commissioners. first item on the agenda is general public comment. members mayaddress the commission on items of interest within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission . with respect to agenda items for opportunity toaddress the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member may address the commission for up to three minutes . this is your time to press star 3 to be added tothe queue and when you hear your life has been unimpeded that's your indication to begin speaking . >> good afternoon commissioners. kathleen howard, san franciscans for nature. sfu and is a community group of activists devoted to increasing

interest in our cities and ask for march 23 meeting of the historic preservation commission a request for a certificate of appropriateness for extending the operation of the temporary observation real installed in themusic concourse was considered . in response to concerns that have been raised the recreation and parks department had proposals to mitigate the noise from the diesel generator along with other measures to mitigate theimpact of the observation . we are concerned that the noise of the generator is still continuing not all mitigations including those related to writing have been put in place. in addition loud music has been added to the observation wheel . we don't recall a sound permit but the loud music is intrusiv on the park atmosphere and should be turnedoff . you should have received our letter with metro and photos illustrating this issue . we request that the historic

preservation commission all th recreation and parks department to their commitments they have made . thank you. >> last call for general public comment. you need to pressáthree. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public generalpublic comment is closed and we should move on to department matters . do we have any announcements? >> sorry, yes we do. good afternoon commissioners, richard cray deputy director of park planning . i wanted to provide an update on some items that went before the board of supervisors. the eagle asked its second reading at the board of supervisors yesterday so it is on its way to thelandmark , to the mayor who will sign into

and become an ordinance so it would be an official city landmark which is wonderful . also at the landis meeting this past monday the board did not have any landmark items that were under review at this time but we have a couple items that are kind of liningup . just to address some correspondence you have received recently the department is researching the compliance for the conditions of approval regarding the ferris wheelproject . so we are currently aware of it and are on top of it and we will provide you an update at a future meeting and we are in correspondence with the wreck andparks department so let me know if you have any questions or there's anything else to follow up on . >> president: thank you district sucre. if there are no questions we can move on toagenda items , presidents report and announcements .>> thank you

for giving us an update. i wanted to mention it because of the public comment and email we received from urban nature and you've also received another email today from georgia soonish about the map of lori valley. i guess planning staff person by the name of mister webster was on and we couldn't understand what the specific request was but i was hoping i could find it with someone from the planning department staff about that. it is about today's agenda item and mister john templeton was planning to make publiccomments but i'm not sure it happened . he did contact me and he contacted me after he made a presentation to the planning department staff about seeing how we can revisit the african-american historic context statement so i wanted to share that with the

commission and to see if we can or if i can convene a meeting with mister templeton and whoever the current staff person is in charge of this particular historic context statement to see how we can review that and push it along. so jonas, if you can put me in touch with whoever that is. i'm not sure who has been assignedto that but that would be great . and just finally today's agenda item was specifically created for us to send a great deal of time on the housing element and particularly the mitigation alternative. mitigation measures because even though this is not specifically to create an ordinance, definitely the information and i think the framework that will be decided on will have a huge impact on any future ordinances that come

before the board and the city. and i'm hoping that all of us can spend some time to really consider what staff has provided for us and the staff has provided a really good overview but we could really use the comments and suggestions from the commissioners. this is going to set policies in the next 30 years old we really want to take some time and really discuss things as thoroughly as possible. this will be our last time but i think that we should attempt to make a really good inroad to what has happened and we should have futuremeetings on this subject . >> commission president matsuda

i seemister sucre would like to speak up . >> yes, we are happy to address all your concerns. if you want to formulate a correspondence i'm happy to connect you with the right staff people. similarly on behalf of the context statement as i understand it makes a big update on our end is with the need forcommunity outreach on that document . we are happy to convene a meeting and kind of go out and put a timeline together or next steps so that way we can bring it forward to thiscommission for adoption . happyto help facilitate that in any way . >> thank you, i will follow up withyou . >> rich, i'll get you that email. commissioners i will place this on item 3 for consideration of the draft minutes for october 6 2021. members of the public this is your opportunity to the minutes by pressingáthree.

seeing no membersof the public requesting to speak, public comment on the minutes is closed . it is now before you. >> i second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion then to adopt the minutes for the 2021, commissioner right. [roll call vote] >> so moved, that item passes unanimously 720 placing us on item for. comments andquestions . >> clerk: any comments or questions from the commission commissioner so .

>> thank you. two things i'd like to address or share. i have the great opportunity to join the action series of our japan town fillmore west with the rest of theplanning staff . i just wanted to say that this is a really amazing community outreach and i've learned so much from the panel speakers, margie crawford and steve mercado about the histories and the current struggles and how pan town and the western addition how much more we can continue to do and i would love to also say thank you for staff and ourselves, they hosted the meeting really well and i

appreciate this opportunity to be able to listen through this community leaders and hear more about what matters that really concerns them in terms of moving forward and how we can actually shake a better neighborhood. thank you for that and my second announcement is actually something pretty fun and i think everyone will love this organization called california preservation foundation. they're having their annual design award gala, virtual gala tomorrow and it's free for all to attend. it starts at 7 pm. it's only going to be an hour. i think it's loaded with a lot of amazing projects ranging from reservation technology to cultural resources and also adaptive reuse and rehabilitation's and the entire state of california on going to put this link to our chat here

and everyone feel free to sign up. just to listen and would be really amazing and i am aware a lot of our planning staff have been active speakers and panelists in the previous years to so just check it out when you havetime . that concludes my sharing of comments. >> clerk: thank you, commissioner black. >> i want to echo commissioner so's comment about the commission in action. i wasn't able to attend yesterday but i did watch this morning and commissioners, the link for any of you who missed it are still available. it's fascinating. both the documentary and the three panelists speaking . thank you. >> clerk: thank you for sharin that it was recording. any other commissioners wish to make public comments or have

any questions at this time ? commissioner johns.>> if someone could send that link to commissioner black, just mention i would really appreciate it because i like to watch the program .19. >> clerk: and we asked staff to do that? >> yes of course. >> president:any other comments or questions? thank you. i think we are ready for the next agenda item . >> clerk: that will place us on consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance and as of todaythere are no items proposed for continuance. we can move directly into your regular calendar . i don't 01623 cwp for the housing element 2022 update. this is aninformational

presentation . shelley. >> i'm going totake a moment to share my screen and get started . and can someone let me know if there seeing my notes? >> president: we can see your notes, shelley. >> thanks for bearing with me. my name is shelley and i'm a staff member of the planning department cultural heritage and i'm a member of the element team. good afternoon commissioners, president matsuda. i want to recognize ourpolicy manager . our supervisor by a small and the rest of our team.

i'm going to start by acknowledging we are on the unseeded ancestral homeland of that show shown in our original inhabitants of the san francisco. the shoshone have never ceded lost or forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place as well as for all people to reside in their traditional territory. as guests we recognize that we benefit from living and working on our traditional homeland and wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders andrelatives of the shoshone community and affirming their sovereign rights as first people . i want to do a bit of an orientation for today's

presentation. i'm here today to overview the housing element2022 update with a focus on the cultural heritage related policies within it . and in the packets you've received you saw on memo by staff distilling some information about those cultural heritage policies to solve the first draft of the goals and policies of the housing element which we published in april of this yea . you saw context statements which is intended to describe the issues that this update is responding to . specifically the housing inequality center of this issue. we saw public input summaries from 2020 that summarized our first phase of engagement and lastly a draft needs assessment which is data and analysis on long-term trends and demographics,employment and housing will inform the policy . during my presentation i'm

going to review our vision and requirements for the housing element. i'm going to review the engagement that we've done and i'm going to spend most of the time talking about our key policy shifts and cultural heritage policies embedded in the track and there will be time forquestions and discussion . so just to make sure we're all on the same page about what the housing element is. the housing element is the city's policy plan and it's updated every eight yearsby the planning department in coordination with other city agencies that provide housing services . it is a legislative document adopted by the board of supervisors and assigned into ordinance. the housing element policies need state law mandates sothat we as a city and maintain our eligibility for affordable housing funds . we are also required to plan for a certain number of units for various incomelevels as allocated by the state and

regional agencies .the plan does not change land use controls or zoning or allocate budgets. but it is a roadmap that shows our values , defined our priorities andguides decisions . we begin working with community last year to identify key values for this process which are racial and social equity, eliminating community displacements, achieving affordable housing choices for everyone and allneighborhoods and creating thriving neighborhoods that are resilient to climate and health crisis . we need a housing plan that requestthese values we are making a major overhaul of existing policies .so for the first time san francisco's housing problem as a racial and social equity problem with severe disparate outcomesfor americanindians , black and other communities of color . this shift is also a direct response to the planning and

historic preservation commission resolution centering on equity. this housing plan will allow the city to repair the harms done to bring stability to communities that have faced discrimination and explore ways to bring more displaced communities back . we know that there's a long history of institutional racism and discriminatory programs that haveaffected who can access safe and adequate housing which is in part documented and recognized in the hpc's equity resolution . the diagram shows programs that the city either led or supported and are some of the root causes of discriminatory outcomes for american indians, black, chinese, japanese, latino amenities and other amenities of color. and in the next couple of slides and going tohighlight some of the disparities that this plan needs to address . the median income from black

households is less than one fourth of what households in san francisco. american indian and black individuals are on house disproportionately.the american indian community is 17 times werelikely to be found among the homeless population . american indian and black populations have dropped significantly both in san francisco and the region by 52 percent and 45 percent respectively over the last couple of decades . blacks, latino and american indian households are more likely to be rent burdened a white household. there are other reasons that this major, this is a major update of the housing plan. state law now requires us to affirmatively further fair housing which means identifying policies and implementing programs that address aggregation and foster access

to opportunity and divested in underserved communities. we are also required to address environmental justice issues that especially our communities of color have endured for decades and state law mandates require us to plan for as i said to plan every eight years for an allocated number of units for each household income bracket. for this cyclethat number is significantly higher as i'll show in the next slide .we have changesbroken down by income level . we will be required to produce approximately three times more housing as was required for the last cycle. so a very low income level which is less than 50 percent of area median income you see our target is moving up to 20,000. our overall card is moving close to 80,000 units.

we shift now totalk about our outreach . this is the quick overview of our two year timeline where you can see we planned for three phases of outreach.we have recently completed the second phase of outreach and hope to have the draft policies published in january 2022 and vetted with the public early next year. this would require the impact analysis to continue through next year which allison will talk about in the next presentation. i want to know this will be the first housing element to undergo a racial equity analysiswhich will be undertaken between now and next fall .that report will look at socioeconomic and physical changes resulting from the proposed housing element update policies in order to understand how the project will affect racial and social disparities and that report will be

prepared in consultation with unity leaders. i'll spend thenext couple of slides reviewing our approach to outreach . outreach started in june 2020 and we held 15 listening sessions. we administereda survey with over 1600 respondents . we worked with a group of housing policy and development experts along with a poor and broader interagency review team to create the first draft policies. for phase 2 we reviewed those draft policies and key policy changes through a variety of groupsand approaches . a main approach was working with humanity-based organizations to design 22 focus groups. there are small group conversationsand elevating the voices of residents who are low income from communities of

color or other vulnerable communities . in addition we were hosted by over 20 community groups or more informal conversations aboutthe plan and we continue to work with our experts and collect feedback on ourwebsite . we engaged with the department's new community equity advisory council . at planning commission last week we reported back more comprehensively on this outreach but i wanted to save timetoday to talk about the policies themselves . however i would encourage you to watch last week's if you haven't seen it already and you're interested in diving more deeply into the input we've received thissummer. for now i'm going to share a couple highlights about the focus . so you can see on this map the geographic distribution of groups, six of which in orange at a city wide reach and you can see the range in our target communities fromlgbt q folks to transitional age youths , seniors and various racial and

ethnic groups. we raised hundred three participants through the focus groups utilizing 21 community-based organization partnerships both of whom were compensated for their time. we held for conversations in cantonese, three in spanish, 50 english, six were in person events designed to reach those goals that are on the other side of the digital divide and 16 more virtual conversations. demographically the folks that we talked to about half income of less than $50,000 a year about 19 percent had income between 50 and $70,000 a year . 14 percentwere people with disabilities and 28 percent were families with children . 25 percent ofpeople we talked

to in the focus groups were people of color . 81 percent of people we talked to were renters. 60 percent were homeowners and several work on house or in unstable housing which is a difficult population to reach virtually and we hope to come up with new techniquesand further outreach . i will shift now to talk about thepolicies . there are four major policy issues and updates that will aim to increase housing access and quality for the population groups most vulnerable to displacement and the burdens of housing instability . first is recognizing a right to housing to ensure everyone has access to housing. second is to bring back those displaced from the city due to discriminatory programs. third is to expand and target programs to stabilize low income communities of color and those cities that hold the

highest percentage ofvulnerable populations . and forth we want to equitably distribute growth and increase affordable housing choices in neighborhoods that support positive economic educational and health outcomes or families with low incomes. the housing element update could be the first policy document in san francisco to recognize the rightto housing , ensuring that extremely low and very low income households, on house populations andthose vulnerable communities have access to housing .this could mean reading a minimum number of supported housing and services , expanding mental assistance programs to match the and prioritizing residents of neighborhoods with high concentrations of low income people of color for placement andsupportive housing and shelter . the second policy shift would bring back those displaced from the city due to discriminatory

programs such as the action of a redevelopment agency. the draft proposes strengthening cultural influences for displaced communities and investing in homeownershipopportunities for those people and dedicating land to american indian communities . major policy shifts for priority use would be more housing that is deeply affordable in these areas, exploring ways that low income communities of color can receive priority to that deeply affordable housing. on the other hand limiting zoning changes in these areas to the needs of american indian black and other communities is one way these communities can bring stability inthese areas and reduce the burden of change . we started referring to those neighborhoods with high concentrations of low income people are priority geographies meetingwe want to place

priority on their .the map here is pronounced by the department of public health but we may also use other geographiesto target these policies . we can target for areas of gentrification and displacement as seen in this map. we can target for areas that are environmentally burdened as seen inthe orange colors of this map . or we can target for areas holding cultural heritage significance formarginalized communities such as our cultural district . we want to distribute housing throughout the city to lower the burden of change and pressure on low income communitiesof color due to concentrating new housing in their neighborhoods . we can see in orange on this map where the highest concentration of housing has been produced over the last few decades.

we also want to provide housing options for low income communities of color in neighborhoods with existing high quality amenities such as the areas outlined in blue. less than 12 percent of our housing units are currently locatedin those high opportunity areas as shown in blue . we can accomplish this by increasing development capacity along transit corridors through low-density districts. we can establish the goal of building 50 percent of our original targets in these areas and in small and midrise buildings and ensure private housing serves moderate and middle income households. i want to talk about how the housing element update incorporates historic preservation values and tools . while i believe the draft program underscores the city's

need to study, acknowledge and understand our past as it relates to economic and social injustice historic preservation field is uniquely positioned to advance thesepolicies through its research and educational functions . wehave a responsibility in our field to uncover and bring to life past farms so they can be redressed . and also build upon much of the historic preservation commission and planning department's efforts to protect our architectural heritage while elevating the need to safeguard the intangible aspects of culture. this 2022 update shifts away from policies that focused more narrowly on preservation of neighborhood character as was used in the 2014 housing element inits favor a policy that recognizes and respects the social aspects of our heritage . over the past decade the commission has guided the planning department to incorporate social and cultural

significance in its preservation programs. including those programs that aim to stabilize marginalized cultural and ethnic communities and the 2022 update online with this distraction. repairing harm to communities of color and others through investment and cultural anchors and cultural heritage strategies can be found throughoutthis plan . the plan supports work that can be implemented through programs like fee districts. policy that advocate for community empowerment can also be found throughout the plan. this will to further the goals articulated in this commissions equity resolution toproceed community led research as designations interpretation and protections . six of the draft plan contains policy that focus on the health and vibrancy ofneighborhoods and recognizes the role of sustaining cultural heritage

and building and maintaining these qualities . supporting this goal addresses how both the design of the environment and activities and use of use that takes place within it contributes to community culture. as was set under policy 6.6 pacific the points to preservation tools and programs for implementation including the cultural district program article 10 and 11 as a nation, regulatory review for cultural resources and incentives. item 4 reflects a growing recognition of the connection between equitable housing and cultural heritage conservation . ican be demonstrated to our management of land-use design and resource distribution . i want to remind you we will undertake positions to draft one this fall and we will be incorporating unity input and your input today . already we are exploring preservation actions such as a cultural resource dedication banking fund and objective

preservation design guidelines. our third round of outreach will begin in january and with the reduce of draft two. that which we finally to engage with advocates and more targeted discussions about the plan. want to start. i know this is a lot to take in. before closing i want to give youand at some of the insult we've heard that will be shaping the next draft . we heard that some people want to stay close to their communities but others want the opportunity to live and nicer and saferneighborhoods. we heard that we needto increase deeply affordable housing for american indians , blacks and latinos . an increase opportunities for homeownership. we heard the community hops are ideal places to share information and educate communities about housing and financial services . we also heard this plan needs to create safe and welcoming homes for lgbtq or transitional

age youth for seniors in stable populations and we heard loud and clear that thisplan needs to hold the officials and departments accountable to the vision we are proposing here . the solutions that are being put forward. we're going to review some questions to consider during your discussion. and then i'm available for questions. as our policy expert tina is going to tackle any questions you have is to the housing regulations but i am happy to wait in where i can. so just leave you with these questions. are there additional policies or actions that would support cultural heritage and historic preservation with respect to the way that we've managed existing housing stock and plans for newhousing. i know recommendations for prioritization of certain policies . these see opportunities for other policies or actions that

underscore this relationship between achieving equitable housingand supporting the history and culture of our communities. so with that i'm going to stop sharing . and leave it back to you. >> thank you shelley. if there are no other questions for staff at this time we will go to public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue . seeing no requests to speak from the public commissioners, public comment is closed and this item is now before you and as man shelley stated this is not an action item for informational item for you. >> president: if you wouldn't mind bringing up the last slide that you had with this specific question that you are asking

the commission to comment or to advise you with some more suggestions or information, i think that we could stay focused on those particular areas unless commissioners want to raise other questions or concerns but i think that would be a great foundational place for us to start and to strongly encourage allcommissioners to share their thoughts . again, i cannot emphasize how important it is for all your participation inthis . it's going to shape the future of what we see as cultural and historical resources in the city and even though i definitely probably will not be around in 2050, i want to make sure what i do today will have some relevance and some impact to those who will be. kind of look at this and say thankyou for doing this . we really wanted to make sure

our history was part of a new policy or new priority so i will stop talking. i'll ask you to review these three points that shelley has finally put back on the screen and ask for yourcomments so commissioner black . >> thank you. i want to thank shelley and all thestaff that workedon this . it was beautifully written and organized . i also cities are evolutionary and it is for good or bad, good and bad things happen and i really appreciate the effort to do the public outreach because it's extremely important that we respond to the specific needs in current day that are identified inthe community . so i really appreciate that

outreach, the listening sessions for her group, the surveys and all of that is really important but most importantly i appreciate the racial and social equity focus of this housing element which is a bit unusual for a housing elementin general and i really applaud that . it's not only to address needs going forward but also to address mistakes made in the past. specifically i wanted to mention for policies under 4.6. there all the policies are essential but i wanted to highlight the design review guidelines for new housing construction near historic resources.we need more housing in every neighborhood and that includes neighborhoods that don't have very much housing soit's important to add this housing . the new housing will be bigger and more dense and as it relates to existing historic

resources we want to make sure it's done in a waythat's sensitive to those particular neighborhoods . the fastest way to record neighborhood is to allow incompatible design. that's, those are my comments, thanks. >> commissioner right. >> thank you very much for the presentation . and i just had a couple of questions or a question that came to mind while you were presenting the data and the chart and when you showed a specific chart that had data showing what development there was for affordable housing in the past and what's the need will be projected in the future. andhow that's increased quite a

bit . i was curious if there is also data about previous element of non-affordable housing and what the ratio of that development is compared to the ratio of affordable housing that was previously constructed. because the census, my sense and just being in the city is that there's while there's focus on development of affordable housing , there's much more market rate housing that's being produced than affordable housing.and a couple ofthings that also came to mind . just to chew on and maybe to stimulate conversation amongst the commission is the idea of subsidizing historic housing for strengthening rent control.

>> president: thank you commissioner right. you are right, when we connect progress of our targets, that progress varies across different income levels. so for a golf, moderate income we have surpassed the target and i don't know what that target was but for these more affordable targets we are very much behind. so there's that kind of difference. [inaudible] >> thank you

commissioner jobs .>> the presentation raises so many basic fundamental issues that it's almost hard to grapple with i do see one thing that is i would say a central conflict that may perhaps tear at the foundations of alot of these ideas . that is in my opinion the primary cause of homelessness is on having enough housing for people and in so far as we are going to ask the city i think attempt to house more people, then we must i think confront this will change the character

of the city. and it will change thecharacter of the neighborhoods . and i do not think it is possible to have both. and that is a very serious problem for all of us to confront. i think it's a magnificent attempt by the city and the department, apply the entire community, part of the community to address the policies in the past that have kept certain people out of certain neighborhoods and out of housing in general. no one must think it is going to be easy. to do most of the things put forth in this report. so i just think we should be realistic . so commissioner right mentioned increased rent control.

my observation on that, very touchy subject . it is perhaps test left to economists to deal with that but in my lifetime we've seen increasingly tight rent control and it has not as far as i can see salt the housing crisis. it's kept some people where they are but by and large i do not see that it has had a particularly desirable effect as far as producing housing. i just think this is a wonderful opportunity for us to explore some of these really difficult and important questions. thank you. >> commissioner. >> just going off of what commissioner johnson had said.

i think there's a balance here with the housing element that. [inaudible] thinking community engagement is as important as providing housing in order to keep people in the city and have them feel at home here. it's very transient place and you know, some in the 90s, is extremely transient . so i think part of that is to a lot of people here feel like when's she going todrop when am i going to move to east bay or the southbay . or be homeless for that matter. just those economic factors definitelyhave a biginfluence on . in terms of preservation , there's a lot of things in thi

. and absorbing all the information so forgive me if i didn't catch thingsin it but would love feedback . with the increase in housing, i believe it's150,000 units . on the 2022 version versus the 2014 version which was 102,000 . is there something in the eir that's saying what our actual threshold of the city and sustain? i don't even know if that's like a number that even candy to find what how do we get to those numbers and i know it's related to thestate funding . but how is it related to what our city can sustain just watching the growth of the city and the past15 years , having

seen a lot of you know, open holes where we are now buildings are and all the improvements that have been done along the embarcadero and third street corridor mission day and all that. how do we see that we can and i think there was a growing pain with that . with just not only the construction traffic and all that but there's a growing pain withall of this . and accommodating that many more people or maybe it's accommodating accommodating the same amount of people but we know that there was an influx of huge amounts of people in the last decade so i'd love to hear more about that. i did have more tosay but i want to let the other

commissioners the .>> would you like to respond to commissioner nageswaran's comment before we go on? >> i'm going to defer to kim talking more about how we advise that hundred 50,000 unit goal. some of the questions i think that will be addressed in this presentation get more into the analysis of the environmental impacts as opposed to policies so some of this might be deferred to the next item but i'll let him go ahead and address thequestion about how we set the city's goals . >> and you commissioner for that question. we are on hundred 50,000 units target for 30 years. and that is also in comparison

with the area projections for the next 30 years in san francisco as lower so we landed in that hundred 50,000 i believe that goal projection was several analysis of these also in prior to the housing elements. as sort of a strategy that we looked at various growth scenarios for the city. we haven't looked at you know, changing growth capacity in different waysand different scales . to see how many could be accommodated. and it's kind of an average annual goal of 5000 units per year. we led that on this target number which is also based on a

significant change on our jobs projection. so this analysis you can kind of evaluate growth capacity differently with heightened density changes. that's kind of what we have done as part of the housing affordability trend and what sort of housing strategies are necessary to then accommodate affordability and housing production goals that we found. and i think in the next presentation we will get a little more into the impacts and how those impacts are calculated.

>> thank you. >> thank you commission president. i think the presentation was amazing and i think that from our planning staff perspective i think what senator weiner and senator chu or assemblyman chu now city attorney chu but senator weiner what he's been doing about kind of pushing the nimby as an out-of-the-way. when we look at things like sb 35 we can create housing at half affordable and half market rate and we can have more diversity and bring people back that were pushed out of the city and personally, confidentially i'm working on two large sb 35 deals which will be incredibly inclusive and what the goal is of both of those projects is to bring the community back that were pushed

out of those neighborhoods over the past 30 years and bring them back into the community and create that it's almost like the legacy businesses like the fabric ofour community. and from the standpoint of growth, the cities not growing , the cities die. so i think i've been here since 1987 and i've seen amazing things happen and i've also seen amazing things just around traffic, congestion, parking and cars and i wantto switch with the planning staff on how they worked on all those things . and what's really interesting as i was in month ago and in manhattan you cannot build a high-rise apartment building for anything else with any parking. zero parking. and what planning has been doing and from a policy perspective what the city's been doing around the parking and getting people on bikes and different means of transit are great but for us to really have

a diverse equality in the city we're going to have to get rid nimbyism" housing and this is critical tool that . thank you forall your work . >> commissioner so.>> first of all i really love the presentation graphics. it's really captivating in terms of notjust the data but the whole presentation. i love it . it'svery clear . dive into offering recommendations into areas we can look into to complement thisapprehensive reports , i would love to see that you might already have thought of that before allwere already have been doing it . we always try to catch up with state legislation and what are the inherently differences where the gaps are between the

state legislation andlocal city legislation . if we can align our housing elements more consistent with just kind of having to the right direction but taking away some of the great areas to be more transparent and clear. that will help to kind of guide the rest of the general public because legislation inherently is already very obligated and with us having to overlap each other which we always have to do even looking at accessibility there is a state requirement and then there's the federal requirement and a local requirement and it sometimes doesn't always match well together. they always have a little bit of inconsistency. so staff can look into working

closer or just into a little bit more about why are we trending inthe state level and also the pandemic , and now we see these reports and data and news everywhere that people are migrating. one way or the other. in san francisco or mostly our san franciscotwo other neighboring counties . so you might want to look into trends and it's hard to predict. it's difficult but it's almost, it's unfortunately that the historic data of recent years i mean in the recent past might not be to really actively predict where trending in the future 30 years because of what we just have gone through. there is data out there. the institute had a lot of processional real estate and also in architectural and urban

planning fields they wrote up a lot of white papers to talk about the trend of where people live in where people work and how people use transit so these might be a good resource to look into and of course there's another one about the census. the census report had just been conducted and this might be giving us a better impulse on what has actually just happened to us and maybe perhaps what we can look at, what the future trends will be. that might guide us with another lens of optics to look into drafting the housing element that would shape the future 30 years, 30 or 50 years in san francisco. so i love it and i love that another aspect of it is that we are trying to be more inclusive and applicable and i'd like to

see if you can look into instituting what the birth institute. they have published a relic report and they talked about specifically san francisco monuments and statues and those we have in our civic elections it's tied into cultural histories and heritage or a lack of representation or misrepresentation of the heritage. maybe that will shed some more light into how we should be a better steward to this land that we all borrow from the native americans. so i love the presentation and i can't wait to see the next versionand i look forward to listening to what alex had to present to us . >> commissioner black.>> just one observation. i know i'm not sure if it was a housing element or the dir but i noticed there was a 39

percent job change and an eight percent housing change which of course is a statistical measurement of whywe have such a serious housing project . obviously we can't suppress jobs as commissioner foley said that would be bad for the city but i also wonder how the pandemic might affect housing types and production in the future. as wekeep hearing how people reassess and how they want to work and how they want to live . as a consequence of the pandemic and you know, i wonder how that might be affected here. i don't have any answers but presumably a lot of the work was done before but also during the pandemic and i wonder if that is something that was accommodated or that people spoke to in the listening sessions . >> thank you for the question commissioner black.i think that the pandemic conditioned

came up more in the context of increased burdens, economic burdens than the difficulties created for access and difficulties it created specifically accessing planning department and staff for. don't have easy access to internet. the new hybrid working styles had not come up as much. we had staff conversations around potential rehabilitation of hotels and offices as we saw the changes in land use resulting from the crisis and whether or not this is opening opportunities specifically in housingrehabilitation for residents . i think that specific action

offers to housing conversion is something that was touched on in the draft right now but in terms of housing types or the way that we use our home offices, i don't think came up. >> i wanted to also address my small, she's working on recovery. >> this is my small, manager of the planning department. i wanted to mention we have a recovery strategy project that's been underway over the last year where we've been looking at the impacts tothe city based on what's happened with the pandemic and economic challenges that people are facing .this project is working with our colleagues at mohcd so we're kind of

monitoring whatsome of those conditions are . we were at the planning condition talking about housing recovery and we have efforts that are going to help us in concert with the housing elements and the deeper foundational direction that's happening to make sure we're addressing some of those new and unique challenges so the housing recovery pieces will be coming back forward and we are continuing to workwith them. a set h sh as well . >> president: thank you maia. the commission is interested as these developed because i definitely do see a bigger digital divide between those and it's not onlyeconomic . it's also challenges with new technology. you see it as well with economics so i think that would

be important for us to develop because it's a fact of all districts and it does go on along with a lot of the things that have been pointed out with the cultural districts that we have to look at them. this would keep us informed. i just wanted the commission to ... sorry, i put myself on mut . i wanted to make sure the commission did provide shelley with the specific questions that she did close for us at the end of her presentation. shelley, your presentation was great . forward to the additional piece where what you mentioned in terms of how you're going to move forward with the additional piece focusing on thesocial economics of this . just getting back to your

questions are there any additional policiesor actions ? ialways like to know what other people are doing . i'mnosy . i want to know what our neighbors are doing and commissioner foley talk about what's happening in new york when they talk about no parking. those kinds of things i think would be very helpful to us to help us broaden our sense of what we can learn from others placements. so i would like to see more information aboutthat . and theremight not be any information . are we the first to use the racial and social equity priority lens to look at the housing element ? i'm not sure, are we? probably. the second question arethere recommendations for prioritization of certain priorities ? as the commission probably knows our prior hearing

redevelopment suck suck the life of many districts in the city and county of san francisco and not only do they physically destroya mentally , economically, socially, culturally destroy histories that have been here for a long time prior to government trying to get rid of what they call urban blight. people were given the useless paper certificates that said come back and we'll give you all of this. some still hold them and i know that a family member to ... i think that legislation passed that he wassponsoring the assembly about let's revisit this and let's revisit those are totally displaced . that's why interest for prioritization when we look at which districts should receive certain attention. i definitely want to make sure

that we fully address and fully bring to the tablewhat redevelopment did . i don't find a whole lot of good subjects in that period of time and do you see opportunities for other policies andactions ? some ofour commissioners brought up some good points . commissioner rice talk about strengthening rent control or taking it one step further and talking about eviction moratoriums or evictions having i think more lost about eviction when it comes to not only people butbusinesses because businesses make up community as well .and i think that we can't separate business, particularly small business and neighborhood businesses, cultural businesse

from this housing element . commissioner black said you stick in something culturally inappropriate to a great neighborhoodit's going to screw everything up . it's going to screw everything up if you take away my businesses, all the things that have sustained us and so i'd like to see some kind of consideration or assertion of the businesses when welook at this . i don't know, are there other thoughts from the commission that want to step in? commissionernageswaran . >> sort of where i was going with the increase in density was also related to understanding what might be the rate of effect or demolition of historic resources.say in the past 10 years with the increase of building and construction,

what percentage of historic resources were demolished? and then i read somewhere in one of the two documents, forgive me for not knowing which one but something about let's see. such that future actions may notrequire development of alternatives . under siqua you have this preservation alternative but i didn't understand what that meant . but future actions may not require development of alternatives, does that mean when we do development that we're not going to go through the whole process or for each of the projects or what does that mean mark. >> i can start to answer your first question . and then second one, i'm going to need to leave that to

allison to address and she's leaving the environmental review specific to that topic. but concerning whether or not we're looking back to see what the rate of want is forhistoric resources , that is something that we are considering for the racial and social equity analysis that we're just being now so it's a very important question. we can't assume that the existing conditions we see right now areequitable conditions . for ideal conditions and so when we think about equity through the lens of cultural resourceswe want to know what has been our trend over the last few decades . and we're working with our team to figure out how we can start to see that trend in the data that's available to us. we don't have the analysis done

yet but we expect to present something by next year. >> it seems interesting to me to understand where these demolitions occur. if they occur in areas that were underserved for areas that were you know, more of the highly desirable expensive areas that we haven't built these housing in. so that is all very interesting stuff. i mean, all the data that you're pulling together, i'm trying to prevent my screen from exploding but it's very helpful and just all the information is getting us somewhere so iappreciate that . and i have a lot of things that i'm thinking about but it might be more towards the other end

of what michelle is going to be talkingabout . you know, reducing the cost of construction. how is that going to be done and maybe that relates to reduction of how things are reviewed. and also height and bulk. they're kind of releasing restrictions on it. it's a little bit scary for that.so i don't know when to ask those questions but those are some ofthe things i'm thinking about . >> don't hand showing. >> i can certainly answer questions about how we are addressing the issue of construction cost.

we are looking at ways to streamline or reduce review of building applications for particular types of housing. the housing that we really want to see for moderateand middle income housing , for housing that's going to serve the populations thatare most in need . so there are , we're encouraging and exploring ways to streamline review understanding that the regulatory review process adds considerable cost to construction costs are also talking to experts in the building trades about new construction technologies and what they see on the horizon as potentially allowing us to reduce building costs through technology. and making sure that any thoughts we have about increasing sites or increasing density is can align with these future technology that might

help usto reach some of our goals. i hope that starts to answer the question . >> thank you and i have commissioner wright that would like to make some comments but i encourage all of the commissioners as the plot comes up after we finish our conversation today that you can always feel free to have the ability to complete your comments after our meeting. you can have the ability to we're going to ask shelley to come back and if you want to hold your thoughts so that i would continue and encourage you to continue to ask and continue tocontribute . socommissioner wright . >> one other question came to mind as we been talking and that is that i'm curious if the analysis has considered for is planning to consider

environmental issues related to climate change and specifically there's now data, they're starting to show that reuse of existing buildings is inherently sustainable and that there's an embodied energy and existing buildings and such so the fact of the matter is some of this data is starting to show we're not really going to go our way out of climate change but that we need to be beyond looking at historic buildings, retention of historic buildings, just reuse of existing buildings and modifications expansion even of existing buildings but taking advantage of the embodied energy that's in the building stock wealready have .

>> there are policies in the draft elements right now that speak directly to climate change that talk about the need for greater energy efficiency and in our buildings. i don't know and i have to go back and check the draft whether or not we have made that leakage explicitly about rehabilitation of buildings and the reduction of greenhouse gases and reduction of materials going into our landfills. so certainly we will keep in mind as we take another look at the draft and make sure to underscore that relationship between preservation process and rehabilitation of buildings and good climate change practice. >> great. any other questions or comments or suggestions, recommendation

from the commission ? this is not the last time. . we do thanks shelley. thank you very much shelley for your presentation today. we continue to forward to your updates and i guess we will just get together with joni to figure out when the next time we can have you come back and submit more to us because this is an innovative process and we still want to make sure we get as much input from the commission or the community, from other stakeholders who might be able to provide us with some records to make this a really important document that we can all be very supportive of. sothank you shelley jonas, i'm wondering . we need possibly to take a quick break before we jump into our second. [bleep]. the discussion with allison

leading that, would anybody entertain a five-minute rate? what do you say jonas? >> it'sentirely up to you . the commission is it sounds like there is consensusfor a five minute recess . it is 1:49, while people at 1:50 and returnat 1:55 . so at 1:55 we willreturn .♪ ♪ >> missvanderslice .♪ ♪ you are on mute.♪ ♪ >> thank you.♪ ♪ good afternoon commission ♪ ♪ president matsuda.♪ ♪ before i jump into my ♪

♪ presentation i want to ♪ ♪ knowledge that there were a ♪ ♪ few questions about the pir ♪ ♪ at the last item and i hope ♪ ♪ my presentation will work ♪ ♪ towardsanswering those that ♪ ♪ i look forward to additional ♪ ♪ questions.♪ ♪ if you give me just a minute ♪ ♪ to share my screen .♪ ♪ >> let's try that one more ♪ ♪ time.♪ ♪ all right.♪ ♪ can you see my slide.♪ ♪ thank you.♪ ♪ diane for his review and ♪ ♪ comment on the preservation ♪ ♪ alternative that will give ♪ ♪ you are for the housing ♪ ♪ element 2022 update from ♪ ♪ either the item before you ♪

♪ does not require approval ♪ ♪ action is an opportunity for ♪ ♪ the commissioners to provide ♪ ♪ comments and recommendations♪ ♪ regarding the preservation ♪ ♪ alternativepresented .♪ ♪ we are requesting review and ♪ ♪ comment .♪ ♪ on the success of the ♪ ♪ preservationalternatives to ♪ ♪ review significant impacts ♪ ♪ to historic resources .♪ ♪ we will be bringing the ♪ ♪ draft to the commission for ♪ ♪ review and commentnext .♪ ♪ i am joined by the ♪ ♪ environmental managing eir ♪ ♪ including pritzkerand ♪ ♪ angelina county as a well at ♪ ♪ the environmental review ♪ ♪ officer gibson .♪ ♪ i like to take a second to ♪ ♪ thank the community equity ♪ ♪ division team for their ♪ ♪ collaboration on the ♪ ♪ development the ♪ ♪ alternatives.♪ ♪ i like the fact mister ♪ ♪ shelby and maia at the ♪ ♪ preservation team ♪ ♪ particularly the survey team ♪ ♪ as wellas maggie smith for ♪ ♪ their work on the eir .♪ ♪ the following presentation i ♪ ♪ will re-summarize the ♪ ♪ housing element update more ♪ ♪ specifically to framing the ♪

♪ analysis has just presented ♪ ♪ on the update and will then ♪ ♪ give you a brief overview on ♪ ♪ eir and the approach and ♪ ♪ then discuss the building ♪ ♪ environmenthistoric resource ♪ ♪ impact analysis is in ♪ ♪ progress and mitigation ♪ ♪ measures under consideration ♪ ♪ .♪ ♪ i will then present the ♪ ♪ preservation alternatives ♪ ♪ under development.♪ ♪ >> moving on to a summary of ♪ ♪ the housing element 2022 ♪ ♪ update.♪ ♪ as shelley presented the ♪ ♪ housing element 2022 update ♪ ♪ is an update to the 2014 ♪ ♪ housing element presented ♪ ♪ plan.♪ ♪ the housing elementupdate ♪ ♪ would modify the policies of ♪ ♪ the current housing element ♪ ♪ .♪ ♪ the housing comments update ♪ ♪ in san francisco's first♪ ♪ housing plan that serves on ♪ ♪ the racial equity .♪ ♪ it would include policies ♪ ♪ and programs that express ♪ ♪ the collective vision and ♪ ♪ values in san francisco.♪ ♪ the plan will identify ♪

♪ priorities for ♪ ♪ decision-makers, find ♪ ♪ resource allocation for ♪ ♪ housing programs and ♪ ♪ services and define how and ♪ ♪ where the city should create ♪ ♪ new homes for san ♪ ♪ francisco's and for those ♪ ♪ who want to call the city ♪ ♪ hall.♪ ♪ the housing element update ♪ ♪ is required by state law to ♪ ♪ promote the development of ♪ ♪ the council unit to target ♪ ♪ the recommendation every ♪ ♪ eight years.♪ ♪ in coordination with ♪ ♪ regional and local ♪ ♪ projections the housing ♪ ♪ element update policies and ♪ ♪ actions would add ♪ ♪ approximately 150,000 new♪ ♪ regional applies.♪ ♪ >> 2050 .♪ ♪ this is estimated to be ♪ ♪ higher than the amount of ♪ ♪ the existing housing element ♪ ♪ policy asanticipated to ♪ ♪ accommodate within the same ♪ ♪ timeframe .♪ ♪ for reference under the ♪ ♪ existing housing element ♪ ♪ approximately100,000 new ♪ ♪ housing units would be added ♪ ♪ by 2015 .♪ ♪ the housing elementupdate ♪ ♪ does not include any ♪ ♪ specific planningcode ♪ ♪ amendments , zoning changes ♪ ♪ ,irrelevant projects or ♪ ♪ other implementing measures ♪

♪ .♪ ♪ it's important to highlight ♪ ♪ this point.♪ ♪ the adoption of the housing ♪ ♪ element update was not inand ♪ ♪ of itself authorized change ♪ ♪ zoning other amendment ♪ ♪ regulations orapprove any ♪ ♪ development projects .♪ ♪ i will now give a general ♪ ♪ overview of the eir .♪ ♪ as a housing element update ♪ ♪ you are not authorized to ♪ ♪ make any zoning land use ♪ ♪ regulations or any with the ♪ ♪ housing element updatewould ♪ ♪ not result in any direct ♪ ♪ physical changes to the ♪ ♪ environment .♪ ♪ instead the housingelement ♪ ♪ update would result in ♪ ♪ reasonably foreseeable ♪ ♪ indirect changes .♪ ♪ specifically the department ♪ ♪ assumes that adoption of the ♪ ♪ housing element update with ♪ ♪ lead to future actions ♪ ♪ including planning code ♪ ♪ amendments and approval of♪ ♪ development projects ♪ ♪ implement the policies and ♪ ♪ actions of the housing ♪ ♪ element update .♪ ♪ the eir will identify and ♪ ♪ evaluate the reasonable ♪ ♪ foreseeable physical ♪ ♪ environmental impact of ♪

♪ these future actions that♪ ♪ would implement the goals ♪ ♪ and policies of the proposed ♪ ♪ housing element update .♪ ♪ the analysis and the eir ♪ ♪ will use projected future ♪ ♪ conditions as the baseline ♪ ♪ of in my environmental ♪ ♪ impact.♪ ♪ why is this?♪ ♪ because the proposed action ♪ ♪ would be implemented ♪ ♪ gradually over many years ♪ ♪ and would be additive to ♪ ♪ existing policies ♪ ♪ implemented under the 2014 ♪ ♪ element this eir gives the ♪ ♪ future baseline rather than ♪ ♪ correct conditions.♪ ♪ the 2050 baseline is in use ♪ ♪ would determine ananalysis ♪ ♪ based on existing conditions ♪ ♪ would be less informative ♪ ♪ and potentially misleading ♪ ♪ to decision-makers .♪ ♪ the housing element eir is ♪ ♪ minimizing a 2050 baseline ♪ ♪ assumes the continuation of ♪ ♪ the 2014 housing element.♪ ♪ the result is analysis of ♪ ♪ environmental impact in the ♪ ♪ eir would be based on a ♪ ♪ comparison of growth under ♪ ♪ the 2014 housing element and ♪ ♪ 2015 to grow under proposed ♪ ♪ housing element 2020 update ♪ ♪ in 2050.♪

♪ the proposed draft policies ♪ ♪ of the 20/20 housing element ♪ ♪ update to change the ♪ ♪ geographic contribution of ♪ ♪ warehousing growth would ♪ ♪ occur when otherwise in a ♪ ♪ city under existing policy ♪ ♪ and analyze it with state ♪ ♪ requirements.♪ ♪ he draft policies that would ♪ ♪ enable san francisco to meet ♪ ♪ these goals include ♪ ♪ increased development ♪ ♪ capacity for sites along ♪ ♪ trend corridors to allow ♪ ♪ small family buildings and ♪ ♪ enable small family homes ♪ ♪ and high opportunity ♪ ♪ neighborhoods by other ♪ ♪ removing the control or ♪ ♪ increasing the allowable ♪ ♪ number.♪ ♪ and considering zoning ♪ ♪ changes and priority♪ ♪ geographies only asthey meet ♪ ♪ the needs of american indian ♪ ♪ , black and other ♪ ♪ communities of color and in ♪ ♪ outcomes of community led ♪ ♪ efforts .♪ ♪ this committee will reach ♪ ♪ this emphasis goes to ♪ ♪ modeling of the city to ♪ ♪ reimagine the future of ♪ ♪ housing in san francisco ♪

♪ over the next 50 years.♪ ♪ in general as shown here ♪ ♪ future actions assisted the ♪ ♪ growth of housing element ♪ ♪ update which have been ♪ ♪ increased on the city's ♪ ♪ housing roads and low ♪ ♪ density residential ♪ ♪ districts within high ♪ ♪ opportunity areas as defined ♪ ♪ by the states high ♪ ♪ opportunity map.♪ ♪ as shown in purple the ♪ ♪ proposed action recommends ♪ ♪ promoting law and midrise ♪ ♪ multifamily developments ♪ ♪ increases along certain ♪ ♪ transit corridors and ♪ ♪ through increased density ♪ ♪ limits and low density ♪ ♪ areas.♪ ♪ action would promote more ♪ ♪ housing performance small ♪ ♪ and midrise buildings and ♪ ♪ opportunity areas.♪ ♪ the projects indicated in ♪ ♪ orange are approximately ♪ ♪ 70,000 housingunits in the ♪ ♪ pipeline .♪ ♪ i now that i've given you a ♪ ♪ quick overview on the ♪ ♪ proposed action i will move ♪ ♪ on to discussion of the ♪ ♪ buildings environment ♪

♪ historic impact that is ♪ ♪ currently underway.♪ ♪ as shelleydiscussed earlier ♪ ♪ the housing element update ♪ ♪ includes policies that♪ ♪ promote and celebrate ♪ ♪ cultural heritage .♪ ♪ these specific environment ♪ ♪ resources , draft policy ♪ ♪ sustains themdynamic and ♪ ♪ unique cultural heritage of ♪ ♪ san francisco neighborhoods ♪ ♪ through the conservation of ♪ ♪ historic architecture and ♪ ♪ culture .♪ ♪ policies show associated ♪ ♪ draft actions will be ♪ ♪ evaluated with the policies ♪ ♪ and actions that encourage ♪ ♪ the development of housing.♪ ♪ the

the use of the secretary of interior standards for development of parcels with those historic resources.and requiring development in historic districts to be compatible with the historic district . the update will determine while the preservation alternatives would reduce impacts to historical resources the alternative would have a significant impact to build in historic resources . thus thebuilding environment resource mitigation measures proposed in the eir would be applicable to the preservation alternatives . the preservation alternatives will include in addition to draft housing elements update policies that reduce action impacts to built in historic

resources.the visions for policies and alternatives are shown here in italics. three are shown here and provides policies preservation of historic resources and inclusive neighborhoods. revision to draft policies under goal 4 are shown here. revised policiesfocus on preservation of built-in environments along with production . in addition to draft policies under goals five and six are shown here. revised policies for further protection of historic resources require implementation of historic guidelines. similar to the analysis or the proposed action, the preservation alternatives analysis will identify project

types that are an anticipated result from the plan. this will include the list shown here which aims toprovide for additional housing units while reducing the impact to historic resources . in order to determine how the preservation alternative could change future housing development and prepare them for action the preservation analysis will determine the future housing potential of eachneighborhood in a high opportunity area . the futuredetermination will be based on the following factors : current distribution of environmentalresources , potential built in environment resources identified in adopting historic context , cultural districts and the 2050 neighborhood percentages that were discussed earlier. this announcement will consider the current developmentpatterns in each neighborhood to inform

the range of future housing developments project types presented under these policies . both of the development in the pop pipeline models in the 2050 baseline . based on this review the preservation analysis will identify neighborhoods within high opportunity areas that are lesslikely to have your housing developments without resulting in impacting historic resources . conversely the preservation of analysis will identify neighborhoods inhigh opportunity areas that are more likely to have potential housing developments while still reduce the impact to historic resources . in the map shown hereindicates the neighborhood in high opportunity areas likely to be included in the preservation alternative analysis . the map shows an opportunity where future developments can be moved to these neighborhoods while stillreducing impact to built in historic resources . in summary thepreservation

alternative includes revisions to draft housing element update policies and impacts built in resources . it then identifies the range of potential future development projects that would likely result underthe preservation alternative policies . the preservation alternative focuses on neighborhoods and high opportunity areas. the analysis looks at future development potential of each neighborhood to perform where future development under the preservation alternative can occur while still reaching historic resources . this slide shows the eir schedule, publication of the draft is aiming for spring 2022. the draft eir will be brought for review during the public comment period. as a reminder this is an opportunity for the eight species to provide comment on the adequacy of the alternativ

. no action is required. i'd like to thank you for your time. myself and my team are available for any questions you may have 's thank you allison. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressingáthree to be added to the queue . seeing no members of the public wishing to speak commissioners, public comment on this matter is close and it is now before you. as allison mentioned this is not an action item but rather for your review. >> president:are there any commissioners that wish to make public comment ? >> thank you. i want to say that looking at the future impacts february 20, 1950 is a brilliant move and very novel once again. san francisco falls outside of the normal lean. my comment is related to the mitigation measures under the eir and i understand they are

in a direct form according to the report and will probably be refined in the future so forgive me if this is a little out of place but i do think it's an important comment .i want to highlight the mitigation measures that i think are most essential. of course documenting properties that are lost is a mitigation measure but it doesn't affect the property and the citywidesurvey is something that i think is essential . this omission discussed the citywide survey and i believe 2019 and we learned only 25 percent of thecity had been surveyed at that time . and the commission strongly supported an expedited citywide survey and in fact then commission chair highland and i were appointed to a citywide survey committee and we actually went before the board of supervisors and spoke and urged them to fund some

additional funding so we could compress the timeline of the citywide survey and the board of supervisors were supportive because they understood that doing a citywide survey would reduce the cost and timeliness of applicants having to do their own historic resource evaluation before they could get an application for this review. and it helps direct where developments can happen, where they're not going to affect any resources. it would encourage people to work on those properties and sort of maybe steer them away from someof the historic properties . i know that for a bunch of legitimate reasons including a pandemic the citywide survey

compressed timeframe wasn't able to be accomplished but i want to get a brief update either verbally now or at a future meeting about where we are with this survey. i would like to highlight it as a really important future and it would really affect development. even if it's not, even if this comment is a little outside of the comments on the eir which i do think is adequate. thank you thank you very much for the question and comment commissioner black. i know there is going to be an informational presentation on thestatus of the citywide survey on this year i believe in the next month or two .

on my end we can provide more information on that but i couldn'tagree more that getting the same survey moving forward is definitely a priority of the department . >> that's great, thankyou . >> did youwant to comment about the status of the citywide survey ? >> we are planning on bringing an update to the survey on november 17. so we will provide an update on where the statement is going, where our survey efforts have gone today and also start discussing a rough timeline for the pilots that we are starting to explore. >> president: thankyou. commissioner right . >> thank you and i just wanted to also state my concern on the importance that commissioner

black was bringing up of the citywide survey to this effort. one question that i have relative to the eir and miss vanderslice is mentioning the eir is addressing the change from the 2014 eir to the 2014 plan to the 20/20 to plan and not against existing. that's correct, right? that i understood that correctly? >> that's correct. >> one question i have about that is because this is kind of a tiered approach, does that skew the understanding of to the public of cumulative effects and can the eir to this

commission or anyone else but can the eir include both an understanding of the impact relative to the 2014 planand to the current condition ? >> there will be an explanation between the current condition and the baseline so the baseline at this point is a projection of the housing element policies under the 2014 housing element. and then basically we will be doing an analysis that will look at the difference between where we think housing should go between the 20/50 baseline and where housing would likely be developed if the policies move forward under the 20/20 element update. and so it will be acknowledged in the 20/50 dateline if that makes sense so the analysis

will look at how is that the proposed action which is housing element 2022 update, what the environmental impacts on our or the indirect impact of the 20/20housing element update . >> i think so. it does sound like you would be looking at it compared to the current condition as well as compared to changes from the 2014 plan. am i getting that right? >> correct. i would refer to one of the epa environmental teams if they would like to add or clarify anything on that for you . >> this is chris with planning.

just a couple of quick points on that because it is a bit confusing and it's unusual though certainly not unprecedented use of future baseline for the impact analysis so the alternative analysis section 1st of all will include what is known as the no project alternative which is a particular requirement for all. so under that no project alternative there will be an analysis of the environmental effects of continuation of growth in the city through 2050 under the existing housing element policies. albeit that will be a higher level of analysis, less detailed analysis that willbe included in the eir for the proposed action . and then secondly,just because it is hard of a to wrap your

head around , this concept of the future baseline and why we're using one in this case and really after a lot of consideration and consultation, with the city attorney and other experts we arrived at the conclusion it's really required under sql in a case like this the use of future baseline the reason for that is the fundamental function of ceqa is to identify impacts that could result either directly or in this case indirectly from the action that is proposed. that is the subject of the in this case the eir. so the action is proposed would change how growth occurs and the amount of growth that would occur in the city in the future compared to existing policies but it won't, it wouldn't in and of itself prevent a failure

to adopt the housing element update prevent all growth from occurring in the city over the next 30 years. growth would continue to occur just occur in a different way. different distribution in a different magnitude. so the environmental impact analysis correctly is focusing on the delta or thedifference between growth under existing policies and growth under the proposed policies . i hope that's helpful. >> thank you. >> commissioner, did you have any other comments or allison? >> not at this time. >> are there other commissioners that have any questions or comments?

i just had a quick question allison about the potential mitigation measures that you have listed here and they are very clear. i would appreciate the update about the citywide survey because i know that both commissioner black and former commissioner highland worked very hard to make sure that it was considered a high priority of the hpc so it would be great to get that information as soon as we can. just looking at the mitigation measuresthis is a really good list . i'm wondering if this list also includes and incorporates some of the things that we've been consideringunder the situational and social equity lends . like how we could add to this list using that lens. and how we could do that.

>> just to answer a quick question, thank you for the question commission president. in regards to the list one of the things that we did start with is we went through a variety of environmental documents that have been published by the department and also by other departments as well as mitigation measures that have been discussed during conferences and our quorum. and then we went through them to try to see how it is they could be adopted or changed as well to sort of address the racial and social equity directions that we've been given bythe historic preservation commission . so that was things having to do more with focusing on the interpretive programs. as well as other educational programs with we would definitely take into consideration like community outreach. so we tried to wear when working through these to think about redrafting them in regard

to ensuring that there's more community in play on how it might be memorialized or talked about so that's the one approach to that that we've taken on and also thinking about is it always an architectural history or a preservationprotects professional that should be doing this work. are there ways to run the communities of . are would beinvolved in various mitigationmeasures. that's an initial response of course . if youhave additional comments , we would be happy to hear them . >> i think that's great and i think that because this will incorporate community process, and you're going to take us around to get community feedback be great if they had a toolbox full of examples because i know that some communities are not familiar when you talk about mitigation measures and what can be available to them. so just a suggestion when this is presented to various

communities that specific examples can be presented like under oral history like who would do an oral history or libelous are referenced for interpretation or just panels. i think those things just by way of a specific example could trigger an image for them so they can explore and hopefully expand this toolbox of things to consider.thank you. let's see, commissioner so. >> thank you for your presentation. is well thought out and i like that a lot . my question is specifically to the mitigation measures. all these alternatives. a lot of them you listed out are actually we had used quite a bit of them in our recent project. and i'm pretty sure that there are some already may be implemented. i wonder have we as we go back

and assess which are those that are more impactful and less barriers to achieve and obtain also actually working cause they're not exactly the same when you kind of create a public artwork versus essentially turning everything into digital. i know different projects have their own limitations or some of them are better than others but i'm just curious to hear if your team has found all these mitigation measures which run, one tend to be achieving our goals to preserving the history. >> thank you for the question. just to clarify mitigation measures do need to reduce the

project impacts to particular historic resources. so one of the things that we're trying to acknowledge within the development of the housing element mitigation measure program is to acknowledge what the range of impacts my feet and the rangeof resources that might be impacted .and then developmitigation measures that would respond to that . so for example, a historic resource for significant architecture would have a mitigation measure that might review impacts that would be different than one would say just be significant for cultural association. so we are looking at that in regards to trying to make sure those mitigation measureswould be targeted as much as possible . whereas if if the goal is to say an architectural element, that would have a different salvage mentor and then if it's more of a community significant

resource than some of the other programs that we come up with. things like community memorial or interpretation that takes into account oral history or as i suggested our electives that are significant to thelocal community. so that would be one approach . or one way to answer the question. i would also say that we have taken a variety of measures from various environmental documents some of which are the eir before you recently. we all have reduced quite a few recently that had a range of these measures . and each time we do one of these we try to look at the measure and review it and make sure that it's as clear as possible, that it is reducing impacts , that there is a clear and consistent impact and is it working the best that it can because that is something we're constantly sort of reviewing

those and updating.>> commissioner nageswaran. >> in terms of mitigation, one thing that came to mind reading one of the policies was that demolition and alteration are going to be the most impactful in terms of historic resources so i wonder whether when there's a development happening that's demolishing a resource or altering a resource and within a district, i see like the vulnerable places being not necessarily a landmark but contributing buildings that are landmarks. within districts. borders of districts where we see there is none contribute in

operant properties along borderline and that sometimes defines the borders of these neighborhoods or districts. and those are the opportunities and also vulnerable because they will affect two separate neighborhoods or districts. so i wanted to kind of see if this is something to particular for if this can be one of the mitigation measures but in incentivizing in terms of having developers fund or when landlords are raising rents that portion of that is put towardsrehabilitation of their

property or something in the community . so that you know, some of these things are contributing to the broader scope of the city. or particular properties if some of these developments and there's probably things already in place for this but in terms of including this in the policies and eir, if there's a way to put something like this as an incentive ori don't know how you would word . >> thank you for the question and ibelieve shelley touched on this briefly in her presentation . there's one of the potential additions or revisions to the policies that are being updated as they go through those areas of outreach and feedback is that we're thinking about adding in the development of a mitigation fund. that would be a similar

approach to believe what you were talking about.there is already discussions underway about the ability to add that we would be adding it at this point as an action under one of the policies tofurther explore and develop it . >> and kind of just i mentioned bubble work between districts being both areas of opportunity and also vulnerability. is there a way to address that in the policies or i mean, i don't wantto answer it right now but you know what i mean . when i'm done studies on properties within those areas it always is sort of like okay, they've got this set of criteria that are in this

district and then there isn't a district on theother side of it . not yet. for a neighborhood thathas certain character . so i feel like those borderlines are always the mos vulnerable . so i don't know if there's a way to kind of think about how to build. or incorporate that somehow. and maybethat's just a part of the citywide survey . >> thank you for the comment and yes, we can explore that either inregards to the development of mitigation measures for implementation into the policies moving forward . i would like to if possible remind the commission that one of the main goals for the presentation today is to get review and comment on the adequacy of the preservation

alternatives so i wanted to sort of remind that that is one of the goals of the hearing today. i just wanted to remind the commission that we are looking for the comment as well. >> thank you and allison, maybe i could ask you to start us off on that so we can start to have a big discussion. >> this particular point or comment on the adequacy of this alternative, as i presented the preservation alternatives include revisions to policies that would primarily or have the potential to impact historic resources. then we developed a range of project types which are slightly different than the ones under proposed action that we think would result from

those preservation alternatives and then the analysis takes into consideration neighborhoods that are in high opportunity areas where we think there could be further development following those proposed projecttypes , where those neighborhoods could have that future development and still reduced impact to historic neighborhoods. i know that's a lot but we definitely want to develop an alternative for this type of planning documents. it's a little different than thealternative that we brought to you . >> president: does anybody want to start off the discussion about transportation alternatives andthe goals that are listed here ? hello.

>> thanks staff, you've done a fantastic job. >> i do think so but i think there are some areas for discussion, commissioner black. >> i think or at least i want to conclude my statements thati think the alternatives are adequate . and i didn't have any pressing questions for issues so ... >> president: commissioner so. >> i agree with commissioner black and i also appreciate ... i believe tothis point they are adequate . i like that map that you have thatshows the draft presentation alternatives . anything that is kind of more

illustrative that's easy to understand by the general public i think will make that process and the new idea and your proposal just more transparent to get the idea across. i do realize that basically everything you have mapped out essentially west of market street which is very interesting to. this graphic is really helpful and i also like that element that youbrought up at one point . i'm not sure ifit's in your report . the fact that you wanted to expand the pool of professional experts to help actually deliver these alternative mitigation measures. that's really profound and i really for that.

i think that preservation, historic preservation needs to be broader and bring more people. most people actually love it and they have a hard time understanding. maybe they're already doing it . a lot of arctic architects just by doing the designs they've done quite a bit that they haven't yet been able to access the proper channels to deliver the same piece of result. we can expand it not just to architects and engineers. it could be other people who are specialized in each individual mitigation measure that you have put forward. so thank you for doing that because we need more people to be able to make these things carry on in an impactful way on the larger scale. >> president: well done.

commissioner wright. >> can you hear me okay? my connection was a little slow. so i wanted, thank you. i wanted to acknowledge and kind of question again. this is less about the mitigation and not really to beat a dead horse. the more i think about it, the data from completion of the citywide survey really has the potential to change the analysis and recommendations of this report. i just want to underscore the importance of completion of the citywide survey. i don't know if completion of the survey could be achieved by the time this eir update is

complete and implemented but i just want to be on the record for suggesting that the eir should incorporate any updates to the citywide survey are completed prior to its completion. >> thank you very much for the comments. i will clarify the survey will not be completed by the time the eir draft will be published or at the time of certification. as part of how we develop that

. >> that would then be based on the information at that time. so as the citywide survey continues forward and there's identification of something if there's not resource particular to ceqa we would use our current practice for reviewing historic resources and historic resource impacts based on the current data.

>> thank you. >> president: anyother comments from the commission ? >> one minor comment in terms of the consideration of the inclusion of cultural districts when you talk about historical resources to also talk about cultural districts and know that there are many on the board of supervisors interested in increasing cultural districts in those neighborhoods and i think that if we kind of lookahead that we make sure that we use it as part of this consideration. >> did do is use of part of the analysis was using the cultural

districts to help inform where we think there might be resources in the future. so we did so but while i know this commission requires cultural districts are not in and of themselves historic districts for the purposes of assets identified in the cultural districts, we did look at the cultural districts and use that to inform the 2054 with an understanding that these districts have been identified and it's likely that they are cultural resources that would be enough against in terms of ceqa inthose areas . >> that was my only comment. this as you can see allison you did a good job.you have silenced our commission.

>> thank you very much. >> president: any other last comments for today aboutwhat allison has presented to us ? okay. all right, i don't hear any other requeststo speak . >> clerk: includes your items for today. we will see you in the month of november. thanks everyone. >> president: thank you eve

>> my name is holly i'm been in enterprise software training for 10 years that expired film and art and voice-over week work and all kinds of work. >> i'm jane a program director

for the state of california i have the privilege of working on special technology projects for the depth of the technology a passion for helping people and a passion for doing work that makes a difference and makes me feel good at night and i think about what i did today and helping every single person in the city as. >> a technology professional a need for more women and more women in leadership roles the diversity and the leadership pipeline is an area that needs a little bit of love. >> a lot of love. >> a whole lost love. >> i'll contribute for the change for women's equality by showing up and demonstrating that the face of success schizophrenia came come in a

variety of corresponds. >> they're a lot of roadblocks for san francisco when it comes to our proposition and finding a play for information that has how to start and grow management so we started to build the san francisco business portal not just consults or the taxpayers and voters they're actually customers we are the government serving the consumers in our neighborhood i point to at least one best that i personally touched with one way or another and makes me feel good about the projects like the business portal and in embarking on this new exciting journey of finding better and efficient ways to deliver services to san franciscans i sit through a lot of senior

management meetings i'm the only woman in the room i know that our c i o is tried to recruit for women and a male dominated environment. >> i've felt unbounded and inspired to pursue a lot of things over time i recognize to be cricked in ways i didn't anticipate you know i've followed the calling but now put me in a position to spend most of my time doing things i love this is the whole point; right? you ought to feel inspired in our work and found opportunities to have you're work put you in service for others and happy doing what you're spending so much time.

>> my father was a journalist lift and my mom a teacher when we finally decided to give up their lives because of me and now i actually get to serve the city and county of san francisco it makes me feel really, really good not this didn't happen overnight i've worked my entire life to get to this point and much more to learn and i have a lot of changes ahead. >> really think about what moves you what you're pat's about and trust that you are sufficient and enough where you are to begin and then is her that you are being tenacious about getting to the next place in the evolution but by all means start with you are and

san francisco is surrounded on three sides by water, the fire boat station is intergal to maritime rescue and preparedness, not only for san francisco, but for all of the bay area. [sirens]

>> fire station 35 was built in 1915. so it is over 100 years old. and helped it, we're going to build fire boat station 35. >> so the finished capital planning committee, i think about three years ago, issued a guidance that all city facilities must exist on sea level rise. >> the station 35, construction cost is approximately $30 million. and the schedule was complicated because of what you call a float. it is being fabricated in china, and will be brought to treasure island, where the building site efficient will be constructed on top of it, and then brought to pier 22 and a half for installation. >> we're looking at late 2020 for final completion

of the fire boat float. the historic firehouse will remain on the embarcadero, and we will still respond out of the historic firehouse with our fire engine, and respond to medical calls and other incidences in the district. >> this totally has to incorporate between three to six feet of sea level rise over the next 100 years. that's what the city's guidance is requiring. it is built on the float, that can move up and down as the water level rises, and sits on four fixed guide piles. so if the seas go up, it can move up and down with that. >> it does have a full range of travel, from low tide to high tide of about 16 feet. so that allows for current tidal movements and sea lisle rises in the coming

decades. >> the fire boat station float will also incorporate a ramp for ambulance deployment and access. >> the access ramp is rigidly connected to the land side, with more of a pivot or hinge connection, and then it is sliding over the top of the float. in that way the ramp can flex up and down like a hinge, and also allow for a slight few inches of lateral motion of the float. both the access ramps, which there is two, and the utility's only flexible connection connecting from the float to the back of the building. so electrical power, water, sewage, it all has flexible connection to the boat. >> high boat station number 35 will provide mooring for three fire boats and one rescue boat. >> currently we're staffed with seven members per day, but the fire department would like to establish a new dedicated

marine unit that would be able to respond to multiple incidences. looking into the future, we have not only at&t park, where we have a lot of kayakers, but we have a lot of developments in the southeast side, including the stadium, and we want to have the ability to respond to any marine or maritime incident along these new developments. >> there are very few designs for people sleeping on the water. we're looking at cruiseships, which are larger structures, several times the size of harbor station 35, but they're the only good reference point. we look to the cruiseship industry who has kind of an index for how much acceleration they were accommodate. >> it is very unique. i don't know that any other fire station built on the water is in the

united states. >> the fire boat is a regional asset that can be used for water rescue, but we also do environmental cleanup. we have special rigging that we carry that will contain oil spills until an environmental unit can come out. this is a job for us, but it is also a way of life and a lifestyle. we're proud to serve our community. and we're willing to help people in any way we can.