>> thank you very much, everybody, and i will quickly state that i'm joining this just a touch late, but i live at 203 buchanan, which is just beneath where this antenna is going to be installed. what i'm trying to understand, and forgive me if i missed something, but it could be no closer than 27 feet to a public area. but what about a private area? i went out and measured this, and from my window to the pole is 21 feet, so this is something that i will be exposed to, the radiation from

this, and this is one of my biggest concerns, that i will be exposed to this 24-7. so my concern is that there's the radiation from this pole, and i'd like to understand, are there any restrictions? how close can it be to any structure, namely the one in discussion right now? and then, i'd just like to state that i'm against the installation of this antenna. i am really, really happy that i am not alone in this, and i thank you all for your consideration. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment for this item? please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any further public comment, so we'll move onto rebuttal. mr. stein, you have three

minutes. >> commissioner honda: you're on mute, sir. >> okay. sorry about that. i've got several people that were going to do public comment told me they couldn't wait any longer, and i know you've gotten some letters of support. but as far as notice under 27-13-3, it says, the company shall send a notice of intent to any neighborhood identified by the planning department within 300 feet, so it's not something that they are required to do, if i'm understanding this, it's something that they shall. also, upholding the forever, it's not been there forever. the poles were added later, and that's kind of the sad thing about historical resources is

the later it goes and more things that are put up in front of us, that's used as a justification as adding more clutter. yeah, we can go through some of those, too. also, there are alternates that are in that very area that will still work. the only difference is they're in, from what i can tell, tier three, and they're not disfavored, so weighing that against the f.c.c. ruling and article 10, it seems that it's moving it to a slightly less favorable location. i understand the need for telecommunications, but there can be some accommodation here. let's see...it's been featured in many books. it's an attraction, and people

take photos of it. you can just keep going. see, there's no pole. keep going down, please. we've restored these balconies -- keep going down. we've restored these historic chimneys. keep going down. all of these are impacted by the pole and the antenna that will be sticking up. when you look up and you're in the open space, you're going to see this pole, from that perspective, that's going to be exceeding the height of the tower and blocking out these details. keep going, alec. and that was when it was a parking lot, and now, it's even more important to keep that space. and article ten, which i touched on in the brief.

i don't want to touch on that now, but definitely, like, the enrichment of human life and it's educational and spiritual and cultural -- what it says at the bottom there, at the bottom, where the people of san francisco, it's important. and to put up this blocking a view for the public just doesn't seem the right thing to do, especially in light of the notice of issues -- >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from tammy blackstone. thank you very much. >> thank you. i just wanted to address a couple of items. the notice was done appropriately. we did all of the required notification, and, you know, we -- we're sorry if, for some reason, you felt like you were noticed, but you were. we did make sure that there was taken care of. -- that that was taken care of.

the actual antenna is 2 feet long and 9 inches around. we don't feel that it's going to block the view because it's on top of what's already there. a lot of us are in san francisco and want to preserve what we have. this is not in the public right of way. it's not in -- it's in the public right-of-way, so even after this appeal was filed, our vendors went back, and we looked again, and we went through all the poles to try and suitable alternate, and there just is nothing in that area, so that's why i ask you, after it's been approved by all

of the required city departments that you uphold this permit. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from president swig. you're on mute, president swig. >> president swig: thank you. i was going to -- i think you answered it, but i was going to ask planning about alternative alternate locations. is it because -- are you absolutely stating because the appellant is stating his view is saying there were alternatives, but they were less favorable as opposed to impossible. do you share his view that there were less favorable ones that were impossible or were all the alternatives in the neighborhood impossible? and i'm going to ask everyone the same question. >> are you asking me the

question? >> president swig: yes. >> yeah. they were either going to require a much taller pole because of the way antennas work. you've heard this all before. it's all line of sight. and then, some were muni lines, and we have to be careful with the g.o. 95, and some of them already had too much equipment on top. we did look at 18 poles very carefully, and each one of them, unfortunately, had some issue that was going to make it. >> president swig: okay. we have a conflict in viewpoint. the appellant says, based on his study, there were less favorable ones. you're saying that at&t was zero for 18. >> we're one for 18, that one. >> president swig: okay. and so i'm going to ask

plaintiff the same thing. of the 18 poles, was there a chance that any of the 18 had this mechanism? okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. mr. palacios, do you have anything further? >> yeah, just to -- i know the appellant mentioned neighborhood groups, so if you go to public works brief, and you go to exhibit e, you can see that the residents be mailed and all the businesses. and aside from that, the proper board of supervisor was also

notified. >> commissioner honda: was that e? >> exhibit e. >> commissioner honda: exhibit e? okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the planning department, and president swig, did you want miss tam to answer your question? >> president swig: yes. >> clerk: before she starts her rebuttal? >> president swig: yes. >> okay. tina tam for the planning department. in the [indiscernible], this is the location that we got as the proposal. we're not the lead agency for the public works permit. it's a public right-of-way, and we were not involved in reviewing the other alternate sites. >> president swig: thank you

very much for the answer, and we may have to go back to mr. palacios. this is called hide the walnut. i mean, who -- are you going to believe that a self-interest -- no disrespect, miss blackstone, to tell you, at&t, that they're zero for 18? who in the city is responsible for holding that claim that it's true? is it you, mr. palacios? going back to you, miss tam? i want to know that who in the city affirmed that out of the 18 poles, none of them were appropriate -- even if they were secondary, that none of them were appropriate mechanisms. >> i can answer this. >> president swig: yeah. >> under article 25, we don't do an analysis of which pole

they want to use. they do an analysis of the pole that they want to use. if the pole happens to be that pole, we just make sure that it adheres to article 25. under state law, telecommunication companies have the right to put in large poles in the public right-of-way. >> president swig: we've heard many of these items, and i will site them, because i have a pretty good memory on clay street, there was a very, very divisive conversation about a pole, and we asked what other poles in the neighborhood were looked at. there were approximately five other poles that were looked at, and there was one that almost made the cut, right? and that was one of the pieces

of the decision that -- that was one of the elements that let us to the decision. i'm sorry, mr. palacios, but the city didn't do a hands off. they did a hands off because it was a city asset. now i understand that the poles are now in jurisdiction of the p.u.c., and we're talking about -- in the future, we'll talk about pg&e. i think that law is a fix game, but at the same time, there has to be accountability, and there's no checks and balances from d.p.w., so at&t can come to you and said hey, we did this study man, and this is the one, and you don't check their work? and, you know, this is -- this

is a change in the game. you're -- d.p.w. is now changing the rules or somebody in the city is now changing the rules because this is the way that it has not been, and the story that you're giving me today is a changing of the rules, a new interpretation of the article, and i find that very difficult to accept. i find it very difficult to accept that you can't come in here, 18 poles, you go zero for 18 or one for 18. yes, one is the best. two can possibly make it. three, four, and five are a little worse, and the remaining 13 just won't cut it, but not zero for 18. come on, man. >> commissioner honda: president swig, the planning department hasn't had their time yet. >> president swig: yeah, i

understand, but this is the man with the answer, president honda. >> so a lot of work comes into choosing a pole, as you saw by at&t's analysis of poles. all they do is give us a location, and it's a very special location. that's why it's required to have a certificate of appropriateness. if it was a denial, then, it's done. the permit was denied, and hey, go look for another spot. but we have a permit from the city that they're able to build on a p.u.c. pole, not a city pole. my job is just to make sure that they adhere to article 25. >> president swig: that way, you say yes. all right. i'm really confused that a

telephone company, telecommunications company now in the city of san francisco, whether it be at&t, verizon or others, they hand you a permit, and it's rubber stamped. that's my concern, but i'm not running the city, so my opinion doesn't matter, but this isn't the original world, and this isn't the way it was two or three years ago. so i'm confused and concerned, and i'll take it up after this hearing, maybe with the department head. i don't want to hold up this hearing any longer. it's too late. thank you. miss tam? >> clerk: okay. thank you, miss tam. you have three minutes for rebuttal.

>> thank you. i actually don't have anything to add, but i am here to answer any questions. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> commissioner honda: would anyone like to start off first? me, president, or no? >> president swig: no, i don't choose to start the conversation. >> commissioner honda: well, after reading the brief, and my questions were that if the permit was issued properly. according to what the department's explained, i believe that they have been. and we can go round and round regarding design. we all know that the companies have been worked hard trying to get a design that everyone likes, and not everyone is going to like it. like my president said, we have

to deal with article 25, and we have further constraints, and we have to deal with whether it's a city pole or p.u.c. pole. after all of the discussion with the city departments, i believe that this permit was permitted correctly and issued correctly. >> president swig: and i would differ in my opinion only because there wasn't appropriate item field, and maybe i can talk with a department head, and maybe they can enlighten me later, but i don't feel that there was appropriate oversight to at&t in scrutinizing their report to see that there wasn't an alternative -- an alternative pole. neither miss tam or mr. palacios --

>> commissioner honda: but president swig, it's the permit holder -- we can't determine if someone wants to do a stairway. it's not the department's responsibility to check all the locations for them. >> president swig: well, no, i didn't say check all the locations for them. if a location is in truth, and miss blackstone is telling the truth, and they had a report that said that they had 18 poles and none of them were any good, and only one of them was good, what i heard from the city is that, in two departments, that nobody read the report and nobody did due diligence whatsoever to go out and see if there was any alternatives, especially when there is a historical last mark

involved, and that is where i'm kind of -- i don't think that the full job was done. that's all -- it -- that's all. >> commissioner honda: if there's no other commissioner comments, i will make a motion to deny the appeal on the fact that the permit was issued correctly. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-1. the appeal is denied, and i want to check in with commissioner chang. do you need to leave right now,

commissioner chang? >> commissioner chang: i think i am okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we are now moving onto item 8ing, appeal number 21-107, patricia martell versus san francisco public works, bureau of street use and mapping, at 270 lansdale avenue. >> vice president lazarus: i wanted to let everybody know that it's 20 to 10:00, and we had a rule that we wouldn't

hear matters after 10:00 p.m., but i think we're going to run into this issue. >> clerk: so are you saying you want to continue item 9 and hear it at the next meeting as the first item? >> vice president lazarus: i'm saying that's a possibility because i don't think we're going to hear that in the next 20 minutes. in consideration of the parties and the appellant in the next case, i wanted to bring that up. >> do you want to ask the parties if they're available? >> vice president lazarus: sure, but only if my fellow colleagues want to keep going. >> president swig: i would think that we're going to be finished on this item after 10:00, which is after our

self-imposed curfew, so i support your motion on the next item, and that we'll move it to a later date. >> commissioner honda: i don't mind moving this case, but hearing the next one -- >> president swig: that's what we're saying. we'll hear this one, but the next one is going to get bumped. >> commissioner honda: that's a bummer, but we adopted this, and the reason we adopted it is because at that point, everyone is kind of spent, and we do want to pay attention to every detail that is before us on the matter. >> clerk: do we want to pause on item 8 and take a vote on item 9? >> president swig: that would be advisable. >> clerk: okay.

this is appeal 21-097, simran basi and mark duterte versus san francisco public works, bureau of street use and mapping, at 2 vista verde court, appealing the issuance on october 6, 2021, to modus,, inc. , of a wireless box permit, permit 21-wr-00067. so it looks like the board wants to continue this item to february 9. we wanted to check in with you. are you available that day, as and the and mr. basi and mr. dutko, and again, our apologies?

>> president swig: how is the calendar -- for our information, what does the calendar look like on february 9? >> clerk: we have five appeals, so it's pretty busy. >> president swig: yeah. >> commissioner honda: just like the old days, oh, my god. >> president swig: you're popular again. >> commissioner honda: they know you're president again. that's why. >> president swig: yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. >> clerk: so, i mean, you know, february's busy. so we'll just wait to hear back. and i did see a thumbs up from miss blackstone, at&t, so thank you.

thank you for your patience, everyone. it's been a long night. >> hi. we've been patiently waiting all night. >> clerk: our apologies. are you okay if you move your item to february 9? >> we don't appreciate moving it forward. the 9 is a little tough for me. are there any other days possibly? >> well, we could put it on the 16. >> february 16, that works for me. >> that works for me. >> that works for me. >> clerk: okay. miss blackstone, february 16, does that work for you? >> it doesn't, but i'll make it work. >> clerk: thank you very much. appreciate that. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: okay. and so do we have a motion, commissioners, on this item? >> vice president lazarus: i'll make a motion since i created

the stir. move to continue, is it item 9? >> clerk: yes. >> vice president lazarus: to be heard on february 16. >> clerk: okay. given the late hour. >> vice president lazarus: yes, thank you. >> clerk: all right. so on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. thank you very much to the parties. my apologies on this, but we did have a lot of public comment on the first item. thank you very much. have a good evening. you can stay if you want to listen to this case. okay. so we are going back to item number 8, and miss martell, excuse the interruption. you have seven minutes to present your case. >> okay. thank you so much. i'm going to have to pivot from my stated remarks as i see what the focus is.

good morning, everyone. i apologize for not having submitted a brief. i am unfamiliar with this process and was under the impression that my initial letter to the board was enough. i wish i could say this was a heritage house, but my home is notorious and was in a land slide six years ago from a break in a water main, but alas, it is not a heritage home. i'm very sad about that. i submit this appeal on behalf of at least a dozen neighbors

because we are very concerned about the health and safety of this antenna. this 4-g antenna will become a 5-g antenna in the not-too-distant future. you know that it's hotly debated, as technology's rapidly evolving and the science around the impact of health is long and hard to measure. let me point out that the s.e.c.s guidelines for measuring human exposure to radio waves is woefully outdated, and the environmental working groups have set limits 200 to 400 times lower than what the government allows. there are dozens of studies

that demonstrate that [indiscernible] on and on and on. children's bodies absorb more radiation than adults this is fact. recognizing that there are a number of lawsuits against the f.c.c. not setting biological standards, which is so much lower than other centralized nations. i could go on and on and on. it's clear that e.m.s. has impact. there are so many likely risks. everyone agrees that there's more research that's needed, and we can't ignore the studies that more research is needed. the w.h.o. are hedging their

bets against our radiation because of potential harm, and what we can also say for sure is the [indiscernible] as possible carcinogenic to humans. what we do know is that it absolutely would be better and there would be zero risks from this without the cellular antenna elected 45 feet from my home. why are these not better situated on city properties or public businesses where people are not subjected to constant exposure to e.m.s.? as president swig noted, the battle is lopsided, that the

telecom is able to spend huge sums of money for politicians to support their aspirations. where is the additional consideration i would take for sure, the hit on my property value? let me also point out that some of my neighbors, including the one at 270 lansdale, did not receive notification of this permit. additionally, the notices posted on poles in the neighborhood were posted in such a way as to be impossible

to retrieve and read in full. they were strapped so tightly to the pole that they would rip if you tried to take them out and read them. i know that there are owls living nearby, impacted endangered northern spotted owls. i know you've heard many hearings on these antennas, for good reason. i do know that your hands are what tied here. you're surely aware that the telecome industry is leading the fight to limit municipalities' efforts to

object to their placement. on behalf of my neighbors, on casitas and lansdale avenues, i want to thank you for your time and listening to this appeal. >> clerk: thank you very much. we will now hear from miss black stone. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. it's tammy blackstone, and i do have our modus representatives and our outside council should there be any question about radio frequency compliance and legal issues. as i said, at&t is committed to following the requirements that san francisco puts in place for wireless facilities, and as in this case, as with all of the others, we feel that the permit

was lawfully permitted, diligently reviewed, and studied. so we did get the, you know, approval, and you can see, we kind of walked through all of the different reviews and approvals that we have to get. now here are our [indiscernible] the first picture you see is what is there now, and the second is what is our proposed antenna up on top. so with this one, we will have to put in a taller pole, and that is to comply with the general order 95.

the existing policy is 29'10", and we'll have to put on the antenna, bringing it to 31'10" on the design, you'll see this area is the added height that we needed in order to accommodate the other infrastructure that's on that pole. we again worked closely with public works on this pole to make sure that it complies with all the city standards. so this is our alternative site analysis. again, the pink pins are where we looked and tried to find a different pole. the yellow one is where we ended up. and just, i did go through the alternative site analysis on the last case, but i'll do it

again, just for president swing, with this one, we considered 11 poles. there were fewer poles in the area, so we considered 11. five of them are not available because they are decorative poles that the p.u.c. will not allow us to attach. one wouldn't work because it's on private property, and then, two of them that -- the poles just structurally could not house the at&t small cell antenna, so again, we were left with this pole. as we always do, we go back and kind of take a look around just to see if we missed something, and again, that's the only pole that's viable in that neighborhood. this is our radio frequency compliance and safety certificate from hammett and edison that shows that the site as designed will be well below

all federal standards for radio frequency emissions. so in conclusion, i just want to say that at&t have identified all of the areas of the city and have worked to design the best design possible, and we ask the city to uphold this approval. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. if you could please stop sharing your screen. great. thanks. so we will now hear from the department of public works. mr. palacios. >> hello, hello. hello, vice president, president, and commissioners. article 25 requires public works refer wireless applications to the department

of public health and in compliance with the objective standard. we determined that the application complies with the objective standards. the planning department is in attendance and can speak more regarding planning's review process, and the health department is available to answer any questions and respond to any e-mail. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. actually, the planning department is not here. there isn't appear to be any -- didn't appear to be any planning department issues, so we have a question. [please stand by]

>> roughly five years, i was working as a high school teacher, and i decided to take my students on a surfing field trip. the light bulb went off in my head, and i realized i could do much more for my students taking them surfing than i could as their classroom teacher, and that is when the idea for the city surf project was born. >> working with kids in the ocean that aren't familiar with this space is really special because you're dealing with a lot of fear and apprehension but at the same time, a lot of excitement. >> when i first did it, i was, like, really scared, but then, i did it again, and i liked it.

>> we'll get a group of kids who have just never been to the beach, are terrified of the idea, who don't like the beach. it's too cold out, and it's those kid that are impossible to get back out of the water at the end of the day. >> over the last few years, i think we've had at least 40 of our students participate in the city surf project. >> surfing helped me with, like, how to swim. >> we've start off with about two to four sessions in the pool before actually going out and surfing. >> swimming at the pool just helps us with, like, being, like, comfortable in the water and being calm and not being all -- not being anxious. >> so when we started the city surf project, one of the things we did was to say hey, this is

the way to earn your p.e. credits. just getting kids to go try it was one of our initial challenges for the first year or two. but now that we've been doing it three or four years, we have a group of kids that's consistent, and the word has spread, that it's super fun, that you learn about the ocean. >> starting in the morning, you know, i get the vehicles ready, and then, i get all the gear together, and then, i drive and go get the kids, and we take them to a local beach. >> we usually go to linda mar, and then occasionally ocean beach. we once did a special trip. we were in capitola last year, and it was really fun. >> we get in a circle and group stretch, and we talk about specific safety for the day, and then, we go down to the water. >> once we go to the beach, i

don't want to go home. i can't change my circumstances at home, but i can change the way i approach them. >> our program has definitely been a way for our students to find community and build friends. >> i don't really talk to friends, so i guess when i started doing city surf, i started to, like, get to know people more than i did before, and people that i didn't think i'd like, like, ended up being my best friends. >> it's a group sport the way we do it, and with, like, close camaraderie, but everybody's doing it for themselves. >> it's great, surfing around, finding new people and making new friendships with people throughout surfing. >> it can be highly developmental for students to have this time where they can learn a lot about themselves while negotiating the waves. >> i feel significantly, like, calmer. it definitely helps if i'm,

like, feeling really stressed or, like, feeling really anxious about surfing, and i go surfing, and then, i just feel, like, i'm going to be okay. >> it gives them resiliency skills and helps them build self-confidence. and with that, they can use that in other parts of their lives. >> i went to bring my family to the beach and tell them what i did. >> i saw kids open up in the ocean, and i got to see them connect with other students, and i got to see them fail, you know, and get up and get back on the board and experience success, and really enjoy themselves and make a connection to nature at the same time. >> for some kids that are, like, resistant to, like, being in a mentorship program like this, it's they want to surf,

and then later, they'll find out that they've, like, made this community connection. >> i think they provided level playing fields for kids to be themselves in an open environment. >> for kids to feel like i can go for it and take a chance that i might not have been willing to do on my own is really special. >> we go on 150 surf outings a year. that's year-round programming. we've seen a tremendous amount of youth face their fears through surfing, and that has translated to growth in other facets of their lives. >> i just think the biggest thing is, like, that they feel like that they have something that is really cool, that they're engaged in, and that we, like, care about them and how they're doing, like, in general. >> what i like best is they really care about me, like, i'm

not alone, and i have a group of people that i can go to, and, also, surfing is fun. >> we're creating surfers, and we're changing the face of surfing. >> the feeling is definitely akin to being on a roller coaster. it's definitely faster than i think you expect it to be, but it's definitely fun. >> it leaves you feeling really, really positive about what that kid's going to go out and do. >> i think it's really magical almost. at least it was for me. >> it was really exciting when i caught my first wave. >> i felt like i was, like -- it was, like, magical, really. >> when they catch that first wave, and their first lights up, you know -- their face lights up, you know you have them hooked. >> i was on top of the world. it's amazing. i felt like i was on top of the

world even though i was probably going two miles an hour. it was, like, the scariest thing i'd ever done, and i think it was when i got hooked on surfing after

>> we think over 50 thousand

permanent residents in san francisco eligible for citizenship by lack information and resources so really the project is not about citizenship but really academy our immigrant community. >> making sure they're a part of what we do in san francisco the san francisco pathway to citizenship initiative a unique part of just between the city and then our 5 local foundations and community safe organizations and it really is an effort to get as many of the legal permanent residents in the san francisco since 2013 we started reaching the san francisco bay area residents and 10 thousand people into through 22 working groups and actually completed 5 thousand applications for

citizenship our cause the real low income to moderate income resident in san francisco and the bayview sometimes the workshops are said attend by poem if san mateo and from sacking. >> we think over restraining order thousand legal permanent residents in san francisco that are eligible for citizenship but totally lack information and they don't have trained professionals culturally appropriate with an audience you're working with one time of providing services with pro bono lawyers and trained professionals to find out whether your eligible the first station and go through a purview list of questions to see if they have met the 56 year residents arrangement or they're a u.s.

citizenship they once they get through the screening they go to legal communication to see lawyers to check am i eligible to be a citizen we send them to station 3 that's when they sit down with experienced advertising to fill out the 4 hundred naturalization form and then to final review and at the end he helps them with the check out station and send them a packet to fill and wait a month to 6 weeks to be invited in for an oral examine and if they pass two or three a months maximum get sworn in and become a citizen every single working groups we have a learning how to vote i

mean there are tons of community resources we go for citizenship prep classes and have agencies it stays on site and this is filing out forms for people that are eligible so not just about your 22 page form but other community services and benefits there's an economic and safety public benefit if we nationalize all people to be a citizen with the network no objection over $3 million in income for those but more importantly the city saves money $86 million by reducing the benefit costs.

>> thank you. >> i've been here a loventh i already feel like an american citizen not felt it motorbike that needs to happen for good. >> one day - i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, for liberty and justice for all. >> you're welcome. >> (singing). >> (clapping.)

>> introduce the san francisco field officer director ribbon that will mirror the oath raise your hand and repeat the oath i hereby declare on oath repeating. >> citizens cry when they become citizenship to study this difficult examine and after two trials they come back i'm an american now we're proud of that purpose of evasion so help me god please help me welcome seven hundred and 50 americans. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> she wants to be part of the

country and vote so much puppy. >> you know excited and as i said it is a long process i think that needs to be finally recognized to be integrated that is basically, the type of that i see myself being part of. >> out of everybody on tv and the news he felt that is necessary to be part of community in that way i can do so many things but my voice wouldn't count as it counts now. >> it's everybody i hoped for

a bunch of opportunities demographics and as you can see yourself there's a good life for everyone. >> that's why. >> you have people from all the walks that life and they're standing in water 8 hours to be an american citizen and contribute to the city and that's really what makes this

worthwhile. >> ♪♪ ♪♪ >> welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote hearing. january 27, 2022. remote hearings require everyone's attention and especially your patience. if you are not speaking, mute your microphone. broadcasting and streaming live and will receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. comments are opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 1-415-655-0001 and then entering access code 2496695-6272. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, star three to be added to the queue.

when your line is unmuted, begin speaking. speaking up to three minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached i will announce your time is up and next person will speak. call from a quiet location, clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television or computer. like to take roll at this time. consideration of items proposed for continuance.

2021-004987drp, discretionary review to february 24, 2022. and further, under the regular calendar, item 10 for case number 2022-000457cwp, for updates to the planning commission policy procedures for in kind agreements proposed for adoption of amendments is proposed for two-week continuance to february 10th. am and i do apologize. under your discretionary review calendar, item 11, 877 carolina street, discretionary review has been withdrawn. we should take public comment, members of the public, your opportunity to address the commission on either the two items proposed to be continued by pressing star 3. seeing no requests to speak from

members of the public, public comment, i take that back. to the chair, you'll have two minutes. >> hello, my name is denise louie, i'm calling about planning for large projects like the pernasus heights rebuild of ucsf. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you, if you don't have comment on the items that are being proposed to be continued you'll need to press star 3 when general public comment is called. i didn't hear what you were talking about, seems to be on our agenda so you should press star 3 when we call general public comment. >> ok. >> all right. thank you. ok. last call for public comment on items proposed to be continued,

seeing no request to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed and the items proposed to be continued are now before you, commissioners. >> somebody has pushed the button. >> there's too many things on my sheet. vice president moore, i see that now. >> move to approve items one and 10 as proposed. >> second. >> and on that motion to continue those items, commissioner chan. [roll call vote taken] commissioner that motion passes

unanimously, and consent calendar item 2, consent calendar is considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests. in which event the item shall be removed from the consent calendar. members of the public -- excuse me, item 2 for case number 2021-008984cua, 627 cortland avenue, members of the public if you wish to speak to this, press star 3 to do so, no request to do so by members of the public, comment is closed and consent calendar item is now before you,

commissioners. >> mr. diamond. >> yes, i would like to recuse myself from voting on this item. i have an indirect interest in a small number of at&t shares and therefore shouldn't be voting. >> need a motion to recuse, that's correct. >> in most instances we do, to keep it clean we might as well. >> ok. i'll entertain any motion now. >> motion to recuse commissioner diamond. >> thank you, is there a second? >> on that motion to recuse commissioner diamond. [roll call vote taken] so moved commissioners. commissioner diamond you are

recused. you will need to file with the ethics commission and mute your microphone and stop your video feed, thank you. do i hear a motion to approve item 2, under your consent calendar? >> i think you were seconding before. did you want to speak again? >> sure, move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve, item 2, with conditions under your consent calendar. [roll call vote taken] so moved, passes unanimously 6-0. commissioner diamond, you may resume, or rejoin us.

commissioners commission matters, item 3, consideration of adoption draft minutes for january 13, 2022. am -- we should take public comment. members of the public, if you wish to speak to the minutes, press star 3. seeing no request to speak, public comment on the minutes is closed and they are now before you, commissioners. >> commissioner imperial. >> adopt the minutes. >> second. >> thank you you, commissioners. [roll call vote taken] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously.

7-0, placing us on item 4. commission comments and questions. >> not seeing any hands, i'll take an opportunity to thank my fellow commissioners for supporting me and commissioner morgan into our roles this year. look forward to a good 2022, no matter what it will bring us. hopefully together in person soon. looking forward to shepherding this team and if you need anything reach out to me and that goes for staff as well. i want to be as accessible as i can. >> very good, commissioners. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the commission, department matters. it item 5, announcements. >> the mayor and the commission appointed patrick o'reardon to be the permit director, obviously we work closely with that agency, so i wanted to let

you know there is also a report that the city attorney put out, it's on their website under kind of their new section kind of looking at accusations of wrongdoing at t.b.i., but it's an interesting read if you have the time, and that's all i have. unless there are any questions. >> vice president moore has a question. >> please convey our congratulations and best regards to mr. o'reardon. we have seen him in front of the commission many times, and good start to drive it into the right direction. thank you. >> i absolutely will. >> ok, commissioners. item 6, review of past events of the board of supervisors and the board of appeals. there was no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday. >> good afternoon, commissioners, aaron star, manager of legislative affairs.

committee hearing was canceled but the board did meet. board's agenda was supervisor mandelman's ordinance, bars with conditional use in the castro, and landmark designation which passed the first read. also this tuesday supervisor mandelman reintroduced his large home ordinance. this commission heard that on september 23rd and recommended disapproval. at the time staff had recommended that the controls only apply to r.h. properties in district 8, the revised ordinance does that by creating s.u.d., and 4,000 kwaur feet per unit, after that a variance required and triggered at 3,000 square feet or 1.2 f.a.r. given that and the planning commission has voted to reject the proposal, staff was not planning on bringing back to the commission and hearing and vote

unless i hear differently from you today. that's all i have, and happy to take any questions. thank you. thank you. sounds like a lot of the comments were incorporated into the revised legislation. ok, i think you have your answer. i think we are ready to move on. >> sorry, i was muted. there is a board of appeals report. item, the first is that commissioner rick swig was voted as president, and bonus project at 452012 street you had previously heard. to construct a five story over

basement residential building with dwelling units under the home s.f. program. the project is receiving a number of development bonuses, including nine extra dwelling units and additional story of height and zoning modifications, as such, required to provide 25% or in this case three on-site affordable dwelling units. neighbors were concerned about impacts to on street parking and to nearby residents. question the appropriateness of the project on this unique lot there is no car access, it's fronts unimproved right-of-way and ten foot alley. after two hours of public testimony voted 4-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission decision made on october 21, 2021, to approve the project. if there are no questions or comments, we can move on to

general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public in the subject matter, jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, opportunities to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached. each member of the public may address the public up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the limit, it may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, if you wish to speak under general public comment, press star 3 and through the chair you'll have to two minutes. >> two years ago, january 23, 2022, on public comment on the proposed budget, tw speakers. myself, i'm georgia shutus, i talked about part of the housing affordability alternatives and strategies and a gentleman was there and talked about redeveloping the west side. i suggested the commission

please watch this starting at three hours and 51 minutes on sfgovtv, it's like watching a documentary. illustrates what is lost with remote hearings bus remote interaction is not human interaction, even it's on video i will describe it. you can see former direct tore ram reacting with former director deputy director jocelyn. at the end of the public comment around 3:56, former president koppel asked former director ram, one thing i've heard more than anything, it's the demo caps. as i said, it's interesting because with the hearings in room 400 there is the real human interaction that is obviously missing in these remote hearings. i remember thinking at the time that former president koppel's question is an honest and sincere questions. former director ram cuts in as koppel was asking the question

because he thinks he's being asked about the west side. former director, excuse me, former president koppel says the demo caps and is there a way to take a look at it? ram realizes the question from koppel is about the demo caps, he laughs, maybe nervously and says miss watty is looking at it, in the contents of other issues and gestures towards her. she is off camera so we cannot see her on the video. however, in the background in the audience i can be seen gesturing this is something the commission can do on their own per the planning code and troo you two years ago and still true today, january 27, 2022, even as we remain remote. thank you. >> go ahead, caller. ok, we'll take the next caller.

i'll remind members of the public that when you hear your line is unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking. >> my name is david heartsel, i am a resident of the port side condominium complex and actually i had hoped my comments would come after those by mr. sinkotta. we wish to speak t a notice of violation issued by the enforcement department on the garage operator of the port side garage, and it is our feeling that the original use permit underlying use permit was filed under false and misleading circumstances. i prefer our attorney deal with that, but i would like to address the fact there are real world issues around the conditional use permit and the failure of the planning department to enforce it. enforcement division is either unwilling to address the

violations. only this body the planning commission has the authority and the obligation to do so. parking spaces are undersized, many spaces are tight clearances between cars and concrete pillars into them. this makes a real world difference to someone unloading packages, groceries, kids in a stroller and infant from a car seat, individual requiring a cane or walker or having to squeeze out a door that only opens 6 to 8 inches. it's not possible to safely walk with your 98-year-old mother, your kids or your grandkids, the valets do not bring the car to you, they unstack and leave it for you to weave out of the garage. loading zones have been reduced or unlimited, bicycle parking removed, high number of bicycle thefts recently as two weeks ago. conditions as such of these are driving families from the city.

and restriping accident to the original use permit and notice of violation. original use permit approved a garage with a valet component, utilization of empty spaces to provide for the majority if not all the required valet spaces. increased, unchecked manner contributing to unsafe environment. >> thank you, sir, that is your time. >> my name is john cornell, and following up with regard to port side situation. i'm the president of the homeowner association and the mixed commercial master board and original owner going back to 1994, i've been there 28 years. originally approved with the garage, two level garage, 450 spaces, enough to meet the

residential, commercial requirements and the adjacent, to replace the parking that the project is going to usurp from the surrounding parking. they hit contaminated soil right under the bridge, and had to basically cancel the second floor and this resulted in the shortage of physical parking spaces, and kind of the clutch solution was to come up with valet parking and shuffle everything around during the day when owners were not using their spaces. this has turned into a total mess. i've been on the board over 20 years, we spend half of our time dealing with parking issues in the garage, owners. originally it was approved for 450 spaces, that's what it took to supply all the requirements of the homeowners and the surrounding properties. that modification, getting rid of the sub level knocked us down

269 spaces, and they stack park, far in excess of the 450 spaces and not intended to be -- it's just a real mess. you know, so we really need to have a hearing to go and reopen this. this is a problem that goes back years, talked to bob passamore, i know he's no longer with us, but this has been a two-decade plus long issue, and it is just really taking a toll on the 220 owners and residents there, the constant headache and we need to reopen this conditional use permit. thank you. >> thank you. that's all for general public comment. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no -- take it back.

go ahead. >> this is denise -- hi, denise louie, and i wanted to bring up the question, first, no, i want to say that i appreciate the virtual meetings because if i don't have to go in-person to your location i can access the meeting better, and so my comment actually was meant to be about the use of water and planning department approves development of large rebuilds like pernasus heights on, for ucsf, when actually you were giving ucsf so many acres in mission bay and their eir says they will receive as much water as they need, but actually there

is a problem because the health of the san francisco bay estuary is in trouble. serious decline with the intrusion of salt water and the loss of, or potential extinction of six species of fish in the estuary, including delta smelt and salmon. so the use of water has to be better planned so the commission could possibly ensure that while there's no large construction in years of drought and that rain water is harvested and that gray water is used for flushing toilets, things like that, that make us reuse water, conserve water, and protect the health of the san francisco bay and

estuary. thank you. >> ok, thank you. >> the last caller and then a comment. >> final last call for general public comment. ok, seeing no additional request to speak, public comment is closed. apologies for the interruption, commission president tanner. >> that happens, the last call is the ding button for some folks. if you can look into the issue we are hearing about at the port side, does sound like something that's been going on for a while and maybe something we can investigate a little more. >> we will absolutely do that. it's the first i've heard of it, so the folks are still listening, they can reach out to me or liz watty and well look into it. we know the site and will take a look at it. >> ok, great. commissioner moore. >> i would like to follow up with also reminding director

hillis, there were two emails in yesterday's emails to address to the commission, promised by some michael parking at 110 venice, there was supposed to be as usual the numbers of two types of bicycle parking we have, and somebody wrote that has not happened. you may want to look at both of those issues together. >> ok. and jonas or somebody from staff, will you make sure we get that. we'll look to see if we are. >> sure, yeah. >> look at ours and then over. >> thanks. >> okay, commissioners. through the chair, would you like to take the very late request to speak? >> yes, let's take that. >> ok. you have two minutes. >> hello, david sincota on

behalf of the port side homeowners association. i'm glad i got an opportunity to speak. i'm here to ask you to take the unusual step of modifying a conditional use permit approved in 1989 under false and misleading information. the planning code section 303f allows for this process to modify this conditional use permit. you've heard some of the comments from the actual residents of the project. this unusual situation was created because the garage is actually owned by a separate entity, not owned by the same condominium development. when the project, the project was approved, the garage could not meet the requirement for independently accessible space and exceeds valet spaces. as a result, in 1989 the plan was actually modified again in

1995, the subject of zoning administrator determinations in 1995 and 1999. the owners of the project, condominium owners have tried to resolve this over the years with the garage operators and including filing complaints and dealing with the enforcement division of the department. notices of violations were issued and in fact, a permit was approved by the enforcement division, and during that time it was still not acceptable to the neighbors, but again, just found out today the july 2021 picked up the permit, no work has been done since then, no notice has been posted so we can't even file appeal. we need to have a modification of the conditional use permit brought before the planning commission and have our fair hearing on this, just to modify

it to get it back into reality. i urge you to ask for a hearing on this. >> can you state the address. >> 401 main street. >> 401 main street. >> yes. >> okay, thank you. >> ok, commissioners. that concludes general public comment. move on to the regular calendar. 2021-011414crv, fiscal years 2022 through 2024, proposed department budget and work program. this is an informational presentation and the adoption will be coming back to you at a later date. miss landis.

it's yours. >> do i have the ability to share my screen? >> you do now. >> ok. there we go. thank you. the good afternoon, commissioners. members of the public. debra landis, deputy director of administration with the planning department, i say this every year, i don't believe it's been a year already. good to be back in front of you. as a reminder, we will be back as jonas just mentioned on february 10th this year, so just in a couple of weeks. we have our introductory presentation for you today. if you have any questions or comments or items that you would like us to adjust or amend, we have a couple of weeks to make those things happen, to respond to you. and so today an ill do just the introductory slide, director

hillis will give an overview, i'll jump back in, and then an equity presentation that relates to the budget. as always, we are happy to take any questions, and with that, i will get started. so the usual for those of you who have been on the commission a few years, you will recognize these things. we start with background highlights, general introduction, and then we look at the volume and we look at that because that is really how we project our trend and based on those trends that we are seeing we adjust the revenue, based on the revenue that we are projecting we adjust our expenditures. and then we have a slide about work programs, and how we allocate our s.t.e., our employees in the department, and finally, just a reminder, an overview of the calendar or the budget cycle.

with that i will hand it over to director hillis for a moment. >> thank you, debra, commissioners. broad overview, we'll go into more detail, and also thank debra, tom in the budget finance and admin team. as you know, these have been kind of an uncertain time period in the last couple years and they have done great work to manage our budget and us through it. the bottom line for this year is that you know, we are not proposing significant changes to our overall bucket. and that's primarily driven by the fact that there are not new revenues coming in to allocate the new staff or to new programs. as you know, we started to see a softening of our revenues even before the pandemic in 2018, 2019, but that obviously was exacerbated and accelerated by

the pandemic in the associated economic down turn. you'll see and debra will go into this, overall revenues are down more sharply than permit volume because we are seeing significantly fewer large projects in less of a decline in this smaller project. as we have reported previously, we had a $9 million shortfall that we were able to close last year. we reduced our revenue budget by $2 million in the current year and then proposing another $2.5 million in 2022/2023. that's all the news. we have managed to take advantage of vacant positions to avoid any layoffs and we have been able to reallocate resources to priority programs that you and the mayor have set for us. we have been able to make progress on many fronts, from keeping our backlogs from growing as we process

applications, mostly remotely, we have continued to staff our public information counter, opened 49 south van ness, changed procedures to respond to state regulations, engaged the mayor and the board of supervisors in policy and legislative work, like the four-plexes. general planned updates to the housing, developing environmental justice framework and you'll hear later today, and we continue to build our capacity and work program in our community equity division and progress on the equity plan. allocated this year additional resources in this budget to that work specifically, and a lot of what you will hear have been guided by the equity budget tool, we made changes to this year, megan will go into more detail on that. but we wanted to make that effort clear in more easily

defined, and make that a useful tool for me and our managers to use, to transform our work. so with that i will turn it over to debra and then megan and happy to answer any questions that you may have. thanks. >> thank you. so yes, as director hillis and i both mentioned, the revenue was already starting to go down a little bit so this chart here shows that coming out of the recovery from the 2008 economic mortgage crisis, that we had this really huge growth for several years there, and it did start to plateau and starting to go down and then because our fiscal year spans two calendar years, it really dropped in 1920 because of the pandemic and because of shutting down. so again our volume is projecting to be higher than the last two fiscal years, but not back up to where it was

pre-pandemic, so we are looking at probably closer to 2015 levels of volume and so we are proposing to adjust our revenue based on that, so you can see in the top line there, charges for services, those are our fees, and so current year, 44.6, we'll go down to 42.1 taking that down by two and a half, two and a half million because we think that that is really more in line with what we will see coming in the door. grants and special revenues every year is the out year, i always get a question, why is it so low? not to worry, the out year is always low because we don't know exactly which funding opportunities we are going to see two years from now, and we have been pretty strong. you can see, you know, in the mid three millions for the last couple of years, we are

projecting that as well for next year for grants that we think we have a pretty good chance of getting. so, don't panic, don't worry about the out here, we are still on track to bring a good amount of grant money. the big change that you are going to see here in the revenue is developmental impact fees, so two reasons for that. number one is that there aren't as many impact fees coming in the door and so the administrative portion of what we are allowed to take from the ones that do come in the door is lower, and the second one, which is the bigger amount is we are the pass through agency for noncity departments. so if there are impact fees that come in that, for example, are going to fund something at bart, we would get that money in our budget and be the department to transfer it to the noncity agency. we don't have any of those proposed for next year, so that's why we have the big drop there, those two reasons.

expenditure recovery will remain about even, and that is when other departments within the city ask us to do work for them. so we will continue at about the same level of work we have been doing work the last couple years and then general fund support, looks like an increase and that's only because that was already in our budget from last year. so when we opened up the budget system, we were at 8.2, and we stay at 8.2, and i have to say it feels nice to have a year we don't have to look for cuts in the general fund and those expenses, that's the general fund supports, we can talk through the next slide, a big reason for increases has been our increased cost at 49 south van ness compared to our previous building.

salaries and fringe where we spend our money, so it's us, the people, and we are looking at bringing that down a slight amount from 40 to 38, and so that is a significant part of the 2.5 reduction in the fees. this overhead number is set by the controllers office, it will not change until after you have hopefully approved our proposed budget. we don't know what that number will be, and they put it in our budget and then they take it out of our budget once next year starts. so that we don't have any control over. nonperson al services includes everything from software to leases on photocopiers, contracts, a whole variety in there, and the change here is related to both software and contracts. not a huge change if you look at

the overall dollar figure. we are proposing that we will not change the budget, we are hoping to be in-person more and so bringing that down or picking it up is not something that we can predict right now, so leaving it as is is our plan, and the capital and equipment, we are not proposing any over the next couple of years. the last thing we bought was a plotter, and we, we are still happy with that, so all of our equipment is running and we don't foresee any need to buy new equipment these days. projects is the line where we budget our expenditures for grants and for impact fees, so that's why you see the decrease there. and then interdepartmental services on the expense side what we pay other departments for the expenses that we incur.

so the big ones there are rent, city attorney, and the department of technology. so looking at the overview, and in your packets you have much more detail about this, but to fit it on one slide you can see almost half the department is in the current planning division, environmental planning is not, actually neither is really proposed to change very much. i think the bigger change you are going to see in city-wide planning and then a little bit in community equity and with that we can move on to the calendar, so obviously today is first line there, where we are here with you to go over this draft and get some feedback. we are going to be at historic preservation next wednesday, and then we'll be back here on the 10th, on the 22nd, we submit our

departmental proposed budget to the mayor's office. on june 1st, the mayor's office submits the budget over to the board of supervisors, and then during july we go through the board of supervisors. so -- that's it, and i would be happy to answer any questions or to have megan present first, either way. and then i'm not sure -- >> i'm not sure if i stop sharing my screen or somebody else is. >> i think we will hear the second presentation and then take questions all together. >> thank you, deb ra. >> thank you. good afternoon. good afternoon, president tanner, members of the commission. i'm megan, department staff,

last year i've been working in the community equity division to help develop the budget equity assessment i will describe today and more detail in the budget staff report. so the department derives the purchase of the equity budget assessment tool four places. first, phase one, racial and social equity plan has a resource allocation goal. second, the commission's resolution from summer 2020 says to "move beyond acknowledgment of injustice and take concrete actions that are visible in the reallocation of resources and work programs." last year we piloted a budget equity tool we built on for this year, and we are also continuing to seek alignment with the office of racial equities forthcoming budget equity assessment which the departments will be required to use in the future. in general, this is how the

budgeting process generally goes. we plan, we request funds from, for approval from this commission and then the board of supervisors and the mayor, we enact the budget or spend the dollars in the fiscal year and we start the planning process again. since 2021, we have been infusing equity into the budgeting process at each critical stage. first the budget equity assessment tool identifies work programs and contracts that enter equity. next we have been developing budget equity performance measures which were developed to determine if dedicated racial equity invest and leading to the anticipated short and medium term equity outcomes we are hoping for. and lastly, we plan to build in more time for reflection and budget planning to make add --

adjustments for future years and their outcomes. the focus of this year's tool was finalizing a methodology that could be replicated year over year to allow for comparison. additionally, director hillis has advised divisions to transform their work programs and contracts to center equity as much as possible. to be counted as centering equity, at a minimum a work program area must prioritize and center its work on an equity issue area, equity geography, or equity population. each portion of the criteria was selected so the issues, geographies and populations experiencing the worst social and health outcomes in the city. notably the equity priority issue areas were identified by input from the community equity advisory council. a group of 11 san francisco

leaders advising city staff on racial and social priorities, policies, strategies and in vechts. september 2021 equity council meeting on the budget, members expressed concern about the department's reliance and permit fees and the ability to allocate funds to community and neighborhood planning. the equity priority issue areas are identified in the tool aligned with the council's priority topics, as well as feedback from recent public forum, including the housing element workshops, and public hearings on city-wide recovery efforts. the geographies are based on the department of public health, areas of vulnerability map, the housing analysis also relies on. equity populations were generated based on which communities experienced the worst social and health inequities across the city. with these criteria defined,

they used the methodology and work project areas and contracts in the budget tool that met the criteria. here are two examples how managers applied the tools to determine whether work program centers equity and emphasize centering equity, i want you to remember how we defined it on the previous slide. so for the element update, the work has centered equity by focussing outreach and policy on housing affordability for low income communities. so this work program and the f.t.e. that staff associated with it are counted there as centering equity in the budget tool. in contrast, the housing element, environmental impact report was not identified as centering equity. environmental review, plays a crucial role in the protection of the environment, including

environmental issues that address equity populations and geography, including pollution. additionally, planning staff has gone above and beyond the housing element, to make sure the outreach on the eir project is above and beyond what we usually do. however, ceqa does not center equity as the department is defining it in this tool. so we defined that as not centering equity. these are two of the examples of the challenges and opportunities of centering the budget in equity for the next fiscal year. overall, outcome of 2022 to 2023 resource allocation, 20% of all work programs with center equity and about 39% of all contracts

requested with center equity. substantial portion of the department's budget is associated with regulatory review. such as planning code review and environmental review. the department's revenue and expenditure is largely a result from applications from private and public sponsors as debra just showed, and other work programs include more discretions than the regulatory reviews. l discretionary areas include our long range planning efforts and racial and social equity work. and those areas the department can center equity more nimbly than in the work program areas based on regulation. these pie charts illustrate this point. pie charts break down the work programs and contracts that would center equity in the-up coming fiscal year by division. most work programs that center equity are in divisions with greater discretion on how their work is accomplished.

planning functions mostly involve permit review, staffing to review afford and housing permits and policies, as does the preservation work, african american, latinx, among others. this is year one of the budget equity tool. we will continue to measure how our work programs are benefitting or burdening communities of color and other equity populations through the budget equity performance measures as this year goes on. the department will also think about, research and implement work programs and contracts that further center equities, including within regulatory review framework such as ceqa. for detailed descriptions, see the budget staff report to this commission submitted in today's packet and we are open to your feedback and suggestions on the tool and i'll be available for questions. thank you.

>> thank you, megan. if that includes staff presentation, members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on budget and work program by pressing star through. through the chair, two minutes. when you are alerted you are unmuted, you have two minutes and begin speaking. go ahead, caller. i would take the next caller but you are the only one. ok. well, let me try to mute you and unmute you one more time. >> hello. >> yes. >> yes, hi. this is -- can you hear me? >> we certainly can.

>> ok, this is anastasia, my ears perked up when i heard the presentation they were talking about budget equity tool, and how the housing element has not really performed in this respect. so i look forward to more discussion about the equity tool. thank you. ok, last call for public comment on the budget. seeing no additional requests, public comment is closed and it is now before you, commissioners. >> thank you, thank you staff for the presentation. one quick question i think the caller maybe i misheard, i heard it is centering equity but the way we look at eir would not count the centering portion of equity, did i get that right?

>> yes, example of how we were applying the tool and maybe a little different from last year in that the work around the eir is regulatory in nature, we have to do it, so we did not count that as a program that was centered on equity, but the housing development itself on the work. >> ok. i wanted to make sure i did not misunderstand. commissioner imperial. >> thank you, president tanner. and thank you for the staff for presenting today about the budget and also the packet. actually, enjoyed reading the packet, compared to the last year, so thank you for that. i do have questions in terms of what is going on right now, as i have brought up the issue of having, or not issue, but

brought up the liaison between the rent board and the planning. can someone explain or as to where we are at in that request? >> sure. i'm going to -- we anticipated the question, i'm going to ask liz to respond to some of the changes we have made and also some of the areas we could make improvement. >> sure, happy to. thank you, commissioner imperial, and jonas, if you would not mind passing me the ball, i have two slides that might be easier to walk through what we have been doing on the red board front and the opportunities that we forecast that we have to come hopefully over the next year. so, let me share my screen. >> great. everyone can see this. so in short, over the last year in particular, we have really ramped up our coordination with both the red board but also i

think really more importantly, internal training and capacity growth of knowledge around tenancy issues. it's certainly something that, you know, when i first started working in this department 15 plus years ago, it was not something top of mind and is something really developed as much more critical, especially over the last few years, so we are trying to ramp up staff training. so the biggest thing over the last year was actually part of our departmental reorganization that you guys are well aware of, kate conner and her team, really our in-house housing experts, capital h housing, and like you know, you'll see later today like sb9, they have an in-depth knowledge of a lot of the tenancy issues and nuanced conversations with the red board. so bringing her shop over and embedding it into the current planning division where she has been able to institute, you know, weekly office hours with

staff, so individual project by project level, she's able to answer questions and guide staff and train staff at a really pragmatic way, we have had enhanced larger trainings for our division, and we have implemented new procedures, like requiring site visits from staff for things related to demolitions and mergers and aun authorized units, getting staff in the field where that did not used to be the case. we have also expanded, supervisor melgar's office has been in touch with us and we are working with her office in a proactive way to really, you know, take that to another level and as a result of that, we actually, i think it is happening as we are speaking, we are updating on to our website our dwelling unit and project application to beef up the level we are asking about tenancy, and what's going on in the building right now, what's recently happened in the building, are

you in the middle of having a buy-out, conversations with the tenant, and putting more information around the perjury sessions as well, and property owner if they are going to sign it the tenants have certain rights and beefed it up with support with supervisor melgar's office, we have done that recently. and just enhanced coordination with the red board, created protocols where we are getting deeper history with their office for many, many types of projects than we did in the past. certainly, though, we could use more help as always, staffing is usually the key to improvement, increase capacity as you know. kate conner and her team are doing the work of, you know, five fold the number of staff that they are, and are often pulled in competing ways, and so if we had additional staffing that we could embed on to her team, where they could focus on this issue solely, we would have

much greater capacity and feel a little less of a whack a mole approach on a project by project, putting out a fire, and much more strategic in developing internal and external training material, more proactive efforts with staff and with applicants and i think we are excited about the rental registry, enable us to work with the r ed board in developing that tool in a way that's helpful on the regulatory side, a more policy based approach. what we are doing and forecasting, if we get additional authority of where we could take it in the future. >> thank you, miss watty. that is informative, as we are also gearing up for the rental

registry, so now, you know, also as we are looking into the budget and the revenue and definitely, you know, the general fund is, it's a big fund but at the same time, you know, a lot of services comes out of that, too, and so what also as, you know, being presented in terms of the budget equity tools, and in terms of another kind of revenue for planning that i hope will not be coming from general fund, i think the -- i think this is something to think about in terms of community equity council and how their input on that in terms of the budget equity tools, and i think for me i would really like to see more concrete steps in terms of staying away from development fees and creating a revenue only for planning, as we are planning to, gearing up for a lot of, you know, again, the

housing element is ambitious, ambitious goal, and again, i think if we really want to make a development without displacement, funding is the core of it. thank you very much for your presentation. >> thank you, commissioner. >> commissioner chan. >> thank you, president tanner. i want to start by thanking debra, megan, tom and others for preparing and presenting the budget. i am delighted to see the budget equity assessment tool having updated input from the advisory council, i think it's a pleasure to see it part of the processes, inclusion criteria, which i think is more refined by both centering equity, whether it's a party issue and the equity geography or population does seem to make sense to me, good job of balancing issues,

neighborhood focus, and needs of the vulnerable populations that may not be tied to specific geography. a couple of questions and comments and so yeah, i think my first question is on page 27 is encouraging to see that there's a request of 1.5 million over two fiscal years, community engagement and communication strategy, and i'm just, you know, wondering if we could hear more about the rationale for this number. i think for me when i look at this long list of key projects, it's exciting but also a lot of work, a lot of need and engagement and voices, and the topics touch across the entire city, fill more, sunset, tenderloin, and a lot of work for the amount of resources so just here to hear a little more about the thinking of what the scope of work is proportion at&t to the amount of resources.

i don't have an exact number in my mind, i'm curious to hear more about and if it might be possible to take a second look at this now. >> sure. if i may ask to jump in here and give more detail, but i think you are right, commissioner chan. seems like a big number at first, but then when you break it up to the amount of communities we want to engage in and serve, it gets, you know, it could be divided up fairly quickly and we have to balance the need with what we have overall to spend. so miss chaneck, are you here? at this see her on the roster, but -- >> yeah, i just wanted to point that out, and wanted to see if it would be worthwhile to maybe reevaluate down the line to see if this is the right amount for

the scope of work. >> come back before you and give you more detail, give you you additional detail here. >> yeah, in terms of the, as you know, there have been specific request from the council and housing and some of the community plans, this was being, the past two years have been very difficult years for engagement, but in spite of that we got substantial input and part of the input has been that in order for the communities to participate in the planning process, we have need to allocate some funding. so, significant portion of the 750,000 or over two years, 1.5 million, will be to support community organizations in this effort. right now, the -- various community organizations, and

that's the level of partnership that we are expecting. we have done work in the mission, we are moving towards fillmore western addition, a great need to support commun organizations. there's a need to redefine how we do communication and engagement in the department, and we have a team working on that and identifying what are the areas where we need to bring more tools or change the approach or we ourself the planner go through some training, so some support for consultants who can bring those skills and expertise. and we are also working very closely with the finance team, as you know, small contracts have become very difficult to secure given the requirements of the city for transparency, so we are trying to figure out what's the best approach to ensure that we are able to support those

collaborations on the grounds. we can send you more specific details of the allocation of resources as well as the staff, sorry, one more point, the cultural districts, we have had to put a lot of effort in the housing, but as we move through the element of the housing, substantial phase will be allocating more efforts to work with the cultural districts, communities throughout the city. thank you. >> i actually agree, i think this work is so important and so much going on when we are talking about all the various programs, and so something maybe we could think about is establishing a baseline of funding, something and you know, others who want to participate and lend their expertise to coming out with the strategies could count on in the future, so encourage us to kind of think about that for this budget cycle

or the future. i also just was curious about the community equity division, seems to have a sunset of five years, and so just wanted to understand this five years from 2020, so we are already in year three, learn more about what happens of to this division after five years, the work is not done, we will evaluate and stick around after five years. >> i think that's kind of the plan, the target we set for ourselves when we set out establishing the division, that the work would be incorporated into everything else we do, but not hard and fast. that can end earlier or extend longer if need be, it's something we will look at as we kind of move along. >> i think it's good to kind of have that flexibility, especially because we are looking at an eight-year housing element cycle and maybe i anticipate there might be some more work after five years, but might need to evaluate when that

time comes. along the lines of what commissioner imperial was mentioning about exploring additional different models of revenue sources in departments, i don't, you know, expect an answer today and i don't have the answer, but i just wonder if there has ever been a time when the planning departments, the majority of the revenue did not depend on fees and curious to know how other cities are doing this, other departments and if we might explore what it might take to shift the funding and more autonomy from permit processing. >> from fees. certainly there were times, i forget the numbers, tom or debra may be able to help me, that we received, you know, much more significant percentage of our overall departmental budget from the general fund and i think as fees went up, the board and reduced the general fund allocation we received. i don't know if it's at the

lowest point, might have even been lower in prior years, but that number fluctuates year to year, but generally been on the decline in the amount of general fund revenue we get. so, easiest alternative, seek additional general fund revenue, but that's not always the easiest to get from the board and the mayor. >> and not an easy answer, but i do think a lot of planning work is important and needs to happen irrespective of the economic boom and bust cycles and thinking about how do we protect the work that needs to happen regardless of building permit volumes. >> i think the general theorys are longer range planning, the community equity division and city-wide should be more general funded and then the more regulatory portions of our work and current planning in a.p. should be more fee driven, and

that's not always the case when we do our budget. >> thank you so much. >> vice president moore. >> thank you for raising a very important question, commissioner chan, a question as to whether or not planning should be an enterprise department or not, it's a philosophical question that was discussed many years ago. i still ask myself that question and i think perhaps they are part in the division of planning that should not be subject to, as a model of an enterprise department. but that is probably a bigger discussion which we should have a workshop on and come to terms with that. i wanted to acknowledge the department is always due for doing the excellent job doing their budget, fascinating how it has evolved over the years and very important moment to pause. i would like to follow up with a particular question to miss

watty. is she still around? are you somewhere? >> i am. >> hi. >> and you talk about the training and increased look and interaction with the board. you use the word position authority. are you asking the commission to really support adding staff to that? we have asked this for years, i'm speaking from institutional memory, because as we are seeing improvement, huge gaps partially because the database of the board is not as steep or accurate as you would like it to be. if i heard you, are you asking the commission to support you in the request for additional staff time? >> sure, happy to answer that question. i think there is a simple answer

and more complex answer. the simple answer is, yes, i think certainly we would love to have additional staffing to focus on this. realistic aspect of this and where the challenge is that our budget is down right now, and the positions that we are filling right now are really the absolute bare bones to maintain sort of a regulatory obligation of processing permits, you know, in an appropriate amount of time and not furthering, you know, any backlogs or things of that nature. and so it's hard for us to just reallocate an existing position in the budget to the purpose in the current economic state. certainly if we got additional general funding that would be, you know, a way we wouldn't have to deal with sort of the economic fluctuations and we would know we would always have that sort of baseline role in our department, you know, that is something that sort of wasn't in our budgetary purview to ask

for this year with the current economic state, but if you all agree, we would certainly appreciate that recommendation moving forward and it's a conversation i think we could continue to further have with the mayor's office and during the board review process of our budget. the short answer, yes, we would like to get additional f.t.e. allocated to the function. >> i would ask the commission to actually support the department in adding extra f.t.e. to that particular function. if you could show the inefficiency that has arisen on the subject matter and count hour by hour the additional work, the continuances and continuances, that it has caused, i believe that in some total you will have a net gain of productivity and accuracy by adding people rather than dragging things out further and further. it's a very, very complicated

matter. the public is really doing an incredible job of keeping us informed in support of where actually the rent board themselves should have better records and i think this is a time to pull together with the rental registration, i hope that you will be sharing database and information so that interactively backfill where information is missing. i'm in strong support of that particular aspect and only restating my position as i have done in previous reviews of the budget. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner diamond. >> thank you. i, too, want to thank staff, debra and tom in particular for their incredible work and distilling the budget to the presentation that was given to us today, so that it's

understandable and clear. and allows us to ask questions on issues of, you know, concern to each of us, really a great job. i also want to add my voice to the chorus about the need to examine in detail the ability to reduce our dependency on fees for our budget. while it's obvious that project review in boom years requires more time, it's not so obvious to me that in bust years we don't have just as much work that we need to do to understand the impacts and, of having fewer big projects and the work that needs to take place city-wide. so i agree that this is an area that deserves, you know, maybe a deep dive and a task force, but i would appreciate some thoughts

from you on how we might think about that issue and how we move forward on it, rather than just acknowledging it's an issue, i would be inclined to want to study it and see whether or not we can propose any realistic changes to that basic structure. and then my third question has to do with pandemic recovery. it is obvious that we are still very much in that mode, and that the amount of retail vacancy, particularly in union square and office and retail vacancy in the adjacent downtown areas is extraordinarily worrisome. we have heard prior reports to the commission that we are dependent upon the return of conventions and tourists and office workers to make a significant change in what we are seeing, but also the alternative scenario that there is a fundamental shift happening

and in how workers view their place of work, and that we may not be seeing the same number of workers return to the downtown areas. so i am interested to know whether or not we have allocated budget, f.t.e.s to be looking at these issues. i recognize fully we don't do this by ourself, that we do it in conjunction with other departments, but have we allocated budget to have a seat at the table on this subject, and is it part of the work program, and if so, where in our budget is it. is it city-wide, more project-based, any thoughts you could share on that would be great. >> commissioner, i'll take that one. we have allocated resources in, you know, as things unfold and we learn more, we may have to allocate additional resources.

primarily in our city-wide division and also in community equity, you know, recognizing, we knew this shift was happening in retail and the pandemic has exacerbated that, and we have started to scope, the retail study in working with oewd to look at union square and other commercial corridors. that's in the work as well as pdr usage and lab use is also in the works. bigger question of where we -- where the office trends kind of go. i think that's probably more of an unknown and how we all return to work and what the utilization of our kind of downtown office environment will be. but we can be flexible in reallocating resources as those questions come up and you are certainly correct that we are working with oewd already, and

they are developing their work program around this to respond to the questions that you asked. because some of this is just attracting, you know, the right users and tenants to downtown, not necessarily changing uses, some may be changing uses and changing our code, but something we are engaged in and very much aware of and very much a part of our work program. >> i'm glad to hear that. obviously we all hope for the return of where we were, but you know, things are shifting and i think we need to address to a reality that there may be a different scenario and rather than reacting to it, you know, we might want to anticipate it and be thinking about how we can be ahead of the curve and understanding how land use responds in changes brought by the pandemic. >> our zoning is very flexible downtown, we have planned for mixed use neighborhoods downtown as part of transit day and the downtown plan where housing is allowed and encouraged, so you

know, we had the foresight to be ahead of this a little bit, but there is still more to do and this has certainly been a significant shift in how people work, we did not anticipate happening as quickly as it did. >> somewhat brought out by the housing element, you know, increasing the ability for employment to be able to happen in houses, so i do recognize we are thinking about these issues and i wanted to make sure that the budget that allocated enough f.t.e.s to do this work seriously. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner imperial. >> i want to echo what commissioner moore mentioned earlier, that if, you know, in terms of this process of the general fund that we'll have, you know, in terms of the request to have staffing between direct board and the planning department, i would be willing

to jump on and support on that, and since we are gearing up for the rental registry, i think the department should have the staffing this year, more staffing this year up to the rental registry comes up. so, i would be happy to support the department for that request if it, you know, especially if it would be coming from the general fund, i think it will not be that big of a request, i think it will be sufficient but very important part of the planning. thank you. >> thank you. i'll take a few moments, i'll add my voice to that topic as well. i would really love to see at least one f.t.e., if not even a part-time to be dedicated to looking at the rental issues. i really appreciate and applaud all the provements, they are significant and not minor and certainly while well-placed, having this additional resource,

especially during the department of the registry is time critical if we can get that set up in a way that ensures it meets the need of planning, perhaps other city agencies that would use it and also community, that can be another role that, along with the rent board, we have so much connection to community who are actively working to prevent displacement and so ensuring the registry has information that's going to be usable for our whole city i think is a really critical role that planning is well-suited to play in addition to the other topics as option for this position. so i think that definitely understand city-wide, you know, we are not really in a super add mode, certainly the budget is looking better than a little while ago and the forecast is not as bleak, but a sensitive position we need to have in our department. so director, does that look like us as a board supporting it, and

in -- when you return with your budget the second time around, how might we best support that as a commission? >> we can make the request to add a position, to work on these issues and be liaison and bolster what we are already doing, so we can kind of formulate that in a motion that you can take up when you approve the budget in two weeks. you know, it goes against what the mayor's office has asked us to do, like asked for general fund, additional general fund dollars, but i think, you know, we can look at that in the next two weeks and come back to you with the best strategy. >> i guess the other thing to have a plan b, good to have a plan b, if we think it's not going to be ultimately successful and a chance it won't be, i know that we are reducing f.t.e., i know we have

vacancies, but ask the department to take a close look if an existing f.t.e. that could be repurposed without damaging the core work we need to do and complete and perhaps work that is important or nice to have but not need to have, i think this is a need to have role to really make sure we are embodying all of the priorities we talk about, and be shamed of the housing element and then not have the critical connection to the rent board helping us to live into a plan and ensure that we are really, you know, preventing displacement to the agree that we can when we are reviewing development of projects. >> we can have an option that's not additional general fund add as well. >> great, thank you. i did just have a couple other questions one, the equity advisory, and if you can tell us a little about how it's been

going and just, its proposed future. staying steady or something that might change and shift as people may not want to serve any more and other obligations. give us an window into that board. >> so we have been meeting for nine months, the commitment of the equity council members was to serve for 18 months, so we have nine months to complete the work that was originally proposed. there are changes that are unexpected. we lost one equity council member. to our good fortune, we lost this person because the person joined our community equity staff, so we are in the process of replacing that spot, and we

might be expecting one more change, but to get to specific actions after, right now especially the black representatives, the american indian representatives, are very committed to concrete actions. they have proposed four areas of strategies that are posted on our website, we'll be distributing and sharing that across various communities, and they want to see how those strategies can be implemented. so, we are working with our partner agencies at the last meeting this week we had director eric shaw from o.c.d. joining the conversation. it is our hope as director hillis can probably explain, we had a challenging beginning, it was hard to build the trust to carry the work and very challenging circumstances but we

believe we got to a group platform with a strong commitment to carry and support the department to prioritize some of the strategies and the areas they are focussing, housing, wealth and jobs, integrated community strategies, and community disability. >> thank you, and i see commissioner moore came on. did you have a question on this topic? >> i am wait, only reemphasize we have enough ammunition to ask for a position, i think persuasive arguments made, i would rather ask the question than creating a back-up strategy. >> that's true, my mom always said to have a plan b, i'm always ready for a plan b. it's good advice, but maybe should not broadcast on the meeting. ok. so, thank you for that. i wondered, i'm excited to hear

about the idea of having more small contracts with community partners and really intensive collaboration, but is an on-fall strategy something we can use to have a pool so we don't have to each time we are trying to go with these community partners have a contract? and i will say contracting, but my experience in san francisco is very limited. >> it is, we are working on that, and yes, creating a pool is one of the strategies but creating a master contract under which we can ease the engagement with community organizations is what we are trying to do, and right now our contracting process can take over a year, and there's no way a small community organization can carry work without being paid for a year. and so we are trying to figure out what he is the best alignment for that, and trying to identify which will be the

most appropriate umbrella organization that can support the small community organization. >> miss landis, did you want to add to that? i saw you come on the screen. >> i was just going to say that the rules around contracting have changed so much in the last 18 months that everything is quite cumbersome right now, and so creating a contract for a small amount versus creating a contract for a large amount is often the same amount of work, and pools are not what they used to be, unfortunately, and there are a lot of very detailed things that nobody wants to hear about right now, but if anyone wants to get into them off line i can talk for a few hours about them. i think that the pool approach used to work very well for us, but given the newer rules i don't know that it really is an option that saves a lot of time

or effort, but you know, maybe we can figure out a way to make it work and you know, with any change in rules we always adjust for a little while, we'll see what we can do. >> yeah. i think that is hard for many cities, so i don't think we are alone certainly with a lot of changes and definitely changes in the last two years i think have been challenging for them on top of the other changes just generally that are thrown at everyone personally and professionally. so i know you are doing your best and hopefully you can figure out some timely solutions. the last topic i wanted to take up, the value capture, or the planning that's going on for the potential new cal train station in the bayview, with the partners through the transportation planning and it's really just a comment around really wanting to see our department continue to be a leader in helping to steward not only just thinking about the

rail and the station itself, but the big picture thinking that we are good at doing of like what are the impacts both positive and negative and hopefully also rally other partner departments for strategies, how are we making sure the station does not result in more displacement and higher land values and things like that, but rather harnessing that good for the community and for public benefits. [please stand by]

>> thank you, commissioners. i'll keep this one and turn it over we're excited to be back with you and want to thank our team and partner city agencies who have been involved with this in the community who have participated and helped grasp the housing element and we have director shaw from o.c.d. and they and their departments have been instrumental in develop this draft of the housing element. i wanted to point out this is part of our city's general plan in the over arching document and strategy for our housing policy and strategy. it sets the tone and agenda and priorities related to housing.

i think a bit of contrast to our existing housing element, the current housing element we're proposing attempts to have clear policies and strategies in a strong point of view recognizing the importance of housing and building and stablizing communities and communities of color. it's specific in laying out over 200 actions. and we recognize we as the planning department cannot implement these on our own. it's a partnership with community and other agencies and hrc as well as lawd. we recognize also there needs tibe substantial increase in

funding to implement the entirety of the plan especially around affordable housing. we know this is ambitious and to the extent our outreach indicate that level is commitment is there from the city to change our to make our aspirations reality. we've prioritized actions for to you look at and comment on in these that would deliver the highest impact towards advancing racial and social equity. is before i turn it over to get into more detail, i wanted to invite director davis or

director shaw to make any introductory comments especially to how this housing element interacts with their work and the work they're doing around reparations and the reparations committee and the ongoing work director shaw and his team are going. director davis, do you want to make any initial comments? >> yes, thank you so much, director hillis and to the commissioners, thank you for providing this opportunity for know speak. i just wanted to say we have been grateful nor opportunity to partner with the -- for the opportunity to partner with the department and i'm surprised they've been willing to come back. they've taken extremely difficult honest conversations and been in some community meetings and i've asked them to meet with people more inclined to not agree with them to not just co-sign what they're saying

and they have done that. i think they have tried to be as responsive as possible. i'm also extremely grateful for the aspirational lens. they've been invited and agreed to participate with the reparations advisory committee launched last year to have some conversations and i don't know how much you all have been involved as commissioners with some of the history of rev and the impact and frustration and fallout from that -- redevelopment, but there's a lot of people who feel hurt and were harmed and are traumatized and just the name planning triggers people. i want to acknowledge planning has stepped in spaces and

sometimes they've been extremely heated discussions and they've been attentive and responsive. as we continue this work it may not be all we wanted it to be but it doesn't improve without the engagement and circling back and that commitment has not only been made but demonstrate and we look forward to building on this work, improving on what we've learned and having something to show for it. thank you, dr. hillis for your team and your willingness to go into as they say get in the arena and be in the fight and to learn from that and come back better. i look forward to continuing this work as well. >> thank you for continuing to push us and challenge us.

director shaw has been a critical partner in this and a result of we're proposing points to o.c.d. and he and his team in implementing and i know they're already implementing a lot of what's in the housing element but expected to do even more. director shaw, just wanted to give you the opportunity loss to talk here. >> hello, everyone. i'm eric shaw the director of the mayor's office for housing investment and for hope s.f. i want to thank the planning office for their partnership in work with o.c.d. and hope s.f. you know my background is a planning director who's done a couple housing element updates and understand what the lift is and understand how critical it is to make sure there is both

alignment and aspiration in the work now. we're happy to be in the space with san francisco. unlike some places and ours being one of the resourced cities for affordable housing development an one of the most outspoken commitment by our mayor and previous mayors and a clear pipeline and direction for how we're building. the reality is we know wore operate inning a deficit and -- we're operating in a deficit and know we should do more. it's not just about units but making impact and the housing element is the idea that housing is not just the units but community infrastructure. building up communities that have been under served for so long to support them with the services and the opportunity to be housed where people live and to leverage community infrastructure within other places that may have been higher

resourced and to make sure people are able to connect to resources and opportunity throughout the city and not just in other places. we want to recognize and lift up that work and understand that housing is not just housing for housing sake but it's about anti displacement and community stabilization. it's around cross-cutting alignment and leveraging of resources. it's about accelerating the time line to get things done and it is about doing more faster which is something clear from the mayor. and serving those most in need for neighborhood preference and strategic investment and key organization to help people connect to housing. and vaccination larger roles around environmental justice and working with the planning office

to build on the work we've shared and values and our commitment to get things done, bigger, better, faster, more equitable and more responsive to the residents of san francisco. with they want to thank you all and look forward to the conversation you all have as planning commissioners. >> thank you, director shaw. with that we'll turn it over the presentation from someone who's been in the planning arena and turn it over to give an update on where things stand and what's being proposed in this draft. >> thank you. i'm honored to be here today on behalf of my team and a would

like to start by acknowledging the entire team behind this effort led by our community equity division director and many others. we start with a land acknowledgement. the san francisco health commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush (rah-my-toosh) ohlone (o-lon-ee) who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of

this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. for today's presentation i will start by refreshing our memories about the context in which this update is happening and my colleague will go over an overview of the outreach done to date and community directives and how we incorporated that in our policy updates. i'll spend most the presentation covering the policy highlights of this draft and we'll conclude the presentation going over the next steps and the next few months. first the context.

this is the first housing centered in racial and social equity and our country and city going through racial equity and responding to the planning and preservation from the commission equity resolution in 2022. it's a clear change from our previous work and housing element in which we directly acknowledge the housing challenges in our city as racial and social and equity challenge. the housing it will respond to higher regional housing targets assigned to us by state and regional agencies. those numbers are tripling. and this increase is due to factoring in existing housing need in addition to population

growth. it's particularly important as we know we have never met some of these targets for very low income to moderate income households and a this content the plan takes on the challenges to meet those goals at every income level and recognizes and pushes our safety to find ways to make sure many are eligible for the housing units. and there's state laws that

identified neighborhoods with concentration of segregation and have called local jurisdictions to create affordable housing in high-resourced neighborhoods and bring more opportunities to under served neighborhoods. a quick overview of our time line. we have completed two phases of outreach. this is where we are with the draft to release. have our last and targeted round of outreach to make sure that we get this plan right the policies right. we'll spend most of this year submitting comments as well as completing our environmental impact analysis and racial social equity impact i'll talk

about in a moment. and hearings for adoption will start later this year and will have to be completed early 2023. so with that, i would like to invite my colleague shelly to go over our outreach in that space. >> good afternoon, commissioner. i'm shelly with the community equity division. last october we presented to the commission in depth about our community engagement process. today i'll focus on how that engagement impacted policy development. so as a quick refresher, community engage the for the 2022 update is planned in three phases. we first vetted key ideas with the community in 2020 and spent last year vetting the first

draft of policies and to reflect the racial around equity foundation, we focussed on reaching communities of color and people that are most vulnerable to housing insecurity. we want the policies that we develop to address their lived experiences so we can develop concrete actions that improve their access to safe and affordable housing. a final phase of outreach we aim to validate our findings from phase 2. did we understand what the community was telling us correctly and we aim to refine some of the critical ideas such as using housing as a tool for repairitive justice. in october we presented to the commission about the engagement process and our preliminary findings. i won't go in detail about our

methods today however, with the slide we wanted to provide a snapshot of the breadth and depth of the engagement to date. we held 22 focus groups working closely with community partners to design and facilitate discussions with residents who were primarily people of color and largely from low and very low income households. we presented at and held discussion at 40 community hosted virtual events. 10 of our event in language in cantonese and spanish. we conducted a survey with over 1600 respondents most of which were low-income people of color and administered in person with the help of our 11 resident ambassadors and collaborated with policy experts and our

team. geographically we heard from residents and concentrated in the southeast and the mission and tenderloin, richmond and sunset. in these discussions, we heard about people's personal experiences with trying and often failing to secure safe and adequate housing both through the private market and their informal networks and through housing assistance programs. we heard -- many recommendations for ways to address the failings of our housing system. from the info we receive wed tried to discern what we were being asked to do with the housing plan which we summarized briefly as community directives. these are the ideas people from all parts of the city and all backgrounds generally seemed to align with. certainly not everyone agreed

and we elevated input from people of color and vulnerable groups to our analysis defers to those who experience inequiies and they want to prioritize those harmed by discriminatory government action. some are passionate about the neighborhood they grew up in and want it see resources invested improving their lives and some want to move to the areas that already have the qualities they want like access to parks,

public transportation and other resources and they want to directly participate in decision making that impacts their community. with that comes the need for better and more accessible information about the affect on development on communities and what anti-displacement measures are necessary to protect them. i'll dive deeper now into what we heard. i want to expand on ideas. regarding quality access. we strengthened housing as a tool for repairing the harms of past government discrimination and emphasized prioritization of our most vulnerable groups and housing assistance and add calls for better navigation tools and assistance for housing programs and included more explicit actions for wealth building.

the input affirmed we were on the right track with expanding resources for the unhoused, preserving affordability and preserving access to below market units. regarding distribution and housing choice, we strengthened policies that invest in permanently affordable housing for entry points for recently arrived residents. we facilitate construction of small and midrise multi family buildings for middle income households and support households that want to share resources or live with their extended family. the city's acquisition and rehabilitation program is work and affirmed that cultivating spaces of cultural importance of communities that are impacted by displacement is an important way to rebuild and sustain community. regarding accountability we document the histories of

discriminatory action and be led by the impacted communities. we strengthened policy to measure progress towards equity. we strengthened policy elevate the role of community and policy zoning and development review decisions and we strengthened policies that recognize the need to study and end displacement and finally, we affirmed addressing discrimination in housing and exclusionary zoning. with this last slide, i wanted to show you that you can take a deeper dive into the comparison of draft 2 and draft 1 of the housing plan and find this table at the end of the public input summary report. we want to be able to clearly show how community feedback has informed the policy updates. so we'll now walk through a more comprehensive review of draft 2. thank you.

>> thank you, shelly. so the next part of the conversation will dive into some of the specific policy language ang start with an overview -- language and start with an overview of the plan and five goals and objectives. and this simple review shows how social equity is weaved through the entirety of the plan. goal 1 talking about right to housing for vulnerable groups. goal 2, showing restorative framework for the harms done. goal 3 talking about strategies towards inclusive neighborhoods and housing and goal 4, responding to the housing needs of all income ranges and

diversity of households and integrating housing in the context of our neighborhoods and recognizing the links between the two. so a call for deeply affordable housing. policy 8 talks about expanding policy to help with homelessness and the rates of and cost burden a lot of our households live with the policy calls for rental assistance and bringing it up to scale. and access to the housing programs was a huge challenge

and we heard that consistently. we know that some social groups have not been served by our available portfolio in affordable housing. and 5 calls for updating our strategy to reverse the inequities and strengthening readiness and education and adjusting with incomes served by the different pieces of our affordable housing portfolio. and the needs of specific populations such as lgbtq plus and have affordable housing in neighborhoods most welcoming to their communities. similarly, policy 26 and calling

for increasing affordable housing and address mobility issues in populations. and policy 10 calls for truth telling, past harms through actions that support studies led by effective communities that incorporate their findings and the findings and how we draft those harms. and there's cities investing in home ownership in a restorative framework and this calls for targeted programs for black and.

indian communities and increased investment for down payment assistance for communities harmed, extension of home ownership models and land trust and implementing the recently expanded state law that allows certificate of preferences for household harms. and talks about accountability as a clear community directive. policy 14 calls for action to let the prior action director hillis talked about in the beand with the leaders of our low income communities and communities of color, frequently to use metrics and to establish an interagency committee for budgeting needs and advanced priorities of this plan.

policy 13 also incorporates clear action and prioritizing american indian, black and other communities of color in our processes and institutionalized residents. policy 14 is to serve middle-income households and as a scale of housing that fits our neighborhoods. to make this happen policy 14 calls for increased height and density limits in areas of the city who have not had new housing in the past and stayed out of reach for many of our

low-income households. policy 26 promotes this through actions that call for established community benefits and streamline reviews as well as programs that could help homeowners to help up their units in these typologies. the increased housing are well resourced neighborhoods that are identified for fair housing laws and this policy 19 calls for targets of 25% to 50% of our affordable housing units to be built in these neighborhoods in the next -- in accordance with the goals.

this are the maps identified by the state and identifies neighborhoods with higher quality amenities and bring better outcomes for low-income households. and we know our communities have felt pushed out throughout the city in areas that have seen significant change or even in neighborhoods where new housing has not been built much. housing 21 calls for analysis on the levels of anti-displacement investment to evaluate racial and social equity impact plans. we have started this analysis and i'll talk about that in a moment. we hope upon adoption and as we

get closer to adoption, this plan will have more clear language but the policy results from that analysis called for in the policy for displacement along with future authorities and development projects or infrastructure improvements. anti-displacement strategies are called for in many of the policies and policies focus on that preservation as a strategy that is calling for reform and strengthening of this program. we are identifying areas with higher vulnerability towards

displacement and that's also comments that we heard. we are using the map currently being update and will be updated regularly and others with social equity and impact analysis will also be evaluated in these areas. this is closely intertwined to well paying jobs, healthy environment and high quality amenities and infrastructure. policy 16 calls for actions in our jobs training. this is the development and supports for communities of color and part of the equity

geographies and geographies that have the highest concentration of low-income communities of color and other socio economic issues. policy 17 focuses on equity investment in infrastructure improvements and using metrics to evaluate what those are and it guide the city's investments for those improvements in equity and geographies and policy 12 and a series of other policies also elevate the expression of culture and it's our cultural heritage and institutions that are cultural anchors and particularly for communities who have and are experiencing displacement.

were using the department of methodology for areas in this plan. and i want to go over what's going on in the next few months on the racial social equity analysis and this will be considered in the next six months to inform our draft and our final adoption and implementation of this plan.

consultation with community experts will start soon for scoping of this analysis and some of our guiding questions include changes, what different geographies or social groups experience as part of the implementation of the housing element and what investments are needed and some of the metrics and guideline to prevent displacement at the time for investments. and impact analysis is advancing its course and looking at impact of foreseeable outcomes and the map shows what the projected outcomes look like in terms of changes in height and density changes and those are shown on the map.

and here's a projected change being studied under the project description for the eir. by 2050 there'll be more housing throughout the city but the map shows the draft policies would change those development patterns and distribution of new holds and it's scheduled to be published in april and hearing conducted in june during the public comment period. to prepare the draft by early spring we'll conduct additional targeted outreach as shelly talked about including the portions of the social/racial equity impact analysis and draft 3 will be sent to the housing and development agency for review and comments and to

prepare for our general plan amendment initiation hearing nor housing element in the fall of this year. and the draft includes our analysis that's required to show the capacity that we have to meet our housing targets and how that would lead for the housing laws. and it's been conducted to a large part in our previous efforts and this is the housing affordability strategy and find what other general plan elements need to be amended to become consistent with the plans and policies of this housing element.

that concludes my presentation and i'd like to take this opportunity to also announce as of today we released our platform of the draft 2 which is an amazing way of exploring this intricate plan. so hopefully you'll all have a chance to check that out later today. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes staff's presentation. we should open up public comment. members this is your opportunity to address the commission and press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted that's your indication to beginning speaking and through the chair you'll each have two minutes. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. we urge to you update the next housing element draft so it

truly centers equity for bipoc and low-income communities and planning that puts the expertise of our communities at the forefront to solve issues of displacement, unaffordability and inequality. reviewing this draft has been challenging due to the tight time frame for reviewing the 100 page document making it difficult for communities to fully read, digest and respond and meaningful engage in the process. for the third release in april, communities request three weeks to review the draft before coming to the commission. by proposing it would shift the balance of power around land use decisions and land ownership away from developers and towards bipoc and low-income communities. this draft is just a blueprint for planning to enable and

streamline profit-driven market rate housing development by removing the voice of a community that may raise concerns and this is just as damaging as red lining and the historic atrocities. and the lack of development on the west side and housing in san francisco and advocate not against development. a great example is the huge west side coalition to push for approvals for 100% affordable housing at 2550 irving and at 4220 geary and pushing for market rate strategy wills push

out the bipoc communities -- we urge you to update the next element draft so it truly centers equity for bipoc -- >> that's your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith. excited to be here today. we want to extend our appreciation for the staff and it's coming up on a year being engaged on this topic and there's been ample opportunities and contacting staff is difficult so we commend them for they'll work they have done today and all the work certainly still ahead.

we're thrilled to see housing is coming to the western side of san francisco. one of our many apartment buildings there for a long time and more will make the neighborhood better so enthused about that and want to center everything. while we'd like to have a san francisco centric view on this the, city is required by state law as are all cities across the state to update their housing element and update general planning documents to make sure we're accommodating the growth california needs and after frankly ignoring these types of work in the past and thanks to work by senator weiner, there's finally teeth to ensure that a group said no to housing for way too long no longer have that

ability. that's going to result in a more environmentally friendly california, a more affordable california and a more fair and just california. we also know building housing isn't the only piece of the solution. there certainly has to be strong tenant protections and other pieces of this that are critical. we need transportation infrastructure improvements to actually make sure that when we build the housing that people can get around to jobs at the same time again, i really appreciate all the work. thank you very much. >> hi, members of the commission. i'm bob. i'm calling in. i like my friend cory said before me, thank you to the planning staff and you all have

been doing a wonderful job for this long laborious multi-year process and i want to reiterate what cory said we're required by law to make more homes in san francisco over the next eight years. the document made a point of acknowledging this not just in the beginning but seems as though we'll are to remind neighbors and fellow san franciscans requirement this by law throughout the process. an addition, i want to make a point how frustrated i am at one commissioner's attempt to remove large swaths to be rezoned and we cannot throw up barriers. i urge you to reject any advisory motion that asks to you

carve out the sunset, richmond and other sides. we need to make the east side build the housing for too long. finally, this draft needs to focus on potential streamlining policies and the likelihood of development. there needs to be an explicit acknowledgement of the nature of getting housing built and cut down on the discretionary opportunities for san francisco elected officials and organizations to interfere and kill housing or shrink project. we need to acknowledge that and recommend ways of ending it and need to fulfill those goals because it's not good enough to just point at a map and say we think we can build housing here. need to make it clear it will or will not happen and reform the process. thank you so much. have you a wonderful evening and thank you for your work on this.

>> good afternoon, i'm zachary wisenberger and we're a member of the equity and planning coalition. we urge you to make significant changes so it centers equity for bipoc and low-income communities and we work for san francisco and bipoc and immigrant and seniors and people with disabilities determine our futures. we work to create new systems to prioritize the aspirations of our communities and place the needs of the people over developers. the current housing element works directly against this vision. this incorporates aspirational language around equity and historical harm done to populations and excludes the voices and needs of bipoc communities. by proposing nothing to shift

the power around land ownership and this draft too is just a blueprint for planning to continue to enable and streamline market rate housing development while removing the voice of any communities that might raise objections the aggregate policies discussed are just as damages as red lining and we urge you all to update the next housing element draft significantly so it centers around bipoc and low-income community and we hope unlike the second draft we're able to review the third draft prior to the commission hearing by three weeks before it's discussed. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioner. i'm kenneth russell. i live in district 7. there's values we need to show and affirm housing and end our

exclusionary zoning apartment ban and create housing in high-opportunity zones and protect tenants and need to focus on environmental justice by encouraging in fill housing. accordingly, i participated in the housing element engagement meeting to help emphasize that thank staff for their work. we don't protect the vulnerable by perpetuating the housing shortage. we have to protect people through strong tenant protection in every neighborhood and rents continuing to rise does not protect them. we need more housing. status quo where we defer to comfortably housed home owners not working. i'm tired of saying good-bye to friends being pushed out by lack of housing options and high cost. recently my friends left the city while expecting their first

child because they couldn't find a place for their expanding family here. i support building more homes to help san francisco remain an accepting welcoming place for people who experience discrimination in other parts of the world and shouldn't be pushed into ever lengening routes opposite of the greenhouse reduction we need. i support building more homes for people experiencing homelessness. we have to submit a solid plan for build at least 82,000 homes. we should use this opportunity to make our city better. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioner. i'm a san francisco tenant unit member and part of the race and equity and all planning coalition. it envisions and works for a san

francisco with diverse community, stable affordable housing and equitable access to resources and opportunities. the housing element draft 2 works directly against this vision. we're concerned this overly relies on market-based strategies without an emphasis on changing public policy and moving public investment towards solutions that could achieve real affordability at the scale we need. centering on market-based strategies hasn't been effective in achieving affordabilities bipoc and low-income communities need. san francisco far exceeded the market rate housing production mandate based on the mandates for the prior housing element, san francisco produced far less affordable housing than required and excess of high-priced housing. many units are now vacant. based on this failure, housing

element 2022 should prioritize correcting this imbalance by promoting policies that result in a supply of affordable housing being built city wide to accommodate the needs of extremely low, low and moderate income households first before promoting market rate housing. as we've seen from the past eight years, over producing market rate housing makes it more affordable and we need price-controlled affordable housing at levels indexed to actual incomes in san francisco's neighborhoods. i would like the staff when he keeps talking about the policy experts they're meeting with to provide us with a list of these names, please. thank you.

we urge to you update the next housing element draft significantly. >> hello, commissioners. i'm a cofounder with the richmond family transportation network and calling to charge the commission to more ford forward with our plans of 80,000 more homes in san francisco. we're seeing housing being obstructed by supervisors and have two young kids and my partner has been in san francisco 13 years. we need more affordable housing and more social housing. what we're seeing today disrupts the progress is what got us to this place in the first place. thank you so much for working on

this and let's move forward because i want more neighbor. we need more neighbors in the west side. thanks very much and take care. >> hello, my name is jessica. i spoke at a community outreach on the housing element months ago. i live in district 9. i'm a real estate agent and a want to talk on behalf of my clients, teachers, who are being priced out of a place to live and own in san francisco. i urge you to pass the housing element and up zone the west side so we can have more housing so my clients can live and work in san francisco. thank you. the controllers office every two years takes a survey.

for many years the results have been consistent. residents believe the city heading in the wrong direction. for example, the city did not appeal the numbers to a bag. a bag didn't appeal to acd. it's based on double communitying of its own numbers and department of finance numbers as well as inflated vacancy rates placed on legislation sb828. governor newsom has claimed california needs 3.5 million new housing units however, freddie mac said california needs 830,000 new housing units. senator skinner has said california has 1.2 million vacant housing units. this is possibly due to absentee

owners. are these affects of global capital? wall street speculators? reagonomics, big tech? mckenzie and company super stars, critical cronyism or corporate media or all the above? thank you. i'm the program coordinator. it looks at outreach efforts to provide community feedback for the housing element report. our partnership with the planning department was a positive experience.

and they felt their voice heard. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. first off i want to commend the chutzpah for calling in in support of this new version of our housing element and using uses such as the need for 80,000 more units of affordable housing with vmrs that hover 90% or less so the majority of san francisco are under privileged and middle-income or low-income people and it's a glossy lip service to communities of color

with no actionable recommendations and the operative word here is actionable. to improve the situation the draft for many of them. i find it patronizing and offensive. exhibit a, page 66, rent and other controls. so they've listed san francisco rent control program needs to be updated to ensure process benefits from the program are equitably distributed. i urge you to go through the page and read this. participants mention the following ideas the city should explore. attention rent control to household income not to property. controlling and regulating of big ownership. capping the number of market rate units allowed at 30%? the majority of these cannot be done because our hands are tied for acosta hawkins. so what is this document trying to achieve? i reckon the whole objective is to get rid of our current

version of housing element which is preserving rent-controlled housing in the city. this document does not attempt to do that. every tenant in this city will be in the crosshairs once the policies will be implemented. furthermore, even today you do not uphold the version of housing element so what difference is it going to make? >> while we echo the comment of our peers spoken thus far. i want to step back and take a look at the bigger picture here in terms of some elements we would like it see include in an

over arching equitable strategy integrated here. first, i do want to repeat our concern about the use of some of the maps here such as the s.f. bay area gentrification and displacement map and the priority equity geographies map to make critical equity decisions around funding and policy. better mapping is already available or could be created with community and as far as we know the maps haven't been vetted nor necessarily accept bipoc neighborhoods as a tool for centering the equitable development. prior geographies map, for example, just to point out is missing critical vulnerable areas class and someo