerk: all right, commissioners, seeing nothing else, we can move onto department matters. announcements. >> nothing today, jonas. >> clerk: moving on, we can go onto recent events. >> at landmark this week, we heard the designation for 22 beaver street. according to the designation report, the house is an exceedingly rare example of an italian ornate villa in san francisco. it's parlor like setting recalled a time when duboce triangle was a genteel estate

in san francisco. the committee voted to forward the item to the full board with a recommendation. at the full board this week, the changes to the home-sf project amendments to cannabis retail. and 1650 to 1680ition mission street all passed their read, and the c.c.o. districts sponsored by supervisor peskin passed its first read. there was an appeal filed by the child care fee for the new student housing. that was withdrawn, so the hearing did not happen. and then, finally, the board considered the environmental and conditional use appeal for 3636 sacramento street. this project proposes the demolition of the existing

building and construction of a four-story mixed-use building. commissioners, you heard this item on november 8 of last year and voted 4-2 to approve the project. the appellants appealed the ceqa determination mainly over structure related issues such as dust, noise, and overall destruction. they appealed the c.u. over the large lot development and the nonspecial use sizes over 2500 square feet. there was quite a lot of comment in favor of the appeal while only a couple speakers came out in support of the project. supervisor stefani questions how much density is project is allowed and why medical office space is proposed on the second floor. supervisor peskin stated he did not see the ceqa impacts but was in favor of the changes, and supervisor stefani asked that the item be continued for

one week. the sponsor had a list of accommodations that they would be willing to abide by, and the appellant had not had a chance to review them, and they continue it had to the next week. that's my review. >> clerk: the board of appeals last night. they had been scheduled to hear the appeal on 1228 funston avenue. -- by the property owner, a licensed contractor, without benefit of permit. at the hearing, the commission took d.r. and followed the staff recommendation, requiring the rear addition to be reduced to comply with the residential design guidelines. the property owner he was ared to comply with the commission's decision, resulting in the appeal to the board of appeals. yesterday, the property owner agreed to submit a new permit adhering to the commission's decision. the department will review this permit to ensure compliance and establish a timeline for the

property owner to move forward. if they fail to do so in a timely manner, the department will continue forward with the appeal process, including administrative penalties. the next one -- >> commissioner hillis: wait. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: yes, 1439 hopkins, which was going to be appealed to the board but wasn't able to get enough signatures, i'd really like to understand what is the reasonable period of time to pull a building permit and start actually doing the building, maybe at some point, a memo? i talked to former zonediing administrator sanchez. i'd like to understand where they are occasionally in the future, maybe every three to six months in terms of enforcement. >> commissioner hillis: okay. >> clerk: okay.

now general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission in matters of interest to the public. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. i do have two speaker cards. >> commissioner hillis: all right. miss sciutic and mr. ferguson. thank you, miss sciutic. >> i mentioned before i'm a judge over at the p.u.c., and i have to hold a case in -- a hearing in san jose shortly. so i'm taking time out to come here first and then hopping in my car and driving down there to do this immediately. i am also the president of the presidio heights association of neighbors, i've lived in pre d

presidio heights for 30 years. this is my second go round. i want to apprise you of the fact that the first go round as president of presidio heights i moved the beautiful hospital that's four blocks north of here from our neighborhood down here. it sits down here much better than it did in the middle of presidio heights. here's what i plan on doing second time around as president of the association -- and by the way, the association includes all adults, resident in presidio heights. there is no membership fee. you don't have to pay us, anything like that. we have 800 homes, 500 of which pay their $40 a year dues, so we are one of the most inclusive and cheapest organizations to be a part of.

my goal this time around is to have presidio heights registered as a historic district at the state level. we are -- and don't hold me to this, but we are the largest neighborhood which is entirely -- or at least 99.99% comprised of class a buildings and every one of them is eligible also to get onto the state historic register. i'm here telling you that that's my goal for this time around because it's not an easy process for that many -- we have 800 homes, so this is going to be a big lift for us. i do this without charge in my spare time, to the extent i have any, and it would be really nice if the planning department and the planning commission could see their way

to helping neighborhoods like mine by getting more staff to help get this sort of project completed and help get our homes on the list of registered historic districts. that's my goal, and it would be really nice if you guys could help. i think we help the city, my neighborhood and i help the city -- i really adore that place down here rather than -- if that thing were where the cpmc campus were right now, it would be an absolute disaster from our perspective. here, it sits a lot more well and it's a lot more convenient for everyone. join me in getting us on the historic register. thank you. >> commissioner hillis: all right. thank you. miss sciutic. >> good afternoon. i don't know if you saw this in

the chronicle this morning, but i thought it was really nice that they said the following. mirror represents years of thoughtful planning and development. zoning for mixed use was approved nearly a decade ago. it's been a whirl wind of drafting, give and take with planning, and revisions. i think it's a positive thing to say in the press in their ad, and something i think everyone should remember when they come up here and complain that you're not doing anything. speaking of high-rises, you probably also saw the high-rise in central park south, 220 central park south, $250,000 condo for the man. i grew up near there, different neighborhood, hell's kitchen.

i thought, what did they tear down? can i have the overhead, please? that's what they tore down right there. i remember that building. but the thing about that is, there were people evicted from that. that was a rental building. it was rent stablized. the rent people were gone by the time the guy got it. so 20-story building replaced by a 79-story building. this one was constructed in 1954. it had 123 apartments, 40 that were vacant, 50 rent stablized, and 30 market rate. i guess they were all bought out, and similar point made by commissioner richards, just because you get a taller building with more units doesn't mean you're going to get a better -- better outcome. and in some ways, i think that building in new york with the

$250,000 penthouse is satirical. i don't think we have anything that extreme in san francisco, but it's something to think about as we all decide whether or not to densefy. thank you very much. >> commissioner hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco bay housing coalition. we've actually incorporated a 501 (c) 4. after decades of a situation where we had a lot of local patrol and decision making in this process, we've really seen a political push to go okay, well, if we know that the problem is bigger than any one city than possibly manage, couldn't the solutions impact and try to be worked around the

situation that's more than one individual jurisdiction but rather a whole region or a state? right now, as you know, we don't have a regional elected body. i think many people in here would find something like that potentially productive in solving this problem. right now, we have the state, so when we're solving these problems, and the data's always been really inconclusive, but we don't know on a data or block-by-block level, we don't know what we have. we do believe that the data is pretty tight and firm and consistent in telling us that hey, it is going to be a big, big solutions that fixes the things. we're going to need to figure out how to solve the problems while minimizing the impacts. if we can figure out how to thread that needle in the right

way then we're going to start feeling good about the future. >> commissioner hillis: thank you. is there any further public comment? seeing none, jonas, we can move onto the next item. [agenda item read]. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jacob bentliff, planning department staff. before you is an ordinance that would retroactively change the grandfathering rules, specifically, the grandfathering rule, projects that use the state density bonus law are required to pay an additional inclusionary housing fee.

little bit of background on this. as we recall, back in june 2016, san francisco voters approved proposition c that set temporary inclusion requirements and also directed the controller and a temporary advisory committee to recommend permanent requirement projects. that was passed at the board of supervisors in july 2017. that ordinance is what included this fee provision on the state density bonus projects in the first place. at that time, the grandfathering provision around january 12, 2016 was included specifically for this provision, and i would like to makes clear that it is totally separate from the overarching grandfathering rules that govern the inclusionary program that came through the proposition c process. we have conducted a study that would apply to projects currently included in the

pipeline. of the projects, only six are projects that came in before january 12 of 2016, so we're talking about a universe of six projects that could potentially be affected by the ordinance. of those, two of them would not be impacted by whether there's grandfathering or not for this requirement. that's because one of them is switching to be a student housing project which is not subject to be inclusionary, and the other one is one that used the density bonus to shift around floor and planning. that leaves four in this bucket. all but one have had a site permit issued already. this is acite can cat distinction because once the site permit is issued, that's the time that the department assesses impact fees, and the department doesn't have the jurisdiction to change that after the permit has been issued except in special circumstances.

that would have the potential to apply this retroactive fee development on only one active project in our pipeline. currently, the staff recommendation for the ordinance is disapproval. that is based on this review and primarily based on the -- this kind of legislation can cause unnecessary uncertainty and confusion, and it requires a significant amount of staff time and resources to implement. finally, it runs the risk of slowing down housing production overall and increasing the risk of less housing in san francisco as well. secondly, staff recommendation is based on the observation that this ordinance would have the effect and practice of targeting one single development project for an additional fee and thus, the ordinance would not be generally applicable in nature and raises fundamental fairness

in the question of our city policy. finally, the department did estimate what the amount of fee would be in questions for this project. that would be around $1 million. that is a significant amount in the context of a one development project budget. it is not as significant of an amount of money in the context of the city's overall housing and authorities programs, and would not affect the city's ability to meet our affordable housing production goals. finally all of those comments related to the recommendation notwithstanding, we do recognize that there is a need to clarify the way the state density bonus program is being implemented, and i have to say we're very appreciative of having been able to work with the supervisor's office to talk through what all the issues are here, and through those conversations, we did agree that the way the code is written right now is not as clear as we would all like it to be on this point. in order to address the

specific issue of future projects or projects that are in the pipeline but not yet titled, in order to clarify that those projects would not be able to benefit from this grandfathering provision, the department will be updating the relevant procedural guideline documents and applications. that would be planning application -- [inaudible] >> -- to make clear that if a project that's already under review or not comes in with an application for state density bonus at this point in time, that those projects would not be considered as grandfathered and that this fee would apply. that is relevant -- well, we already know we have 30 projects that are state density bonus now and would be subject to this fee. we also then, by making these changes to our procedural documents and providing clear guidance would ensure that the list of projects that potentially are grandfathered will remain contained to only this list of six projects that we've just discussed, and as i've said only one that is

really within a site permit review. in summary, the department certainly is supportive of the overall goals for the ordinance, however, it would have very little impact towards this goal while raising questions of fundamental fairness and policies of implementation. that concludes the staff presentation and of course we are here for any questions. thank you very much. >> commissioner hillis: okay. thank you. miss angulo, did you want to speak on this? [inaudible] >> commissioner hillis: thank you. how are you? >> hi. good afternoon, commissioners. thanks to planning staff for preparing a case report on this legislation. and i just wanted to give a little bit of background and context as to why this is before you today.

it was actually an amendment that was discussed as a part of a negotiation with the mayor's office who were approached by a bevy of developers who were concerned about not being able to meet the grandfathering deadlines, the e.e.a. date or the site permit obtaining date that was originally set forward and agreed upon by all the various parties and representatives from the various stakeholders in the original grandfathering legislation. so there were a couple of amendments that were made and that were, you know, unanimously approved by the board of supervisors. one of the pieces that did not make it into the the

drafting of it is that it would apply to all projects that -- that avail themselves of the state density bonus while also

availing themselves of the grandfathering benefits, so a reduction. i think there were 44 projects in the pipeline when we discussed this at committee. i have no idea about who else might come in and try to amend the legislation and you know grant further extensions, grant, you know, further amendments, and so our goal is really to make sure that this policy is adopted uniformly for all of the projects that, you know, basically are trying to get freebies on top of the bonus units that they're constructing. but i -- but the way that i read the case report is there is an assumption that this would only apply to six projects. >> commissioner hillis: one. >> what's that? >> commissioner hillis: one project. >> well, right, that is based on the interpretation of

vesting that has obtained site permits. >> commissioner hillis: right. that's correct. do you want -- miss stacey, do you want to clarify that? >> president -- acting president hillis, indicakate s from the city attorney's office. i'm not sure what question i'm being asked to do. what planning did was looked at the ordinance. match it up with those other provisions of the planning code and status of specific permits and ascertained as to which permits are still in the -- at the point of the approval process to which the fee would now apply. >> commissioner hillis: so i guess to clarify, if you received your site permit already, this wouldn't apply, and mr. bentliff, you seem to have some question if that's the case or not. >> right. my question is i understand this legislation to impact all of the projects that are in the

pipeline whether or not -- >> commissioner hillis: they received a site permit or not? >> well, i mean, if they -- if further down the line there is like another amendment that's made to that category of folks that were able to get their e.e.a. in amp january -- whatever it was, -- 28, 2016. >> commissioner hillis: you're talking about projects who aren't currently asking for the state density bonus who may come in and grandfather -- i think mr. benliff can clarify th that. >> if a project that's currently not using the state density bonus is in our pipeline, and they say oh, i want to use the bonus now, we would charge them the fee. and i think the -- what jacob

was trying to say and you and i had discussed this, is we would change it to projects bringing up a bonus would not pay the fee. >> maybe i missed -- [inaudible] >>. >> commissioner hillis: right. and we should -- >> okay. >> commissioner hillis: and we should take public comment on this item, but just to clarify on that point, it was a question that mr. bentliff saw when he was presenting. how can we do that without a code change, that if you're talking about if you come in now, you've got an entitled project, but you now want to modify that and make that a state density bonus project and take advantage of the state density bonus. do we need to clarify in the code that that's the case, and why not? >> because it is no different from any other project. if a project comes in with, say, a certain number of units

and then halfway through the process decides to change, they are subject to the rules on the books. >> commissioner hillis: they would need a new permit. >> it's the law. >> commissioner hillis: you couldn't have your site permit and be entitled. you'd have to come back and get your site permit and get approval. >> we're just looking for that in writing. >> commissioner hillis: okay. i think some folks have clarifying questions, and i think we should take public comment. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so the 30 projects that we siphoned off. they missed the permit by december 7, 2018, so there's the site permit issue, there was a hard-and-fast site -- and then, we had an extension, and then, we had people maybe changing their minds with base project, and base projects with density bonus. that's not clear to me. did they get their site permit in time and declare they wanted the state density bonus?

>> so there's a series of recent projects. there's one set of projects that were subject to the grandfathering requirements of the overall inclusionary projects. some of them were going to meet the deadline, some weren't. that was the 47 projects going on at the end of the last year. >> so instead of the 12% or 14.5% in neighborhoods, it would go to prop c. >> they'll reset to the prop c levels or current levels. >> commissioner richards: so if i sought the 18-month extension, and then i decided after i saw my site permit and all that, i wanted to flip to a density bonus project, what

happened? do i get the freebie and the freebie? >> it's just the way the code is written and it's laid out separately. it says if the project was applied before january 12, 2016, this c.f. applies. it's independent of whether or not you're grandfathered as a project overall. >> commissioner richards: so to the director's comments, the ordinance adds to the law. >> commissioner hillis: commissioner moore, do you have a comment? >> commissioner moore: it was pretty much addressed, but we can take it up during public comment to save time. >> commissioner hillis: can we open it up for public comment if there is any. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i'm going to put on my developer hat and say what call developers want is clarity and certainty and what i'm hearing here is that there is a bulletin that may or may not be written or may be written in the future, and i think what the proposal with this legislation was to provide that clarity. it sounds like there is clarity among staff about what the process is for those 30 projects to ensure that if they go back and ask for state density bonus, that they would pay the fee on those bonus units, and i think what we all are just looking for is that written clarity and whether that happens through a code change that makes that completely explicit or whether that comes through a zoning administrator bulletin or some other way, so that we all know and developers know and particularly those who have those 30 projects in the pipeline right now exactly what the process is and what will happen. so thank you very much. i think this -- this -- this is legislation that sort of responds to the lack of that

bulletin. if this were to come back, it would probably resolve a lot of questions. thank you. >> commissioner hillis: thank you. mr. smith. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition, whatever it is. number one, i actually agree with the previous speaker. developers want certainty throughout this process, and now we're changing the rules on a deal that they made a couple of years ago, so going forward, it makes it harder for them to try to figure out how to do these things in the future. and specifically, many would argue, and we certainly believe it would disincentivize any

more housing. one more thing that i want to say any of the fees on any of the density bonus units are illegal under california state law. thank you. >> commissioner hillis: thank you. miss hester, please. >> sue hester. this is the opportunity for planning department and planning commissioner input before the public. i would like to make a suggestion that the documents that were talked about here by the staff are provided to the public and you can continue this until a five member board -- five-member commission. i'm not really comfortable with the commission taking action on legislation without documents before it that clarify what you're going to do. just a five-member commission,

continue it for two weeks. >> commissioner hillis: thank you, miss hester. any other public comment? seeing no other public comment, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i don't see any rush for this lem legislation. we'll continue it till our two other fellow commissioners were here. but i would agree when i read this legislation that's in front of me or at least a staff summary, there were lots of questions, particularly not clarifying what mr. bentliff just eloquently explained just moments ago. but what miss hester said, clarity and certainty is really important. i would like to see that first. the other question is if a project is in the pipeline switches and wants to add state bonus, it is a project that is

redesigned, which it is a different project. it probably not only has to pay its full fare, but it has to be repackaged and examined for all of what it is and it doesn't do. so i think there's a certainty in the process -- i see some nods here, i heard an affirmative yes. any project which tried to attempt that has the reality of a redesigned project. you don't just add two floors and thing that everything else holds as it did before. i think we need to take that practicality into consideration. in addition to that -- >> commissioner richards: yeah. i tend to agree. the process is the process. if we just document it, i don't see the need for this legislation, so i move to continue this until the director amends bulletin number six, and then, i hope the supervisor -- >> commissioner hillis: well, i think we need a day. what do we need? three weeks? >> i was just going to

recommend, just to bring some certainty to it. if you'd like, the commission could direct staff as part of your motion either today or in the future to make sure you amend these bulletins. >> commissioner hillis: but it sounds like you're going to do that any way. let's just do that. >> commissioner richards: two weeks. >> commissioner hillis: second. >> commissioner moore: second. what's the date for that, please? >> clerk: that would be february 14. >> commissioner hillis: 14. >> commissioner moore: thank you. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. there's a motion that's been seconded to continue this matter to february 14. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5-0, placing us on item 13 for the housing strategies and plans presentation.

>> commissioner hillis: well come, miss chiang. >> good afternoon, commissioners. miriam chiang. i was just checking to make sure dustin chu was in the room to join us for the presentation. well, i guess we'll start and then save time later for the pieces that he will comment. this is the second briefing that we're bringing you on housing. this one is focused on housing strategies and plans, and as we mentioned in our briefing a couple of weeks ago, we're going through a period of

sustained economic growth that has led to a substantial production of housing and jobs. it has also led to high construction costs and high housing prices. some of those impacts have results in the displacement of latino, black, low-income and middle-income households. in spite of many of those challenges, we review with you a substantial and robust pipeline of more than 7,000 units and major investment of housing affordability. we also provide you a picture of the variety of projects that are in the making and the distribution throughout the city. so we want to -- today, we want to focus on our work in san francisco as well as at the regional and state level. we will start with san francisco, and we have the

pleasure and the opportunity to have judson true, director of housing delivery to brief you on the work that is coming up and some of the priorities within his shop. >> commissioner hillis: thank you. welcome, mr. true. >> thank you so much. thank you, miriam, and thank you to the planning department and commission for having me here today. i thank commissioner hillis and the other commissioners. it's great to be back before you after being absent for a number of years. it's an honor to be here and honor to be back on behalf of mayor breed and on behalf of all san franciscans to get who are housing built and more housing -- to get more housing built and more housing built quickly. i started almost exactly a month ago, the first friday of january , and you know, with the mandate of -- from the mayor to move housing project forward faster and to mandate

necessary changes to expedite the process. there's a lot of new definition that's going to come over time, but i wanted to just briefly talk about my initial focus and what i've been working on so far. of course, i've been talking to a lot of different folks around the city, department heads and city staff in particular to understand what's happening now with some of the post entitlement work in particular and then come up with some recommendations and to implement some changes as i work with the mayor and the rest of the mayor's office team. my initial focus is on getting the 100% affordable projects delivered more quickly so as issues arise with them and also systematic changes in the process for getting them to go vertical, that's one of my initial tasks. and then, i also am looking at the projects that are coming out of all of the development agreements that have been approved in the city that we're all very familiar with. there are more than ten now, and i know a few weeks ago, all of you heard the pipeline

report and for the first time, the city has over 70,000 units in the housing pipeline and over 50,000 approved units. and what i'm saying here is more than 40,000 of those approved entitled units are in the larger development agreement projects ranging from pier 70 and mission rock to parkmerced and beyond. and there's a particular effort that the city goes through to get all of the horizontal infrastructure, for example, built for those projects than maybe a typical in-fill project and there's a great deal of intense work there that goes with with the city that i'm hoping with. i have many observations coming back to the city and kind of refining those day by day as i talk to people and learn new information. i think it's fairly obviously that you know in order to get this housing delivered more quickly, we need improved interdepartmental communication and also decision making to reduce sort of the timelines

for the various permits and plans that are part of this work. i think there are existing structures that do facilitate that communication, and in the past few years, we've seen improvement, but there's always improvement to be made. i think decisions get deferred sometimes as long as possible, and i think sometimes that makes a lot of sense. and sometimes, you see a pressure to get a particular project done, whatever the case may be. one thing i did want to highlight coming out of an executive directive in 2017, the housing coordinators from each department have been largely appointed, and they have been meeting monthly through 2018, and i want to the first meeting in january , and those are the individuals from each department that's related to housing delivery that are really tasked with shepherding some of the process

improvements and changes through those individual departments, and i'm going to be looking forward to working with them on a -- going forward to make improvements on the housing process and in the department. i'm really excited to help lead it going forward and happy to answer any questions that any of you may have. >> commissioner hillis: okay. can we do that after public comment? >> oh, sure. >> commissioner hillis: thank you, mr. true. >> thank you. >> we have a number -- the commitment of the city to address the housing challenge, cover a wide range of strategies, strategies that are focused on preservation and protection as well as strategies that focus on production. we have the focus of cultural districts, the small site acquisition of affordable units, demolition control, eviction advice on the production side. on the eviction side, we have

had very strategic efforts. like on the accessory quell units, we have about 5,000 units, and of course the area plan and the major areas that are delivering that have fed the pipeline. in terms of the longer terms and more kprenssive plans citywide that are trying to connect the dots and address the longer term effort, we have the housing affordability strategies, the housing commitment coming up. we're really focused on the housing affordability strategies which analyzes some of the housing cost strategies, land use regulations strategies and come up with ways to improvement housing affordability particularly for low and moderate income people. we're expecting to have a draft for you towards the end of the year. shifting -- one more element

within san francisco, knowledge, innovation and engagement. strategies and plans would only be affected if we can gather the extensive knowledge and innovations that support new efforts as well as community conversations. so we have the housing conversations as an engagement and expanding our dialogues with the various community leaders throughout the city. the housing innovation canvas to bring new ideas, and the housing data reporting which is our most robust dimension. we have a series that covers that, the housing inventory, the housing balance report, the pipeline report. as we reported before, the housing challenge in san francisco is closely related to what's happening in the rest of the bay area.

in 2008, we had the approval of s.b. 275 to allow transportation and land use patterns. that was anchored in the priority development areas which were areas identified by cities where development could be located next to transit and services. there is a challenge to that given there are some high income areas with plenty of jobs, transit and amenities that could accommodate more housing. the cansa came up with ten recommendations that basically tries to address protection, preservation, and production, and it's an effort to bring various stakeholders, including foundations, equity groups, developers, city and other leaders to come up with a set of ideas that can support housing in the region. in some areas, the city of san

francisco might have more specific street controls in which case some recommendations do not apply. but the effort of engagement with other jurisdictions would be essential to find our solution it is this collaboration between the city and the region that can make more comprehensive -- can deliver more comprehensive housing efforts in the long-term. moving to the state level, as i mentioned, s.b. 375 was approved in 2008, and it was an effort that the state recognized what we're experiencing in the bay area is happening in southern california, it's happening in the rest of the state. and there's a strong commitment to come up not only with new resources but new legislative initiatives that can support housing in more strategic ways. so sb 2 brings some funding to bring some more housing

production. we have s.b. 50 and s.b. 4 in the making. they're different efforts to identify how can housing opportunities be used strategically, recognized throughout our neighborhoods? more recently governor newsom's proposed budget, it brings some of the substantial resources, $2 billion. the main component, the increase in credit for low-income housing, and other efforts to support homelessness -- to support the solution to homeless challenges and middle-income housing. there are also strong incentives to support the communities that have the capacity but have not so far been able to contribute towards the housing solution. this is the picture of s.b. 50

which recognizes some of the elements of this type of legislation, this type of strategy. so it is about having higher -- higher capacity next to transit infrastructure, addressing the housing

neighborhoods where we can accommodate future resident does, and this can happen only -- residents, and this can happen only if we engage