to be here with that said, this is a very difficult business it is a constant struggle to maintain freshness and deal with what we have to everyday it is a very high labor of business but something i'm proud of if you want to get a job at affordable housing done nasal you need a good attitude and the jobs on the bottom you take care of all the produce and the fish and computer ferry terminal and work your way up employing people with a passion for this and empowering them to learn

>> clerk: on february 25, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19, and on april 3, 2020, the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to recon convenient remotely through the end of the shelter in place. this will be our 50 remote hearing, and i'm sure you all will be pleased to know i'm going to stop counting now. remote hearings require everyone's patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. sfgovtv is streaming this hearing live, and we will be offering opportunities for public comment. to offer public comment, please 415-655-0001, and end meeting

code 187-744-4056. when you hear your item you want to comment on, press star, three to enter the queue. you will have three minutes to speak, and when your time is up, i will mute your microphone and proceed to the next caller in the queue. i will take roll call now. [roll call] >> clerk: first on your agenda

is item 1, consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 1, 2019-022661-cua, at 628 shotwell street, proposed for continuance to may 20, 2021. and item 12, 2020-004042-ahb at 4712 through 4720 third street. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to offer public comment on the items proposed for continuance.

seeing no callers in the queue, public comment is closed. commissioners, the matter is before you. >> commissioner imperial: motion to continue the items as proposed. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 7-0, placing us under your consent calendar for item 2. this matter listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, is considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and railroaded as a

separate item at this or a future hearing. item 2, 2018-007267-ofa-02, at 865 market street. members of the public, now would be your opportunity to request to take this off of the consent calendar. seeing no callers in the queue, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: so moved. >> second. >> clerk: very good. commissioners. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously,

7-0, placing us on commission matters, item 3, commissioner comments and questions. seeing no requests to speak from members of the commission, commissioners, i see a member of the public requesting to speak. shall we see what item they're interested in speaking to? >> president koppel: yes. >> clerk: excuse me. the person request to speak, you need to silence your speaker or television because it's creating an echo. what item did you wish to speak to?

we're not accepting public comment. hello? okay. i'm sorry for that interruption. commissioners, if there are no commissioners requesting to speak under commissioner comments and questions, we can move onto item 4, director's announcements. >> director hillis: no items today, jonas. >> clerk: okay. item 5, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. veronica flores, filling in this week. [inaudible] this was painted in 1931 and was located in the grand stairwell of 1995 sansome street.

the committee sent full report with a positive recommendation to the full board. the board heard [inaudible] this item finally passed on its second read. the board also heard the appeal for the cad ex. the property is a two-story resident located next to the golden gate library, which is one of the seven libraries in the city. the building includes vertical and horizontal additions and would not result in any

increase in residential units at the property. at their july 28, 2020 hearing, the board overturned the categorical exemption and further directed the board to study the light impact inside the building. the planning commission then held another d.r. hearing on february 4, during which time the 2019 d.r. request was denied. the additional d.r. hearing was required because the first discretionary review request relied on that 2019 categorical exemption which then became void after the board overturned that initial ceqa appeal. the appellant argued that the

project would adversely impact the natural light in the reading room, thus violating ceqa, and also that the board should apply the fair argument test, not the substantial evidence test when reviewing the ceqa determination regarding the light level as a character defining feature of the library. the department clarified that it is allowed to have a categorical exception such as the case here, and the department's research was based on substantial evidence and the record that daylight levels inside the library's reading room is not a character defining feature of the library. also of note, the indoor light level is not identified as a character defining feature in any of the other carnegie libraries in san francisco.

during the public hearing, members of the public expressed concern that the project would affect historic preservation of the library and that it would adversely affect the light levels of the library. supervisor peskin posed the question of why the department issued a categorical exemption instead of preparing an initial study. after discussion, the board ultimately unanimously upheld the second categorical exception and rejected the appeal. this concludes the board report for this week, and unfortunately, i'm not prepared to share a poem with you in

honor of earth day, however, mr. starr will be back next week, so he may be ready then. >> clerk: thank you for that. there is no -- or there were no items of interest to the planning commission related to the board of appeals. the historic preservation commission did briefly meet to consider one item on today's agenda as well and recommend adoption for approval with staff's modifications related to the small business planning code amendment. through the chair, again, there is another member of the public requesting to speak. let's see if they're now wanting to speak on this matter. is the member of the public who is requesting to speak on this item? >> no, i think i hit it by

accident. sorry. i'm later -- >> clerk: okay, commissioners. apologies for that interruption. if there are no immediate questions related to the board of supervisors or the historic preservation commission, we should move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest 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 the item is reached in the meeting. 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. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address public comment by pressing star, three to enter the queue. when you hear your line has

been unmuted, that is your opportunity to speak. commissioners, i see no member of the public wishing to speak, so public comment is now closed. commissioners, we can move onto item 6, 2018-004047-cwp-02, housing inventory reporter, housing balance report, and update on monitoring reports. commissioners, we're going to combine item 7, 2019-016230-cwp, housing element 2022 update. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> director hillis: thank you, jonas, for combining that and

allowing to hear them together. we're hoping that the reports will give context and data to inform the broader policy discussion. and on the reports, i wanted to let you know that you've all had -- that we've all had the ability to build data in the department. i wanted to thank michelle littlefield and her team today on their on going efforts to build this capacity. and on the housing element, although kind of where we are closer to the beginning of this process than the end, a lot has happened since we last were before you, and over the last six months, mostly around how

reach and engagement, and what i wanted to thank those who have participated in this process today because we realize, too, how valuable their time is and how valuable their input is, especially during the pandemic in the crisis, and we're relying on a robust engagement process to get to a housing element. recognizing, although, we kind of are tasked with where the stewards and the keepers of the general plan and the housing element, we recognize that these are kind of the city's collective vision of where they're going and the blueprint for where they're going on housing and housing policy, and our hope on this is is that the housing element, you know, after this is done, that it can be used to form the housing

authority.

so with that, i will turn it over to michelle. >> thank you, mr. hillis. i'm actually -- i apologize. i'm not actually able to share my screen, so i'm working with chan and jonas to see if -- >> clerk: michelle, i'm going to pass you the ball right now. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: i don't know what happened. i'd given it to you earlier. >> i actually had to log out and log back in because i was having difficulties on my end. >> clerk: you should be able

to share your screen now. >> okay. perfect. thank you so much. let me go ahead and do that right now. all right. so is everyone able to see my screen okay? >> clerk: yes, it looks good. >> okay. thank you so much. okay. well, thank you so much. my name is michelle littlefield. i'm the data and planning accordator for the planning department. i'd actually like to give a brief update on where we are in terms of staffing, and then also the timing for the completion of upcoming reports before we actually dive into the data itself. and so since last summer, in july 2020, staff provided an update to the planning commission and the board of supervisors on anticipated delays on the delivery of several housing and area plan monitoring reports due to

covid-19 as well as the deployment of staff as disaster service workers and unfilled data service workers. moving the data and analytics team to the administration division for easier collaboration with the i.t. team and recruiting for data team vacancies for data engineers to help us with system improvements and help us meet mandatory system reporting requirements as well as staffing needs for the department. in addition, the department has hired its first cohort of summer scientist data interns to help support data needs for the covid-19 recovery. incidentally, on the department of building inspection side of things, they have actually hired their first data analyst as of last month, and this will

definitely help to plan coordination overall with regards to process improvements and data collections. currently, we are trying to recruit for the senior data engineer vacancy which we will fill next month to help us with our overall system improvements. before we jump into the housing inventory, the associated time frames are when we expect to complete those reports as we staff up, expected to be delivered in the late summertime frame to early fall as we begin or continue on with your systems improvements.

with respect to the quarterly pipeline, this is something that we need to coordinate on with the department of building inspection as far as just making sure that we are aligned on the data that we are collecting across the board between planning and building, and so that we can more accurately track projects as they're going through the entire permit life cycle, so that is work that we will be continuing to do on an on going basis, and with that, i would like to pass it over to oscar, who will dive into the 2020 housing inventory and the housing balance reports. the 2020 housing inventory describes san francisco's housing production trends as well as progress on meeting the city and county's regional allocation housing needs at different income levels. it monitoring the housing balance between market rate and new affordable housing production over a ten-year

period, and with that, i would like to pass it along to oscar hernandez gomez, who will present the housing trends. >> thank you, michelle. thank you, director hillis and commissioners, for joining me today. diving into the data, we saw a 1% increase overall in the housing stock with 1,400 units built in 2020. overall, we saw the fourth highest production year over the last five years. 90% of the housing produced in 2020 -- >> i apologize. i stopped sharing my screen. oscar, let me do that one more time. >> okay. >> here we go. okay. there we go. apologies. >> okay.

great. 90% of housing in 2020 is attributed to new construction while 10% is old construction. this slide represents total demolitions and alterations for 2020. while demolitions this year accounted for the majority of growth units lost, these were planned as part of replacement units providing on-site and new units for existing residents. soma, the mission, and downtown had the highest number of completed units in 2020. zooming out to the bay area scale, overall, the bay area counties authorized the

construction of 20,696 units in 2020 compared to 26,000 units in 2019. san francisco is tied with contra costa county, providing 16% of the total bay area authorizations each. this is an increase share from their 2019 shares of 13% in san francisco and 12% in contra costa county. next slide. driving down into the city level, we saw a 6% decrease in units authorized for construction in 2020 compared

to 2019. for units in the planning entitlement stage, 3,453 units were filed with the planning department for review, while 7,332 units were entitled in 2020. this represented a 153% increase in the total units entitled over 2019. next slide. 2020 marks the sixth year of the eight-year plan for allocating the regional housing needs for san francisco. the city's rhna target is to allocate 28,869 units.

of those, 25,675 units have been permitted as of december 2020. the city has met the rhna allocations for the above income levels. the city build 148% of the minimum above moderate units. as of 2020, the city overall has permitted 19,589 units, or 68% of the rhna goal. this slide represents the 2020 affordable housing construction by income level. for 2020, the city completed the following affordable housing unit. for extremely low category, 53

units were completed. for the very low category, 66 units were completed. in the low-income category, we've added 339 units, and the moderate category, 360 units were completed, including 130 a.d.u.s. in 2020, 80% of housing units were build -- that were built were market rate, and 20% were affordable housing units. the city experienced a 44% decrease in the production of new affordable housing units in 2020. 818 new affordable units were built in 2020, compared to the 1,456 affordable units in 2019. 818 new affordable units were built in 2020 -- i'm sorry. more than half of the completed affordable units were

inclusionary units, while projects involved 100% affordable housing resulted in 208 affordable units. the decrease in affordable production is due to a multiyear development timeline. affordable housing typically takes five years to develop from start to completion, and the timeline also depends on funding availability. looking ahead, funding will be more available in the future because funding is included in the city's capital housing plan with a plan to bring a vote will bond into the cycle. for questions related to affordable housing program and production, amy chan, director of policy and legislative affairs from the mayor's office of housing and community development is available.

in 2020, there were a total of 197 accessory dwelling units built, compared to 284 a.d.u.s built in 2019. a.d.u. production is achieved, either the -- by either the construction of new a.d.u.s or the legalization of existing a.d.u.s. 133 a.d.u.s were the result of new construction, while 64 a.d.u.s were the result of legalizing preexisting a.d.u.s. 2020s a.d.u. production presented the highest number of a.d.u. production since the program was introduced in 2017.

report number 11 is the spring 2020 report covering the ten-year period of july 1, 2010, through june 30, 2020. report number 12 is the fall 2020 report covering the ten-year period of january 1, 2011 through december 31, 2020 the code defines housing balance as the proportion of all new affordable housing units to the total number of all-newhousing units over a ten-year period, accounting for any loss of units removed from protected status. as a general trend, we see that there's a general trend in decreasing housing balance. it's not a general indicator of

future or current housing projects as it does not take current housing into report. in total, this informs how the city is implementing goals and policies of the existing housing element. it also forms the development of the housing development update. with that, i'd like to pass it to camilla, who will provide an overview of the draft housing update. thank you. >> thank you, oscar. jonas, will you please give me access? great. good afternoon, president

koppel, vice president moore, and director hillis. my name is camilla [inaudible] and [inaudible] we are excited to be here today for the second informational presentation on the housing element of the commission. before i started my presentation, i wanted to acknowledge the land that we are on. s.f. planning acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral land of the ramaytush ohlone. as the indigenous stewards of the land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never forgotten

their responsibilities to this place as well as their organizational responsibilities. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the members and elders of the ramaytush ohlone and acknowledging their status as the first people.

we now that housing is a racial and social equity problem. median income for black households is less than one fourth of a white house hold. american indian and black individuals are unhoused disproportionately to their population. our american indian community have shared that the research shows that their -- that they are 17 times more likely to experience homelessness. san francisco and the region has also lost significantly the american indian and black population as you can see in orange and blue for the region. black, latinx, and american indian households are significantly more likely to be affected than a white house

hold, and that means that they're paying more than 30% of their income. we also know that the problem in san francisco is an economic problem. housing did not keep up with the demand from the surge in jobs. the price to own a home and also to rent in san francisco sky rocketed, and as a result, san francisco's higher income population exploded, replacing low and moderate income households in the city. with this framing in mind, let's talk about the housing plan. the how is this housing element

different, and director hillis shared this in his overview. this is the first housing plan for san francisco that will be centered in racial and social equity, and it will address the inequities that our american indian, black, latinx, japanese, filipino, chinese, and other people of color have lived through. it directly responds to the resolution that this commission passed last june. this update is also different from the previous ones in that it is charges response -- to respond to much higher unit targets, and director hillis

acknowledged this, as well. in the past, our housing targets have been just based on projected population growth. starting now, these projections have to factor in [inaudible] housing needs, and that's compared with the current targets of 25,000 units that michelle and oscar, in their presentations, went through. here's a quick kind of breakdown on what that would mean. the orange shows our current rhna targets and the yellow shows our current estimates. there are other ways that this next update is different. we are required by state law to affirmatively further for housing, and that would mean to

address segregation and to have programs and implementations -- implement ways to address segregation and to create integrated living patterns. we are also required to respond to the environmental justice requirements by state and to adopt policies in the general plan to address the unique compounded health risks, especially that communities of color have placed in their neighborhoods.

here's a quick overview of our two-year timeline. this update is due by the end of next year. we're just launching the second phase of outreach, and we hope to have the goals, policies, and actions vetted with the public by end of 2022. this would allow the required environmental impact analysis to continue its course through the next year, and it is critical that we meet our state deadline for this process so that we don't lose our affordable housing fund and also avoid fines of up to $100,000 a month. the environmental impact review

also started public process with appropriation expected being released in june [inaudible] the scope of the e.i.r. this would [inaudible] housing element update, and it would support future zoning changes and implementation of this plan, and now, i'll invite my colleague, melena, to walk us through the community engagement process. >> hello, everybody. so phase one of our recent engagement started in june of last year and was completed in december. and for community outreach and engagement, our main goal was to reach communities historically absent from housing orientations. our goal was to meet people where they are by holding events [inaudible] community

leaders, c.b.o.s, and due tot pandemic, most of that outreach happened virtually. we held 12 listening sessions. we had a survey that was mostly administered in [inaudible] following socially distancing rules. we also worked with a group of resident ambassadors to get to the groups we wanted to reach. we attended trusted community meetings, and in that, we were able to reach residents mostly affected by housing inequities, . next slide, please. the recent survey let us

address [inaudible] we want to prioritize. we administered the survey at food distribution centers through service providers, and through the survey, we were able to reach a higher percentage of people of color, low-income residents, renters, as well as other respondents. this formed the goal of first analyze, responsibilities, and actions. on april 8, we published this first draft and all the supporting materials on the project website, and for our upcoming round of outreach, it will inform this draft and how it addresses the housing challenges and inequities. we hope to rely on focus groups as a primary outreach tool in

this phase. we are excited to have secured from funds from our housing outreach and community leaders. our own platform is available for the public to provide input on the goals and aspects of this first draft. [inaudible] we are excited to have the opportunity to work with our newly formed economic advisory council. we are inviting c.b.o.s to collaborate with us. we know they're stretched thin, so we're offering them to collaborate with us based on capacity [inaudible] the funds secured will [inaudible] in helping us reach the communities we want to elevate, empower, and prioritize. thank you. >> thanks, melena.

so this is the last presentation. i know you've heard a lot, but please stay with me for this last part. so as melena mentioned, we have shared the six goals, six policies, 50 goals, and 200 actions. today, i want to focus on the major policy shifts that are being considered on the first draft and based on what we've heard. so here they are, and these major shifts include recognizing right to housing, bringing back displaced communities to the city, and specific directions for priority geographies versus opportunity areas, and i'll talk -- i'll give more details on that in a minute. so what is our priority geographies? priority geographies are neighborhoods with a higher density of vulnerable populations as defined by san francisco department of public

health, and that includes but is not limited to people of color, seniors, youth, people of color, and people living in poverty or unemployed. the high opportunity areas are areas identified by state as in the region whose characteristics have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families, particularly outcomes for children. these outcomes have also experienced change very differently in the past few decades. housing production has been heavily concentrated in priority geography. at the same time, less than 12% of our affordable housing units are located in high opportunity areas. as shown in this map, many neighborhoods within these areas have removed mostly clear

of affordable housing. here, i'm going to give a little bit more detail on some of these major policy shifts. in terms of -- our policy is directly and clearly talk about

bringing back displaced communities to the city, and we've heard that that would mean strengthening cultural anchors in the city, also offering home ownership opportunities for displaced communities, and in some places, identifying land -- dedicated land, particularly to our american indian community. [inaudible] that low-income communities of color can receive priority to this deeply affordable housing. on the other hand, limiting zoning changes in these areas to the needs of our communities of color is one way that these kinds of reviews are suggested to bring civility to their neighborhood and reduce the burden of change. at the same time, addressing

segregation in communities and accessing amenities in these areas, and that these investments should happen along with expanding antidisplacement efforts, led by culturally competent c.b.o.s. [inaudible] of building 50% of regional housing targets in these areas. that's about 40,000 units. draft policy recommends opening these housing communities through land banking or grant programs to help these communities find affordable housing in these areas. increasing housing choice in high opportunity areas are recommended through

accommodating more housing in the form of smaller mid rise multifamily buildings in these areas, and that would be along the rapid network of transit and to support the transit corridors for improvements. that could be made through reducing height or density limits, but for small multiunit buildings, which is a scale desirable for many of our neighborhoods [inaudible] feasibility of their type of housing to serve all income levels, particularly moderate and medium income level. and with that, i'll bring us back to our six goals. as we start our second phase of outreach, we want to make sure these are the correct goals to help center the reform of

racial and social equity. we are hoping that working with c.b.o.s, partnering with c.b.o.s can help ensure that this serves as a clear road happen for the city and decision makers. it is important to remember it is within our power to overcome our history and build a more affordable resilient and more -- affordable, resilient, and more just san francisco. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, kimia. does that conclude staff's

presentation? kimia, does that conclude staff's presentation? >> yes. >> clerk: commissioners, we should go to public comment, and it's been brought to my attention that our agenda indicated an incorrect access code. the access code streaming at the bottom from sfgovtv correct. the correct access code is 187-461-8544, and our page and everything that points to an access code has been updated now, so my apologies for that incorrect access code. through the chair, we should go to public comment at this time. members of the public, you need to press star then three to be added to the queue. when you hear your line has

been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. you will have two minutes. >> hi. this is lori leaderman, inner sunset. two things struck me. in a year when almost every local number went down or held even, the number of demolitions sky rocketed with an increase of 153% over last year. the demolitions represent families and individuals who lost their homes. until we stop evictions and renovictions we can stop talking about serving our community. it is clear from the data that most of the units lost were apartments, most likely rentals, but the overwhelming number of new units were

condos. the other striking fact is that we have, again, greatly exceeded our rhna goals for category housing while lagging in affordable housing. we know that advocates for eliminating restrictions in zoning while imposing restrictions on public review are advocating for a completely free market on housing which developers decide what housing to build on whatever land they can obtain. only our public guardians can constrain greed and require equity. the goals of the housing element are deeply encouraging. the policies must be designed to meet the goals, and they must be explicitly designed to meet our current housing stock and its current residents. thank you.

>> clerk: again, members of the public, i just want to ad advise that the correct access code is 187-461-8544. >> my name is richard scaff. i am very concerned with the report today. i certainly respect the fact that you have typically, in today's presentation, been very inclusive about indigenous people and people of color, and that's very important. however, as is typical, people with disabilities remains

something -- an issue not discussed. there was not one word today about the number of accessible -- wheelchair accessible units today in your housing element. i'm sure there may be something there, but once again, it it wasn't discussed. the population of people with disabilities nationally based on, first, the 1990 census, when the a.d.a., americans with disabilities act, was adopted, 80% of the population of people with disabilities across the country were unemployed. again, in 2010, the census, 80% of the population of people with disabilities were unemployed. we have a very low-income population, and we continually

and historically have inadequate fully accessible housing units available to us. that needs to be spoken to'. i would like to request a copy of the survey for housing needs -- the summary and the survey be sent to me. you have my contact information since i have already been in contact with you, and yes, in today's meeting, i tried to call in this morning and had a very difficult time because the wrong number was posted. i also am concerned that the last slide, the six goals -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. that is your time. again, members of the public, i did want to point out that the correct access code is

187-461-8544. >> hi. good afternoon. my name is sadiq [inaudible] and i am a san francisco resident. i hope we can take meaningful to address our housing shortage and build affordable housing. [inaudible] i hope that we follow suit here in san francisco, and i hope we also begin to serve as a leader in california in creating more dense environmentally friendly transit oriented development that lets more in our city take

advantage of the wonderful opportunities it offers. please make sure [inaudible] thank you, and good afternoon. >> hi. my name is marie sorenson, and i'm a member of calle 24. we want investment in all areas of housing in the city. the draft report makes no mention of social housing as a strategy. we request that the planning department request its housing element process to create a thoughtful housing strategy that is truly centered on racial and social equity and not, as a former commissioner said during one of the previous

hearings, let the little people live in oakland and commute. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. my name is david wu with soma filipinas, filipino cultural heritage district, and we are part of the race and equity in all planning coalition. the housing report and update must be based in racial and social equity. currently, the housing model still promote social security market based displacement and up zoning is stated as possible solutions. the current trend of market based solutions continues to provide extremely inequitable results. the housing element also contains a number of obvious

contradictions. it claims that access to public parks, residential neighborhoods, and schools is essential to upbringing, but it deregulates the planning process. there is no increase in parks, rec centers, schools, and other necessary public amenities with increased private development. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ben terrell. i'm the second of the tenant's -- secretary of the tenants association at 16 and capp. the activists, labor, arts and

latinx organizations in the red stone do not agree with the current draft. the housing element that building more market rate housing will address problems of inequity and systemic racism. that's no more true than greed is good or that a riding tide lifts all boats. this report needs to prioritize permanently affordable housing. as you know, poor and middle class people in the city are hurting. it's time to heed their calls for just -- housing justice and to create a new housing strategy truly centered on racial and social equity, not profits for already well-off developers. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am [inaudible], and i am with poder. [inaudible]. >> hello. my name is anna lee, and i'm calling to voice my support for

the chart that you have shown today. please pursue the housing element in the ways that you're looking at it, increasing housing in the high opportunity areas that you were showing your diagrams? i think that that's absolutely the best direction to be heading because it opens up more areas that can be developed and provide more housing? i do agree with some callers that social housing is also necessary, but i know that you can't solve every single problem at the same time, so that, i think, is something that we absolutely need to work on, but i don't want it to hold up this process and, moving forward, legalizing more housing in these areas. so please continue and have my full support. thank you.

>> my name is [inaudible] and i am director of the clarion project. the r.e.p. coalition identified equity as identifying policies, strategies, and goals to ensure that race, ethnicity and income resources do not determine the outcome of communities. the housing model that is before you day places the future of our communities into the hands of developers who are only motivated by their own profits. the city needs to stop putting the profits of the few before the livelihoods of our block, latinx, and indigenous community members. we are tired of having to explain to others throughout

the way why our city continues to support gentrification in communities of color. we ask that you come up with a housing plan that is truly racially and socially equitable. thank you. >> hi. my name is [inaudible] and i'm the director of the city american indian cultural district. we need to slow this down and have a meaningful process. we are in the process of meeting with folks about the housing element, however, one thing i want to call about is the data on the slides. this does not show the impact at the american indians. there are 402 homeless american indians out 2,846 that are currently documented as

american indian. that's 14% of our population is homeless. if you were to house each and every one of those 402 people, you would decrease the homelessness of our population by 70%. another issue i should is we shouldn't be sort of doing this data for you, you should be doing it for us. look at five-year representations and not one-year representations to get the entire impact. i also wanted to note that 45% of american indians are rent burdened, and we have the lowest home ownership rates in the city. some of these things should be noted, and not just noted, but really worked on. i think we need to slow down, and we need to do this right, and we need to make sure that our population is housed because housing only 402 people and increasing -- or decreasing

our homeless rates by 70% is a huge impact. i just want to say slow down, work with the american indian community, and make sure you're including them. thank you.

>> we should zone for an [inaudible] if you look at the number of sites in our inventory that were developed in the last cycle, 2014 to 2019, and the new guidelines from h.c.d. show that you actually need to have your relisted capacity at the level of [inaudible] so i hope we work on the housing production side of things. i'm really happy to see where we are in terms of a [inaudible] in fair housing. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. i wanted to also just simply remind members of the public that the access code for today's agenda or today's hearing is 187-461-8544.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. catherine howard speaking by yourself. i'd like to point out that you cut down on public comment by combining the two. i'm not sure if it falls under sunshine, but it short changes you commissioners because it does not allow for full public input. the slide on participating groups was shown very quickly, but the yimby group was also shown, which shows the slant two development. i'm hoping you're not planning on building housing in golden gate park, but this points out two things. one is our parks are not taken out and shown on their own, and

secondly, if the map is that inaccurate, then you have to wonder about the other data. and speaking about parks and open space, there is no mention of setting aside land for open space or parks, so you want to crowd in more people but not have parks. free space are important for people and wildlife, and this is earth day, so that should be given prime consideration. thank you. >> hi. thank you so much for hearing from us today. i'm jessica lehman, and i'm director of the senior action coalition. i appreciate the conversation on racial and social equity, building extremely low-income housing, but, of course, it's in the details of how it happens, and i share the

concerns that a lot of previous speakers have raised about how we are really focusing on low-income folks and folks of color and seniors and people with disabilities in our community. it's definitely a problem that 2020 saw the permitting of no very low-income housing. seniors and people are disabilities who are disproportionately people of color need accessible and affordable housing, and when i say affordable, we need deeply affordable housing, that what we call affordable is usually 50% of a.m.i., which is not even close to affordable for someone who is on s.s.i., who is only bringing in about $900 a month, so we need to develop now housing, which is generally accessible, also, for very low and extremely low-income seniors and people with disabilities. long-term, we need to redevelop

how we develop low-income housing. we need to expand senior operating subside sees, making sure they are included in every housing development, increasing funding for them. we need to increase funding for portable rental subsidies to allow people to stay in their units and recognize the very real challenges to accessibility and affordablity that people in our communities with disabilities. >> [inaudible] housing elements

for seniors. i believe the 2022 document is shaping up to be something that does not know whose interest they serve. should jobs be spread around the region? questions aren't being asked of the public in the housing element process, but the process is already locking in its own answers for them. now read the inventory and balance reports, we are falling so far behind in building affordable housing to meet our overwhelming needs. we have to undertake a major reexamination and reinvention of our stated target goals, which are now at 33%.

we need to raise those targets and reverse the percentages. we need to build more affordable units than market rate. we need 50%, we need 75%, 100% affordable. we will never catch up with our affordable needs unless we have the political will to build more affordable. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is alex lansberg, research and development director with the san francisco building industry and san francisco housing stability oversite board and the housing element board. it's been exciting to watch the housing development unfold.

with this in mind, i'd like to address a few things that link directly to how the approach -- how the housing element approaches the housing facing the city and the goals we're aiming to achieve. we consider the housing allocation nearly triples the amount of homes that s.f. needs to build in the next ten years. thinking through how we craft the housing element to meet our production needs also requires our thinking about the workforce required to build it with a housing wage of over $40 an hour and median nonunion construction wages of around three-quarters of that, it's all the more important to keep in mind these questions. public feedback echos this concern, and to that, we encourage the commission to do what it can to encourage a.b.

[inaudible] and building the homes san francisco needs. additionally, as the commission looks to the west side for new multifamily development and recognizes the solution that quads aren't appropriate to address the housing shortage. unfortunately, the housing element is distracted by marketing ploys like [inaudible] for low-income households. while this isn't the forum to discuss the issue in depth -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. that is your time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ozzie reaume with san francisco housing land use coalition.

i did attend some of these outreach meetings by planning staff. we did not cover too many items. it was mostly slogans, so i'm hoping in the future outreach, we will get more details. secondly, how are we supposed to reconcile the rhetoric about building 80,000 homes by 2031 and the new focus, which is racial and social justice and equity? i am glad to see this happening, i'm glad to see that the planning is actually putting this as part of their focus on the housing element, but if you're not going to pay attention to how the neighborhoods that are majority-minority and are going to be impacted by this build, baby, build movement, then this is going to be nothing but

sloganeering and not much value. so if we're going to have just basically virtue signaling, and we're going to do something about gentrification and something about the people of color who are being driven out of this city, i suggest we should adopt policies to protect homes in these neighborhoods. excelsior has over 80% single-family homes. my question to this, to the planning staff and commission, how are you going to reconcile upzoning 80% of excelsior where 52% of the population is foreign born, people of color, and low-income? so if we're not having any plans on reconciling the two goals that you have, then this is going to be just nothing but a slogan. thank you.

>> hi. this is jessie oliver sanford. as usual, there's no mention of the lgbtq's needs, and you really have to dig to find it in the proposed solutions. even when you do find it, the items facing black trans people, the items facing queers, and foreign trans people are not addressed. fewer of us are married and have kids, which means we suffer isolation more frequently through life, especially when we aren't housed in queer neighborhoods.

i support the earlier comment about a need for a pause in this process. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. i really want to extend our appreciation for the entire staff pulling a report together. i and other members of my team took part in some of these community workshops, and it is a different attitude than how we're seeing planning happening anywhere else in the bay area. a couple of points. number one, while it was good to see the number of homes built in 2020 uptick slightly,

we are still, year over year, falling short of our figure of 5,000 homes provided by the mayor's office every year. we are calling on the feds to increase funding with the new h.u.d. director and hoping that the state can take a more active role, but there's also opportunities to increase the regulatory process. i live not too far from the 730 stannion site, and i think we're on meeting number six over a multiple year process, and it's frustrating that it's taking so long to build new homes for people, both market rate and 100% affordable. really great presentation, taking a look i am look

solution, and really appreciate everybody's time. thank you. >> [inaudible] and goals to ensure that race, ethnicity, income, and access to resources do not determine the success of individuals or their communities. the housing element that is before you today works directly against this equity by placing our future into the hands of developers who are only concerned with their earnings.

the intermediate length occupation restriction passed by the board of supervisors in 2020, this lejs is not even mentioned in the report. there's also no report about the impact of intermediate length housing in san francisco's housing stock, no short-term rentals and the impact that those are having on san francisco's housing market. regarding the housing balance, there's never been a housing balance report, the report of the full intent of the underlying ordinance which reads that more than 50% of this housing would be affordable for middle class households with at least 33% for low and moderate income, and the city is expected to develop strategies to achieve that goal. the report, the ordinance also requires a report with strategy to see achieve that goal. these reports have never been identified as strategies for bringing our housing balance

back into balance we request the planning department pause the housing element process to create a housing strategy that is truly centered on racial and social equity. thank you. >> hello. my name is betty trainer. i am a member at senior and disability action. i want to thank you for this report, but as others have said, i see some inadequacies in it. in particular because of our community of seniors and people with disabilities, the majority of our renters are people at the very low and even extremely low-income, that is the lowest number of housing that seems to be reported on, and so we

definitely need to look at that because our seniors and people are disabilities are just being left out of housing in san francisco. the majority cannot afford even what is called affordable housing. we do need subsidies, which is mentioned before, both subsidies that come with the housing itself. the units are part of the housing, and that is called the senior operating subsidy, and also individual subsidies for renters that they can take with them. we need both, but i really want to emphasize that and keep this as part of your report and to actually act on it, have focus groups that particularly deal with these issues of seniors. thank you very much.

>> we can reduce gas emissions maybe by 57% or 59% respectively, so that's something to focus in on. being from modesto, california, low-income there, my family was part of the volunteer section system 8, and my mom had to fill out an application to stay there, but when she lost it, we had to move to other cities nearby. specifically in s.f., people don't have that opportunity because if section 8 is lost,

their life can be lost. as soon as now, and i'm hoping that we can go about with this initiatives, and i just want to end with a quote by robin williams. you can't keep picking people up, you have to stop them from falling. thank you for your time, and have a good day. >> my name is [inaudible] and i'm a professor from berkeley, and i'm speaking in my professional capacity. two points. arguing that increasing housing or getting rid of exclusionary zoning would somehow increase gentrification or increase prices is akin to saying that

climate change isn't real. there's so many vacant sites in san francisco, so many homeowners that i'm sure would be happy to redevelop their home into fourplexes or eight plexes, and that the research is just so, so clear. it's just not even a debate, really, that this would help the city be more affordable. then, on a personal note, i just want to note, you know, i know so many people who have recently left the city. i know there's a nurse at ucsf who made decent money but left and went to l.a. i have another friend who's in the process of moving to seattle because they can't afford to live in san francisco. it's -- and i know of many more people, especially as an lgbt person, of many lgbtq people,

who can't afford to move here. thank you for your efforts to build more housing, and i hope that you would build more affordable housing in san francisco. >> hi. my name is louise, and i have a son who has a mental disability, and for ten years, i would advocate to make sure he has a roof over his head, and the difference that it makes once he was housed is enormous. in such a rich city, not to be able to -- i mean, if you look at the streets, what is it? it's, like, third world country. how come we became so insensitive and so careless

about seeing people living in the street and thinking that it's okay and wondering about where the money's going to come? this is a priority if we want to have a city that attracts tourists, we cannot have this blight in the street. also, what i notice is that many districts -- i live in district two. i don't mind if there will be a resting place here for people who are homeless, a place that they can drink coffee and watch t.v. and get some services, instead, everything is being so concentrated in the tenderloin. also, you have those people with those groups who want to turn it something else other than helping the homeless.

it's only $6 million to help about 3,000, 4,000 people. why it's not moving along? so i'm for housing, decency, compassion, beauty, and helping and making sure that the whole city is involved in that. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. my name is ken russell, and i live in district 7. we need to affirmatively further fair housing. we need to end our exclusionary zoning apartment ban and create housing in our high opportunity zones. we need to protect tenants, we need to focus on environmental justice by encouraging in-fill

housing. i'm glad to see from the presentation today that we acknowledge that we need to put housing in high opportunity areas. you know, 50% of our housing should be planned in those areas. given our history where sensitive communities have been the focus of this prior to the housing development, i'd ask why don't we put more housing in high opportunity areas? why only 50%? i support building more homes to help san francisco remain an accepting, welcoming place for people who have experienced discrimination in many other parts of our country and the world. i support building more homes to help people who work in san francisco and shouldn't be pushed into ever lengthening commutes. they're the opposite of the greenhouse gas reductions we need. i also support building more homes to continue the extensive work needed for people in our city who are experiencing homelessness.

thank you. >> hi, everyone. solutions to the problem of equity and affordable need to be led by communities of color. we need to be included in land use strategies that meet our needs, not the needs of profit developers. we need to have a more thorough stakeholder process for people people -- communities and people of color to give us adequate time to vet what is written, and i think there needs to be a much more community-centric approach to have you engaged, especially

if centered around racial and social equity, so we request that the planning department pause this housing element process to create a housing strategy that's truly centered around racial and social equity. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is don misumi with richmond district rising, a member organization of the race and equity of all planning coalition. my belief in community empowerment is deeply personal as a member of the japanese american diaspora that has been harmed by the forced relocation by racist government policies. the housing policy document is supposed to redress these wrongs. however, what i see in this rollout is an all-too-familiar process that pays lip service to equity while streamlining market rate housing and eliminating any opportunity for public input.

this housing element process should not proceed without meaningful input from community empowered representatives like the r.e.p. coalition. plans that our communities had no part in drafting do not meet our definitions of equity. thank you. >> hello. my name is teresa marquez, and i am a community organizer with poder, and i am calling to question a lot of these things around this housing element. i think a lot of these things are streamlining public housing and eliminating public process. for example, we have seen in this pandemic that many

communities have experienced the digital divide. don't have access to internet, don't know how to call in to these numbers, especially when they're not correct, so i just want to say, you know, who are we building housing for? i keep hearing more housing, and, i mean, if you believe in trickle-down economics, then maybe. i understand how you think building more market-rate housing will trickle down to more people and everybody in san franciscans because a lot of people cannot afford market-rate housing in san francisco, and san francisco cannot afford for people from the outside to come in. thank you very much.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is hope williams, and i am a resident of treasure island and a native of san francisco, which i have experienced homelessness in san francisco twice. one by fire and one by displacement, and may possibly, as a t.i. resident, experience displacement again. only 3% of african americans remain in san francisco. stability for multiple generations is needed. the housing element assumes that building more market rate housing will solve our problems of inequity and systemic racism in the housing. the housing element should focus on strategies from -- for permanent affordable housing and to ensure that people such as myself and my children are able to be housed in stable

homes. i request that the planning department pause this housing element process to create housing strategies that truly center on racial and social equality. as a native that is actively working to help restore communities of color, i ask that you read this element and help involve us in this conversation. thank you. >> hi. my name's levi [inaudible] and i live in the excelsior, and i want to urge the planning commission to increase housing in all areas of the city, particularly in the areas that you mentioned, but in all areas. the only way to achieve racial, social, and environmental equity is to build enough housing for everyone who wants to live here.

i support the housing element planned process that you started, and i encourage you to continue this process, to eliminate discriminatory zoning, and change san francisco's zoning to eliminate san francisco's housing shortage. thank you. >> yes, hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> okay. great. sorry about that. i stepped away from my phone for a second. this is tracey rosenberg from media alliance. we are a constituent member of united to save the mission and part of the r.e.p. coalition. as someone who works and spends a lot of time in the mission district of san francisco, i can certainly personally testify that we have had an

enormous amount of market rate housing come to our neighborhood, and yet, the affordable housing problem remains, and it remains acute and critical and deeply felt by the long-term residents of that neighborhood, so it seems to me that this housing element should [inaudible] publicly owned land should be considered as 100% affordable and nothing else because that is what we need, and we need to sort of utilize our public [inaudible]. >> clerk: are you still with us, ma'am? >> -- development.

this is simply not what equity looks like, and we encourage you to go back to the drawing board and keep working on this. thank you. >> good afternoon. hello. my name is eric arguello. i am a community manager for g.l.i.d.e., and we are a member of the r.e.p. coalition. the housing element should focus on strategies for permanent affordable housing that's below 50% a.m.i. and to ensure that people that are housed are stable in their homes. we should request -- well, we do request that we pause this housing element process to create a housing strategy that is truly centered on racial and social equity. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is reggie meadows, and

i'm from the tenderloin and a member of the tenderloin people's congress on antieviction and sustainable housing. whether american indian or crowd of homeless folks or spanish or asian or kweerz, -- or queers, but of many coming together, going through the same process and having to deal with the same situations as all of us are handling, and that is not having a place to stay. prioritizing these issues, we all have the same needs: housing they can afford. too many times, you have allowed developers to come in

and dictate how developments are going to go. too often, you've set back and took things in the back seat, and at the same time, the people who come before you don't get the answers they really need and because we put you there in the first place. we actually voted for you. we actually wanted you there because we thought you wanted to develop the city into something better. but instead of developing into something better, they are getting worse. people in the street are young people who can't find a job because there is none, and because they've got no money, they can't get a place. i think a city that considers ourselves the kind of city that welcomes folks are discriminating against folks. black people, my folks, we need

to be treated right for once in our lives by the city and by the government because we have been handled miserably by the city in all of our history. i just want to encourage you to do something better, please, than what you're doing. you don't need to be doing anything other than only helping the developers. >> clerk: thank you, sir. that's your time. >> hi, members of the planning commission. my name is bob [inaudible] and i'm a member of grow the richmond, member of advocating group in the richmond, supporting more homes in the richmond and more transit. i'm here to tell you that much like what another caller said earlier, if we believe that we are going to undo the racist housing policies that this city has adopted for years and decades and decades, it means

that we need to make it easy to build multifamily housing on the west side of san francisco, and that means, much like that other caller said, why just 50%? why not 60 or 75%? why are we continuing to double down in the communities like the tenderloin and bayview-hunters point when we should be focusing on other districts. the chapter of the 1978 environmental impact report that is published to show what would happen if we would allow down zoning said that it would make new housing unfeasible, it would displace people, it would increase greenhouse gas emissions, it would make prices and rents bid upward. i ask that you take the housing

process seriously, and i'm asking you that you focus on building on the west side of san francisco. thank you. >> hello. my name is jessie, and i'm with poder. we're a member of the r.e.p. coalition. solutions to the problem of inequality and affordability need to be led by our indigenous, working class, immigrant, and other communities of color. we need to be genuinely included and be able to lead land use strategies that meet or needs and set those terms, not the needs of developers. you know, i coordinate a bike program in town, and i just want to share with you a brief conversation with someone who would have been a recipient. they said, i'm going to be really honest. i would appreciate this site for real for real, but i can't take it under these

circumstances. my family live in a really small apartment, and i can't have a bike. i would like to have a bike, but we don't have anywhere to fit it. this is really, really sad, but it's not the first time that space has been a barrier for working class, low-income communities, which woe do our best to serve to accommodate alternate transportation, healthier transportation into their lives. there's a direct correlation to the lack of affordability and it is unconscionable that we are not doing our part to be bold and visionary to increase the housing development. we ask that this process be paused to develop a timeline

that's truly focused on racial and social equity. >> hi. my name is sam deutsche, and i'm a member of yimby. my personal experience living in noe valley. i live right by the gay church muni. i read something interesting, that all buildings in san francisco wouldn't be legal to build today because we've down zoned the city and made it hard to build in. i live right along the light rail, and my favorite buildings are apartment buildings. it makes me sad to know that it's now illegal to build those types of buildings. i think as we look at the housing element, it's important to look at how do we build as much housing for people in san francisco as possible, and how

do we build that housing in a way that drives equity and social justice, and it's pretty clear that, you know, i wish we lived in a world where we could just tell people you're only allowed to build affordable housing, and that every home that was built was affordable. but if we did that, very little would get built. i think it's important to look at maximizing the number of affordable homes in san francisco. thank you. >> hello. this is regina eastman. a member of richmond district rising. very glad to be here today and just like to make the following comment.

the housing element contains a number of obvious contradictions. it claims access to public parks. rec centers and schools are essential too a healthy neighborhood. [inaudible] this needs to get back to the drawing board with much more district community member representation. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. anastasia ionnapoulos with san francisco housing coalition. in the housing inventory report, a.d.u.s are incorrectly categorized at affordable housing. since a.d.u.s are market rate

housing, no longer subject to rent control and priced up whatever the market will bear, commissioners, i ask you to reject those data conclusions in the report. it's unacceptable to proceed with inaccurate data to inform the housing element. the loss of 4,000 plus protected units is no surprise and it's unacceptable. from my volunteer experience at the tenants union, landlords have been set on displacing their tenants from rent controlled homes for the last few decades. the trend of overproducing market rate units is harmful to the american indian, people of color, low-income, and marginalized communities, including seniors and disabled. by embracing marginalized communities to the housing production and seeking to

codify them in the housing element for the next eight years, the housing needs of these communities are not addressed nor are the needs of the people on fixed income who don't even qualify for low-income units. by embracing market based solutions and not considering local innovative solutions to address the needs of vulnerable communities, the housing element as requested does not seek equity. we ask you pause this housing element process to create a housing strategy truly focused on racial and social equity. thank you. >> hi. my name is tyler hom. i'm a resident of the richmond

district. i'd like to just voice my support for this as a starting point, especially the identification as the west side. i'd like to see much higher targets for availability across the board, including more housing availability in these neighborhoods. i've lived in the richmond for almost a decade that couldn't be built today because of the zoning. i'm proud of this neighborhood character, and i feel that increasing multifamily housing would add to that character, not change it. i think reversing zoning restrictions is an important step to build a more equitable and affordable city. i appreciate the committee's work on this, and thank you for the time and the opportunity to

make a comment. >> hello. hi, commissioners. my name is [inaudible] and i'm [inaudible] and member of the r.e.p. coalition. i'm a san francisco native and low-income [inaudible] working to [inaudible] one day find myself in a more equitable housing, myself and my family.

[inaudible] centered on racial and social equities. thank you. >> hello. my name is freedy martin. i'm a housing organizer with senior and disability action, and a person of some african descent and tribal elements. in this housing report, some elements are good, but some need to be worked on. i understand it's a process, and it's on going, but just a little point of reminder, it's projected in 2030 that 20% of the population in san francisco will be seniors.

in san francisco, the only way to undo the inequities in gentrification, racism, and discrimination in its various form is to reverse racism. whatever's in place needs to be reversed. reverse racism by truly taking into consideration seniors and people of color in housing. i feel however it was taken was the same way it should be given back to black, african american, tribal natives, and american indians. what we need to do is make sure that those of us with the least income and least access to resources have homes in neighborhoods of our choice, equal in size, accessibility, reasonable accommodation and also continued and long-term funding with subsidies and extend that to create and

develop and implement disability operating subsidies in an identical way so that people with disabilities can also realize those subsidies to afford what is not affordable in the city. taking into consideration the 0 to 25%. [please stand by]

we need to meet demand right now because supply is low. it's not matching up. i'm hearing so much from my other realtors the way the market's going here and we really need to catch up with the supply >> good afternoon. my name is lucille and i'm an organizer in the mission district. over the last six months, i've met with two groups it is crazy to me that i still have to

explain to our own government on and eliminating any profit for public input. this is not what equity looks like and the voices of our community cannot be silenced. the area expressing the greatest escalation and displacement have the least amount of public input. specifically after the pandemic i cannot tell you how exhausting it is to come and offer testimony just so that i can tell you the same thing that we always tell you that without a community to process, there is no equity. our communities are not against housing, but if you're building housing and the people that live here now cannot afford it, then who are you building for. so i'm asking this commission

to please put a pause so the community has more time for input into this development. >> hi. i've lived in the outer sunset since i was a little kid. now that i'm an it's clearly going to be focused on racial and social equity and i understand the need to make the state deadline to avoid penalties i'm also currently an urban planning student. protection, yes, but also lots

of production recommending all the areas required. especially near public transit in order to achieve our housing goals. thank you for listening. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jantel. we are a member organization of the race and equity and all planning coalition. i'm also a filipino born and raised in san francisco and raised in district 9, 11, and now district 1 and i have deep roots in the community. the entire house element that's been presented to you is based on frame work that puts developers first and districts

last. we've been organizing around this for many years. we are constantly harmed by plans. solutions to the problems of inequality and affordability need to be led by our communities of color. we need to be included in land use strategies that meet our needs. not the needs of property developers to not use checklist items as these plans continue to move forward. without this, your goal for racial equity fall flat and don't meet our needs. we request that the housing that's truly centered on racial social equity and puts our communities at the forefront of leading that site. thank you.

>> apologies commissioners. that caller hung up. >> hello, my name is maria dela muerta. good afternoon, commissioners. and i'm a knave mission district resident and we are a member of the organization of the rep coalition. the housing element presented to you is a blueprint for the market rate developers. it does nothing to meet the needs of our low income communities of colors. to create a housing strategy

that's truly centered on the racial and social equality. last year, over 89,000 house holds moved out of san francisco. you want to keep building for who if people are moving out because we can't keep our rent low enough for people to stay in san francisco. thank you. >> hello, my name's remi tan. i'm an architect from district 5. i'm urging the planning commission to move forward and expedite this housing needs process. we are in dyer need of housing. we should increase the density

of housing near transit. there are some parts of the city that have really transit rich and we need more residents to have access through the city that have poor transit should not really identify with those just increase the car use. we need to work with the real estate and planning communities to really figure out how many units we need to add to lower the cost of housing by increasing the supply and then figuring out what the housing job's balance is and we need to also include the entire bay area because we have a lot of people in the city living in a highly diversified environment we also need to get rid of rent

control. too many wealthy people are getting the benefits just by the length of time in the units. so we need to face rent control with a housing vouch which is based on need and, you know, people should get vouchers for anything above 30% of their income and that's easy to qualify. everybody just submits their 1040 tax returns and how to pay for it. we should tax these rich tech corporations that have paid very little taxes because they've got a lot of tax breaks in the past and they have record profits and offshoring those. so these guys are rightfully being taxed to everybody for housing. >> thank you sir. that's your time. >> thank you.

>> hello, commissioners. i'm a resident of the richmond district and the local organizer with also a board member and i'm calling in support of the housing element in general. i would love to see more opportunities throughout the city. i currently live in a apartment building that would be illegal to build today. we can't add more homes like this because we made it illegal. we need to make it easier to build apartments throughout san francisco especially in neighborhoods like the richmond and the sun set where can do our part to support more housing for all san franciscans. this is a problem that's been brewing for decades and, unfortunately, no single action is going to solve all those problems. we need to take steps. we cannot keep doing this. in fact, we have an obligation to keep up with the housing

needs assessment which is why we're doing this. and so i encourage planning to continue to be thoughtful with this, of course, but to realize that we need to move faster. we need more affordable housing for sure, but we need more housing of all types and make all of that housing take less time. it takes forever for affordable housing to get built in any neighborhood in san francisco unfortunately and we need to address that as well but it's going to take sfefrg we have. >> hello. calvin welch. it's unfortunate that both item 6 and 7 the data and the policy have been combined. i think it confuses the commissioners. there are a couple of data

points that i think are critically important in terms of informing the housing element policy. the first is as reported in the 2020 housing inventory, you had an opportunity to test one of the real places used constantly by our allies which is that higher density results in more affordable units. you had a density bonus graph in the housing inventory. you did not reproduce however how many affordable units. you produced data on how many units were produced but not their affordability.

if you take that 4,000 units out of the inventory, you will see how seriously efficient we are in reducing affordable housing. if the housing assumption producing more affordable units, why isn't san francisco and new york the two most dense cities in the united states the cheapest cities to live in they produce greater profits, not more affordability i would

associate my request that the more time needs to be taken. >> hi. i'm calling to support the housing san franciscos unaffordable housing has made it impossible. affordable housing and middle housing will make sure people can live in our city. i think it's ridiculous that many of our latino workers can afford a home here. access opportunities not available by the city. ridded in systemic racism. thank you. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. larica, a member organization of the rep acts of violence against communities of color often are not acts of physical violence. justices that slowly unthread the fabric of the community. utilizing old frame works devised to support outcomes is an act of violence. moving legislation forward at a pace that does not allow for community engagement understand minds vulnerable communities. the voice is a special interest championing of vulnerable communities who built this city and are essential to its operation and survival are voices that perpetuate violence and today's agenda presents a stark example of this

injustice. commercial streamlining pushing forward this isn't just inequity. this is what systemic racism looks like. to develop an equitable housing strategy that places our vulnerable communities first. lau. good afternoon, commissioners, we're a member of the race and equity and all planning or rep coalition. i hope that one day communities will see the planning department as a collaborator and accountable partner that prioritizes the real needs of every day san franciscans. with concrete strategies to

achieve affordability and uplift community expertise and solutions. but that day has not yet come. we often hear appreciation for the voices of marginalized communities and planning discussions, but when the time comes, commissioners and planning staff do too little to challenge the structural inequities of undermining those voices. this housing element draft before you is more of the same. the housing element presented to you is a blueprint for solving problems. it does not go far enough to meet the needs of everyday working class people and communities of color. certain priority development areas are described in this draft housing element that our community didn't have any input into these gentlemen graphies and they are not competent equity mapping. the rep coalition defines equity as justifying, executing policies to ensure race,

ethnicity, access to resources do not determine the success of individuals or their communities. the housing element that is before you works directly against this definition of equity. it ignores the structural barriers and market based incentives that disproportionately impact the ability of low income, indigenous, black, immigrant, and other communities of color to thrive in the city. we request the planning department pause this process to create housing strategy that's centered on racial and social equity. thank you. >> hello, i'm theodore randolph, a resident of excelsior and a member of the south side. and i want to comment for doing fair housing. we know that more market rate housing is good and it decreasing the gentrification record on housing. 150% of the above market rate

housing constructed being successfully occupied and the old houses in my neighborhood are selling regularly for over a million dollars. other than the above segment, we aren't even meeting our goals. we need to legalize a lot more housing and make it easier to build. i was struck by how even back when public housing was segregated by race, it could be built in to pro mote private profits going to landowners, where public housing and affordable housing are forbidden. the single family zoning is

contrary to the building. a single family home in this neighborhood is luxury housing. last weekend, my house mate came back from india which is experiencing a dramatic surge of covid. while he's quarantining in my home, i'm masking up and increasing the ventilation dramatically. if we had enough housing if we didn't come from decades of underbuilding, we would probably not be sharing a housing unit. further for housing, we need more housing in more neighborhoods more quickly. thank you for listening. >> hi commissioners. i'm a member of the [inaudible] coalition. i'm calling in because, many of my other colleagues said the housing element of that

building more on market rate housing. i can tell you right now that in 2020, we submitted over 11,000 affordable housing applications and over 2700 families and of those 2,700 families only 21 got placed in affordable housing. folks who need affordable housing. i think we can all agree for the most part, if you have over 2,700 families serving and trying to find affordable housing, no amount of market rate housing will be changing the fact that these families who often times earn less than 30,$000 a year are going to be able to afford something in san francisco. the housing elements are focused on strategy and to ensure that people are stable in their homes. and, because of that, the

planning department pause to create a housing strategy that's centered on racial and social equity. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is danny campbell. i'm a representative of the sheet metal workers and the san francisco building and construction trades counsel. i just wanted to say that if you are going to have a housing element that is centered in racial and social equity, then you need to adopt policies that will ensure developers and contractors have to follow labor standards and pay fair wages for the construction workers that will build this housing. our city needs more housing for all income levels. the san francisco building trades stands at the ready to partner with the city to help

meet this demand. however, you cannot build housing and address racial and social inequity by allowing developers and contractors to drive families into poverty the thank you for letting me speak today. >> hello. hi, good afternoon my name is angelica. and i'm with [inaudible] . we are a member of the rep coalition. the housing element presented to you is a blueprint for problems for market rate developers. there's nothing to meet the needs of our affordable low income developers. the housing element assumes

that building more housing will solve the problem of equity and systemic racism and housing. the housing element should focus on strategies for permanent affordable housing we've been going over and over through these economics and it's not working and we need a different solution that has equity and people of color in the

. >> thank you. that's your time. >> yes. so this is michael nulty. i am a citizen planner and a community organizer and a fifth generation san franciscan. what i'm not hearing housing needs for veterans, foster care, youth. run aways, people of color, seniors. people with disabilities. immigrants and other underserved populations. we need our open space for libraries, our schools and additional infrastructure when building new homes especially we need a lot of new trees and

we seem to be cutting down in our city. we need to stop luxury housing and limit market rate housing since san francisco has limited land. subsidies need to be discussed for various kinds of housing including housing vouchers. thank you for your time. >> hi everyone. i am amon iglasias. my shock was only increased. most of the city leaders did not want newcomers and therefore most of its plan.

the down zoning will raise rents and housing prices. their own reports of the time show this it was the intended outcome. this is identical in spirit and practice my fellow mexican immigrants across the country. the right thing to do is to have the entire city totary down this wall we actually want people to thrive here whatever their background. the right thing to do is to legalize homes housing can only be truly affordable when its market rate is affordable thank you. >> hello, my name is charles airs and i'm a resident of district 9.

i want to locate my plan and i only wish you were aiming for more than 50%. the housing crisis is one that touches all of us. i see it every day. i see it in the face of my future father-in-law as he continue plates to return to a two hour commute. this city should take this opportunity to go big and strive to affirmative leave housing and exclusion nar zoning. and countless people who live and work in our city. thank you. >> the wealthy are using the

law to keep the working class and middle class out of their neighborhoods. require state law overriding the city in order to get built. i love the housing element's goal of building affordable housing in high opportunity areas and hope we can do that with way more than half. san francisco has spent a generations in new housing and this. >> good afternoon. peter popadopolis and. in the neighborhoods. hearing concerns in the areas of process, structure, and policy here in terms of this

housing element and as i said, we share quite a number of them for time. i'm going to try to focus on a couple of things here quickly. i did note that in the draft needs assessment, in fact, there's some very good information including the majority of the 85,000 new house holds were at over 200% of ami and i think that that points to major problems and issue here that this is for example an enormous eco system stress that we would need to address in terms of equity as it pertains to our business opportunities and how eco systems are unfolding right now. in term its i want to mirror some comments.

priority geographies and high opportunity areas. we don't believe our correct measurements of those frame works and they haven't been vetted through the community process and as you've heard and we want to very much mirror that. and lastly, i want to go on to a related point that we're hearing from a researcher who called in and associated with those comments that we don't expect any harmful impacts of market housing. out of the university of mince which clearly shows there are localized impacts on our lowest paying renters that they can expect an increase in rent. integrating those kinds of elements capturing the full

picture. >> good afternoon, commissioners. just a minute. okay. my name is greg ledbetter and i'm [inaudible] we are a group of seniors and disabled people of color. i appreciate but i echo and if they're gay, disabled, seniors, and disabled persons of color be allowed to have input. the site of affordable housing also how you need to look into more affordable housing and

transfer subsidies. they need to be created so that the native san franciscans have quality of life as we age in place here in san francisco. i'm 57 years old living in the western existence and fortunately, i have affordable housing and we need to have more affordable housing. my subsidies, and if i lose, housing how here in san francisco and i was born and raised. so i ask you to look into other opportunities and invite you to the table. i guarantee we have a lot of things to say. thank you for your time and you have a great day.

and, your patience to hear all of us speak today. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. kelly hill with a member of the rep coalition. the current system is like a train that left the station many decades ago and harm countless communities of color along the way when i got out of architecture school in the 90s i sat on the train. after decades of this train moving on the track it's impossible to see the systemic activity without standing up and demanding massive change. the current housing element study a reasonable amount of problems but little teeth and those strong mandates for serious equity changes while the train fails down the track.

at this point in time, we have to create major systemic change. it's right here for us. that means we need to pick up this train and move it to an entirely different track. we have to do this now and reinvent this process. we can't keep building these [inaudible] that put market developers first and communities last. there are so many strategies for streamlining market rate housing and eliminating any process for public input and the voices of our communities to not be silenced. we have to pause this housing element process to create a housing strategy on racial and social equity. thank you. >> hello. my name is david ivan and i'd like to just give an anecdote with my experience with

housing. my parents were like i would say i like having a house. it allows us to go from living in one room and sleeping on top of each other. i would support up zoning san francisco. it seems like there's between affordable and market rate. that can be addressed and it needs to be done because more houses are necessary. other areas are not building houses and san francisco just has to bite the bullet and allow for different housing and then worry about.

>> good afternoon. this is it's lan drick and i'm calling as you can no doubt figure out who is actually here advocating for people and equality and equity and those who are here to speak for developers. i want to suggest that you speak with homeowners on the west side in the bayview in excelsior to understand better the barriers that they had before them in order to purchase their homes. there are people who are one major they could build well once they got across those barriers. so these part of the narrative that is missing in all of this. in addition, there are two unit buildings that are coming up at the planning commission where

there are an authorized units in the building that would be turned into single family homes but if operated actually as rental units for decades. that is affordable housing. i would hope that we could make it more easy as well as more feasible for people to legalize the unauthorized the unit so that we can maintain those. there are a lot of them throughout the city and i encourage us to do that right now. those are things we can do immediately as well as some of the other things that people have already mentioned. so thank you very much >> hello. i'm speaking from the housing element. i think this is a great way to advance our equity goals and also to allow more people to

live in this great city that is san francisco. thank you. >> hi, my name is eric kaplan, i live in district 3. i'm excited about this housing element. i think it's an opportunity to help us if we want to call ourselves a sanctuary city, we need to make space to provide sanctuary. if we want to provide refuge for across the country, we need to have more than a tent for them out by ocean beach. i would really like to see a greater percentage of the housing in high opportunity areas. i live in a high opportunity area in telegraph hills and i would love to have more

neighbors here. four decades ago, san francisco chose to have a housing shortage and now reno's giving us an opportunity to make a different choice. thank you. >> okay. members of the public, last call for public comment on these two items. if you would like to speak to either information or presentation, you need to press star then 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking and you have 2 minutes. >> linda chapman, before my time was told, i was trying to call for general public comment and it was impossible to get through and i also want to apologize to the secretary. i didn't realize it wasn't a backup person taking the call. you know, we have a very

serious situation in which more than a little public comment which i haven't been able to make anyway as necessary. we're not talking about a few 22 plus or something like that. i think certainly the director and we need to pause things before we go ahead with it. we're talking about maps that were issued by somebody in your department overcoming unanimous votes of the board of supervisors and so on. ment so do you want to time my public comment and i go ahead with that now and i hope to hear how you're going to do this and postpone the item that you have coming up in the area, part of the area. only part of the area by the way that was remapped by somebody in your department and the documents. the documents have never been given to me because 1880s and

1990s can you tell me how to proceed here? >> your comments should be directed towards the housing reports. >> i understand that, but i was cut off from from general public comment. next time will i be able to speak twice as long? >> your time is running, ms. chapman. >> okay. the documentation that i have in my lap is the resolution from the state assembly commending the rezonings that we did in the 1980s as being epitomizing the ideal americans at this point, they've been wiped out by somebody in your

the other thing i have in my lap restoring the principles of housing preservation to the san francisco master plan and that is when dean mackris realized he made an error in substituting placement housing and in the course of hearing where the commissioners were supposed to approve his housing element. he came out to me in the audience, took my hand and said i'm going to tell him we made a mistake and we're going to do it. we have a massive mistake. we have some corrupt thing that happened in your department of the redrawing of all the zoning maps, you know. and so, i'm calling this to your attention. we're not talking about 22 plus or some little mistake and you just have to pause these things. developers have had their projects stopped when people filed a new zoning application,

you know. >> thank you. ms. chapman, that's your time. >> hello, this is jonathan randolph. i want to support the housing element update particularly the increase in zones capacity for housing and particularly on the west side because the lack in san francisco is the same of the san francisco bay area. we are a national cautionary tale for not permitting enough housing during the last boom and thus housing enormous amounts of displacement. it's well known that san francisco has many in-law units because planning code 207 imposes strict and for most of my life i lived in the south

side of the city. and if it weren't for these illegal in-law units, i would have been displaced from san francisco a long time ago. san francisco zoning is truly strangling the middle class and the poor so i look forward to the city of hopefully fixing these mistakes of 1960 and 1978 and allowing more housing so that we don't displace more people. thank you. >> hi, this is scott connor. i am a renter in district 2 and i'm calling to support this housing element. i'm really excited about the fact that we are going to be expanding housing capacity and new housing supply in high altitude areas. i live until district 2 and a

think it's a huge policy the city make in the late 1990s. i'm looking at a zoning map right now and most of that you can't build more than a four plex in. this is the richest part of the city and we should be building a ton of market rate housing there that includes the inclusionary zoning ordinances or it contributes to affordable housing. so, these areas if you look at the areas like around north of lafayette park. there's no reason we can't be building buildings like that today in an area that's at the least risk of gentrification for our entire city.

thank you very much. >> go ahead, caller. >> hi everyone. my name is miguel and i'm the director for the social justice at glide i am a long time resident of san francisco you know we need to do something, but we need to do it right. we're requesting the planning department pause the housing this is a tale of many cities and we need to make sure that the poor folks of color have an opportunity to be in the city like san francisco. so we urge you to put a pause and really take a look at doing something right.

appreciate you. thank you. >> hi. i'm calling to say that it's not fair or right to have increased house prices go up all the time. i don't think it's right. people out there who are struggling the ones that have all the money building in their neighborhoods for

we're just reinvesting in our struggling local businesses. commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: thank you president kopel. i would just like to acknowledge the staff efforts in collecting the housing inventory as well as putting up together the housing element report. both items are quite needy actually. and housing inventory did include a lot of information and i would like to make my comments first on the housing

inventory. and thank you for producing this housing inventory. it's pretty expansive and i wish i had more time to read it. for these kind of policies that recommends policies and for up coming years because these are very important. information and there are important comments and data in here. but first, in terms of the housing inventory, my question is that where did you get most of the data. i can start with that first. where are this data come from. >> the data that we get is

primarily from two sources. one is from the permit system within the planning department and the building permit system and the other is from the building department inspection. >> commissioner: and, how long did this process get to you in terms of gathering all this data? >> sorry. how long did it take to compile the information? >> commissioner: yes. >> it does take quite a bit both in planning and also with dbi. we also have to work with all of our housing delivery agencies as they also collect independent data from what we collect including the mayor's office of housing and community development. the office of economic workforce development and other agencies as well who also track

major development projects as well as affordable housing projects. we work very collaborative legal across these agencies. i will say there is a lot of opportunity in making sure we are better coordinated in collecting consistent data as permits flow through the entire permit life cycle and so that's something we're committed to doing at a cui level. >> commissioner: okay. i understand. us being planning, we try to gather as much data as we can. one thing and just to let you know this is very expansive but there were things that i feel like were not not covered these

will be my comments in terms of the housing inventory. i'm saying in the planning department on what kind of story are we telling and so we're focusing more on the racial social equity. i noticed this housing inventory and not necessarily censored on people censored data and there were comments that expansively looking to the missing data. like the american indian population. the lgbtq, you know, and other things. that may have this data and

these are all over. but creating this methodology, we need to have that concept. one thing i feel that's missing in our data reports are the correlations of the data information itself. example, like i was looking in to the demolition and the number of demolition happening and the alterations and then the building types are being built, but there's no correlation to those as well and i'm trying to figure out what are the correlations of this? what does it mean. and i think that's something we need to have a better type analysis or, you know, again, it's more of the story that we

tell. i remember i looked into the anti-eviction project there were some studies they were doing and at the same time. transportation. i think we need to do more questioning as to why are we gathering this data and who are we trying to focus as mentioned earlier. this will effect the today's forecast policies and i'm pretty, you know, i was focusing on the highest demo mission. richmond has the highest alterations and soma has the highest number of units and the

consistent inquiries of condominium buildings. and i think that gives why market rate units and expanding market rate units. so i think we really need to have some wisdom when we are putting out this data analysis. another. and then i will go on to the housing element. again, this housing element report is pretty exspansive. i wish i had more time. i was reading the draft policies which is at the bottom of the report which is about 20 pages long and reading some of the comments of the housing report as well which and i appreciate that this is included in here and even the demographics of the people who

attended the outreach. so i would like to applaud that this is a good report. one thing that i guess i would like to question as what people were kind of focusing on as well is the process. it looks like there's going to be second draft and third draft of the policies on this one and it says that staff will continue to collaborate with housing policy group. i guess my question is who is this housing policy group. can someone answer me on that. >> sure. i can answer. so the housing policy group is made up of i think at this point there are 60 or 70 members. a lot of the folks that were talking today were part of the health and policy group.

it's kind of a group of people who work professionally in housing advocacy or policy or housing development. so we were trying to reach kind of experts of housing. we, you know, tried to kind of go beyond our regular partners and also reach groups and leaders that sometimes our service providers too. so it's a pretty extensive group. >> thank you. and so it looks like the second would be in july to september and that would be it's going to be another attempt to have more open wide public comment or it's already because the phase

1 is that. >> so the up coming, that you're launching right now is made up of focus groups as well as listening sections so public comments are definitely part of this outreach. and, you know, we are really hoping to have a community led outreach. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. i guess another question

it's good to know that through h.h.s. gathered. because the reason i'm asking is because this is pretty expansive information in here. i think and we can say what the commenters were saying is the implementation of this. how it is going to be materialized in the next eight years i think that will be the question here housing production under the

affordability to see these current and future residents. the concerns on the draft policies are the ones that reaches approval time and process by eliminating planning commissions for density project applications that do not otherwise approve them. for a large master plan project construction, timeless infrastructure improvement. development of objective standards review of housing projects. community plan exceptions, housing sustainability districts and other one is the rates on a regular basis. and i think it kind of tells the story of why in our housing

inventory, we're producing more housing market rates instead of more affordable housing. and, when we talk about maintaining usually financial disability for the project those are my concerns. i hope people that are hearing today also looking into that and also the planning for us to rarely look into that in terms of the density projects and see that there are up coming projects coming in and there's a 10% increase of state market or density projects and also

gives us a lot more time to question or plan ourselves. in terms of the details of this report. >> commissioner tanner. >> so i have a couple questions and a lot of comments so bear with me, commissioners. this is as we heard from the public comment and important issue, we all know it's a very important issue. a couple questions. calling up on some of the process questions, when do you all anticipate and how do you foresee selecting the housing

opportunity sites that would be needed as part of our certified housing elements is that part of the next draft, is that part of a future draft. what does that process look like. >> sure. we have done an analysis of our inventory, our sites to be included in this site inventory. but more guidance and a new tool and we kind of have a unique situation and that san francisco used to kind of submit all sites that have potential for development in the city and there have been no changes to state law that puts districts in reusing site so we have to figure out technically how you would comply with that.

but yes, we will be focusing on our inventory in the up coming months. >> okay. >> and, with that process and the changes to state law because i know we can't reuse sites. things that are entitleded, but they're slowly moving through. >> we have not used our pipeline and inventory. we can certainly use those. >> especially if you think we're going to come online in the next eight years that that could be something that we could reliably submit something as plans we've created and building permits that will be issued. that could count.

hopefully, they haven't been issued. that would be a place we'll see some ability to have sites. you talk a little bit about how the element itself once it is drafted, adopted. certified by the state, how that does or does not lead to any zoning changes. even the changes that are success policies. even adopted, don't constitute a change itself. what does that look like after this plan is adopting. providing guidance. and, yes, separate process but the element environmental review is going to be

supportive of changes. >> we think the stoning, we may up it in the future. it's understood to be a site for four units only because that's what it is today. we're really going to be submitting an element based on zoning based on a time period that we submit our plan. >> so, director hillis, did you want to add something. i noticed you came on camera. kind of switching gears but keeping with that same topic. can you explain a little bit more about how those work. i know we for example have a high stability project today.

we heard some people talking about it, but whether the parameters of the housing ability and how that would fit into the policies that are proposed? >> i can speak in general to the work. i'm not very well versed on the details of how they work. they basically [inaudible] it's own a.i.r. and it will streamline the process for projects that would be proposed in that district. >> commissioner: okay. and we have maybe just a couple in the city right now. seems like it's not something that's used extensively. >> just one. >> commissioner: so i guess it would be interesting to take a look at that, you know, if it's

fruitful or not the state legislation whether that is a tool we want to keep expanding or it just doesn't really fit into our framework. some information about that. we'll see if the plan continues to develop. >> question about infrastructure. so we had some comments about kind of planning for complete communities which i know is something we want to do as planning commissioners. where to people work. where do they go to school. where are the recreation facilities. how do we if we're planning for 80,000 new households which means even more people because most households have more than one person, how are we thinking about school district so we can have people living within a 5-minute walk of a park. how do we layer on the facilities there's a path for that. but if you can speak to that, that would be helpful to understand. >> thanks for asking that

question. yeah, we definitely realized that that's access to facilities and resources and infrastructure. it's definitely a key piece of the quality of life and related to housing and that's one goal and kind of spread out through the draft and policies and action. at the same time, you wanted to include some guidance and direction especially as the city's working on updating other general plans # this will

address some guidance. >> okay. i think an important aspect of connecting the dots would be in the goal section where you're talking about community facilities to maybe have some targets that are very broad. everyone lives within a five minute walk of a park. how closed or what kind of schooling we need and other facilities. that way we can point in the direction of we're adding this housing and house holds what kind of neighborhood has been talked about and how do we plan for that and what are the strategies if there are any zoning to think ahead and think about the success of this plan and how do we carve out areas or targets sometime within this next cycle, the city needs to purchase some land within this

neighborhood to build a park. how do we actually think about that so we can be flexible and opportunistic as a city. i think if we can begin to kind of set some targets that are really big, but that can guide us and we can be more flexible. i hope that can be something that's part of the planning process. question for ms. chan. it was around building more public housing like the bus yard and things like that. my yes is, you know, why do we have to do that. at least we don't have to pay the land cost and then i have a

follow up question. if you can explain why we're looking at that being a mixed use project versus all affordable. that would help me understand. >> thank you. i hope you can see me. >> typically our project can try to achieve 80 to 100 units on a site and for large sites such as the rail can accommodate much more housing is really about getting the resources needed to get to that and, unfortunately, we don't have the resources to do that for a lot of the sites that you're referring to. and we do also in terms of

prioritizing want to reach developing including i think the high resource, high opportunity area that was mentioned in the presentation earlier of course, ideally if we had all the funding that we need to build all of the housing that we need, we would, of course, do that, but i think that's that prioritization. >> commissioner: do you think there would be a way to moderate the income or even an ami level that would would be stable for the life of the project which may be a market rate so that there's still that return and aren't just kind of going to whatever the height of

the market goes to. i don't know if you've all looked at that or done any estimates on that type of project would work? >> well, i think on the 100% affordable side we try to serve very low income also the affordable unit then i think on a project by project basis these development sites that there is a range of affordability including moderate income units and seeing what's feasible and what communities want and need. >> i would really encourage and i think using our public land for housing is just a

no-brainer strategy in terms when we have land but combined with and the other facilities that we need to locate. we should be thinking about these sites and what public uses and the numbers work to have it be even the class still have some type of restrictions. it's part of the market. i think this can provide housing and just think about ways to get folks who are still cost burdened in their housing unit. appreciate that question. so i just want to make a couple comments and i'm going to apologize for the length, but i want to say i read through the outreach summary document and it's really fantastic.

i'm sorry to hear that so many people at the table feel their voices were not reflected in the survey or the table. and a lot of really deep listening. so i really want to applaud the department for that work. i'm excited about the number of strategies but i also want to hope in the draft too because having 200 actions, that's a lot of action even for eight years and so i'd like to see us try to understand what are the most impactful actions we can take that serve the groups that need the most and i think about the interconnectiveness. how some action may serve one particular group or part of our i just worry about us having too much and how do we know

we're focusing our resources on it's my understanding of where we are and where the housing element kind of comes from. it comes from state law 1968 or 69 and it compels that the mandate we plan for the future needs of housing in san francisco. we are standing for future residents. this is a plan that's in part around accommodating the growth that's happening in our state and continues to happen and the number of units that it's prebaked and i would say to some degree it is. the state gave them to us a number of housing units that we have to plan for as a city. and that is a number we didn't come up with the planning

department and state law compels. within that 82,000 units, it breaks it down to what types of units do we need to plan for. in fact, the greatest number is that it directs us to plan for our market rate units. i want to just say that because i think it's important to levels that of why are we even talking about the element. it isn't because we think it's a good idea locally. we need to do it in a certain way and meet certain criteria for it to be a certified housing element. so we can disagree with that state law. we can try to change it, but for this cycle, that's kind of the parameters that we're working protecting housing and producing housing and i wanted to highlight areas where i thought to me were some of the most important areas to keep focusing on irreally want to

under score or the city, your combination that every year, it's very easy for tenants to know their rights. so they're not knowing i really want to drive home our city needs a industry and i don't know if it's going to live between the rent board and planning or who's going to own it, how it's going to operate. a city of this size is like 63 or 62%. something really high. we're super majority renters. so we can easily look back and understand the rental history of each property. hey is this a rental. what happened. okay. well let's give the rent board tools to proactively understand who's renting, how much it cost, are people following the rules and what's going on. if we are going to have more up

zoning in high opportunity neighborhoods that are predominantly single family homes now. we need to know where we're starting from, not after the fact try to figure out who was evicted. and, furthermore. with the single family homes in those areas that kind of there's this assumption wellation a single family home. i don't know it were we have that assumption in the united states. [please stand by]

and other ways to actually meaningfully give folks space or reparations for damage that's been done. there's also talk about japanese and filipino families that kwr displaced. i think if we can really invest a lot into chose spaces, but also those practices and think it's out-of-the-box thinking which it is great to see how we're thinking about those communities that have had things, assets taken from them. how do we return that value so we're not just giving someone a rental place that's cheap to live in. we are building wealth. we have first responders, perhaps being expanded and can it be expanded to the bus drivers in the city, folks who are paid by the city who are

important and we see through this pandemic are disaster service kwoerks too. expanded to other groups who have been expanded intentionally and removed by the city so that can own assets here and wealth in the city. i think thinking like that is really important. the dollars behind it have to be big. we're talking about down payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars just for one home. i know it's a big risk for possibly a small group, but i think it's really, really important if we're serious about correcting some of our past errors and mistakes. i also think that the acquisition plan program and preserving and purchasing more hotels is really, really important to preserving and protecting the affordable housing stock that we have. the more founding that can go to those types of programs in addition to building new i think is really, really important. i also want to go out to --

incredibly important, shelter space, navigation centers, people having a bed at night if they choose is to important. i want to underscore the idea of for every bed we're creating we're also helping for prevention we're also helping -- there was a bit of -- provide a shelter bed and then two of something else and four of something else. that type of thinking is really where we need to go. instead of trying to get people out of homelessness, we're preventing folks from getting in there in the first place. it's much cheaper and less stressful. it's really much better. i'm almost done. so the other area i want to go into is the concept of what do we do about where we build housing, and so that's where i think, you know, if we're preserving -- if we are protecting efficiently and effectively, and -- i wanted to highlight, we need to produce more housing. that goes back to one of the requirements to figure out where we could build 82,000 units of housing in the city of san francisco, and i think that

building more housing in the high opportunity areas is important, and again for the members of the public who may not be aware, this is produced by the state of california and it's produced for all communities in the state. not a math that the planning department came up with but one that we are using and that i believe some parts of housing element law require us to use in order to assess where high opportunity areas are. putting more housing in the high opportunity areas. so there's a web of laws that are kind of covering this housing element. so i think the idea of maintaining the hype that we have is i think pretty important because i think for a lot of folks height and kind of the character and scale of the neighborhood is really important. it's really important for pedestrian scale that buildings don't get too tall in many of our areas and how they are designed. i think we can do a lot within the 40 or 50-foot height limit or 60 some of the districts have.

corridors and high capacity transit corridors perhaps keeping the height. i think that could be a high value for those areas and i think we saw a lot of folks thinking about what's appropriate. in our more rh1 neighborhoods where not next to a corridor, not really next to transit as much, i think question really want to look at -- i would like to see us look as rh1 going to 2, but with that i think what's important is not just thinking about the number and maybe it's corner lots going to rh4, kind of following on supervisor mandelman's legislation. i think it's not just about the number that we're saying. it's really about also thinking really carefully about the design. i want to underscore some of the process improvements. i think objective standards are incredibly important. i think working with neighborhoods so the character of the neighborhood is maintained. if the character of the neighborhood is single family detached, let's keep that. let's fit a dupe lex into that

character so it doesn't feel disruptive to the people living there and they are able to maintain the feeling and look of their neighborhood. i'd love to see us have more objective standards so folks like mr. winslo can spend more of his time working with neighborhoods thinking about what are the standards for that neighborhood to maintain the character as it changes. so that we're not, you know, just doing it project by project but really doing it at a scale that can lead to the development that we would like to see happening in our community. i think in addition, thinking about the character being family friendly housing, how we can have some of those housing units and all of them really be accessible, especially in our neighborhoods where it may be hard for seniors as they age to go up and down the stairs to ever thinking about housing turning over, how do we have family friendly and accessible design that are part of the new housing stock that could be resulting from that change. and the last thing i want to say, i think we could think about how through that process we can create more stability in

those areas. so while i think the idea of building more housing and even moderately opening up housing in high opportunity areas through let's say rh2 and commercial corridors and transit corridors becoming more dense is interesting -- showed that a lot of areas, for example, in the sunset are stable and not at risk of displacement or change. and so those are areas that aren't gentrifying. they may be pretty expensive, but they are kind of stable, and so thinking proactively. if we do open up more opportunity for new housing in these areas, how do we also protect again and preserve the folks who are there so it's not disruptive and it doesn't lead to more displacement of those communities. the very last thing i want to say is, you know, to the members of the coalition who have called in today i would love to meet with you and have an exchange. what are the specific policies,

actions, goals or strategies that you want to see or that you don't want to see in the plan. i don't know that we have, unfortunately, the capacity to slow down the process, but we do have more process ahead. i'm interested in hearing what are the specific things that are in the plan right now that you feel are not going the direction that we want, or are things that were excluded, like we heard from seniors, from disability advocates and lgtbq advocates that there's not enough emphasis there. please do reach out. i'd love to hear from you very specifically what could be added or what specific outreach techniques or tools or strategies could be included in this next phase that would help to achieve the goals you have? i do want to say, though, with that, that market rate housing is part of the plan. it's part of what we have to plan for. but i think what i want to emphasize is that once we get the standards down, if we get our zoning change, if question do all that, the market rate housing will to some degree build itself and we don't need to do a lot of effort.

what we need to put our city staff time on is the affordable housing because that's what's hard to build. that's where i differ a bit from the other commissioner. i think the -- market rate housing to bring up our staff to work on the more important and critical and hard-to-reach tasks of figuring out where to put parks and building schools, these questions and working with the community is nor important than the commission having to review market rate housing. it's things we don't need to review, like the state density bonus. why are we reviewing it? let's get it going so it takes less time for that to get developed. it's going and [indiscernible] providing on-site affordable, so let's get those market rate and affordable units built so we can focus our time on these things. it's 4:30. i'm still talking, goodness' sakes, and so these are the things that we really want, and i would love to see the commission spending both of our

time on that. i will conclude my comments. i want to thank the staff for their time and the community for participating. we really appreciate it. >> commissioner chen. >> thank you. i will keep my comments efficient, but i want to thank department staff for their presentation and for the reports and definitely to the public for sharing your testimony. i think for me the numbers are really interesting to kind of present a current snapshot of what exists, but i really want to dig into eventually the larger context and interpretation about, you know, why we are seeing these numbers. so first for the housing inventory, i'm curious to sort of understand why we include -- in the count of affordable housing units. you know, we heard 818 affordable units were added in 2020, of which 128 were adus, which is a substantial number, and i think part of this is tide to the term question often hear around affordable by design, and

for me i think in the future it would be helpful to have some evidence to, you know, really evaluate that statement, and part of that could be having a finer topology of adus, understanding differences in sizes and, you know, the amounts that they might actually be rented out, and part of that might be actually comparing it to the hud rental affordable housing guidelines. i think table 21, and digitally asking -- at those levels and, you know, with the future rental registry, i think we would have that information moving forward and it would be helpful to include that in the future report. on the -- program, i was curious to know a little bit more about what waivers and concessions for -- were being utilized for those projects. able 6 on page 60 seemed a little bit sparse and had a lot of not available information in the columns. i think it would be helpful for the commission to understand a

little bit about the concessions that are perhaps most appealing. for the health and balance reports, table 8 for both reports was really striking to me, just the chart that shows -- remove from protective status or withdrawn from stabilization. you know, not surprising to me district nine saw the greatest loss of units moved from protective status followed closely by d8, but i was surprised to see d1 and d4 following closely behind. i understand that some of those numbers are due to including owner move-ins as part of the koupt and some of those units may eventually go back to, you know, rental status in the fall and the rent control ordinance, but i do think part of the idea is keeping preservation of existing housing in mind, especially for those districts in d1 and d4, and these are the same districts that are seeing the greatest negative commuter housing balance. they are basically not adding

affordable housing despite losing the protected units. for the housing element update, i really appreciate staff for doing this outreach, especially during the pandemic, which i can imagine was not easy. i hope future rounds of outreach can really be more -- impacted and vulnerable communities to really translate that feedback into policy and actions. two things that stood out to me in the summary of draft these assessment, one is that the number of families with children remain stable at the same time as shared household declining, and so households with children, 18% in san francisco, lowest among the cities in the u.s., and moving forward with the housing element i think is really important to have a greater emphasis and stronger language in reversing those numbers. the second statistic that stood out to me was highlighting that 50% of single family homes are

owned by low-income or moderate-income households. that was surprising to me too, and i think we should keep this in account when we talk about the zoning of single family residential naikdz and really taking this nuanced approach between development and preservation. my last comment is more broadly about how to put a human face and a user friendly approach to these policy discussions around the [indiscernible]. i think a lot of these discussions around housing -- construction, production numbers are a little bit sterile and they seem to overshadow the fact that it's about planning for people and communities and we do want to consider the users, not just the use, and i think income is maybe the closest we get to in user needs, but the use of a unit is really going to vary whether you are a family with children or seniors or people with disabilities, so one thing i think is really important, yes

the increase in housing and units, but really trying to conserve the quality of the units and the -- matched with user needs, and especially those kwho haven't had their needs met in the housing market for years or decades. so those are my comments, and thank you again to everyone who worked on these projects. >> so seeing no one else in the queue -- >> i'm sorry, commissioner. commissioner feng is requesting to sfeek. >> commissioner, please go ahead. >> i guess i'd sent it not to everyone.

okay. my apologies. a few comments. the study as developed, in my opinion, the breadth of it is quite expansive, and it's covered an extremely wide range of issues, many of which had been discussed in public comment today. of interest is the fact that this was the second time i've gone through the housing element and, of course, multiple times on the housing inventory. first time when i was on this commission previously, in the middle of a recession, the

mantra was no housing was being developed. when i came on this time, the nantra was housing, housing, housing. i'm in agreement with that in general. however, i think it needs to be a little bit more specific. i think the need for housing is definitely within the affordability -- affordable unit types, but also within the middle income tax. those with some level of wealth are gonna be able to have many options. those are very little wealth have very few options, so the focus i think is to see how we're going to handle the

additions and definitions within the housing element we're proposing to be able to expand upon these, and i think that is a principles theme for the housing element. two things struck out from the -- both the inventory and the data that was provided and the housing element study. one is that it appears now for the last two years the amount of units accomplished is less than those that have been entitled, whereas in previous years the amount that have been accomplished, and i assume that means going through the building department in terms of permitting and then hopefully

initiation of construction had exceeded the number of units that had been entitled. are these two years a trend indicating that those units that have been entitled are not being constructed, not going through the implementation process and producing actual units? and if so, is that a temporary issue or is it a long-term issue? secondly, if you look at the opposition of where these units are being done, they are all in primary -- the vast majority are in very large projects. very few are being done

elsewhere, meaning projects that are 20 units plus and above. if one looks at the land mass of san francisco, one sees that the vast majority of units are being entitled and built and approximately 30% of the city's residential area. 50% or a little bit more of the total number of units in the city -- let me rephrase that. i think i was incorrect with what i said. the opposition of the inventory of units in san francisco -- the

composition of the inventory of units in san francisco, 50 something percent of all units are in low-density zoning. the creation of new units is not happening in larger land mass of san francisco. the two areas that i would focus on in terms of what is it that planning can do. the aspirational elements are fine. many of the things that are talked about, whether it's the funding, building and operation of rental or housing units is not something that planning has any control over. but the things we do have control over, and i would probably look at two areas, one is if 50 something percent of

the land mass of san francisco has very low density, it makes sense to look at what are our options, and some of the things that are being done are proposed in this housing element makes sense. i think they need to be fleshed out more so that people have a clear understanding that we're not talking about dropping high-rises in the middle of single family homes. the second that i think makes a lot of sense has been brought up in the course of the study, an that is what happens in the -- in terms of density in the transit-rich corridors. i think we should be looking at density incentives there. but it's not just for housing.

it would be perhaps a tier process for middle income housing, and perhaps the high -- so that we can then perhaps incentivize that in terms of getting people to be able to build that kind of housing. at this point i think that the staff has done a fairly good job of stakeholder engagement in terms of outreach. i'll just leave this as a draft. it will continue to be developed, and i think the implementation side is gonna require a lot more fleshing out so that we can provide something that is concrete in addition to

what is aspirational. >> commissioner moore? >> time -- and i want to keep my comments very, very short. thank you to everybody, staff, the public and my fellow commissioners for very thoughtful comments and thought-provoking ideas. i wanted to pick up on commissioner tanner's thoughts about rental registration. this has been mentioned many, many times before. this is helping us as one tool of helping us. i would like to ask how are we

factoring in vacancies? starting in 2010, the number of unoccupied housing units in san francisco have always been of large concern have been standing vacant for years. have you factored these in? have you been able to track them in any form if those numbers are reflected in those studies? >> thank you for that question. we have -- we have definitely studied the trends and vacancy, and in terms of factoring in the

number of vacant units into i'm assuming i think you mean the original targets. i don't know if that's something that will be possible per state law. however, we do have policies and actions that talk about vacancy and discouraging it. but as far as factoring them in to the kind of projection numbers, i don't believe that will be possible per state law requirement. >> thank you for answering that question. i would like to have that discussion at some other point with the commissioner as well as planning of artificial building volumes that are available but cannot be utilized to help us with bringing down the numbers

of units needed. a discussion perhaps for a different type of environment. thank you. >> i too want to extend my thanks and appreciation to the staff for the enormous amount of work that's gone into the preparation, both of these documents and to the community for taking the time to participate in all parts of this process. i really also want to thank my fellow commissioners for the thoughtfulness of their comments and really just want to limit my comments to one area that i don't think may have been sufficiently touched on so far, and that is i guess i would like confirmation from staff that you are as part of this process talking to the providers of the kinds of housing that we would like to see built that is not currently being built and to

understand the real-world obstacles and hurdles that are getting in the way of the production of that type of housing. let me just call out two examples. if we would like to see more -- we have an aging population in the city. we would like to see more facilities of all kinds for older adults. one of the kinds of facilities we'd like to see are the small residential care facilities in the neighborhood. so if they are going out of business, we're not seeing the expansion of them. what is actually getting in the way? is it a land use problem that we can fix through zoning or is it a financial problem that requires, you know, subsidies that no matter what we do from a land use perspective are not really gonna help if in fact the solution to that problem is financial subsidies. so that's one example. a second is, you know, the missing middle housing. my understanding, i completely agree and endorse the concept of

having much denser housing along the commercial corridors, and i'll take geary as an example. geary as it heads west. the current stoning there would allow -- zoning there would allow for, even if we did nothing would allow for the production of much higher denser development than we are currently seeing exist, and yet we're not seeing very many proposals. why? what is it that's getting in the way of current developers? is it that they need greater heights? they need greater density, that the process is too fraught, it takes too long to get through? it feels so me important to, you know, talk with the actual providers of that kind of housing to make sure that we understand the hurdles and that among the panoply of suggestions and goals and policies we are including that we are targeting or prioritizing those that really would make a difference. and you may already be doing that, and if so that's fantastic, but if not, i

would -- and if you are, i think you should let us know that. and if not, then i would encourage you to undertake that part of the outreach in the next step of this process. thank you. >> thank you. i'll just quickly respond. we have talked a little bit with senior advocates, but that's in an area that, if you like, are -- outreach didn't go far enough, and we are really hoping to pursue that further. and as far as talking with, you know, providers of housing, kind of smaller multi-family, that's also an area that we are working on. we have had a few conversations as part of a housing groups, and we want to expand that. thanks for highlighting that. >> thank you. >> commissioners, that concludes

your deliberation on this matter. we should probably move on to the rest of your agenda. hearing no additional requests to speak from commissioners, we can move on to item eight for case no. 2021-0031-0-prj, transitioning shared spaces to a permanent city program. this is also an informational presentation. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> just a quick intro item before robin jumps in. i just wanted to talk about -- >> can you hear me now? >> i can, yes.

sorry, wanted to frame this item and the next one, which is the mayor small business recovery act, because they are related in part of mayor breed's kind of broader recovery efforts, assisting small businesses, particularly those in our neighborhood, the commercial corridors. as you know and have heard from us previously, this effort started with the mayor and then the economic recovery task force which was established in october of last year mayor breed announced the city would transition shared spaces from a temporary program to a permanent one, and in march the mayor, lang with supervisor mandelman, supervisor safai and -- ordinance before you. am i still breaking up? >> [indiscernible]. >> okay, sorry. the codified version, when

you're going to hear -- which you're going to hear about from robin carries forward much of the temporary versions while reintroducing some processes for public input as well as more rigorous design requirements. -- permanent programs build on our parklet program which was conceived here over 12 years ago and shared spaces will be coordinated by planning. just wanted to thank robin who has done a tremendous amount of work, our entire team has done a tremendous amount of work both bringing up and implementing the temporary program, as well as developing the permanent program so robin and others, just wanted to give them a shout out and a huge thank you. so with that i'll turn it over to robin.

>> thank you. i'm getting a little bit of feedback. can everyone hear me okay? hopefully we're okay. thank you, director, president koppel, vice-president moore, commissioners. pleasure to be back before the commission to update you on the shared spaces. in addition to the planning staff which the director acknowledged, i wanted to recognize some of our interagency team who is also here with us this evening should any questions come up for matters specific to their jurisdiction.

impacting. next i'll dive into the policy goals and in that sort of drive the legislation and the way that the legislation implements on those goals. and then we'll also talk a little bit about how we're going to affect this complex transition from this temporary program and bringing all of the constituents into one. and a quick recap, shared spaces take place in the out of doors. this program was conceived to allow primarily, you know,

commercial activities that wouldn't have otherwise been possible inside due to covid-19, community transmission concerns and have taken it out of doors. and as director hillis mentioned earlier this is really building on the innovation and experimentation that we have been doing here in san francisco. we didn't need to reinvent the wheel and we just had to adapt programs and public space activation and public realm activation that we were already well versed in. and, you know, probably most notably on the sidewalks and on the curbside lanes in that topology that is native to san francisco. and we have helped the communities close on a recurring basis streets, for recurring pop-up environments as

unenclosed areas like parking lots and predevelopment sites and the like. the uses have also varied and we're all pretty familiar with the way in which it's been adapted for outdoor dining and also for outdoor retail. so personal services such as haircuts and personal fitness have moved activities out of doors during the pandemic. and very pandemic specific functions include reserving cure pick-up. very very short-term layovers to exchange or pick up essential goods like medications and groceries and so forth. and then, of course, this is so that folks are safely distanced from one another as they're waiting to essential goods and service providers, retailers in our corridors. notably, and we'll talk about

this a little bit more deeply later, when appropriate, given the public health directives, entertainment, arts and culture activities have also been a really critical layer. accessory to the shared spaces commercializes and that have been a plus. recovering and healing as a community and a city. so, you know, the program was conceived and operated really in response to the trends that we were seeing -- the economic trends that we were seeing during the covid-19 pandemic. this data is from a past report from the end of last year, from the san francisco programs at the time, the third in the country in terms of small business closures and then fourth in terms of documented permanent closures of those small businesses. we know that this trend is

something that will pay out, even past the public health pandemic itself, the public health emergency. our kind of dealing with the fallout and stabilizing our locally owned businesses in our neighborhoods and the commercial corridors will be an ongoing endeavor in future years. the will program was first launched in july as director hillis had mentioned it's been a very eventful -- july 2020 -- it's been a very eventful 10 plus months. this slide is mostly just to illustrate that, you know, we've had to deliver this program as a city in a varied environment. the city, the county, the state, has moved back and forth through different phases of risk level from tier yellow to red, and through the deaths of this past winter, 2020-2021, we, of course, fell under the state's

regional shelter-in-place order that was even more intensive than the purple because of our i.c.u. capacity falling below the threshold. so there's been a lot of inconsistency and inequality of the part of the population that is currently on the street which we will talk about a little bit later. all of that variability in the environment and the uncertainty, we know from our permit volume that the interest in the small business sector is very high in the program and we saw, you know, rapid growth and then we maintained steady interest as demonstrated even through the depths of that most intensive shelter in place in the winter. since the program launched we received over 3,000 applications for shared spaces and you can see that about 69% of the

applications that currently have an operational permit. and the types of places where folks are activating are sponsored shared spaces. and it's quite varied and you can see from the slide that there's a good span between the shared spaces on the sidewalk and the curbside lane and in many cases sort of the shared spaces (indiscernible) and the curbside pickup, reserved parking is another fairly significant (indiscernible). and we mentioned earlier -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt you but your audio is beginning to cut in and out if you kill your video, it might assist. >> thanks for that warning, jonas, i appreciate it. midway through the shared spaces

program, the entertainment commission worked on providing an opportunity, a way for performing artists to also to be part of the solution out in public space. and so since the program launched, we've had 222 of those shared spaces sites apply for some kind of entertainment permit, about 68 of those in effect. we're working with the city economist office to, of course, to get into more detailed analysis about what the impacts actually have been. not only for individual merchants and small businesses, but, you know, collectively in terms of the employment base that was just salvaged (indiscernible) and, of course (indiscernible) we don't quite have it yet. we will have quarter two data from fiscal year 2021-2022, this would be september-december, 2020, that we'll be able to

analyze and update the research that we've done so far in terms of understanding what the (indiscernible) clearly the impact has been. there's ongoing impact surveys, equity impact surveys, who we are keeping track of who is participating in shared spaces. you know, what does this group of merchants and small business owners look like? we know that about half, actually, a little bit more than half that of shared spaces are women-owned enterprises. we also know that another third of them identify as immigrant homes and over a third identify in some way or another as minority owned. we surveyed our -- our impact survey also tells us that if not for the economic recovery task force and mayor breed creating this program, folks wouldn't

have been able to operate at all under the state and the city's public health directives. so it has been critical to allowing for continued operation at some scale, obviously, not at 100% capacity, but to help people to hang on to the most dire shelter-in-place, as well as to allow folks, you know, to avert having to close permanently. many of these businesses are legacy businesses, you know, merchants who have been serving their neighborhoods and their communities in some cases decades. also driving our i think push to make this a permanent lasting opportunity for shared spaces operators, and for reasons that i mentioned earlier which is that we know that economic recovery will be slow going, but also that lo and behold after 10 months san francisco has discovered it does have an appetite for an outdoor dining culture.

so it might not have been the first assumption that we had about san francisco, cool and gray and sometimes gusty climate, nonetheless, we see that folks like to be outside and dine. that concludes the kind of background on the shared spaces program. i'm going to move into the policy goals that the ordinance that was introduced by mayor breed and supervisors mandelman, safai, stefani, and haney are organized around these nine policy goals. again colleagues from m.t.a. and they are here in case there's detailed questions about all of these. so starting with simplifying the city. so as i mentioned earlier, we already do a lot of great public space work and we know how to do it safely and we know how to do

it effectively. and we just want to consolidate all of those good ideas and merge them with shared spaces so merchants have an easily accessible set of strategies and tools to bring the commercial activities outdoors for community groups to activate their streets and sidewalks. that is streamlined in terms of understanding there. and to know that the covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated and deepened the inequities. so we're very intentional through the temporary phase of the program as well as through the proposed codified version of the program to leverage it in a fashion that helps to explicitly to address inequities rather than replicate and to deepen those. so we shall continue, and making

sure that some of our covid distressed geographies get extra technical assistance and support in the form of grants and in the form of e.s.l. outreach and the like. we know that economic recovery, i keep saying this, is going to persist. it's going to go beyond the formal end of emergency -- public health emergency. in this way the legislation does stagger a few key milestones in order to have merchants to enter a new codified program in a way that is not unduly stressful. so the legislation has two key concepts which are kind of illustrated in this slide that i'll talk about. one has to do with design and compliance. this is around compliance and

safety and so forth. and the other has to do with fee assessments. and looking at the first one, what we're in essence doing with the legislation that is providing for is giving everyone a long run way -- six months or more between now and december 31, 2021, to fix any compliance issues that we might have documented at their site. so this ranges from things like, you know, having an a.d.a. accessible threshold condition between their parking deck and the sidewalk. the fire department has also worked with us over the last 10 months to come up with even more rigorous design guidelines to ensure that emergency personnel are able to pass through these structures and access the facade, the ingress and the,

egress parts of buildings. to be be erected to serve this emergency need and we know that we'll have to work with facing these issues and to become compliant with the codified requirements. so our team, monica, gregory, deana and rest of our team will be working with shared spaces to understand what those new requirements are and to help to bring them into compliance. we will also announce a compliance grant program to help offset some of the costs that are associated with that -- that work. the second big concept is that fees are going to be deferred. so far during the emergency early in the program, these permits are free, that was, you know, a key tenet of the emergency response program. and to be free through the end of this fiscal year. we will assess fees or the legislation that we propose to

assess fees, permit fees for parklets starting in the new fiscal year, july 2021, but the collection of those will be deferred to the very end of the year giving folks, again, enough time to get back on their feet in order to (indiscernible) another key provision of the shared spaces temporary program, of course, was enlivening these spaces when appropriate given the covid health restrictions, given the good neighbor policies and rules. (indiscernible) for entertainment. so we will be carrying this forward. there are tools that the entertainment commission already has that will allow actually a lot of this to carry forward without the explicit work on our part to amend any code. the small business recovery act, which you will hear just after this agenda item, is affecting

some small tweaks in code to also further to enable this where entertainment is not already principally permitted in open lots. another crucial element of bringing this program into the future and foremost in many folks' mind is how we maintain balance in our streets and rights of ways and on our curbs with all of the competing demands that is necessary for our streets to perform. so we will be implementing the city's management strategy adopted by the board in february 2020 in order to assess appropriateness of location for shared spaces moving forward. during the pandemic, we did allow a lot of conditions to kind of emerge that we customarily or otherwise would not have. so, for example, a yellow

curbside loading zone or in a transit boarding area for a bus line that had been temporary suspended by muni in their core service plan. as our commercial corridors begin to open back up, more businesses open and economic activity, you know, resumes, which is what we all want, we know that transportation and circulation demands in our corridors will increase in a commensurate faction. so that means big picture that there will be a rebalancing of the curbuse allocation in our corridors to allow for this new kind of more intense use of the parking lane for shared spaces. but not to the detriment or the sacrifice of sufficient loading, short-term unmetered parking, you know, bus zones and so forth. also something that is attended

to, you know, like the discourse around the parklet topography is the idea that these facilities could and should be public assets. they should be giving back to their local neighborhoods and maintaining some kind of invitation back to their neighborhoods that improves the quality of the streetscape and affords amenity. so some very key provisions are being introduced in the shared spaces legislation that somewhat diverges from our prior regulatory kind of framework for parklets. in that we are allowing commercialization of these -- of the locations. the pre-covid parklet was one that was a facility that was accessible to anyone, and you didn't have to be a patron of

the sponsoring business in order to take a seat there, but, you know, we have adapted that through the pandemic, you know, to allow for more intensive commercial use. so the big picture is that whether or not you're a parklet, that is sort of open to the public at all times and you are, you know, you're operating a parklet that is not intended for groups and maybe you are -- and maybe you're a pizza and wine space and you invested in a parklet, but either way there's a part of this facility, on the parklet itself or on the building or nearby that is a publicly accessible facility so that you're still giving back to the neighborhood and you can imagine, you know, a grandparent picking their grandchild up from school and walking home about 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon and passing by a whole bunch of these parklets. and you should be able to grab

an ice cream or not grab an ice cream and sit on your journey home. so we're taking the best parts of our pre-covid-19 program and our covid shared spaces program and organizing them under a single (indiscernible) so what we're in effect doing is creating a kind of set of different options or tiers that you might want to operate a park (indiscernible). so tier one it resembles what we had before covid. and tier 3, what we dub as the commercial parklet is what most shared spaces look like today and we'll go into expectations for all of these in a moment. but to just put some visuals in terms of the variety of things that we may be seeing on our streets that may relate to one another. critically, there's this tier, that commercial parklet.

and this is an important option for folks for many reasons. as you can see it's a lighter investment. in last 10 months of shared spaces, that some parkletiers might offer something like this before they upgrade to something that is more from a kind of a design point of view as robust. so we want to have the ability to do something lightweight and much less expensive. this is also a really important opportunity to provide an option, rather, to provide -- because it means that during the hours and the days of the week that you're not operating, popping up in a curbside lane, that curbside can be turned over to other critical needs and functions. again, short-term parking, you know, commercial or passenger loading, all of the other needs that we know that our commercial corridors have in terms of

circulation. so just a few more pictures what that tier two parklet is like around the city. we know that these can be safe, attractive and comfortable locations to have part-time pop-up. and a bit more nitty-gritty and reiterating the last few visual slides. these are how well these tiers are rated next to one another and the expectations that we have. critically, again, each parklet irrespective of what tier you're in needs to provide a seating facility, even during the hours of commercial operation and in daylight hours. that's also another critical nuance to the legislation as proposed.

formerly with the pre-covid parklet, somewhere around 65 or 70 around the city -- there was no provision or actually it was prohibited to close off your parklet. we're now creating an option for those who want to to take measures overnight and to secure their parklet from, you know, for safety. so we know that not everyone will need or feel compelled to do this, but for those parkletiers in neighborhoods where the street life dynamics are such that they feel compelled to take measures to secure the parklet just overnight, that will now be allowed. during daylight hours, the provision is for these sites to be accessible. and the proposed fee structure follows the tiers and it's

obviously costs more to acquire a fee relative to the intensity of the commercial use. so along the lines of making this really easy for folks to access in terms of a program commensurate with and in line with a lot of the drivers of (indiscernible) and we are simply looking at ways that fees are collected and we're consolidating those all with the treasure and tax collectors office who will be handling the fees where many small businesses already pay license fees for other types of permits. and we're working with the department of digital services to create a single one-stop-shop permit intake portal.

so whether or not you are seeking to activate the sidewalk on a recurring basis, or, you know, maybe close a side street off your commercial corridor, with your neighbors, once a month -- you will submit all of your materials through one portal. this is a complex interagency program, but the applicant won't have to run around town trying to get multiple approvals and permits from multiple different agencies. (please stand by)

and we'll do coordination behind the scenes to acquire subsidiary sign off from other agencies. here is a quick view of how the backbone behind the scenes of how the city will conduct review and approval for specific components of the (inaudible). missing from this slide is a row from curbside (inaudible). will be handled by the m.t.a.

happily, we've also seen a lot of coordination and collaboration between makes so we've have merchants jointly operating or co-operating a shared space. and this is activities that we would like to see continue. we've also learned a lot from scaling up the park let program from 60 to over 1,500 over the last 10 months and that encouraging this between neighbors is critical to a site but a commercial corridor's. for this reason we are codifying requirements for consent from neighbors and sparking spaces to

lineup in front of your storefront and there's a lot of sharing of that front age area between neighboring businesses so we're requiring that if you, as a merchant, want to pop in front of your neighbor's front age, the groundfloor ten apartment or occupant of that space provide written consent. in absence of that groundfloor tenant that the property owner of the neighboring property provide written consent. >> how much more time do you need for your presentation? >> this is the last slide. >> thank you. you are limited to 20 minutes and you are way over. >> thank you. last slide, just pointing out that we are also consolidating the ways and streamlining the ways that enforcement will be

(inaudible). i'll stop sharing my screen and we can move to public comment. >> members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star and 3. through the chair, you will have two minutes. when you hear it's been unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: i'm sorry. this is christopher from (inaudible) and i'm not sure if this has to do with the store next to me for in -- but i was

giving my support for it. >> hello. >> if you want to make a comment on this, sir. we'll take the next caller. >> caller: hi, my name is renee occurren and i live in the inner sunset. i have a lot of concerns about this plan. and i think that the spearer tried to address them but i didn't fell they were addressed. for one it was great to have these park let's during the pandemic and to continue as long as we open up and you know, this hasn't been tried under the traffic conditions that we'll have when we open up. and i'm also really concerned about how these spaces will be

shared and through a cold climate and a lot of these restaurants are right near paying for heating lamps and other amenities and how willing are they to just pop down and sit in this space without giving them business. also, those on the sidewalk. it's not always pleasant to walk through these spaces like walking through a restaurant. so, you know, these spaces aren't shared and they're not public space anymore once we allow this to be permanent. thank you. >> caller: i'm a paratransit client, i'm on the paratransit

council. i previously won an award from paratransit council for my advocacy. i'm going to suggest youth stamp or the direct formulate a plan for stamp to present to the paratransit council and the current process to stop provide specific since the statistics i've mentioned for months and months and months on your own stamp presenter how there are times where people with disabilities can't get to a destination because of this program. look at the 200 block of church.

>> we made a presentation about three types of park let's. he didn't make that same presentation last friday to the disability couple. he is giving the public biased, incomplete information. go back and look at this eastside of church street in the 200 block. there's a non compliant unsafe parklet. i've complained about that to months for various people. i mention touchdown to your current staff and the disability

couple. and to the t.p.w. staff who are lurking on the disability council. no one has done a damn thing. they've said nothing and they've not responded and they've not looked at the unsafe tee of the eastside park let in the middle of the 200 block of church street where the fence posts are butting the curb. meaning when it rains the water pushes up against the post and then goes onto the sidewalk bringing with it sand, grit, dirt, leaf litter which makes the sidewalks slippery. >> thank you, sir. >> caller: good evening.

my name lucille. i've met with about 15 small businesses along the mission corridor in this group we have discussed the disparity for the different needs that businesses have experienced during covid and i have heard from our migrant businesses owned by people of color and how they have been support during the time and to keep the businesses a float and i think that is partners has been a wait and been able to remain open and create some sort of revenue during these tough times and we can see how they can be successful and however, i do think that this program lasts policies and there are two different realities for businesses and you have a capital or you don't. it's as classic tale of san francisco the battle of the have and have nots it's unfortunate that has magnified during with covid and it's charter tieing in san francisco and if this program is here to say we need to say our most vulnerable business owners have the same

opportunities of anyone and make them a priority. during the last six months, they have helped over 30 small businesses along the for dore applying for the program to see financial help and with those 30 businesses, only one of them got approved for support. i think that we still have a long way to keep these programs and shared spaces and our communities and to cater just to more avenue flew enter businesses so i can that you please pause so we can gather more communities input and make this program more equitable, thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, corey smith and just speaking as an individual and a resident, the last couple of speakers really did highlight some of the things we need to pay attention

to as this program gets rolled out and does become more permanent and i want to reiterate and i believe that all of you believe this that we're not going to get it perfect from the start so being open to iterations and improvements throughout, and order to create a more inclusive equitable program makes a lot of sense. the last thing i want to emphasis for a variety of reasons, removing private car space in exchange or open space and places for people to gather is good city planning and makes our city more enjoyable and i, like many san franciscans, really look forward to these becoming permanent pieces of our commercial corridors. thank you. >> hello. can everyone hear me? hello? >> we can hear you, fine.

>> caller: thank you. my name is jeff and i live in the mission district and i've been here 20 years and i've been in the city for longer and yeah, i really appreciate that the presenter from the city talked about not exacerbating existing equities.

they're a big restaurant and it's a crazy standard and it's just like amazing if you have enough resources you can take more resource and these were public. the speaker just now talked about removing private car space in favor of public space is a good thing and well sure, it's not what i see happening. and probably one of the most egregious that i know about in the mission on the mission playground and is the restaurant called the beehive that is just in the public parks and kicking people right out of a public and it used to be a public park and it's not ok. the land grab and privatization of public space and it's not acceptable. if the program is going to continue they need to be fully public. the speaker from the city talked about an example of a grand mother walking the grandchild down the street and he caught himself, he said or not buy a

ice cream cone but that's the crux of it. we have every square foot of space in the city to be only that you have to spend money and i hope the city -- >> clerk: thank you, sir, that's your time. >> caller: corey smith again, not supposed object the line. didn't press it. >> caller: good evening, ozzie with san francisco land use coalition. it's one thing to allow outdoor seating on the street to remedy the shut down during the covid when there are few people around and little traffic in motion but to make these permanent in normal times is hazardous to pedestrians, hazardous to bicyclists and to disabled and they make it harder for businesses in the vicinity whose

signage will be blocked by these structure and they have to double park to deliver their goods. how are we going to deal with the energy requirements and mark twain said summers are the coldest winters. these outdoor spaces need heating and outdoor heating and that usual add to our carbon footprint and the city speaks from both sides of its mouth. you make gas in new construction illegal. then, you come up with a new scheme that legalizes way more gas usage than a stove in a house. that is why we, the correlation for san francisco, land use coalition, is completely against this. and by the way, just a friendly note to the millionaires for million dollar homes, including professor henry higgons who

commented earlier when tons of people of color show up at a hearing to public comment about the housing issues, it's bad form and bad p.r. to dis rent control and ask for more housing on the same land where these folks live and raise their families. just saying. thank you. >> hi, my name is cj and i'm a daughter of a immigrant mission in the business and i would like to ask the planning department that you need to conduct proper engagement with the communities that you are impacting as a business owner, we do not have to learn shared spaces lem h legislative to provide necessary feedback. we need to provide input so that we can let the planning department realize that this legislative doesn't provide fit

everyone, not everyone is able to fit this kind of model that you are planning for us. so i would like to -- the shared space legislation be paused until enough collaboration with the communities is going to impact has been given enough information. thank you. >> my name is richard scath. my first comment is the city has the responsibility to protect ris course and visitors alike i don't believe it meets codes for

access or the and it's

unsuccessful and i want to see how the use of these shared spaces meet both title 2 and 3 of the americans with disabilities and act california building code and they have had a massive reduction and sidewalk inspection and we already see and looking at the photos, in your presentation, there are photos there that show a line of trajection from vehicles. you have taken over the parkings lane and you have not provided k-rail, for example, to protect. >> that is your time. >> caller: my name is michael

nolte i'm the coordinator of protection san francisco streets and sidewalks for all. we request the full review of the returning as much parking and sidewalks after covid-19 pandemic. we request that a process be established by neighbors and stakeholders to remove hazardous and spaces that interfere with the disabled. it was established with very little oversight and the program relied on citizens complaints to monitor this process and also causing terrible parking near and in front of those small businesses that are currently using the shared space program. other issues are noise

complaints after 10:00 p.m. for businesses operating after 10:00 p.m. and as a mobility disabled seniors and i want to access for all for the future of san franciscans that we need and deserve all access and i also want to agree with some of the other speakers that talked about disabled access and i also want to agree with the comments about immigrant families need to have translation on understanding this program that is to go forward and i think a lot of times, we only see these things in english and not in multi language documents and so i am really sad to hear that even this program is in english. thank you.

>> good afternoon, my name is robert and i live in and i am not a small business owner but i am someone that has been at restaurants and that is used these shares spaces and i think i've seen a lot of small businesses in my neighborhood and i've been in danger of close or have closed and i've seen statistics that we could lose half of san francisco small businesses and which would be a devastating impact to our economy i don't think we want to see if that bo happen if and we've seen that 80% of small businesses would want to run a shared space in some form

temporary permit and i share concerns about equity but i think it makes sense to a place car space requests shared spaces and we think about it this way the price of admission for using a car parking is those of dollars on a car to own and operate it. is that really the type of policy that we want to enforce it and it's ok to use public land and for car storage as long as you can pay for t. i don't think that's really a good message and i don't think that's a good alternative. i think cars also add a lot more greenhouse gases to the environment than gas heaters and i would hope that we can also encourage businesses electric heat rather than gas too so i think with those things in mind, i'm all in favor of more shared

spaces. thank you. >> caller: hi, my name is eric kaplan and i live in telegraph hill and i love shared spaces. i have long felt that san francisco does not have enough spaces to eat and drink outdoors and that's been the silver line and i hope you make it permanent but i have concerns about the program as proposed and i want to highlight they're focused on the shared nature of these spaces and the fact that this is how we're talking about how we use public land so the the thing of having business owners approve a shared space this is based on the erroneous idea that parking spaces belong to the

property owners. i want to make sure there's public access to these places and i understand that you know, if you are a restaurant that does table service you need to be able to manage your tables and take care of that but, when you are not currently doing table service on the shared space, i think it should be open to the public 24/7. and serren dip tusly, you know, commercial corridors, where these places are going up, are some of the most transit

accessible parts of the city so, these are the parts where we're taking away parking and the parts of the city where we need parking the least because of the wonderful public investment that we made in muni and the other thing is you know, we've heard a lot about how this is privatization of public space but, a third of san francisco households don't own cars and -- >> caller: hi name is rayy tam. i love the park let since the opening in the summer. dining has been great. the city has been really very festive and it feels great especially out in the north beach and it's a great idea and they allow the restaurants to survive the pandemic and you

should continue that and choosing car space for a lot more productive use in the city and i grow the plan you know, that the permanent ones need to be part of the public around when the restaurants or bars close and i go that you should get the consent of a neighbor if you are putting a parklet in front of their storefront age space and it's commonsense and i hope that this continues and if the fees are prohibitive for some businesses depending on the revenue annual revenue of the business maybe the city can cut those businesses a break so the even playing field before large multi restaurants and multi bar companies like plum jack and

versus some small mom and pop restaurants and ones around chinatown and thank you. >> hello, i'm from district 7 and i wanted to call in support of being more permanent for the city and a few reasons why it's a great opportunity for the rising of local economy and just think that for small businesses, and as well do you understand that there needs to be modifications and the existing past year has been a great m.v.p. to go forward and making more buzz for business language barriers that maybe encountered people disabilities and other equity and as well and we

neither going to particularly trying to cheap destinations the last four years i chose not to go to destinations because there's no parking out there at all. the r.o.i. or shared spaces is tremendous in com par ston to one parked car, my vehicle in one location in selective display and can compact street so do r.i. to city and businesses is great and also not just a culture add but an enhancement to neighborhood activities as well to those that talk about preservation and neighborhoods and it's great expansion and those preservation and from that standpoint of an enhancement so just a really like the idea and i'm hoping some more innovation going for

here iteration and to keep your time and to keep investing. >> this is sharky the president of the san francisco small business commission but i'm speaking here today on my own account and not on behalf of the commission. i am here to tell you about over 80% of our businesses that have take advantage of the shared spaces said it's critical to their survival and i have also public who are over in support of shared spaces and to those that are concerned about privatization of public and we're currently shared spaces representative .04% of all the parking spaces and san francisco and if you put all the shared spaces less than half of the parking lot the giant stadium

which is also to a private concern for private benefit so it's a small amount of public space and it's being repurchased from one private use of private oem auto manufacturers and it's now being repurchased and people to have communities and be with each other out in the open and i could not walk for several years as a result of a tumor so i am very and we're entering a period

where we need to change cars and desen ta vicing parking in our commercial corridor and public transit and it's a great start and it builds community and together and out doors and enjoying nature and fresh air and it's been great for our small businesses and it will help restart our economy so thank you so much. >> caller: good evening, commissioners, peter papadopolis and i want to touch upon a few comments here that we have heard from a number of folks that we think are right on point in highlight a few things we're hearing. and i think that one of the principle things we're hearing is that we're looking for structural equity at this point as we go permanent, i recognize

a number of folks here on the city team as well that have been working on this on this and personally trying to assist in difficult situations and that is much appreciated and the step that we want to make sure we're taking now is we're moving no a very clear structure alec witty shift and you heard from my colleagues and others, for example, that people have had a lot of trouble with things like grants and making sure that there's a structural level of support if we row lion grants and make sure it's at a significant funding level that it can actually sort of lay it level the playing field so we're not as robin alluded to, ex ears baiting existing inequities as we move through recovery and the covid impact and it's fully baked in we agree with the ideas of for example making sure that the fees are some out structured and we might want to think about

the income of the owner and the size of the business and revenue and something that structurally absorbed that they're very different outcomes for these different folks who are trying to take advantage of this program and as a lot of us here, know, it's been a challenge for merchants, especially for example our mission street immigrant says you heard, one of them speak a little earlier and it's a big fix we're going to look for and making sure also as this family owner said, making sure we're getting the input and we're getting the input from our neighbors with disabilities from our immigrant business owners and our small mom and pop that don't have this money up front to late out or tear down, for example, when they're being asked to make changes. they don't have that money and wore going to need that support thank you.

>> good evening, commissioners, my name is lieu am and i would like to ask the planning department a much more proper engagement with the community that you are impacting and the current program service larger better resource businesses and the less than locations and puts mom and pop and immigrant businesses and neighborhoods like the mission and at of this advantage and bus lines and the lacking of party spaces and other issues have created inwe can at this time tee outcomes and as you are hearing from others, there should not be a one size fit all model and we need a proper community engagement from process so provide the feedback so, i do

ask that we pass this legislation until we get once again the proper engagement with neighborhoods and mall business owners that are dealing with surviving and providing them the structural support that they need to help i just want to

speak to the outreach powers you know, i think commissioners need to know that what they see on the paper, we checked off and we spoke to these folks and these folks, we saw a much, i was in a very small subset group of business owners and what we saw was a much shorter presentation and it was already done and think how it was and when folks raised questions and concerns, they were brushed off with no follow-up and because there has been no follow-up, and it's been very contentious and it's actually causing strife because we haven't eased up on businesses with each other and there was no original planning and there has been no larger opportunity to work through

something and actually even present ideas because for improvement and we are facing a situation where this is just moving through without any proper response and any proper inputt and zar jones of smta reached out to help today to offer to host a meeting because no proper outreach has been done, thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. jane natoli calling and i live in the richmond and really appreciate the report and thank you staff for that and i have loved to shared spaces program and it's been one of the few positive side effects of certainly we're hearing a lot about how we can improve it and i think a great way to think

about this and a great aspect of how we are thinking about it is how wore going to do it and too much we're asking if i think that this has been a boone for a lot of small businesses the activation we've seen and in places that have previously didn't seem to have much else going on and it's really been something to see you just to see my neighborhoods outside of cars and a year that's so tough to connect it's been great to have spaces like this and obviously, many people have touched don aspects that need to be improved and i want to see some of that improved here and i don't think the program is perfect and i love the how we approached the fact that we were dealing with a very serious issue and that is how the support our small businesses and our city and someone who might one day want to own a small business in the

city, i feel like this is the kind of tool that we need that can make something truly, truly great for a business owner and i think that these are the kinds of opportunities that we need to pivot away from automobiles and i hope it can be a permanent addition. thank you.

>> this is william from accessible san francisco and i'm a resident of district 3 and i appreciate the last friday mr. odd gave a presentation on the proposed permanent program to the mayor's disability council and i won't repeat and i want to focus on the part of this program that one of the slides today referred to as the commercial (inaudible). restaurants and bars that build a platform. the city has had a park let program for many years and full accessibility has been required and for the most part enforced and as mr. abad said, there were 60 of them developed over the years and in the covid emergency, that has rocketed up to something like 1,500 and with this program is prove the permanent program that could reach 2,000 or 3,000 in the emergency pull together to say many businesses as possible was essential and now there was a

lack of enforcement of accessibility and i don't want to defend but i do want to say i understand it and the permanent is different. so, i still appreciate the desire to expedite permiting and delay compliances six months was mentioned but accessibility is different than any other requirement that applies to the outdoor dining areas that are controlled and occupied by the restaurant or bars that built it and that's because unlike all the other requirements, it's civil rights so when one restaurant expands by expanding their dinning room or adding a (inaudible) in the traditional sense and it has to comply with the a.d.c. and c.d.c. accessibility requirement and when the speakers, mr. scaff, i want to endorse this comment, he is an expert and he is spot on on that point. can you look at section 206.2.5 of the a.d.a. standards and you

can look at the same number sessions 206.25 in chapter 11b of the building code and i just would like to see more care given to planning for these spaces to all be. >> thank you, that is your time. >> caller: good evening, commissioners, my name is (inaudible) i'm a resident and a small business owner of miss district. i'm also a business board member of association and i just want to say how the applicant for gas burning cars in 2021 but not for outdoor spaces and add positivity towards our corridors and these have been spending anywhere from 5,000 to $25,000 on their hair space so far and to ask these business owners to

remove them and after just insutting them less than a year ago it's a cool act against our small business communities. on the other hand, i do think that this spaces are a part of our public spaces and should remain that way for everybody to equally utilize and to use this to making it public versus making it private just doesn't seem fair to me since it creates annie quality based on businesses revenues levels and the type of businesses that they have and many businesses close the space off to prevent tagging to left behind so maybe not allowing them to close it off will result in everybody in the community to pull their weight and figure out ways and solutions to the issues they've been dealing with and we all should be equally dealing with the situation. aside from our income level and with this all said the deline

guidelines and upkeep should be enforced open calling to voice my support for shared spaces and shared spaces is a lifetime to many small businesses, bars, retail establishments and gyms and i can go on and on the when we started constructing our shared space when we were given the use last year, it brought out people from the community and they asked how they could help and it brought people together to s and cars getting

broken into and. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is levi and i live in district 11 and i just wanted to say that i love and they're a fantastic decision to new york city and anyone who has been to europe is they're so charming

and exactly this sort of outdoor shared space and a lot of the other colors are solid issues and they need to be addressed and accessibility over that one is the only thing and reiterate what everyone else and (inaudible). i think we should build on the program not scrap it so please make it permanent. >> hi, yes, this is lori thomas calling about the small business owner and having two restaurants and district 2. and also the executive director of the golden gate restaurant association and i just wanted to say that this program has been so critical to keeping restaurants able to open and most critically to employ workers. with every four to five tables on the sidewalk or in a parking space, we're able to hire at

least one if not two people depending on if you are doing lunch or dinner and that has been really really critical because and so, i know that there are many things we need to do and i want to support that as a restaurant owner and a speaking as our membership if we want everybody to comply with the a.d.a. rules and we want to help workout how this can be equitable and that is something that we've voiced and continued to stand to work as a partner with and on how the permit fees can equitable across this but we just really ask that we de desperately still need this and they're not open and many need these outdoor spaces to think about opening and we've all lost so much money this past year and now we're not sure when we're going to be able to go to a higher capacity inside so this is critical for continue

survival. so at this for all the work everybody is doing and i hope we can come to a good solution. >> hello, i'll calling in support of permanent shared spaces and for decades, the free and low cost parking has been a give away to the rich and privileged and the driving to get through the parking spots has been a source of lots of traffic congestion with all the environmental issues and it entails. parking spots create traffic and i think everyone here that's the experience that we have too much traffic and removing parking for one spot can affect congestion for nearby parking lots but it's to manage all the of the roads faced more rationally and the traffic lanes for high occupancy and bus lanes and for parking

meeters and disabled parking spots so if we can promote local businesses, relief traffic congestion and promote of the transit first policy it's a win-win-win to me. thank you for listening. >> good afternoon. my name is eric i'm with and and i think the price is $6,000 to

park so it's extremely high and that does not i am conclude the architect and the materials that you have to purchase and it's a huge cost up front. also, the public commercial space and a lot of these park let's are one parking link long and it could only fit throw tables and if you want to make a space for the public, that only is two spaces for tables so it really is the visit they're trying to do so it just needs a lot more working out before this moves forward, thank you. >> my there, i'd like to just call to say i'm strongly in support the shared spaces and it's been not only a lifeline during the pandemic but it's really transformed everybody's understanding of about what san

francisco can be and my name is david rockman and i live in haze valley and it's amazing to enjoy all the restaurants in haze valley and different businesses and like the other callers, it's clear from the research that reducing parking is going to reduce track and as someone who does not own a car and it makes my neighborhoods in the city that i'm public transit or by bicycle just so much better and the city really is for people and not cars and people go to businesses not cars and i think this would just be such an amazing thing if we can make it permanent in san francisco and i encourage the commission to make it permanent, thank you. >> i am thankful and i'm being given an second punt to speak and i wanted to say that i also would -- >> we don't give out second

opportunities to speak. >> mute me. >> caller: kelly hill with united mission also a business owner and i think one thing you are going to hear mont in these first four items is actually the made for a really strong equity lens and you are hearing from our community and the mission community various places that really need to see these programs and really make that their central framework and this particular program needs a central equity framework to guide all of its functions before its made and public you heard earlier from her parents worked many years and i want a mission and they have a space to put a parking in front of and they have the longest bus stop in front of their space and we really need to look at ways we can lift everyone up and to reiterate and previous commenters asking for low income businesses already deep in debt to now pay $6,000 in year fee and it's not doable and that's

like asking someone to pay 13 month rent when right now rent is the biggest burden on many of these small businesses and the fees need to have an equity lense and take into account elements such as store side and neighborhood income and the revenue and things like that and they would be great to see more meaningful funding attached to the relaunch of this program and low chin and bipoc communities to ensure streets trailing far behind you such as the mission and bayview and places that have seen the brunt have start today catch up and stabilize their cultural ecosystem. >> my name is martin moon toes and i'm calling in support of shared spaces. when these are permanent, i'd like them to be open to all members of the public regardless of whether or not they're spending money at business and i think parklets are a public good

and i think it's not annie efficient use of our scarce public land and these park let's really do expand the ability of folks to enjoy our city streets and our public space so they should be made public and another thing i would note is to make sure that for park let's, that don't use parking spaces that are on the streets and on the sidewalks rather, a clear six-foot minimum passage spaces is strictly enforced due to the fact that people with disabilities, even after the pandemic are going to need to be able to get through the sidewalks in a safe and comfortable way. other than that, i'm really supportive of this idea and i support equity lenses and it shouldn't delay how this program has worked during the pandemic and thank you. >> caller: i'd lick to add my vis to the list of people who

are wanting this legislation to be slowed down and i think it's a great idea for the shared spaces program to be extended and i understand the concerns of those who see businesses that have spent 20,000 or however on conducting a park let and don't want that park let to just been there for years and then don't have any ideas whether or not the program is going to continue, but as the idea that this program is just going to go on indefinitely, it seems pro mature and it's reasonable to accept for a year for neighbor two years or for however long the pandemic measures continue and but we don't know what the conditions will be like after

the pandemic ends and it just seems premature to say ok, let's just make this indefinite because san francisco will be a different city after have restrictions lifted and so it just seems very premature to say, well, let's just make this permanent. and i'm also concerned about the ada issues and the issues of public access to these spaces because they're public spaces. and so i think there's a lot of kinks that node to be worked out before we make this a permanent

thing. >> caller: my nape is sam and i am just for the shared spaces program and it's great and i lived in europe and it's just fantastic how when you travel go anywhere and it's the street for people and for cars and even less valuable than cars is just i will say i think there will be rules to make sure that you know, it doesn't inflect any burden upon people with limited mobility, leaves the sidewalks clear and are also are protected by construction or street calming or whatever.

>> (roll call) item 3, announcement of sound producing devices during the meeting. we have no announcement since we are in a virtual meeting. approval of minutes from april 6th, 202